Revelation

I. MEANING OF REVELATION

Revelation may be defined as the communication of some truth by God to a rational creature through means which are beyond the ordinary course of nature. The truths revealed may be such as are otherwise inaccessible to the human mind -- mysteries, which even when revealed, the intellect of man is incapable of fully penetrating. But Revelation is not restricted to these. God may see fit to employ supernatural means to affirm truths, the discovery of which is not per se beyond the powers of reason. The essence of Revelation lies in the fact that it is the direct speech of God to man. The mode of communication, however, may be mediate. Revelation does not cease to be such if God's message is delivered to us by a prophet, who alone is the recipient of the immediate communication. Such in brief is the account of Revelation given in the Constitution "De Fide Catholica" of the Vatican Council. The Decree "Lamentabili" (3 July, 1907), by its condemnation of a contrary proposition, declares that the dogmas which the Church proposes as revealed are "truths which have come down to us from heaven" (veritates e coelo delapsoe) and not "an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by its own strenuous efforts" (prop., 22). It will be seen that Revelation as thus explained differs clearly from:

• inspiration such as is bestowed by God on the author of a sacred book; for this, while involving a special illumination of the mind in virtue of which the recipient conceives such thoughts as God desires him to commit to writing, does not necessarily suppose a supernatural communication of these truths;
• from the illustrations which God may bestow from time to time upon any of the faithful to bring home to the mind the import of some truth of religion hitherto obscurely grasped; and,
• from the Divine assistance by which the pope when acting as the supreme teacher of the Church, is preserved from all error as to faith or morals. The function of this assistance is purely negative: it need not carry with it any positive gift of light to the mind. Much of the confusion in which the discussion of Revelation in non-Catholic works is involved arises from the neglect to distinguish it from one or other of these.

During the past century the Church has been called on to reject as erroneous several views of Revelation irreconcilable with Catholic belief. Three of these may here be noted.

• The view of Anton Guenther (1783-1863). This writer denied that Revelation could include mysteries strictly so-called, inasmuch as the human intellect is capable of penetrating to the full all revealed truth. He taught, further, that the meaning to be attached to revealed doctrines is undergoing constant change as human knowledge grows and man's mind develops; so that the dogmatic formul which are now true will gradually cease to be so. His writings were put on the Index in 1857, and his erroneous propositions definitively condemned in the decrees of the Vatican Council.
• the Modernist view (Loisy, Tyrrell). According to this school, there is no such thing as Revelation in the sense of a direct communication from God to man. The human soul reaching up towards the unknowable God is ever endeavouring to interpret its sentiments in intellectual formul . The formul it thus frames are our ecclesiastical dogmas. These can but symbolize the Unknowable; they can give us no real knowledge regarding it. Such an error is manifestly subversive of all belief, and was explicitly condemned by the Decree "Lamentabili" and the Encyclical "Pascendi" (8 Sept., 1907).
• With the view just mentioned is closely connected the Pragmatist view of M. Leroy ("Dogme et Critique", Paris, 2nd ed. 1907). Like the Modernists, he sees in revealed dogmas simply the results of spiritual experience, but holds their value to lie not in the fact that they symbolize the Unknowable, but that they have practical value in pointing the way by which we may best enjoy experience of the Divine. This view was condemned in the same documents as the last mentioned.

II. POSSIBILITY OF REVELATION

The possibility of Revelation as above explained has been strenuously denied from various points of view during the last century. For this reason the Church held it necessary to issue special decrees on the subject in the Vatican Council. Its antagonists may be divided into two classes according to the different standpoints from which they direct their attack, viz:

• Rationalists (under this class we include both Deist and Agnostic writers). Those who adopt this standpoint rely in the main on two fundamental objections: they either urge that the miraculous is impossible, and that Revelation involves miraculous interposition on the part of the Deity; or they appeal to the autonomy of reason, which it is maintained can only accept as truths the results of its own activities.
• Immanentists. To this class may be assigned all those whose objections are based on Kantian and Hegelian doctrines as to the subjective character of all our knowledge. The views of these writers frequently involve a purely pantheistic doctrine. But even those who repudiate pantheism, in place of the personal God, Ruler, and Judge of the world, whom Christianity teaches, substitute the vague notion of the "Spirit" immanent in all men, and regard all religious creeds as the attempts of the human soul to find expression for its inward experience. Hence no religion, whether pagan or Christian, is wholly false; but none can claim to be a message from God free from any admixture of error. (Cf. Sabatier, "Esquisse", etc., Bk. I, cap. ii.) Here too the autonomy of reason is invoked as fatal to the doctrine of Revelation properly so called. In the face of these objections, it is evident that the question of the possibility of Revelation is at present one of the most vital portions of Christian apologetic.

If the existence of a personal God be once established, the physical possibility at least of Revelation is undeniable. God, who has endowed man with means to communicate his thoughts to his fellows, cannot be destitute of the power to communicate His own thoughts to us. [Martineau, it is true, denies that we possess faculties either to receive or to authenticate a divine revelation concerning the past or the future (Seat of Authority in Religion, p. 311); but such an assertion is arbitrary and extravagant in the extreme.] However, numerous difficulties have been urged on grounds other than that of physical possibility. In estimating their value it seems desirable to distinguish three aspects of Revelation, viz: as it makes known to us;

(1) truths of the natural law,
(2) mysteries of the faith,
(3) positive precepts, e.g. regarding Divine worship.

(1) The revelation of truths of the natural law is certainly not inconsistent with God's wisdom. God so created man as to bestow on him endowments amply sufficient for him to attain his last end. Had it been otherwise, the creation would have been imperfect. If over and above this He decreed to make the attainment of beatitude yet easier for man by placing within his reach a far simpler and far more certain way of knowing the law on the observance of which his fate depended, this is an argument for the Divine generosity; it does not disprove the Divine wisdom. To assume, with certain Rationalists, that exceptional intervention can only be explained on the ground that God was unable to embrace His ultimate design in His original scheme is a mere petitio principii. Further, the doctrine of original sin supplies an additional reason for such a revelation of the natural law. That doctrine teaches us that man by the abuse of his free will has rendered his attainment of salvation difficult. Though his intellectual faculties are not radically vitiated, yet his grasp of truth is weakened; his recognition of the moral law is constantly clouded by doubts and questionings. Revelation gives to his mind the certainty he had lost, and so far repairs the evils consequent on the catastrophe which had befallen him.

(2) Still more difficulty has been felt regarding mysteries. It is freely asserted that a mystery is something repugnant to reason, and therefore something intrinsically impossible. This objection rests on a mere misunderstanding of what is signified by a mystery. In theological terminology a conception involves a mystery when it is such that the natural faculties of the mind are unable to see how its elements can coalesce. This does not imply anything contrary to reason. A conception is only contrary to reason when the mind can recognize that its elements are mutually exclusive, and therefore involve a contradiction in terms. A more subtle objection is that urged by Dr. J. Caird, to the effect that every truth that can be partially communicated to the mind by analogies is ultimately capable of being fully grasped by the understanding. "Of all such representations, unless they are purely illusory, it must hold good that implicitly and in undeveloped form they contain rational thought and therefore thought which human intelligence may ultimately free from its sensuous veil. . . . Nothing that is absolutely inscrutable to reason can be made known to faith" (Philosophy of Religion, p. 71). The objection rests on a wholly exaggerated view regarding the powers of the human intellect. The cognitive faculty of any nature is proportionate to its grade in the scale of being. The intelligence of a finite intellect can only penetrate a finite object; it is incapable of comprehending the Infinite. The finite types through which the Infinite is made known to it can never under any circumstances lead to more than analogous knowledge. It is further frequently urged that the revelation of what the mind cannot understand would be an act of violence to the intellect; and that this faculty can only accept those truths whose intrinsic reasonableness it recognizes. This assertion, based on the alleged autonomy of reason, can only be met with denial. The function of the intellect is to recognize and admit any truth which is adequately presented to it, whether that truth be guaranteed by internal or by external criteria. The reason is not deprived of its legitimate activity because the criteria are external. It finds ample scope in weighing the arguments for the credibility of the fact asserted. The existence of mysteries in the Christian religion was expressly taught by the Vatican Council (De Fide Cath., cap. ii, can. ii). "If anyone shall say that no mysteries properly so called are contained in the Divine revelation, but that all the dogmas of the faith can be understood and proved from natural principles by human reason duly cultivated -- let him be anathema."

(3) The older (Deist) School of Rationalists denied the possibility of a Divine revelation imposing any laws other than those which natural religion enjoins on man. These writers regarded natural religion as, so to speak, a political constitution determining the Divine government of the universe, and held that God could only act as its terms prescribed. This error likewise was proscribed at the same time (De Fide Cath., cap. ii, can. ii). "If any one shall say that it is impossible or that it is inexpedient that man should be instructed regarding God and the worship to be paid to Him by Divine revelation -- let him be anathema."

It can hardly be questioned that the "autonomy of reasons" furnishes the main source of the difficulties at present felt against Revelation in the Christian sense. It seems desirable to indicate very briefly the various ways in which that principle is understood. It is explained by M. Blondel, an eminent member of the Immanentist School, as signifying that "nothing can enter into a man which does not proceed from him, and which does not correspond in some manner to an interior need of expansion; and that neither in the sphere of historic facts nor of traditional doctrine, nor of commands imposed by authority, can any truth rank as valid for a man or any precept as obligatory, unless it be in some way autonomous and autochthonous" (Lettre sur les exigences, etc., p. 601). Although M. Blondel has in his own case reconciled this principle with the acceptance of Catholic belief, yet it may readily be seen that it affords an easy ground for the denial not merely of the possibility of external Revelation, but of the whole historic basis of Christianity. The origin of this erroneous doctrine is to be found in the fact that within the sphere of the natural speculative reason, truths which are received purely on external authority, and which are in no way connected with principles already admitted, can scarcely be said to form part of our knowledge. Science asks for the inner reason of things and can make no use of truths save in so far as it can reach the principles from which they flow. The extension of this to religious truths is an error directly traceable to the assumption of the eighteenth-century philosophers that there are no religious truths save those which the human intellect can attain unaided. The principle is, however, sometimes applied with a less extensive signification. It may be understood to involve no more than that reason cannot be compelled to admit any religious doctrine or any moral obligation merely because they possess extrinsic guarantees of truth; they must in every case be able to justify their validity on intrinsic grounds. Thus Prof. J. Caird writes: "Neither moral nor religious ideas can be simply transferred to the human spirit in the form of fact, nor can they be verified by any evidence outside of or lower than themselves" (Fundamental Ideas of Christianity, p. 31). A somewhat different meaning again is implied in the canon of the Vatican Council in which the right of the intellect to claim absolute independence (autonomy) is denied. "If anyone shall say that human reason is independent in such wise that faith cannot be commanded it by God -- let him be anathema" (De Fide Cath., cap. iii, can. i). This canon is directed against the position maintained as already noted by the older Rationalists and the Deists, that human reason is amply sufficient without exterior assistance to attain to absolute truth in all matters of religion (cf. Vacant, "Etudes Théologiques", I, 572; II, 387).

III. NECESSITY OF REVELATION

Can it be said that Revelation is necessary to man? There can be no question as to its necessity, if it be admitted that God destines man to attain a supernatural beatitude which surpasses the exigencies of his natural endowments. In that case God must needs reveal alike the existence of that supernatural end and the means by which we are to attain it. But is Revelation necessary even in order that man should observe the precepts of the natural law? If our race be viewed in its present condition as history displays it, the answer can only be that it is, morally speaking, impossible for men unassisted by Revelation, to attain by their natural powers such a knowledge of that law as is sufficient to the right ordering of life. In other words, Revelation is morally necessary. Absolute necessity we do not assert. Man, Catholic theology teaches, possesses the requisite faculties to discover the natural law. Luther indeed asserted that man's intellect had become hopelessly obscured by original sin, so that even natural truth was beyond his reach. And the Traditionalists of the nineteenth century (Bautain, Bonnetty, etc.) also fell into error, teaching that man was incapable of arriving at moral and religious truth apart from Revelation. The Church, on the contrary, recognizes the capacity of human reason and grants that here and there pagans may have existed, who had freed themselves from prevalent errors, and who had attained to such a knowledge of the natural law as would suffice to guide them to the attainment of beatitude. But she teaches nevertheless that this can only be the case as regards a few, and that for the bulk of mankind Revelation is necessary. That this is so may be shown both from the facts of history and from the nature of the case. As regards the testimony of history, it is notorious that even the most civilized of pagan races have fallen into the grossest errors regarding the natural law; and from these it may safely be asserted they would never have emerged. Certainly the schools of philosophy would not have enabled them to do so; for many of these denied even such fundamental principles of the natural law as the personality of God and the freedom of the will. Again, by the very nature of the case, the difficulties involved in the attainment of the requisite knowledge are insuperable. For men to be able to attain such a knowledge of the natural law as will enable them to order their lives rightly, the truths of that law must be so plain that the mass of men can discover them without long delay, and possess a knowledge of them which will be alike free from uncertainty and secure from serious error. No reasonable man will maintain that in the case of the greater part of mankind this is possible. Even the most vital truths are called in question and are met by serious objections. The separation of truth from error is a work involving time and labour. For this the majority of men have neither inclination nor opportunity. Apart from the security which Revelation gives they would reject an obligation both irksome and uncertain. It results that a revelation even of the natural law is for man in his present state a moral necessity.

IV. CRITERIA OF REVELATION

The fact that Revelation is not merely possible but morally necessary is in itself a strong argument for the existence of a revelation, and imposes on all men the strict obligation of examining the credentials of a religion which presents itself with prima facie marks of truth. On the other hand if God has conferred a revelation on men, it stands to reason that He must have attached to it plain and evident criteria enabling even the unlettered to recognize His message for what it is, and to distinguish it from all false claimants.

The criteria of Revelation are either external or internal: (1) External criteria consist in certain signs attached to the revelation as a divine testimony to its truth, e.g., miracles. (2) Internal criteria are those which are found in the nature of the doctrine itself in the manner in which it was presented to the world, and in the effects which it produces on the soul. These are distinguished into negative and positive criteria. (a) The immunity of the alleged revelation from any teaching, speculative or moral, which is manifestly erroneous or self-contradictory, the absence of all fraud on the part of those who deliver it to the world, provide negative internal criteria. (b) Positive internal criteria are of various kinds. One such is found in the beneficent effects of the doctrine and in its power to meet even the highest aspirations which man can frame. Another consists in the internal conviction felt by the soul as to the truth of the doctrine (Suarez, "De Fide", IV, sect. 5, n. 9.) In the last century there was in certain schools of thought a manifest tendency to deny the value of all external criteria. This was largely due to the Rationalist polemic against miracles. Not a few non-Catholic divines anxious to make terms with the enemy adopted this attitude. They allowed that miracles are useless as a foundation for faith, and that they form on the contrary one of the chief difficulties which lie in faith's path. Faith, they admitted, must be presupposed before the miracle can be accepted. Hence these writers held the sole criterion of faith to lie in inward experience -- in the testimony of the Spirit. Thus Schleiermacher says: "We renounce altogether any attempt to demonstrate the truth and the necessity of the Christian religion. On the contrary we assume that every Christian before he commences inquiries of this kind is already convinced that no other form of religion but the Christian can harmonize with his piety" (Glaubenslehre, n. 11). The Traditionalists by denying the power of human reason to test the grounds of faith were driven to fall back on the same criterion (cf. Lamennais, "Pensées Diverses", p. 488).

This position is altogether untenable. The testimony afforded by inward experience is undoubtedly not to be neglected. Catholic doctors have always recognized its value. But its force is limited to the individual who is the subject of it. It cannot be employed as a criterion valid for all; for its absence is no proof that the doctrine is not true. Moreover, of all the criteria it is the one with regard to which there is most possibility of deception. When truth mingled with error is presented to the mind, it often happens that the whole teaching, false and true alike, is believed to have a Divine guarantee, because the soul has recognized and welcomed the truth of some one doctrine, e.g., the Atonement. Taken alone and apart from objective proof it conveys but a probability that the revelation is true. Hence the Vatican Council expressly condemns the error of those who teach it to be the only criterion (De Fide Cath., cap. iii, can. iii).

The perfect agreement of a religious doctrine with the teachings of reason and natural law, its power to satisfy, and more than satisfy, the highest aspirations of man, its beneficent influence both as regards public and private life, provide us with a more trustworthy test. This is a criterion which has often been applied with great force on behalf of the claims of the Catholic Church to be the sole guardian of God's Revelation. These qualities indeed appertain in so transcendent a degree to the teaching of the Church, that the argument must needs carry conviction to an earnest and truth-seeking mind. Another criterion which at first sight bears some resemblance to this claims a mention here. It is based upon the theory of Immanence and has of recent years been strenuously advocated by certain of the less extreme members of the Modernist School. These writers urge that the vital needs of the soul imperatively demand, as their necessary complement, Divine co-operation, supernatural grace, and even the supreme magisterium of the Church. To these needs the Catholic religion alone corresponds. And this correspondence with our vital needs is, they hold, the one sure criterion of truth. The theory is altogether inconsistent with Catholic dogma. It supposes that the Christian Revelation and the gift of grace are not free gifts from God, but something of which the nature of man is absolutely exigent; and without which it would be incomplete. It is a return to the errors of Baius. (Denz. 1021, etc.)

While the Church, as we have said, is far from undervaluing internal criteria, she has always regarded external criteria as the most easily recognizable and the most decisive. Hence the Vatican Council teaches: "In order that the obedience of our faith might be agreeable to reason, God has willed that to the internal aids of the Holy Spirit, there should be joined external proofs of His Revelation, viz: Divine works (facta divina), especially miracles and prophecy, which inasmuch as they manifestly display the omnipotence and the omniscience of God are most certain signs of a Divine revelation and are suited to the understanding of all" (De Fide Cath., cap. iii). As an instance of a work evidently Divine and yet other than miracle or prophecy, the council instances the Catholic Church, which, "by reason of the marvellous manner of its propagation, its surprising sanctity, its inexhaustible fruitfulness in all good works, its catholic unity and its invincible stability, is a mighty and perpetual motive of credibility and an irrefragable testimony to its own divine legation" (l. c.). The truth of the teaching of the council regarding external criteria is plain to any unprejudiced mind. Granted the presence of the negative criteria, external guarantees establish the Divine origin of a revelation as nothing else can do. They are, so to say, a seal affixed by the hand of God Himself, and authenticating the work as His. (For a fuller treatment of their apologetic value, and for a discussion of objections, see MIRACLES; APOLOGETICS.)

V. THE CHRISTIAN REVELATION

It remains here to distinguish the Christian Revelation or "deposit of faith" from what are termed private revelations. This distinction is of importance: for while the Church recognizes that God has spoken to His servants in every age, and still continues thus to favour chosen souls, she is careful to distinguish these revelations from the Revelation which has been committed to her charge, and which she proposes to all her members for their acceptance. That Revelation was given in its entirety to Our Lord and His Apostles. After the death of the last of the twelve it could receive no increment. It was, as the Church calls it, a deposit -- "the faith once delivered to the saints" (Jude, 2) -- for which the Church was to "contend" but to which she could add nothing. Thus, whenever there has been question of defining a doctrine, whether at Nicæa, at Trent, or at the Vatican, the sole point of debate has been as to whether the doctrine is found in Scripture or in Apostolic tradition. The gift of Divine assistance (see I), sometimes confounded with Revelation by the less instructed of anti-Catholic writers, merely preserves the supreme pontiff from error in defining the faith; it does not enable him to add jot or tittle to it. All subsequent revelations conferred by God are known as private revelations, for the reason that they are not directed to the whole Church but are for the good of individual members alone, They may indeed be a legitimate object for our faith; but that will depend on the evidence in each particular case. The Church does not propose them to us as part of her message. It is true that in certain cases she has given her approbation to certain private revelations. This, however, only signifies:

• that there is nothing in them contrary to the Catholic Faith or to the moral law, and,
• that there are sufficient indications of their truth to justify the faithful in attaching credence to them without being guilty of superstition or of imprudence.

It may however be further asked, whether the Christian Revelation does not receive increment through the development of doctrine. During the last half of the nineteenth century the question of doctrinal development was widely debated. Owing to Guenther's erroneous teaching that the doctrines of the faith assume a new sense as human science progresses, the Vatican Council declared once for all that the meaning of the Church's dogmas is immutable (De Fide Cath., cap. iv, can. iii). On the other hand it explicitly recognizes that there is a legitimate mode of development, and cites to that effect (op. cit., cap. iv) the words of Vincent of Lirins: "Let understanding science and wisdom [regarding the Church's doctrine] progress and make large increase in each and in all, in the individual and in the whole Church, as ages and centuries advance: but let it be solely in its own order, retaining, that is, the same dogma, the same sense, the same import" (Commonit. 28). Two of the most eminent theological writers of the period, Cardinal Franzelin and Cardinal Newman, have on very different lines dealt with the progress and nature of this development. Cardinal Franzelin in his "De Divina Traditione et Scriptura" (pt. XXII VI) has principally in view the Hegelian theories of Guenther. He consequently lays the chief stress on the identity at all points of the intellectual datum, and explains development almost exclusively as a process of logical deduction. Cardinal Newman wrote his "Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine" in the course of the two years (1843 45) immediately preceding his reception into the Catholic Church. He was called on to deal with different adversaries, viz., the Protestants who justified their separation from the main body of Christians on the ground that Rome had corrupted primitive teaching by a series of additions. In that work he examines in detail the difference between a corruption and a development. He shows how a true and fertile idea is endowed with a vital and assimilative energy of its own, in virtue of which, without undergoing the least substantive change, it attains to an ever completer expression, as the course of time brings it into contact with new aspects of truth or forces it into collision with new errors: the life of the idea is shown to be analogous to an organic development. He provides a series of tests distinguishing a true development from a corruption, chief among them being the preservation of type, and the continuity of principles; and then, applying the tests to the case of the additions of Roman teaching, shows that these have the marks not of corruptions but of true and legitimate developments. The theory, though less scholastic in its form than that of Franzelin, is in perfect conformity with orthodox belief. Newman no less than his Jesuit contemporary teaches that the whole doctrine, alike in its later as in its earlier forms, was contained in the original revelation given to the Church by Our Lord and His Apostles, and that its identity is guaranteed to us by the infallible magisterium of the Church. The claim of certain Modernist writers that their views on the evolution of dogma were connected with Newman's theory of development is the merest figment.

OTTIGER, Theologia fundamentalis (Freiburg, 1897); VACANT, Etudes Th ologiques sur la Concile du Vatican (Paris, 1895); LEBACHELET, De l apolog tique traditionelle et l apolog tique moderne. (Paris, 1897); DE BROGLIE, Religion et Critique (Paris, 1906); BLONDEL, Lettre sur les Exigences de la Pens e moderne en mati re apolog tique in Annales de la Philos: Chr tienne (Paris. 1896). On private revelations: SUAREZ, De Fide, disp. III, sect. 10; FRANZELIN, De Scriptura et Traditione, Th. xxii (Rome, 1870); POULAIN, Graces of Interior Prayer, pt. IV, tr. (London, 1910). On development of doctrine: BAINVEL, De magisterio vivo et traditione (Paris, 1905); VACANT, op. cit., II, p. 281 seq.; PINARD, art. Dogme in Dict. Apolog tique de la Foi Catholique, ed. D AL S (Paris, 1910); O DWYER, Cardinal Newman and the Encyclical Pascendi (London, 1908).

Among those who from one point of view or another have controverted the Christian doctrine of Revelation the following may be mentioned: PAINE, Age of Reason (ed. 1910), 1 30; F. W. NEWMAN, Phases of Faith (4th ed., London, 1854); SABATIER, Esquisse d une philosophie de la religion, I, ii (Paris, 1902); PFLEIDERER, Religionsphilosophie auf geschichtlicher Grundlage (Berlin, 1896), 493 seq.; LOISY, Autour d un petit livre (Paris, 1903), 192 sqq.; WILSON, art. Revelation and Modern Thought in Cambridge Theol. Essays (London, 1905); TYRRELL, Through Scylla and Charybdis (London, 1907), ii; MARTINEAU, Seat of Authority in Religion, III, ii (London, 1890).

G.H. JOYCE

Private Revelations

There are two kinds of revelations: (1) universal revelations, which are contained in the Bible or in the depositum of Apostolic tradition transmitted by the Church. These ended with the preaching of the Apostles and must be believed by all; (2) particular or private revelations which are constantly occurring among Christians (see CONTEMPLATION). When the Church approves private revelations, she declares only that there is nothing in them contrary faith or good morals, and that they may be read without danger or even with profit; no obligation is thereby imposed on the faithful to believe them. Speaking of such revelations as (e.g.) those of St. Hildegard (approved in part by Eugenius III), St. Bridget (by Boniface IX), and St. Catherine of Siena (by Gregory XI) Benedict XIV says: "It is not obligatory nor even possible to give them the assent of Catholic faith, but only of human faith, in conformity with the dictates of prudence, which presents them to us as probable and worthy of pius belief)" (De canon., III, liii, xxii, II).

Illusions connected with private revelations have been explained in the article CONTEMPLATION. Some of them are at first thought surprising. Thus a vision of an historical scene (e.g., of the life or death of Christ) is often only approximately accurate, although the visionary may be unaware of this fact, and he may be misled, if he believes in its absolute historical fidelity. This error is quite natural, being based on the assumption that, if the vision comes from God, all its details (the landscape, dress, words, actions, etc.) should be a faithful reproduction of the historical past. This assumption is not justified, for accuracy in secondary details is not necessary; the main point is that the fact, event, or communication revealed be strictly true. It may be objected that the Bible contains historical books, and that thus God may sometimes wish to reveal certain facts in religious history to us exactly. That doubtless is true, when there is question of facts which are necessary or useful as a basis for religion, in which case the revelation is accompanied by proofs that guarantee its accuracy. A vision need not guarantee its accuracy in every detail. One should thus beware of concluding without examination that revelations are to be rejected; the prudent course is neither to believe nor to deny them unless there is sufficient reason for so doing. Much less should one suspect that the saints have been always, or very often deceived in their vision. On the contrary, such deception is rare, and as a rule in unimportant matters only.

There are cases in which we can be certain that a revelation is Divine. (1) God can give this certainty to the person who receives the revelation (at least during it), by granting an insight and an evidence so compelling as to exclude all possibility of doubt. We can find an analogy in the natural order: our senses are subject to many illusions, and yet we frequently perceive clearly that we have not been deceived. (2) At times others can be equally certain of the revelation thus vouchsafed. For instance, the Prophets of the Old Testament gave indubitable signs of their mission; otherwise they would not have been believed. There were always false prophets, who deceived some of the people but, inasmuch as the faithful were counselled by Holy Writ to distinguish the false from the true, it was possible so to distinguish. One incontrovertible proof is the working of a miracle, if it be wrought for this purpose and circumstances show this to be so. A prophecy realized is equally convincing, when it is precise and cannot be the result of chance or of a conjecture of the evil spirit.

Besides these rather rare means of forming an opinion, there is another, but longer and more intricate method: to discuss the reasons for and against. Practically, this examination will often give only a probability more or less great. It may be also that the revelation can be regarded as Divine in its broad outlines, but doubtful in minor details. Concerning the revelations of Marie de Agreda and Anne Catherine Emmerich, for example, contradictory opinions have been expressed: some believe unhesitatingly everything they contain, and are annoyed when anyone does not share their confidence; others give the revelations no credence whatsoever (generally on a priori grounds); finally there are many who are sympathetic, but do not know what to reply when asked what degree of credibility is to be attributed to the writings of these two ecstatics. The truth seems to be between the two extreme opinions indicated first. If there is question of a particular fact related in these books and not mentioned elsewhere, we cannot be certain that it is true, especially in minor details. In particular instances, these visionaries have been mistaken: thus Marie de Agreda teaches, like her contemporaries, the existence of crystal heavens, and declares that one must believe everything she says, although such an obligation exists only in the case of the Holy Scriptures. In 1771 Clement XIV forbade the continuation of her process of beatification "on account of the book". Catherine Emmerich has likewise given expression to false or unlikely opinions: she regards the writings of the pseudo-Dionysius as due to the Areopagite, and says strange things about the terrestrial Paradise, which, according to her, exists on an inaccessible Mountain towards Tibet. If there be question of the general statement of facts given in these works, we can admit with probability that many of them are true. For these two visionaries led lives that were regarded as very holy. Competent authorities have judged their ecstasies as divine. It is therefore prudent to admit that they received a special assistance from God, preserving them not absolutely, but in the main, from error.

In judging of revelations or visions we may proceed in this manner: (1) get detailed information about the person who believes himself thus favored; (2) also about the fact of the revelation and the circumstances attending it. To prove that a revelation is Divine (at least in its general outlines), the method of exclusion is sometimes employed. It consists in proving that neither the demon nor the ecstatic's own ideas have interfered (at least on important points) with God's action, and that no one has retouched the revelation after its occurrence. This method differs from the preceding one only in the manner of arranging the information obtained, but it is not so convenient. To judge revelations or visions, we must be acquainted with the character of the person favoured with them from a triple point of view: natural, ascetical, and mystical. (For those who have been beatified or canonized, this inquiry has been already made by the Church.) Our inquiry into the visionary's character might be pursued as follows:

1. What are his natural qualities or defects, from a physical, intellectual, and especially moral standpoint? If the information is favourable (if the person is of sound judgment, calm imagination; if his acts are dictated by reason and not by enthusiasm, etc.), many causes of illusion are thereby excluded. However, a momentary aberration is still possible.
2. How has the person been educated? Can the knowledge of the visionary have been derived from books or from conversations with theologians?
3. What are the virtues exhibited before and after the revelation? Has he made progress in holiness and especially in humility? The tree can be judged by its fruits.
4. What extraordinary graces of union with God have been received? The greater they are the greater the probability in favour of the revelation, at least in the main.
5. Has the person had other revelations that have been judged Divine? Has he made any predictions that have been clearly realized?
6. Has he been subjected to heavy trials? It is almost impossible for extraordinary favours to be conferred without heavy crosses; for both are marks of God's friendship, and each is a preparation for the other.
7. Does he practice the following rules: fear deception; be open with your director; do not desire to have revelations?

Our information concerning a revelation considered in itself or concerning the circumstances that accompanied it might be secured as follows:

1. Is there an authentic account, in which nothing has been added, suppressed, or corrected?
2. Does the revelation agree with the teaching of the Church or with the recognized facts of history or natural science?
3. Does it teach nothing contrary to good morals, and is it unaccompanied by any indecent action? The commandments of God are addressed to everyone without exception. More than once the demon has persuaded false visionaries that they were chosen souls, and that God loved them so much as to dispense them from the burdensome restrictions imposed on ordinary mortals. On the contrary, the effect of Divine visitations is to remove us more and more from the life of sense, and make us more rigorous towards ourselves.
4. Is the reaching helpful towards the obtaining of eternal salvation? In spiritism we find the spirits evoked treat only of trifles. They reply to idle questions, or descend to providing amusement for an assembly (e.g., by moving furniture about); deceased relatives or the great philosophers are interrogated and their replies are woefully commonplace. A revelation is also suspect if its aim is to decide a disputed question in theology, history, astronomy, etc. Eternal salvation is the only thing of importance in the eyes of God. "In all other matters", says St. John of the Cross, "He wishes men to have recourse to human means" (Montée, II, xxii). Finally, a revelation is suspect if it is commonplace, telling only what is to be found in every book. It is then probable that the visionary is unconsciously repeating what he has learnt by reading.
5. After examining all the circumstances accompanying the vision (the attitudes, acts, words, etc.), do we find that the dignity and seriousness which become the Divine Majesty? The spirits evoked by Spiritists often speak in a trivial manner. Spiritists try to explain this by pretending that the spirits are not demons, but the souls of the departed who have retained all their vices; absurd or unbecoming replies are given by deceased persons who are still liars, or libertines, frivolous or mystifiers, etc. But if that be so, communications with these degraded beings is evidently dangerous. In Protestant "revivals" assembled crowds bewail their sins, but in a strange, exaggerated way, as if frenzied or intoxicated. It must be admitted that they are inspired by a good principle: a very ardent sentiment of the love of God and of repentance. But to this is added another element that cannot be regarded as Divine: a neuropathic enthusiasm, which is contagious and sometimes develops so far as to produce convulsions or repugnant contortions. Sometimes a kind of unknown language is spoken, but it consists in reality of a succession of meaningless sounds.
6. What sentiments of peace, or, on the other hand, of disturbance, are experienced during or after the revelations? Here is the rule as formulated by St. Catherine of Siena and St. Ignatius: "With persons of good will [it is only of such that we are here treating] the action of the good spirit [God or His Angels] is characterized by the production of peace, joy, security, courage; except perhaps at the first moment." Note the restriction. The Bible often mentions this disturbance at the first moment of the revelation; the Blessed Virgin experienced it when the Angel Gabriel appeared to her. The action of the demon produces quite the contrary effect: "With persons of good will he produces, except perhaps at the first moment, disturbance, sorrow, discouragement, perturbation, gloom." In a word the action of Satan encounters a mysterious resistance of the soul.
7. It often happens that the revelation inspires an exterior work - for instance, the establishment of a new devotion, the foundation of a new religious congregation or association, the revision of the constitutions of a congregation, etc., the building of a church or the creation of a pilgrimage, the reformation of the lax spirit in a certain body, the preaching of a new spirituality, etc. In these cases the value of the proposed work must be carefully examined; is it good in itself, useful, filling a need, not injurious to other works, etc.?
8. Have the revelations been subjected to the tests of time and discussion?
9. If any work has been begun as a result of the revelation, has it produced great spiritual fruit? Have the sovereign pontiffs and the bishops believed this to be so, and have they assisted the progress of the work? This is very well illustrated in the cases of the Scapular of Mount Carmel, the devotion to the Sacred Heart, the miraculous medal. These are the signs that enable us to judge with probability if a revelation is Divine. In the case of certain persons very closely united to God, the slow study of these signs has been sometimes aided or replaced by a supernatural intuition; this is what is known as the infused gift of the discernment of spirits.

As regards the rules of conduct, the two principal have been explained in the article on CONTEMPLATION, namely

1. if the revelation leads solely to the love of God and the saints, the director may provisionally regard it as Divine;
2. at the beginning the visionary should do his best to repulse the revelation quietly. He should not desire to receive it, otherwise he will be exposing himself to the risk of being deceived.

Here are some further rules:

• the director must be content to proceed slowly, not to express astonishment, to treat the person gently. If he were to be harsh or distrustful, he would intimidate the soul he is directing, and incline it to conceal important details from him;
• he must be very careful to urge the soul to make progress in the way of sanctity. He will point out that the only value of the visions is in the spiritual fruit that they produce;
• he will pray fervently, and have the subject he is directing pray, that the necessary light may be granted. God cannot fail to make known the true path to those who ask Him humbly. If on the contrary a person confided solely in his natural prudence, he would expose himself to punishment for his self-sufficiency;
• the visionary should be perfectly calm and patient if his superiors do not allow him to carry out the enterprises that he deems inspired by Heaven or revealed. One who, when confronted with this opposition, becomes impatient or discouraged, shows that he has very little confidence in the power of God and is but little conformed to His will. If God wishes the project to succeed, He can make the obstacles suddenly disappear at the time appointed by Him. A very striking example of this divine delay is to be found in the life of St. Juliana, the Cistercian prioress of Mont-Cornillon, near Liège (1192-1258). It is to her that the institution of the feast of the Blessed Sacrament is due. All of her life was passed in awaiting the hour of God, which she was never to see, for it came only more than a century after the beginning of the revelations.

As regards inspirations ordinarily, those who have not passed the period of tranquility or a complete union, must beware of the idea that they hear supernatural words; unless the evidence is irresistible, they should attribute them to the activity of their own imaginations. But they may at least experience inspirations or impulses more or less strong, which seem to point out to them how to act in difficult circumstances. This is a minor form of revelation. The same line of conduct should be followed as in the latter case. We must not accept them blindly and against the dictates of reason, but weigh the reasons for and against, consult a prudent director, and decide only after applying the rules for the discernment of spirits. The attitude of reserve that has just been laid down does not apply to the simple, sudden and illuminating views of faith, which enables one to understand in a higher manner not novelties, but the truths admitted by the Church. Such enlightenment cannot have any evil result. It is on the contrary a very precious grace, which should be very carefully welcomed and utilized.

Consult the writings of ST. TERESA AND ST. JOHN OF THE CROSS, passim; PHILIP OF THE BLESSED TRINITY, Summa theologica mysticae (Lyons, 1656), pt. II, tr. iii; DE VALLGORNERA, Mystica Theologia (Barcelona, 1662), Q. ii, disp. 5; LOPEZ DE EZQUERRA, Lucerna Mystica (Venice, 1692), tr. v; AMORT, De revelationibus (Augsburg, 1744); BENEDICT XIV, De servorum Dei canonizatione (Rome, 1767), l.III, c. liii; SCARAMELLI, Direttorio mistico (Venice, 1754), tr.iv; SCHRAM, Institutiones theologicae mysticae (Augsburg, 1777), pt. II, c. iv; ST. LIGUORI, Homo apostolicus (Venice, 1782), append.i, n. 19; RIBET, La mystique divine, II (Paris, 1879); POULAIN, Des graces d'oraison (5th ed., Paris, 1909), tr. The Graces of Interior Prayer (London, 1910).

AUG. POULAIN

Revocation

The act of recalling or annulling, the reversal of an act, the recalling of a grant, or the making void of some deed previously existing. This term is of wide application in canon law. Grants, laws, contracts, sentences, jurisdiction, appointments are at times revoked by the grantor, his successor or superior according to the prescriptions of law. Revocation without just cause is illicit, though often valid. Laws and customs are revoked when, owing to change of circumstances, they cease to be just and reasonable. Concordats (q.v.) are revocable when they redound to the serious injury of the Church. Minors and ecclesiastical institutions may have sentences in certain civil trials set aside (Restitutio in integrum). Contracts by which ecclesiastical property is alienated are sometimes rescindable. A judge may revoke his own interlocutory sentence but not a definitive judicial sentence. Many appointments are revocable at will; others require a judicial trial or other formalities. (See BENEFICE; FACULTIES, CANONICAL; INDULTS, PONTIFICAL; JURISDICTION, ECCLESIASTICAL.)

ANDREW B. MEEHAN

English Revolution of 1688

James II, having reached the climax of his power after the successful suppression of Monmouth's rebellion in 1685, then had the Tory reaction in his favour, complete control over Parliament and the town corporations, a regular army in England, a thoroughly Catholic army in process of formation in Ireland, and a large revenue granted by Parliament for life. His policy was to govern England as absolute monarch and to restore Catholics to their full civil and religious rights. Unfortunately, both prudence and statesmanship were lacking, with the result that in three years the king lost his throne. The history of the Revolution resolves itself into a catalogue of various ill-judged measures which alienated the support of the Established Church, the Tory party, and the nation as a whole. The execution of Monmouth (July, 1685) made the Revolution possible, for it led to the Whig party accepting William of Orange as the natural champion of Protestantism against the attempts of James. Thus the opposition gained a centre round which it consolidated with ever-increasing force.

What the Catholics as a body desired was freedom of worship and the repeal of the penal laws; but a small section of them, desirous of political power, aimed chiefly at the repeal of the Test Act of 1673 and the Act of 1678 which excluded Catholics from both houses of Parliament. Unfortunately James fell under the influence of this section, which was directed by the unprincipled Earl of Sunderland, and he decided on a policy of repeal of the Test Act. Circumstances had caused this question to be closely bound up with that of the army. For James, who placed his chief reliance on his soldiers, had increased the standing army to 30,000, 13,000 of whom, partly officered by Catholics, were encamped on Hounslow Heath to the great indignation of London which regarded the camp as a menace to its liberties and a centre of disorder. Parliament demanded that the army should be reduced to normal dimensions and the Catholic officers dismissed; but James, realizing that the test would not be repealed, prorogued Parliament and proceeded to exercise the "dispensing and suspending power". By this he claimed that it was the prerogative of the crown to dispense with the execution of the penal laws in individual cases and to suspend the operation of any law altogether. To obtain the sanction of the Law Courts for this doctrine a test case, known as Hales's case, was brought to decide whether the king could allow a Catholic to hold office in the army without complying with the Test Act. After James had replaced some of the judges by more complaisant lawyers, he obtained a decision that "it was of the king's prerogative to dispense. with penal laws in particular instances". He acted on the decision by appointing Catholics to various positions, Lord Tyrconnel becoming Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Lord Arundel Lord Privy Seal, and Lord Bellasyse Lord Treasurer in place of the Tory minister Lord Rochester, who was regarded as the chief mainstay of the Established Church. The Church of England, which was rendered uneasy by the dismissal of Rochester, was further alienated by the king's action in appointing a Court of High Commission, which suspended the Bishop of London for refusing to inhibit one of his clergy from preaching anti-Catholic sermons. The feeling was intensified by the liberty which Catholics enjoyed in London during 1686. Public chapels were opened, including one in the Royal Palace, the Jesuits founded a large school in the Savoy, and Catholic ecclesiastics appeared openly at Court.

At this juncture James, desiring to counterbalance the loss of Anglican support, offered toleration to the dissenters, who at the beginning of his reign had been severely persecuted. The influence of William Penn induced the king to issue on 4 April, 1687, the Declaration of Indulgence, by which liberty of worship was granted to all, Catholic and Protestant alike. He also replaced Tory churchmen by Whig dissenters on the municipal corporations and the commission of the peace, and, having dissolved Parliament, hoped to secure a new House of Commons which would repeal both the penal laws and the Test. But he underestimated two difficulties, the hatred of the dissenters for "popery" and their distrust of royal absolutism. His action in promoting Catholics to the Privy Council, the judicial bench, and the offices of Lord lieutenant, sheriff, and magistrate, wounded these susceptibilities, while he further offended the Anglicans by attempting to restore to Catholics some of their ancient foundations in the universities. Catholics obtained some footing both at Christ Church and University College, Oxford, and in March 1688, James gave the presidency of Magdalen College to Bonaventure Giffard, the Catholic Vicar Apostolic of the Midland District. This restoration of Magdalen as a Catholic college created the greatest alarm, not only among the holders of benefices throughout the country, but also among the owners of ancient abbey lands. The presence of the papal nuncio, Mgr d'Adda, at Court and the public position granted to the four Catholic bishops, who had recently been appointed as vicars Apostolic, served to increase both the dislike of the dissenters to support a king whose acts, while of doubtful legality, were also subversive of Protestant interests, and likewise the difficulty of the Anglicans in practicing passive obedience in face of such provocation. Surrounded by these complications, James issued his second Declaration of Indulgence in April, 1688, and ordered that it should be read in all the churches. This strained Anglican obedience to the breaking point. The Archbishop of Canterbury and six of his suffragans presented a petition questioning the dispensing power. The seven bishops were sent to the Tower prosecuted, tried, and acquitted. This trial proved to be the immediate occasion of the Revolution, for, as Halifax said, "it hath brought all Protestants together and bound them up into a knot that cannot easily be untied". While the bishops were in the Tower, another epoch-marking event occurred -- the birth of an heir to the crown (10 June, 1688). Hitherto the hopes of the king's opponents had been fixed on the succession of his Protestant daughter Mary, wife of William of Orange, the Protestant leader. The birth of Prince James now opened up the prospect of a Catholic dynasty just at a moment when the ancient anti-Catholic bigotry had been aroused by events both in England and France. For besides the ill-advised acts of James, the persecution of the Huguenots by Louis XIV, consequent on the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685, revived old religious animosities. England was flooded with French Protestant refugees bearing everywhere the tale of a Catholic king's cruelty.

Unfortunately for James his whole foreign policy had been one of subservience to France, and at this moment of crisis the power of France was a menace to all Europe. Even Catholic Austria and Spain supported the threatened Protestant states, and the pope himself, outraged by Louis XIV in a succession of wrongs, joined the universal resistance to France and was allied with William of Orange and other Protestant sovereigns against Louis and his single supporter, James. William had long watched the situation in England, and during 1687 had received communications from the opposition in which it was agreed that, whenever revolutionary action should become advisable, it should be carried out under William's guidance. As early as the autumn of 1687 the papal secretary of state was aware of the plot to dethrone James and make Mary queen, and a French agent dispatched the news to England through France. The Duke of Norfolk then in Rome also learned it, and sent intelligence to the king before 18 Dec., 1687 (letter of d'Estrées to Louvois, cited by Ranke, II, 424). But James, though early informed, was reluctant to believe that his son-in-law would head an insurrection against him. On the day the seven bishops were acquitted seven English statesmen sent a letter to William inviting him to rescue the religion and liberties of England. But William was threatened by a French army on the Belgian frontier, and could not take action. Louis XIV made a last effort to save James, and warned the Dutch States General that he would regard any attack on England as a declaration of war against France. This was keenly resented by James who regarded it as a slight upon English independence, and he repudiated the charge that he had made a secret treaty with France. Thereupon Louis left him to his fate, removed the French troops from Flanders to begin a campaign against the empire, and thus William was free to move. When it was too late James realized his danger. By hasty concessions granted one after another he tried to undo his work and win back the Tory churchmen to his cause. But he did not remove the Catholic officers or suggest the restriction of the dispensing power. In October Sunderland was dismissed from office, but William was already on the seas, and, though driven back by a storm, he re-embarked and landed at Torbay on 5 Nov., 1688. James at first prepared to resist. The army was sent to intercept William, but by the characteristic treachery of Churchill, disaffection was spread, and the king, not knowing in whom he could place confidence, attempted to escape. At Sheerness he was stopped and sent back to London, where he might have proved an embarrassing prisoner had not his escape been connived at. On 23 Dec., 1688, he left England to take refuge with Louis XIV; the latter received him generously and granted him both palace and pension. On his first departure the mob had risen in London against the Catholics, and attacked chapels and houses, plundering and carrying off the contents. Even the ambassadors' houses were not spared, and the Spanish and Sardinian embassy chapels were destroyed. Bishops Giffard and Leyburn were arrested and committed to the Tower. Father Petre had escaped, and the Nuncio disguised himself as a servant at the house of the envoy from Savoy, till he was enabled to obtain from William a passport. So far as the English Catholics were concerned, the result of the Revolution was that their restoration to freedom of worship and liberation from the penal laws was delayed for a century and more.

So completely had James lost the confidence of the nation that William experienced no opposition and the Revolution ran its course in an almost regular way. A Convention Parliament met on 22 January, 1689, declared that James "having withdrawn himself out of the kingdom, had abdicated the government, and that the throne was thereby vacant", and "that experience had shown it to be inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a Popish Prince". The crown was offered to William and Mary, who accepted the Declaration of Right, which laid down the principles of the constitution with regard to the dispensing power, the liberties of Parliament, and other matters. After their proclamation as king and queen, the Declaration was ratified by the Bill of Rights, and the work of the Revolution was complete. English Catholics have indeed had good cause to lament the failure of the king's well-meant, if unwise, attempts to restore their liberty, and to regret that he did not act on the wise advice of Pope Innocent XI and Cardinal Howard to proceed by slow degrees and obtain first the repeal of the penal laws before going on to restore their full civil rights. But on the other hand we can now realize that the Revolution had the advantage of finally closing the long struggle between king and Parliament that had lasted for nearly a century, and of establishing general principles of religious toleration in which Catholics were bound sooner or later to be included.

LINGARD, Hist. of England, X (London, 1849), the standard Catholic account; LODGE in HUNT and POOLE, Political Hist. of England, Vlll (London, 1910); TEMPERLEY in Cambridge Modern Hist., V (London, 1908); TREVELYAN, England under the Stuarts (London, 1904); WYATT-DAVIES, Hist. of England for Catholic Schools (London, 1903); GREEN, Hist. of the English People (London, 1877-80); MACAULAY, Hist. of England (London, 1849); TASWELL-LANGMEAD, English Constitutional Hist. (London, 1875); BRIGHT, Hist. of England, 2nd period (London, 1880); GUIZOT Pourquoi la Révolution a-t-elle réussi? (1640~1688) (Paris, 1850); MAZURE, Hist. de la révol. de 1688 (3 vols., Paris, 1825). For earlier accounts consult DEFOE, Revol. of 1688 reprinted in ARBER, English Garner, XII (London, 1903); EACHARD, Hist. of the Revol. in 1688 (London, 1725); BURNET, Hist. of my Own Times (last edition, Oxford 1897-1900); DODD, Church Hist. (Wolverhampton vere Brussels, 1737 -42); SPEKE, Secret Hist. of the happy Revol., 1688 (London, 1715).

EDWIN BURTON

French Revolution

The last thirty years have given us a new version of the history of the French Revolution, the most diverse and hostile schools having contributed to it. The philosopher, Taine, drew attention to the affinity between the revolutionary and what he calls the classic spirit, that is, the spirit of abstraction which gave rise to Cartesianism and produced certain masterpieces of French literature. Moreover he admirably demonstrated the mechanism of the local revolutionary committees and showed how a daring Jacobin minority was able to enforce its will as that of "the people". Following up this line of research M. Augustin Cochin has quite recently studied the mechanism of the sociétés de pensée in which the revolutionary doctrine was developed and in which were formed men quite prepared to put this doctrine into execution.

The influence of freemasonry in the French Revolution proclaimed by Louis Blanc and by freemasonry itself is proved by the researches of M. Cochin. Sorel has brought out the connection between the diplomacy of the Revolution and that of the old regime. His works prove that the Revolution did not mark a break in the continuity of the foreign policy of France. The radically inclined historical school, founded and led by M. Aulard, has published numerous useful documents as well as the review, "La Révolution Française". Two years since, a schism occured in this school, M. Mathiez undertaking opposition to M. Aulard the defence of Robespierre, in consequence of which he founded a new review "Les Annales Révolutionaires". The "Société d'histoire contemporaine", founded under Catholic auspices, has published a series of texts bearing on revolutionary history. Lastly the works of Abbé Sicard have revealed in the clergy who remained faithful to Rome various tendencies, some legitimist, others more favourable to the new political forms, a new side of the history of the French clergy being thus developed.

Such are the most recent additions to the history of the French Revolution. This article, however, will emphasize more especially the relations between the Revolution and the Church (see France).

MEETING OF THE ESTATES

The starting point of the French Revolution was the convocation of the States General by Louis XVI. They comprised three orders, nobility, clergy, and the third estate, the last named being permitted to have as many members as the two other orders together. The electoral regulation of 24 January, 1789, assured the parochial clergy a large majority in the meetings of the bailliages which were to elect clerical representatives to the States General. While chapters were to send to these meetings only a single delegate for ten canons, and each convent only one of its members, all the curés were permitted to vote. The number of the "order" of clergy at the States General exceeded 300, among whom were 44 prelates, 208 curés, 50 canons and commendatory abbots, and some monks. The clergy advocated almost as forcibly as did the Third Estate the establishment of a constitutional government based on the separation of the powers, the periodical convocation of the States General, their supremacy in financial matters, the responsibility of ministers, and the regular guarantee of individual liberty. Thus the true and great reforms tending to the establishment of liberty were advocated by the clergy on the eve of the Revolution. When the Estates assembled 5 May, 1789, the Third Estate demanded that the verification of powers should be made in common by the three orders, the object being that the Estates should form but one assembly in which the distinction between the "orders" should disappear and where every member was to have a vote. Scarcely a fourth of the clergy advocated this reform, but from the opening of the Estates it was evident that the desired individual voting which would give the members of the Third Estate, the advocates of reform, an effectual preponderance.

As early as 23 May, 1789, the curés at the house of the Archbishop of Bordeaux were of the opinion that the power of the deputies should be verified in the general assembly of the Estates, and when on 17 June the members of the Third Estate proclaimed themselves the "National Assembly", the majority of the clergy decided (19 June) to join them. As the higher clergy and the nobility still held out, the king caused the hall where the meetings of the Third Estate were held to be closed (20 June), whereupon the deputies, with their president, Bailly, repaired to the Jeu de Paume and an oath was taken not to disband till they had provided France with a constitution. After Mirabeau's thundering speech (23 June) addressed to the Marquis de Dreux-Brézé, master-of-ceremonies to Louis XVI, the king himself (27 June) invited the nobility to join the Third Estate. Louis XVI's dismissal of the reforming minister, Necker, and the concentration of the royal army about Paris, brought about the insurrection of 14 July, and the capture of the Bastille. M. Funck-Brentano has destroyed the legends which rapidly arose in connection with the celebrated fortress. There was no rising en masse of the people of Paris, and the number of the besiegers was but a thousand at most; only seven prisoners were found at the Bastille, four of whom were forgers, one a young man guilty of monstrous crimes and who for the sake of his family was kept at the Bastille that he might escape the death penalty, and two insane prisoners. But in the public opinion the Bastille symbolized royal absolutism and the capture of this fortress was regarded as the overthrow of the whole regime, and foreign nations attached great importance to the event. Louis XVI yielded before this agitation; Necker was recalled; Bailly became Mayor of Paris; Lafayette, commander of the national militia; the tri-colour was adopted, and Louis XVI consented to recognize the title of "National Constituent Assembly". Te Deums and processions celebrated the taking of the Bastille; in the pulpits the Abbé Fauchet preached the harinony of religion and liberty. As a result of the establishment of the "vote by order" the political privileges of the clergy may be considered to have ceased to exist.

During the night of 4 August, 1789, at the instance of the Vicomte de Noailles, the Assembly voted with extraordinary enthusiasm the abolition of all privileges and feudal rights and the equality of all Frenchmen. A blow was thereby struck at the wealth of the clergy, but the churchmen were the first to give an example of sacrifice. Plurality of benefices and annates was abolished and the redemption of tithes was agreed upon, but two days later, the higher clergy becoming uneasy, demanded another discussion of the vote which had carried the redemption. The result was the abolition, pure and simple, of tithes without redemption. In the course of the discussion Buzot declared that the property of the clergy belonged to the nation. Louis XVI's conscience began to be alarmed. He temporized for five weeks, then merely published the decrees as general principles, reserving the right to approve or reject the measures which the Assembly would take to enforce them.

DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF MAN.
CATHOLICISM CEASES TO BE THE RELIGION OF THE STATE

Before giving France a constitution the Assembly judged it necessary to draw up a "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen", which should form a preamble to the Constitution. Camus's suggestion that to the declaration of the rights of man should be added a declaration of his duties, was rejected. The Declaration of Rights mentions in its preamble that it is made in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being, but out of three of the articles proposed by the clergy, guaranteeing the respect due to religion and public worship, two were rejected after speeches by the Protestant, Rabaut Saint-Etienne, and Mirabeau, and the only article relating to religion was worded as follows: "No one shall be disturbed for his opinions, even religious, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law." In fact it was the wish of the Assembly that Catholicism should cease to be the religion of the State and that liberty of worship should be established. It subsequently declared Protestants eligible to all offices (24 Dec., 1789), restored to their possessions and status as Frenchmen the heirs of Protestant refugees (10 July and 9 Dec., 1790), and took measures in favour of the Jews (28 January, 26 July, 16 Aug., 1790). But it soon became evident in the discussions relating to the Civil Constitution of the clergy that the Assembly desired that the Catholic Church, to which the majority of the French people belonged, should be subject to the State and really organized by the State.

The rumours that Louis XVI sought to fly to Metz and place himself under the protection of the army of Bouillé in order to organize a counter-revolutionary movement and his refusal to promulgate the Declaration of the Rights of Man, brought about an uprising in Paris. The mob set out to Versailles, and amid insults brought back the king and queen to Paris (6 Oct., 1789). Thenceforth the Assembly sat at Paris, first at the archiepiscopal residence, then at the Tuileries. At this moment the idea of taking possession of the goods of the clergy in order to meet financial exigencies began to appear in a number of journals and pamphlets. The plan of confiscating this property, which had been suggested as early as 8 August by the Marquis de Lacoste, was resumed (24 Sept.) by the economist, Dupont de Nemours, and on 10 October was supported in the name of the Committee of Finances in a report which caused scandal by Talleyrand, Bishop of Autun, who under the old regime had been one of the two "general agents" charged with defending the financial interests of the French clergy. On 12 October Mirabeau requested the Assembly to decree (1) that the ownership of the church property belonged to the nation that it might provide for the support of the priests; (2) that the salary of each curé should not be less than 1200 livres. The plan was discussed from 13 October to 2 November. It was opposed the Abbé de Montesquieu, and the Abbé Maury, who contended that the clergy being a moral person could be an owner, disputed the estimates placed upon placed upon the wealth of the clergy, and suggested that their possessions should simply serve as a guarantee for a loan of 400,000,000 livres to the nation. The advocates of confiscation maintained that the clergy no longer existed as an order, that the property was like an escheated succession, and that the State had a right to claim it, that moreover the Royal Government had never expressly recognized the clergy as a proprietor, that in 1749 Louis XV had forbidden the clergy to receive anything without the authority of the State, and that he had confiscated the property of the Society of Jesus. Malouet took an intermediate stand and demanded that the State should confiscate only superfluous ecclesiastical possessions, but that the parochial clergy should be endowed with land. Finally, on 2 November, 1789, the Assembly decided that the possessions of the clergy be "placed at the disposal" of the nation. The results of this vote were not long in following. The first was Treilhard's motion (17 December), demanding in the name of the ecclesiastical committee of the Assembly, the closing of useless convents, and decreeing that the State should permit the religious to release themselves from their monastic vows.

The discussion of this project began in February, 1790, after the Assembly by the creation of assemblies of departments, districts, and commons, had proceeded to the administrative reorganization of France. The discussion was again very violent. On 13 February, 1790, the Assembly, swayed by the more radical suggestions of Barnave and Thouret, decreed as a "constitutional article" that not only should the law no longer recognize monastic vows, but that religious orders and congregations were and should remain suppressed in France, and that no others should be established in the future. After having planned a partial suppression of monastic orders the Assembly voted for their total suppression. The proposal of Cazalès (17 February) calling for the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, and the rightful efforts, made by the higher clergy to prevent Catholics from purchasing the confiscated goods of the Church provoked reprisals. On 17 March, 1790, the Assembly decided that the 400,000,000 livres worth of alienated ecclesiastical properties should be sold to municipalities which in turn should sell them to private buyers. On 14 April it decided that the maintenance of Catholic worship should be provided for without recourse to the revenues of former ecclesiastical property and that a sufficient sum, fixed at more than 133,000,000 livres for the first year, should be entered in the budget for the allowances to be made to the clergy; on 17 April the decree was passed dealing with the assignats, the papers issued by the Government paying interest at 5 per cent, and which were to be accepted as money in payment for the ecclesial property, thenceforth called national property; finally, on 9 July, it was decreed that all this property should be put up for sale.

CIVIL CONSTITUTION OF THE CLERGY

On 6 February, 1790, the Assembly charged its ecclesiastical committee, appointed 20 Aug., 1789, and composed of fifteen members to prepare the reorganization of the clergy. Fifteen new members were added to the committee on 7 February. The "constituents" were disciples of the eighteenth century philosophes who subordinated religion to the State; moreover, to understand their standpoint it is well to bear in mind that many of them were jurists imbued with Gallican and Josephist ideas. Finally Taine has proved that in many respects their religious policy merely followed in the footsteps of the old regime, but while the old regime protected the Catholic Church and made it the church exclusive, recognized, the constituents planned to enslave it after having stripped it of its privileges. Furthermore they did not take into account that there are mixed matters that can only be regulated after an agreement with ecclesiastical authority. They were especially incensed against the clergy after the consistorial address in which Pius VI (22 March, 1790) reproved some of the measures already taken by the Constituent Assembly, and by the news received from the West and South where the just dissatisfaction of Catholic consciences had provoked disturbances; in particular the election of the Protestant Rabaut Saint-Etienne to the presidency of the National Assembly brought about commotions at Toulouse and Nimes. Under the influence of these disturbances the Civil Constitution of the Clergy was developed. On 29 May, 1790, it was laid before the Assembly. Bonal, Bishop of Clermont, and some members of the Right requested that the project should be submitted to a national council or to the pope. But the Assembly proceeded; it discussed the Civil Constitution of the Clergy from 1 June to 12 July, 1790, on which date it was passed.

This Constitution comprised four titles.

Title I, Ecclesiastical Offices: Diocesan boundaries were to agree with those of departments, 57 episcopal sees being thus suppressed. The title of archbishop was abolished; out of 83 remaining bishoprics 10 were called metropolitan bishoprics and given jurisdiction over the neighbouring dioceses. No section of French territory should recognize the authority of a bishop living abroad, or of his delegates, and this, adds the Constitution, "without prejudice to the unity of faith and the communion which shall be maintained with the head of the Universal Church". Canonries, prebends, and priories were abolished. There should no longer be any sacerdotal posts especially devoted to fulfilling the conditions of Mass foundations. All appeals to Rome were forbidden.

Title II, Appointment to Benefice: Bishops should be appointed by the Electoral Assembly of the department; they should be invested and consecrated by the metropolitan and take an oath of fidelity to the nation, the King, the Law, and the Constitution; they should not seek any confirmation from the pope. Parish priests should be elected by the electoral assemblies of the districts. Thus all citizens, even Protestants, Jews, and nominal Catholics, might name titulars to ecclesiastical offices, and the first obligation of priests and bishops was to take an oath of fidelity to the Constitution which denied to the Holy See any effective power over the Church.

Title III, Salary of ministers of Religion: The Constitution fixed the salary of the Bishop of Paris at 51,000 livres (about $10,200), that of bishops of towns whose population exceeded 50,000 souls at 20,000 livres (about $4000), that of other bishops at 12,000 livres (about $2400), that of curés at a sum ranging from 6000 (about $1200) to 1200 livres (about $240). For the lower clergy this was a betterment of their material condition, especially as the real value of these sums was two and one-half times the present amount.

Title IV, dealing with residence, made very severe conditions regarding the absences of bishops and priests.

At the festival of the Federation (14 July, 1790) Talleyrand and three hundred priests officiating at the altar of the nation erected on the Champs-de-Mars wore the tri-colored girdle above their priestly vestments and besought the blessing of God on the Revolution. Deputations were present from the towns of France, and there was inaugurated a sort of cult, of the Fatherland, the remote origin of all the "Revolutionary cults". On 10 July, 1790, in a confidential Brief to Louis XVI, Pius VI expressed the alarm with which the project under discussion filled him. He commissioned two ecclesiastics who were ministers of Louis XVI, Champion de Cicé and Lefranc de Pompignan, to urge the king not to sign the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. On 28 July, in a letter to the pope, Louis XVI replied that he would be compelled, "with death in his soul", to promulgate the Constitution, that he would reserve the right to broach as soon as possible the matter of some concession, but that if he refused, his life and the lives of his family would be endangered.

The pope replied (17 August) that he still held the same opinion of the Constitution, but that he would make no public declaration on the subject until he consulted with the Sacred College. On 24 August the king promulgated the Constitution, for which he was blamed by the pope in a confidential Brief on 22 September. M. Mathiez claims to have proved that the hesitancy of Pius VI was due to temporal rather than to spiritual considerations, to his serious fears about the affairs of Avignon and the Comtat Venaissin, where certain popular parties were clamoring for French troops, but the truth is that Pius VI, who had made known his opinion of the Constitution to two French prelates, was awaiting some manifestation on the part of the French episcopate. Indeed the bishops spoke before the pope had spoken publicly. At the end of October, 1790, they published an "Exposition des principes sur la constitution civile du clergé", compiled by Boisgelin, Archbishop of Aix in which they rejected the Constitution and called upon the faithful to do the same. This publication marks the beginning of a violent conflict between the episcopate an the Constitution. On 27 November, 1790, after a speech by Mirabeau, a decree stipulated that all bishops and priests should within a week, under penalty of losing their offices, take the oath to the Constitution, that all who refused and who nevertheless continued to discharge their priestly functions should be prosecuted as disturbers of the public peace. The king, who was much disturbed by this decree, eventually sanctioned it (26 December, 1790) in order to avoid a rising.

Hitherto a large section of the lesser clergy had shown a certain amount of sympathy for the Revolution, but when it was seen that the episcopal members of the Assembly refused to take the oath, thus sacrificing their sees, a number of the priests followed this disinterested example. It may be said that from the end of 1790 the higher clergy and the truly orthodox elements of the lower clergy were united against the revolutionary measures. Thenceforth there were two classes, the non-juring or refractory priests, who were faithful to Rome and refused the oath, and the jurors, sworn, or Constitutional priests, who had consented to take the oath. M. de la Gorce has recently sought to estimate the exact proportion of the priests who took the oath. Out of 125 bishops there were only four, Talleyrand of Autun, Brienne of Sens, Jarente of Orleans, and Lafond de Savine, of Viviers; three coadjutors or bishops in partibus, Gobel, Coadjutor Bishop of Bâle; Martial de Brienne, Coadjutor of Sens; and Dubourg-Miraudet, Bishop of Babylon. In the important towns most of the priests refused to take the oath. Statistics for the small boroughs and the country are more difficult to obtain. The national archives preserve the complete dockets of 42 departments which were sent to the Constituent Assembly by the civil authorities. This shows that in these 42 departments, of 23,093 priests called upon to swear, 13,118 took the oath. There would be therefore out of 100 priests, 56 to 57 jurors against 43 to 44 non-jurors. M. de la Gorce gives serious reasons for contesting these statistics, which were compiled by zealous bureaucrats anxious to please the central administrators. He asserts on the other hand that the schism had little hold in fifteen departments and concludes that in 1791 the number of priests faithful to Rome was 52 to 55 out of 100; this is a small enough majority, but one which M. de la Gorce considers authentic.

On 5 February, 1791, the Constituent Assembly forbade every non-juring priest to preach in public. In March the elections to provide for the vacant episcopal sees and parishes took place. Disorder grew in the Church of France; young and ambitious priests, better known for their political than for their religious zeal, were candidates, and in many places owing to the opposition of good Catholics those elected had much difficulty in taking possession of their churches. At this juncture, seeing the Constitutional Church thus setup in France against the legitimate Church, Pius VI wrote two letters, one to the bishops and one to Louis XVI, to inquire if there remained any means to prevent schism; and finally, on 13 April, 1791, he issued a solemn condemnation of the Civil Constitution in a solemn Brief to the clergy and the people. On 2 May, 1791, the annexation of the Comtat Venaissin and the city of Avignon by the French troops marked the rupture of diplomatic relations between France and the Holy See. From May, 1791, there was no longer an ambassador from France at Rome or a nuncio at Paris. The Brief of Pius VI encouraged the resistance of the Catholics. The Masses celebrated by non-juring priests attracted crowds of the faithful. Then mobs gathered and beat and outraged nuns and other pious women. On 7 May, 1791, the Assembly decided that the non-juring priests as prêtres habitués might continue to say Mass in parochial churches or conduct their services in other churches on condition that they would respect the laws and not stir up revolt against the Civil Constitution. The Constitutional priests became more and more unpopular with good Catholics; Sciout's works go to show that the "departmental directories" had to spend their time in organizing regular police expeditions to protect the Constitutional priests against the opposition of good Catholics, or to prosecute the non-juring priests who heroically persisted in remaining at their posts. Finally on 9 June, 1791, the Assembly forbade the publication of all Bulls or Decrees of the Court of Rome, at least until they had been submitted to the legislative body and their publication authorized. Thus Revolutionary France not only broke with Rome, but wished to place a barrier between Rome and the Catholics of France

The king's tormenting conscience was the chief reason for his attempted flight (20-21 June, 1791). Before fleeing he had addressed to the Assembly a declaration of his dissatisfaction with the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, and once more protested against the moral violence which had compelled him to accept such a document. Halted at Varennes, Louis XVI was brought back on 25 June, and was suspended from his functions till the completion of the Constitution, to which he took the oath 13 Sept., 1791. On 30 Sept., 1791, the Constituent Assembly dissolved, to make way for the Legislative Assembly, in which none of the members of the Constituent Assembly could sit. The Constituent Assembly had passed 2500 laws and reorganized the whole French administration. Its chief error from a social standpoint, which Anatole Leroy-Beaulieu calls a capital one, was to pass the Chapelier Decree (15 June, 1791), which forbade working people to band together and form associations "for their so-called common interest". Led astray by their spirit of individualism and their hatred for certain abuses of the old corporations, the Constituents did not understand that the world of labour should be organized. They were responsible for the economic anarchy which reigned during the nineteenth century, and the present syndicate movement as well as the efforts of the social Catholics in conformity with the Encyclical "Rerum novarum" marks a deep and decisive reaction against the work of the Constituent Assembly.

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

When the Constituent Assembly disbanded (30 Sept., 1791), France all was aflame concerning the religious question. More than half the French people did not want the new Church, the factitious creation of the law; the old the Church was ruined, demolished, hunted down, and the general amnesty decreed by the Constituent Assembly before disbanding could do nothing towards restoring peace in the country where that Assembly's bungling work had unsettled the consciences of individuals. The parties in the Legislative Assembly were soon irreconcilable. The Feuillants, on the Right, saw no salvation save in the Constitution; the Girondins on the Left, and the Montagnards on the Extreme Left, made ready for the Republic. There were men who, like the poet André Chénier, dreamed of a complete Separation of Church and State. "The priests", he wrote in a letter to the "Moniteur" (22 October, 1791), "will not trouble the Estates when no one is concerned about them, and they will always trouble them while anyone is concerned about them as at present." But the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly had sat in the departmental or district assemblies; they had fought against the non-juring priests and brought violent passions and a hostile spirit to the Legislative Assembly. A report from Gensonné and Gallois to the Legislative Assembly (9 October, 1791) on the condition of the provinces of the West denounced the non-juring priests as exciting the populace to rebellion and called for measures against them. It accused them of complicity with the émigrés bishops. At Avignon the Revolutionary Lécuyer, having been slain in a church, some citizens reputed to be partisans of the pope were thrown into the ancient papal castle and strangled (16-17 Oct., 1791). Calvados was also the scene of serious disturbances.

The Legislative Assembly, instead of repairing the tremendous errors of the Constituent Assembly, took up the question of the non-juring priests. On 29 November, on the proposal of François de Neufchâteau, it decided that if within eight days they did not take the civil oath they should be deprived of all salary, that they should be place under the surveillance of the authorities, that if troubles arose where they resided they should be sent away, that they should be imprisoned for a year if they persisted in remaining and for two years if they were convicted of having provoked disobedience to the king. Finally it forbade non-juring priests the legal exercise of worship. It also requested from the departmental directories lists of the jurors and non-jurors, that it might, as it said, "stamp out the rebellion which disguises itself under the pretended dissidence in the exercise of the Catholic religion". Thus its decree ended in a threat. But this decree was the object of a sharp conflict between Louis XVI and the Assembly. On 9 Dec., 1791, the king made his veto known officially. Parties began to form. On one side were the king and the Catholics faithful to Rome, on the other the Assembly and the priests who had taken the oath. The legislative power was on one side, the executive on the other. In March, 1792, the Assembly accused the ministers of Louis XVI; the king replaced them by a Girondin ministry headed by Dumouriez, with Roland, Servan, and Clavière among its members. They had a double policy: abroad, war with Austria, and at home, measures against the non-juring priests. Louis XVI, surrounded by dangers, was also accused of duplicity; his secret negotiations with foreign courts made it possible for his enemies to say that he had already conspired against France.

A papal Brief of 19 March, 1792, renewed the condemnation of the Civil Constitution and visited with major excommunication all juring priests who after sixty days should not have retracted, and all Catholics who remained faithful to these priests. The Assembly replied by the Decree of 27 May, 1792, declaring that all non-juring priests might be deported by the directory of their department at the request of twenty citizens, and if they should return after expulsion they would be liable to ten years of imprisonment. Louis vetoed this decree. Thus arose a struggle not only between Louis XVI and the Assembly, but between the king and his ministry. On 3 June 1792, the Assembly decreed the formation of a camp near Paris of 20,600 volunteers to guard the king. At the ministerial council Roland read an insulting letter to Louis, in which he called upon him to sanction the decrees of November and May against the non-juring priests. He was dismissed, whereupon the populace of Paris arose and invaded the Tuileries (20 June, 1792). and for several hours the king and his family were the objects of all manner of outrages. After the public manifesto of the Duke of Brunswick in the name of the powers in coalition against France (25 July, 1792) and the Assembly's declaration of "Fatherland in danger" there came petitions for the deposition of the king, who was accused of being in communication with foreign rulers. On 10 August, Santerre, Westermann, and Fournier l'Américain at the head of the national guard attacked the Tuileries defended by 800 Swiss. Louis refused to defend himself, and with his family sought refuge in the Legislative Assembly. The Assembly passed a decree which suspended the king's powers, drew up a plan of education for the dauphin, and convoked a national convention. Louis XVI was imprisoned in the Temple by order of the insurrectionary Commune of Paris.

Madness spread through France caused by the threatened danger from without; arrests of non-juring priests multiplied. In an effort to make them give way. The Assembly decided (15 August) that the oath should consist only of the promise to uphold with all one's might liberty, equality, and the execution of the law, or to die at one's post". But the non-juring priests remained firm and refused even this second oath. On 26 August the Assembly decreed that within fifteen days they should be expelled from the kingdom, that those who remained or returned to France should be deported to Guiana, or should be liable to ten years imprisonment. It then extended this threat to the priests, who, having no publicly recognized priestly duties, had hitherto been dispensed from the oath, declaring that they also might be expelled if they were convicted of having provoked disturbances. This was the signal for a real civil war. The peasants armed in La Vendée, Deux Sèvres, Loire Inférieure, Maine and Loire, Ile and Vilaine. This news and that of the invasion of Champagne by the Prussian army caused hidden influences to arouse the Parisian populaces hence the September massacres. In the prisons of La Force, the Conciergerie, and the Abbaye Saint Germain, at least 1500 Women, priests and soldiers fell under the axe or the club. The celebrated tribune, Danton, cannot be entirely acquitted of complicity in these massacres. The Legislative Assembly terminated its career by two measures against the Church: it deprived priests of the right to register births etc., and authorize divorce. Laicizing the civil state was not in the minds of the Constituents, but was the result of the blocking of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. The Legislative Assembly was induced to enact it because the Catholics faithful to Rome would not have recourse to Constitutional priests for registering of births, baptisms, and deaths.

THE CONVENTION; THE REPUBLIC; THE REIGN OF TERROR

The opening of the National Convention (21 Sept., 1792) took place the day following Dumouriez's victory at Valmy over the Prussian troops. The constitutional bishop, Grégoire, proclaimed the republic at the first session; he was surrounded in the assembly by fifteen constitutional bishops and twenty-eight constitutional priests. But the time was at hand when the constitutional clergy in turn was to be under suspicion, the majority of the Convention being hostile to Christianity itself. As early as 16 November, 1792, Cambon demanded that the salaries of the priests be suppressed and that thenceforth no religion be subsidized by the State, but the motion was rejected for the time being. Henceforth the Convention enacted all manner of arbitrary political measures: it undertook the trial of Louis XVI, and on 2 January, 1799, "hurled a kings head at Europe". But from a religious standpoint it was more timid; it feared to disturb the people of Savoy and Belgium, which its armies were annexing to France. From 10 to 15 March, 1793, formidable insurrections broke out in La Vendée, Anjou, and a part of Brittany. At the same time Dumouriez, having been defeated at Neerwinden, sought to turn his army against the Convention, and he himself went over to the Austrians. The Convention took fright; it instituted a Revolutionary Tribunal on 9 March and on 6 April the Committee of Public Safety, formidable powers, was established.

Increasingly severe measures were taken chiefly against the non-juring clergy. On 18 Feb., 1793, the Convention voted a prize one hundred livres to whomsoever should denounce a priest liable to deportation and who remained in France despite the law. On 1 March the émigrés were sentenced to perpetual banishment and their property confiscated. On 18 March it was decreed that any émigré or deported priest arrested on French soil should be executed within twenty-four hours. On 23 April it was enacted that all ecclesiastics, priests or monks, who had not taken the oath prescribed by the Decree of 15 August, 1792, should be transported to Guiana; even the priests who had taken the oath should be treated likewise if six citizens should denounce them for lack of citizenship. But despite all these measures the non-juring priests remained faithful to Rome. The pope had maintained in France an official internuncio, the Abbé de Salamon, who kept himself in hiding and performed his duties at the risk of his life, gave information concerning current events, and transmitted orders. The proconsuls of the Convention, Fréron and Barras at Marseilles and Toulon, Tallien at Bordeaux, Carrier at Nantes, perpetuated abominable massacres. In Paris the Revolutionary Tribunal, carrying out the proposals of the public accuser, Foquier-Tinville, inaugurated the Reign of Terror. The proscription of the Girondins by the Montagnards (2 June, 1793), marked a progress in demagogy. The assassination of the bloodthirsty in demagogue Marat, by Charlotte Corday 913 July 1793) gave rise to extravagant manifestations in honour of Marat. But the provinces did not follow this policy. News came of insurrections in Caen, Marseilles, Lyons, and Toulon; and at the same time the Spaniards were in Roussillon, the Piedmontese in Savoy, the Austrians in Valenciennes, and the Vendeans defeated Kleber at Torfou (Sept., 1793). The crazed Convention decreed a rising en masse; the heroic resistance of Valenciennes and Mainz gave Carnot time to organize new armies. At the same time the Convention passed the Law of Suspects. (17 Sept., 1793), which authorized the imprisonment of almost anyone and as a consequence of which 30,000 were imprisoned. Informing became a trade in France. Queen Marie Antoinette was beheaded 16 October, 1793. Fourteen Carmelites who were executed 17 July, 1794, were declared Venerable by Leo XIII in 1902.

From a religious point of view a new feature arose at this period — the constitutional clergy, accused of sympathy with the Girondins, came to be suspected almost as much as the non-juring priests. Numerous conflicts arose between the constitutional priests and the civil authorities with regard to the decree of the Convention which did not permit the priests to ask those intending to marry if they were baptized, had been to confession, or were divorced. The constitutional bishops would not submit to the Convention when it required them to give apostate priests the nuptial blessing. Despite the example of the constitutional bishop, Thomas Lindet, a member of the Convention, who won the applause of the Assembly by ann his marriage, despite the scandal given by Gobel, Bishop of Paris, in appointing a married priest to a post in Paris the majority of constitutional bishops remained hostile to the marriage of priests. The conflict between them and the Convention became notorious when, on 19 July, 1793, a decree of the Convention decided that the bishops who directly or indirectly offered any obstacle to the marriage of priests should be deported and replaced. In October the Convention declared that the constitutional priests themselves should be deported if they were found wanting in citizenship. The measures taken by the Convention to substitute the Revolutionary calendar for the old Christian calendar, and the decrees ordering the municipalities to seize and melt down the bells and treasures of the churches, proved that certain currents prevailed tending to the dechristianization of France. On the one hand the rest of décadi, every tenth day, replaced the Sunday rest; on the other the Convention commissioned Leonard Bourdon (19 Sept., 1793) to compile a collection of the heroic actions of Republicans to replace the lives of the saints in the schools. The "missionary representatives", sent to the provinces, closed churches, hunted down citizens suspected of religious practices, endeavoured to constrain priests to marry, and threatened with deportation for lack of citizenship priests who refused to abandon their posts. Persecution of all religious ideas began. At the request of the Paris Commune, Gobel, Bishop of Paris, and thirteen of his vicars resigned at the bar of the Convention (7 November) and their example was followed by several constitutional bishops.

The Montagnards who considered worship necessary replaced the Catholic Sunday Mass by the civil mass of décadi. Having failed to reform and nationalize Catholicism they endeavoured to form a sort of civil cult, a development of the worship of the fatherland which had been inaugurated at the feast of the Federation. The Church of Notre-Dame-de-Paris became a temple of Reason, and the feast of Reason was celebrated on 10 November. The Goddesses of Reason and Liberty were not always the daughters of low people; they frequently came of the middle classes. Recent research has thrown new light on the history of these cults. M. Aulard was the first to recognize that the idea of honouring the fatherland, which had its origin in the festival of the Federation in 1790 gave rise to successive cults. Going deeper M. Mathiez developed the theory that confronted by the blocking of the Civil Constitution, the Conventionals, who had witnessed in the successive feasts of the Federation the power of formulas on the minds of the masses, wanted to create a real culte de la patrie, a sanction of faith in the fatherland. On 23 November, 1793, Chaumette passed a law alienating all churches in the capital. This example was followed in the provinces, where all city churches and a number of those in the country were closed to Catholic worship. The Convention offered a prize for the abjuration of priests by passing a decree which assured a pension to Priests who abjured, and the most painful day of that sad period was 20 November, 1793, when men, women, and children dressed in Priestly garments taken from the Church of St. Germain des Prés marched through the hall of the Convention. Laloi, who presided, congratulated them, saying they had "wiped out eighteen centuries of error". Despite the part played by Chaumette and the Commune of Paris in the work of violent dechristianization, M. Mathiez has proved that it is not correct to lay on the Commune and the Exagérés, they were called, the entire responsibility, and that a Moderate, an Indulgent, namely Thuriot, the friend of Danton, was one of the most violent instigators. It is thus clear why Robespierre who desired a reaction against these excesses, should attack both Exagérés and Indulgents.

Indeed a reactionary movement was soon evident. As early as 21 November, 1793, Robespierre complained of the "madmen who could only revive fanaticism". On 5 December he caused the Convention to adopt the text of a manifesto to the nations of Europe in which the members declared that they sought to protect the liberty of all creeds; on 7 December, he supported the motion of the committee of public safety which reported the bad effect in the provinces of the intolerant violence of the missionary representatives, and which forbade in the future all threats or violence contrary to liberty of worship. These decrees were the cause of warfare between Robespierre an enthusiasts such as Hébert and Clootz. At first Robespierre sent his enemies to the scaffold; Hébert and Clootz were beheaded in March, 1704, Chaumette and Bishop Gobel in April. But in this same month of April Robespierre sent to the scaffold the Moderates, Desmoulins and Danton, who wanted to stop the Terror, and became the master of France with his lieutenants Couthon and Saint-Just. M. Aulard regards Robespierre as having been hostile to the dechristianization for religious and political motives; he explains that Robespierre shared the admiration for Christ felt by Rousseau's Vicar Savoyard and that he feared the evil effect on the powers of Europe of the Convention's anti-religious policy. M. Mathiez on the other hand considers that Robespierre did not condemn the dechristianization in principle; that he knew the common hostility to the Committee of Public Safety of Moderates such as Thuriot and enthusiasts like Hébert; and that on the information of Basire and Chabot he suspected both parties of having furthered the fanatical measures of dechristianization only to discredit the Convention abroad and thus more easily to plot with the powers hostile to France. Robespierre's true intentions are still an historical problem. On 6 April, 1794, he commissioned Couthon to propose in the name of the Committee of Public Safety that a feast be instituted in honour of the Supreme Being, and on 7 May Robespierre himself outlined in a long speech the plan of the new religion. He explained that from the religious and Republican standpoint the idea of a Supreme Being was advantageous to the State, that religion should dispense with a priesthood, and that priests were to religion what charlatans were to medicine, and that the true priest of the Supreme Being was Nature. The Convention desired to have this speech translated into all languages and adopted a decree of which the first article was: "The French people recognize the existence of a Supreme Being and the immortality of the soul". The same decree states that freedom of worship is maintained but adds that in the case of disturbances caused by the exercise of a religion those who "excite them by fanatical preaching or by counter Revolutionary innovations", shall be punished according to the rigour of the law. Thus the condition of the Catholic Church remained equally precarious and the first festival of the Supreme Being was celebrated throughout France on 8 June, 1794, with aggressive splendour. Whereas the Exagérés wished simply to destroy Catholicism, and in the temples of Reason political rather than moral doctrines were taught. Robespierre desired that the civic religion should have a moral code which he based on the two dogmas of God and the immortality of the soul. He was of the opinion that the idea of God had a social value, that public morality depended on it and that Catholics would more readily support the republic under the auspices of a Supreme Being.

The victories of the Republican armies, especially that of Fleurus (July, 1794), reassured the patriots of the Convention; those of Cholet, Mans, and Savenay, marked the checking of the Vendean insurrection. Lyons and Toulon were recaptured, Alsace was delivered, and the victory of Fleurus (26 June, 1794) gave Belgium to France. While danger from abroad was decreasing, Robespierre made the mistake of putting to vote in June the terrible law of 22 Prairial, which still further shortened the summary procedure of the Revolutionary tribunal and allowed sentence to be passed almost without trial even on the members of the Convention. The Convention took fright and the next day struck out this last clause. Montagnards like Tallien, Billaud-Varenne, and Collot d'Herbois, threatened by Robespierre, joined with such Moderates as Boissy d'Anglas and Durand Maillane to bring about the coup d'état of 9 Thermidor (27 July, 1794). Robespierre and his partisans were executed, and the Thermidorian reaction began. The Commune of paris was suppressed, the Jacobin Club closed, the Revolutionary tribunal disappeared after having sent to the scaffold the public accuser Fouquier-tinville and the Terrorist, Carrier, the author of the noyades (drownings) of Nantes. The death of Robespierre was the signal for a change of policy which proved of advantage to the Church; many imprisoned priests were released and many émigré priests returned. Not a single law hostile to Catholicism was repealed, but the application of them was greatly relaxed. The religious policy of the Convention became indecisive and changeable. On 21 December 1794, a speech of the constitutional bishop, Grégoire, claiming effective liberty of worship, aroused violent murmurings in the Convention, but was applauded by the people; and when in Feb., 1795, the generals and commissaries of the Convention in their negotiations with the Vendeans promised them the restoration of their religious liberties, the Convention returned to the idea supported by Grégoire, and at the suggestion of the Protestant, Boissy d'Anglas, it passed the Law of 3 Ventôse (21 Feb., 1795), which marked the enfranchisement of the Catholic Church. This law enacted that the republic should pay salaries to the ministers of no religion, and that no churches should be reopened, but it declared that the exercise of religion should not be disturbed, and prescribed penalties for disturbers. Immediately the constitutional bishops issued an Encyclical for the Establishment of Catholic worship, but their credit was shaken. The confidence of the faithful was given instead to the non-juring priests who were returning by degrees. These priests were soon so numerous that in April, 1795, the Convention ordered them to depart within the month under pain of death. This was a fresh outbreak of anti-Catholicism. With the fluctuation which thenceforth characterized it the Convention soon made a counter-movement. On 20 May, 1795, the assembly hall was invaded by the mob and the deputy Féraud assassinated. These violences of the Extremists gave some influence to the Moderates, and 30 May, at the suggestion of the Catholic, Lanjuinais, the Convention decreed that (Law of 11 Prairial) the churches not confiscated should be place at the disposal of citizens for the exercise of their religion, but that every priest who wished to officiate in these churches should previously take an oath of submission to the laws; those who refused might legally hold services in private houses. This oath of submission to the laws was much less serious than the oaths formerly prescribed by the Revolutionary authorities, and the Abbé Sicard has shown how Emery, Superior General of St. Sulpice, Bausset, Bishop of Alais and other ecclesiastics were inclined to a policy of pacification and to think that such an oath might be taken.

While it seemed to be favouring a more tolerant policy the Convention met with diplomatic successes, the reward of the military victories: the treaties of Paris with Tuscany, of the Hague with the Batavian Republic, of Basle with Spain, gave to France as boundaries the Alps, the Rhine, and the Meuse. But the policy of religious pacification was not lasting. Certain periods of the history of the Convention justify M. Champion's theory that certain religious measures taken by the Revolutionists were forced upon them by circumstances. The descent of the émigrés on the Breton coasts, to be checked by Hoche at Quiberon, aroused fresh attacks on the priests. On 6 Sept., 1795 (Law of 20 Fructidor), the Convention exacted the oath of submission to the laws even of priests who officiated in private houses. The Royalist insurrection of 13 Vendémiaire, put down by Bonaparte, provoked a very severe decree against deported priests who should be found on French territory; they were to be sentenced to perpetual banishment. Thus at the time when the Convention was disbanding, churches were separated from the State. In theory worship was free; the Law of 29 Sept., 1795 (7 Vendémiaire), on the religious policy, though still far from satisfactory to the clergy, was nevertheless an improvement on the laws of the Terror, but anarchy and the spirit of persecution still disturbed the whole country. Nevertheless France owes to the Convention a number of lasting creations: the Ledger of the Public Debt, the Ecole Polytechnique, the Conservatory of Arts and Crafts, the Bureau of Longitudes, the Institute of France, and the adoption of the decimal system of weights and measures. The vast projects drawn up with regard to primary, secondary and higher education had almost no results.

THE DIRECTORY

In virtue of the so-called "Constitution of the year III", promulgated by the Convention 23 Sept., 1795, a Directory of five members (27 Oct., 1795) became the executive, and the Councils of Five Hundred and of the Ancients, the legislative power. At this time the public treasuries were empty, which was one reason why the people came by degrees to feel the necessity of a strong restorative power. The Directors Carnot, Barras, Letourneur, Rewbell, La Reveillière-Lépeaux were averse to Christianity, and in the separation of Church and State saw only a means of annihilating the Church. They wished that even the Constitutional episcopate, though they could not deny its attachment to the new regime, should become extinct by degrees, and when the constitutional bishops died they sought to prevent the election of successors, and multiplied measures against the non-juring priests. The Decree of 16 April, 1796, which made death the penalty for, provoking any attempt to overthrow the Republican government was a threat held perpetually over the heads of the non-juring priests. That the Directors really wished to throw difficulties in the way of all kinds of religion, despite theoretical declarations affirming liberty of worship is proved by the Law of 11 April, 1796, which forbade the use of bells and all sorts of public convocation for the exercise of religion, under penalty of a year in prison, and, in case of a second offense of deportation. The Directory having ascertained that despite police interference some non-juring bishops were officiating publicly in Paris, and that before the end of 1796 more than thirty churches or oratories had been opened to non-juring priests in Paris, laid before the Five Hundred a plan which, after twenty days, allowed the expulsion from French soil, without admission to the oath prescribed by the Law of Vendémiaire, all priests who had not taken the Constitutional Oath prescribed in 1790, or the Oath of Liberty and Equality prescribed in 1792; those who after such time should be found in France would be put to death. But amid the discussions to which this project gave rise, the revolutionary Socialist conspiracy of Babeuf was discovered, which showed that danger lay on the Left; and on @5 Aug., 1796, the dreadful project which had only been passed with much difficulty by the Five Hundred was rejected by the Ancients.

The Directory began to feel that its policy of religious persecution was no longer followed by the Councils. It learned also that Bonaparte, who in Italy led the armies of the Directory from victory to victory, displayed consideration for the pope. Furthermore, the electors themselves showed that they desired a change of policy. The elections of 20 may, 1797, caused the majority of Councils to pass from the Left to the Right. Pichegru became president of the Five Hundred, a Royalist, Barthélemy, became one of the Five Directors. Violent discussions which took place from 26 June to 18 July, in which Royer-Collard distinguished himself, brought to the vote the proposal of the deputy Dubruel for the abolition of all laws against non-juring priests passed since 1791. The Directors, alarmed by what they considered a reactionary movement, commissioned General Augereau to effect the coup d'état of 18 Fructidor (4 Sept., 1797); the elections of 49 departments were quashed, two Directors, Carnot and Barthélemy, proscribed, 53 deputies deported, and laws against the émigré and non-juring priests restored to their vigour. Organized hunting for these priests took place throughout France; the Directory cast hundreds of them on the unhealthy shore of Sinnamary, Guiana, where they died. At the same time the Directory commissioned Berthier to make the attack on the Papal States and the pope, from which Bonaparte had refrained. The Roman Republic was proclaimed in 1798 and Pius VI was taken prisoner to Valence. An especially odious persecution was renewed in France against the ancient Christian customs; it was known as the décadaire persecution. Officials and municipalities were called upon to overwhelm with vexations the partisans of Sunday and to restore the observance of décadi. The rest of that day became compulsory not only for administrations and schools, but also for business and industry. Marriages could only be celebrated on décadi at the chief town of each canton.

Another religious venture of this period was that of Theophilanthropists, who wished to create a spiritualist church without dogmas, miracles, priesthood or sacraments, a sort of vague religiosity, similar to the "ethical societies of the United States." Contrary to what has been asserted for one hundred years, M. Mathiez has proved that Theophilanthropism was not founded by the director La Réveillière-Lépeaux. It was the private initiative of a former Girondin, the librarian Chemin Dupontés, which gave rise to this cult; Valentine Hauy, instructor of the blind and former Terrorist, and the physiocrat, Dupont de Nemours, collaborated with him. During its early existence, the new Church was persecuted by agents of Cochon, Minister of Police, who was the tool of Camot, and it was only for a short time, after the coup d'état of 18 Fructidor, that the the Theophanthropists benefited by the protection of La Réveillière. In proportion to the efforts of the Directory for the culte décadaire, the Theophilanthropists suffered and were persecuted; in Paris, they were sometimes treated even worse than the Catholics, Catholic priests being at times permitted to occupy the buildings connected with certain churches while the Theophilanthropists were driven out. On a curious memoir written after 18 Fructidor entitled "Des circonstances actuelles qui peuvent terminer la Revolution et des principes qui doivent fonder la Républic en France", the famous Madame de Stael, who was a Protestant, declared herself against Theophilanthropy; like many Protestants, she hoped that Protestantism would become the State religion of the Republic. Through its clumsy and odious religious policy the Directory exposed itself to serious difficulties. Disturbed by the anti-religious innovations, the Belgian provinces revolted; 6000 Belgian priests were proscribed. Brttany, Anjou. and Maine again revolted, winning over Normandy. Abroad the prestige of the French armies was upheld by were upheld by Bonaparte in Egypt, but they were hated on the Continent, and in 1799 were compelled to evacuate most of Italy. Bonaparte's return and the coup d'état of 18 Brumaire (10 November 1799) were necessary to strengthen the glory of the French armies and to restore peace to the country and to consciences.

TOURNEUX, Bibl. de l'hist. de Paris pendant la Révolution (Paris, 1896-1906); TUETEY, Répertoire des sources manuscrites de l'hist de Paris sous la Révolution, 7 vols. already published (Paris, 1896-1906); FORTESCUE, List of the three collections of books, pamphlets, and journals in the British Museum relating to the French Revolution (London, 1899).

Reprint of the Moniteur Universel (1789-99); the two collections in course of publication of Documents inédits sur l'hist. économique de la Révolution française; and Documents sur l'hist. de Paris pendant la Révolution française; the works of BARRUEL (q.v.); BOURGIN, La france et Rome de 1788 à 1797, regeste des dépêches du cardinal secrétaire d'état, tirée du fond des "Vescovi" des archives secrètes du Vatican (Paris, 1909), fasc. 102 of the Library of French Schools of Athens and Rome; among numerous memoirs on france on the eve of the Revolution may be mentioned: YOUNG, Travels in France, ed. BETHAM-EDWARDS (London, 1889); and on the Revolution itself: Mémoires de l'internounce Salamon, ed. BRIDIER (Paris, 1890); GOUVERNEUR MORRIS, Diary and Letters (New York, 1882); Un séjour en France 1792 à 1795, lettres d'un témoin de la Révolution française, tr. TAINE (Paris, 1883); the work of the famous BURKE, Reflections on the Revolution in France, ed, SELBY (London, 1890), remains an important criticism of Revolutionary ideas.

General Works — THIERS, Hist. de la Révolution française (tr. Paris, 1823-27); MIGNET, Hist. de la Révolution française (Paris, 1824); MICHELET, Hist. de la Révolution française (Paris, 1847-1853); LOUIS BLANK, Hist. de la Révolution française (Paris, 1847-1863; TOCQUEVILLE, L'ancien régime et la Révolution (Paris, 1856); TAINE, Les Origines de la France contemporaine: la Révolution (tr. Paris, 1878-84); SOREL, L'Europe et la Révolution française (Paris, 1885-1904); SYBEL, Gesch. der Revolutionszeit (Dusseldorf, 1853-57); CHUQUET, Les guerres de la Révolution (Paris, 1889-1902); AULARD, Hist. Politique de la Révolution française (Paris, 1901); IDEM, Etudes et leçons sur la Révolution française (Paris, 1893-1910); GAUTHEROT, Cours professés à l'Institut Catholique de Paris sur la Révolution française, a periodical begun at the end of 1910 and promising to be very important; MADELIN, La Révolution (Paris, 1911), a summary commendable for the exactness of its information and its effort at justice in the most delicate questions; The Cambridge Modern History, planned by the late LORD ACTON, II the French Revolution (Cambridge, 1904); MacCARTHY, The French Revolution (London, 1890-97); Ross, The Revolutionary and Napoleonic Era (Cambridge, 1907); LEGG, Select Documents Illustrative of the History of the French Revolution (Oxford, 1905); GIBBS, Men and Women of the French Revolution (London, 1905).

Monographs and Special Works — AULARD, Taine, historien de la Révolution française (Paris, 1907); COCHIN, La crise de l'hist révolutionaire: Taine et M. Aulard (Paris, 1909); BORD, La francmaçonnerie en France des origiines à 1815, bk. I, Les ouvriers de l'idée révolutionaire (Paris, 1909); IDEM, La conspiration révolutionnaire de 1789, les complices, les victimes (Paris, 1909); FUNCK-BRENTANO, Légendes et archives de la Bastille (Paris, 1898); MALLET, Mallet du Pan and the French Revolution (London, 1902); FLING, Mirabeau and the French Revolution (London, 1906); LENOTRE, Mémoires et souvenirs sur la Révolution et l'Empire (Paris, 1907-9); IDEM, Paris révolutionaire, vieilles maisons, vieux papiers (Paris, 1900-10); WARWICK, Robespierre and the French Revolution (Philadelphia, 1909); FUNCK-BRENTANO, Légendes et archives de la Bastille (Paris, 1898); BLIARD, Fraternité révolutionnaire, études et récits d'après des documents inédits (Paris, 1909); MORTIMER TERNAUX, Hist. de la Terreur (Paris, 1862-1881); WALLON, Hist. du tribunal révolutionnaire (Paris, 1880-2); IDEM, La journéedu 31 Mai et le fédéralisme en 1793 (Paris, 1886); IDEM, Les représentants en mission (Paris, 1888-90); DAUDET, Hist. de l'émigration pendant la Révolution (Paris, 1904-7); LALLEMAND, La Révolution et les pauvres (Paris, 1898); ALGER, Englishment in the French Revolution (London, 1889); DOWDEN, The French Revolution and English Literture (London, 1897); CESTRE, La Révolution française et les poètes anglais (Paris, 1906).

Religious History. — SICARD, L'ancien clergé de France II,III (Paris, 1902-3) IDEM, L'éducation morale et civique avant et pendant la Révolution (Paris, 1884); PIERRE DE LA GORCE, Hist. religieuse de la Révolution française I (Paris, 1909); MATHIEZ, rome et le clergé française sous la Constituante (Paris, 1911); IDEM, La théophilanthropie et le culte décadaire (Paris, 1904); IDEM, Contribution à l'histoire religieuse de la Révolution Française (Paris, 1907); IDEM, La Révolution et l'Eglise (Paris, 1910); AULARD, La Révolution française et les congrégations (Paris, 1911); IDEM, Le culte de la raison et le culte de l'Etre suprème (Paris, 1907); IDEM, Le culte de la séparation de 'Eglise et de l'Etat en 1794 (Paris, 1903); PIERRE, La Déportation ecclésiastique sous le Directoire (Paris, 1906).

GEORGES GOYAU

Rex Gloriose Martyrum

Rex Gloriose Martyrum, the hymn at Lauds in the Common of Martyrs (Commune plurimorum Martyrum) in the Roman Breviary. lit comprises three strophes of four verses in Classical iambic dimeter, the verses rhyming in couplets, together with a fourth concluding strophe (or doxology) in unrhymed verses varying for the season. The first stanza will serve to illustrate the metric and rhymic scheme:

Rex gloriose martyrum,
Corona confitentium,
Qui respuentes terrea
Perducis ad coelestia.

The hymn is of uncertain date and unknown authorship, Mone (Lateinische Hymnen des Mittelalters, III, 143, no. 732) ascribing it to the sixth century and Daniel (Thesaurus Hymnologicus, IV, 139) to the ninth or tenth century. The Roman Breviary text is a revision, in the interest of Classical prosody, of an older form (given by Daniel, I, 248). The corrections are: terrea instead of terrena in the line "Qui respuentes terrena"; parcisque for parcendo in the line "Parcendo confessoribus"; inter Martyres for in Martyribus in the line "Tu vincis in Martyribus"; "Largitor indulgentiæ" for the line "Donando indulgentiam". A non-prosodic correction is intende for appone in the line "Appone nostris vocibus". Daniel (IV, 139) gives the Roman Breviary text, but mistakenly includes the uncorrected line "Parcendo confessoribus". lie places after the hymn an elaboration of it in thirty-two lines, found written on leaves added to a Nuremberg book and intended to accommodate the hymn to Protestant doctrine. This elaborated form uses only lines 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 of the original. Two of the added strophes may be quoted here to illustrate the possible reason (but also a curious misconception of Catholic doctrine in the apparent assumption of the lines) for the modification of the original hymn:

Velut infirma vascula
Ictus inter lapideos
Videntur sancti martyres,
Sed fide durant fortiter.

Non fidunt suis meritis,
Sed sola tua gratia
Agnoscunt se persistere
In tantis cruciatibus.

H.T. HENRY

Rex Sempiterne Cælitum

The Roman Breviary hymn for Matins of Sundays and weekdays during the Paschal Time (from Low Sunday to Ascension Thursday). Cardinal Thomasius ("Opera omnia", II, Rome, 1747, 370) gives its primitive form in eight strophes, and Vezzosi conjectures, with perfect justice, that this is the hymn mentioned both by Cæsarius (died 542) and Aurelianus (died circa 550) of Arles, in their "Rules for Virgins", under the title "Rex æterne domine". Pimont (op. cit. infra, III, 95) agrees with the conjecture, and present-day hymnologists confirm it without hesitation. The hymn is especially interesting for several reasons. In his "De arte metrica" (xxiv) the Ven. Bede selects it from amongst "Alii Ambrosiani non pauci" to illustrate the difference between the metre of Classical iambics and the accentual rhythms imitating them. Ordinarily brief in his comment, he nevertheless refers to it (P. L., XC, 174) as "that admirable hymn . . . fashioned exquisitely after the model of iambic metre" and quotes the first strophe:

Rex æterne Domine,
Rerum Creator omnium,
Qui eras ante sæcula
Semper cum patre filius.

Pimont (op. cit., III, 97) points out that, in its original text, it is amongst all the hymns, the one assuredly which best evidences the substitution of accent for prosodical quantity, and that the (unknown) author gives no greater heed to the laws of elision than to quantity "qui eras", "mundi in primordio", "plasmasti hominem", "tuæ imagini", etc. The second strophe illustrates this well:

Qui mundi in primordio
Adam plasmasti hominem,
Qui tuæ imagini
Vultum dedisti similem.

Following the law of binary movement (the alternation of arsis and thesis), the accent is made to shorten long syllables and to lengthen short ones, in such wise that the verses, while using the external form of iambic dimeters, are purely rhythmic. Under Urban VIII, the correctors of the hymns omitted the fourth stanza and, in their zeal to turn the rhythm into Classical iambic dimeter, altered every line except one. Hymnologists, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, are usually severe in their judgment of the work of the correctors; but in this instance, Pimont, who thinks the hymn needed no alteration at their hands, nevertheless hastens to add that "never, perhaps, were they better inspired". And it is only just to say that, as found now in the Roman Breviary, the hymn is no less vigorous than elegant.

PIMONT, Les hymnes du bréviaire romain, III (Paris, 1884), 93-100, gives the old and the revised text, supplementary stanzas, and much comment. Complete old text with various Manuscript readings in Hymnarium Sarisburiense (London, 1851), 95, and in DANIEL, Thesaurus hymnol., I (Halle, 1841), 85 (together with Rom. Brev. text and notes). Text (8 strophes) With English version, notes, plainsong and other settings in Hymns, Ancient and Modern, Historical Edition (London, 1909), 205-7. Old text, with many Manuscript references and readings, and notes, in BLUME, Der Cursus s. Benedicti Nursini (Leipzig, 1909), 111-13 (cf, also the alphabetical index). For first lines of translations etc., JULIAN, Dict. of Hymnology (London, 1907), s. vv. Rex aeterne Domine and Rex sempiterne coelitum. To his list should be added BAGSHAWE, Breviary Hymns and Missal Sequences (London, 1900), 78, and DONAHOE, Early Christian Hymns (New York, 1908), 22. The translation in BUTE, The Roman Breviary (Edinburgh, 1879), is by Moultrie, an Anglican clergyman.

H. T. HENRY.

Anthony Rey

An educator and Mexican War chaplain, born at Lyons, 19 March, 1807; died near Ceralvo, Mexico, 19 Jan., 1847. He studied at the Jesuit college of Fribourg, entered the novitiate of that Society, 12 Nov., 1827, and subsequently taught at Fribourg and Sion in Valais, In 1840 he was sent to the United States, appointed professor of philosophy in Georgetown College, and in 1843 transferred to St. Joseph's Church in Philadelphia. He became assistant to the Jesuit provincial of Maryland, pastor of Trinity Church, Georgetown, and vice-president of the college (1845). Appointed chaplain in the U. S. Army in 1846, he ministered to the wounded and dying at the siege of Monterey amid the greatest dangers; after the capture of the city, he remained with the army at Monterey and preached to the rancheros of the neighbourhood. Against the advice of the U. S. officers, he set out for Matamoras, preaching to a congregation of Americans and Mexicans at Ceralvo. It is conjectured that he was killed by a band under the leader Canales, as his body was discovered, pierced with lances, a few days later. He left letters dating from November, 1846, which were printed in the "Woodstock Letters" (XVII, 149-50, 152-55, 157-59).

DE BACKER-SOMMERVOGEL, Bibliothèque, VI, 1689; APPLETONS' Cyclopedia of American Biography (New York, 1888), s. v.

N. A. WEBER

William Reynolds

(RAINOLDS, RAYNOLDS, REGINALDUS)

Reynolds, William, born. at Pinhorn near Exeter, about 1544; died at Antwerp, 24 August, 1594, the second son of Richard Rainolds, and elder brother of John Rainolds, one of the chief Anglican scholars engaged on the "Authorized Version" of the Bible. Educated at Winchester School, he became fellow of New College, Oxford (1560-1572). He was converted partly by the controversy between Jewel and Harding, and partly by the personal influence of Dr. Allen. In 1575 he made a public recantation in Rome, and two years later went to Douai to study for the priesthood. He removed with the other collegians from Douai to Reims in 1578 and was ordained priest at Chalons in April, 1580. He then remained at the college, lecturing on Scripture and Hebrew, and helping Gregory Martin in translating the Reims Testament. Some years before his death he had left the college to become chaplain to the Beguines at Antwerp. He translated several of the writings of Allen and Harding into Latin and wrote a "Refutation" of Whitaker's attack on the Reims version (Paris, 1583); "De justa reipublicæ christianæ in reges impios et hæreticos authoritate" (Paris, 1590), under the name of Rossæus; a treatise on the Blessed Sacrament (Antwerp, 1593); "Calvino-Turcismus" (Antwerp, 1597).

KIRBY, Annals of Winchester College (London, 1892); FOSTER, Alumni Ozonienses (Oxford. 1891); Douay Diaries (London, 1878); WOOD, Athenae Ozonienses (London, 1813); PITTS, De illustribus Angliae scriptoribus (Paris, 1619); DODD. Church History, II (Brussels vere Wolverhampton, 1737-42); GILLOW in Biog. Dict. Eng. Cath., s. v.; RIGG in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v. Rainolds.

EDWIN BURTON.

Rhætia

(RHÆTORUM).

Prefecture Apostolic in Switzerland; includes in general the district occupied by the Catholics belonging to the Rhæto-Romanic race in the canton of the Grisons (Graubünden). The prefecture is bounded on the north by the Prättigau, on the south by Lombardy, on the east by the Tyrol, on the west by the cantons of Tessin (Ticino), Uri, and Glarus. During the sixteenth century the greater part of the inhabitants of the Grisons became Calvinists. In 1621 Paul V, at the entreaty of Bishop John Flugi of Coire (Chur) and Archduke Leopold of Austria, sent thither Capuchin missionaries from Brixen in the Tyrol; the first superior was P. Ignatius of Cosnigo, who resided in the mission (1621-45) and conducted it under the title of prefect Apostolic. The best known of the missionaries is St. Fidelis of Sigmaringen, who was martyred. After the death of P. Ignatius the mission was cared for by the Capuchin province of Brixen, represented in the mission by a sub-prefect. For a long time after the suppression of the religious orders by Napoleon, the mission was without an administrator; upon the restoration of the order, Capuchins from various provinces were sent into the mission. At present it is under the care of Capuchins of the Roman province. It has 22 parishes, in three of which the majority of inhabitants speak Italian; 52 churches and chapels; 40 schools for boys and girls; 7200 Catholics; 25 Capuchins. The prefect Apostolic lives at Sagens.

BÜCHI, Die kath. Kirche in der Schweiz (Munich, 1902), 89; Missiones Catholicae (Rome, 1907), 103; MAYER, Gesch. des Bistums Chur (Stans, 1907), not yet completed.

JOSEPH LINS.

Rhaphanæa

A titular see in Syria Secunda, suffragan of Apamea. Rhaphanæa is mentioned in ancient times only by Josephus (Bel. Jud., VII, 5, 1), who says that in that vicinity there was a river which flowed six days and ceased on the seventh, probably an intermittent spring now called Fououar ed-Deir, near Rafanieh, a village of the vilayet of Alep in the valley of the Oronte. The ancient name was preserved. At the time of Ptolemy (V, 14, 12), the Third Legion (Gallica) was stationed there. Hierocles (Synecdemus, 712, 8) and Georgius Cyprius, 870 (Gelzer, "Georgii Cyprii descriptio orbis romani", 44) mention it among the towns of Syria Secunda. The crusaders passed through it at the end of 1099; it was taken by Baldwin and was given to the Count of Tripoli ("Historiens des croisades", passim; Rey in "Bulletin de la Société des antiquaires de France", Paris, 1885, 266). The only bishops of Rhaphanæa known are (Le Quien, "Oriens christianus", II, 921): Bassianus, present at the Council of Nicæa, 325; Gerontius at Philippopolis, 344; Basil at Constantinople, 381; Lampadius at Chalcedon, 451; Zoilus about 518; Nonnus, 536. The see is mentioned as late as the tenth century in the "Notitia episcopatuum" of Antioch (Vailhé "Echos d'Orient", X, 94).

SMITH, Dict. of Gr. and Rom. geogr., s. v.; MÜLLER, notes on Ptolemy, ed. DIDOT, I, 973.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Joseph Gabriel Rheinberger

A composer and organist, born at Vaduz, in the Principality of Lichtenstein, Bavaria, 17 March, 1839; died at Munich, 25 Nov., 1901. When seven years old, he already served as organist in his parish church, and at the age of eight composed a mass for three voices. After enjoying for a short time the instruction of Choir-master Schmutzer in Feldkirch, he attended the conservatory at Munich from 1851 to 1854, and finished his musical education with a course under Franz Lachner. In 1859 he was appointed professor of the theory of music and organ at the conservatory, a position which he held until a few months before his death. Besides his duties as teacher he acted successively as organist at the court Church of St. Michael, conductor of the Munich Oratorio Society, and instructor of the solo artists at the royal opera. In 1867 he received the title of royal professor, and became inspector of the newly established royal school for music, now called the Royal Academy of Music. In 1877 he was promoted to the rank of royal court conductor, which position carried with it the direction of the music in the royal chapel. Honoured by his prince with the title of nobility and accorded the honorary degree of Doctor of Philosophy by the Munich University, Rheinberger for more than forty years wielded as teacher of many of the most gifted young musicians of Europe and America, perhaps more influence than any of his contemporaries. As a composer he was remarkable for his power of invention, masterful technique, and a noble, solid style. Among his two hundred compositions are oratorios (notably "Christoforus" and "Monfort"); two operas; cantatas for soli, chorus, and orchestra ("The Star of Bethlehem", "Toggenburg", "Klãrchen auf Eberstein" etc.); smaller works for chorus and orchestra; symphonies ("Wallenstein"), overtures, and chamber music for various combinations of instruments, Most important of all his instrumental works are his twenty sonatas for organ, the most notable productions in this form since Mendelssohn. Rheinberger wrote many works to liturgical texts, namely, twelve masses (one for double chorus, three for four voices a cappella, three for women's voices and organ, two for men's voices and one with orchestra), a requiem, Stabat Mater, and a large number of motets, and smaller pieces. Rheinbergen's masses rank high as works of art, but some of them are defective in the treatment of the text. Joseph Renner, Jr., has recently remedied most of these defects, and made the masses available for liturgical purposes.

KRAYER, Joseph Rheinberger (Ratisbon, 1911); RENNER, Rheinberger's Messen in Kirchen-musikalisches Jahrbuch (Ratisbon, 1909).

JOSEPH OTTEN

Rhesæna

A titular see in Osrhoene, suffragan of Edessa. Rhesæna (numerous variations of the name appear in ancient authors) was an important town at the northern extremity of Mesopotamia near the sources of the Chaboras (now Khabour), on the way from Carrhæ to Nicephorium about eighty miles from Nisibis and forty from Dara; Near by Gordian III fought the Persians in 243. Its coins show that it was a Roman colony from the time of Septimus Severus. The "Notitia dignitatum" (ed. Boecking, I, 400) represents it as under the jurisdiction of the governor or Dux of Osrhoene. Hierocles (Synecdemus, 714, 3) also locates it in this province but under the name of Theodosiopolis; it had in fact obtained the favour of Theodosius the Great and taken his name. It was fortified by Justinian. In 1393 it was nearly destroyed by Tamerlane's troops. To-day under the name of Râs-el-'Ain, it is the capital of a caza in the vilayet of Diarbekir and has only 1500 inhabitants. Le Quien (Oriens christianus, II, 979) mentions nine bishops of Rhesæna: Antiochus, present at the Council of Nicæa (325); Eunomius, who (about 420) forced the Persians to raise the siege of the town; John, at the Council of Antioch (444); Olympius at Chalcedon (451); Andrew (about 490); Peter, exiled with Sevenian (518); Ascholius, his successor, a Monophysite; Daniel (550); Sebastianus (about 600), a correspondent of St. Gregory the Great. The see is again mentioned in the tenth century in a Greek "Notitiæ episcopatuum" of the Patriarchate of Antioch (Vailhé, in "Echos d'Orient", X, 94). Le Quien (ibid., 1329 and 1513) mentions two Jacobite bishops: Scalita, author of a hymn and of homilies, and Theodosius (1035). About a dozen others are known.

Revue de l'Orient chrét. VI (1901), 203; D'HERBELOT, Bibl. orientale, I, 140; III, 112; RITTER. Erdkunde, XI, 375; SMITH, Dict. Greek and Roman Geogr., s. v., with bibliography of ancient authors; MÜLLER, notes on Ptolemy, ed. DIDOT, I, 1008; CHAPOT, La frontière de l'Euphrate de Pompée à la conquête arabe (Paris, 1907). 302.

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Rhinocolura

A titular see in Augustamnica Prima, suffragan of Pelusium. Rhinocolura or Rhinocorura was a maritime town so situated on the boundary of Egypt and Palestine that ancient geographers attributed it sometimes to one country and sometimes to the other. Its history is unknown. Diodorus Siculus (I, 60, 5) relates that it must have been founded by Actisanes, King of Ethiopia, who established there convicts whose noses had been cut off; this novel legend was invented to give a Greek meaning to the name of the town. Strabo (XVI, 781) says that it was formerly the great emporium of the merchandise of India and Arabia, which was unloaded at Leuce Come, on the eastern shore of the Red Sea, whence it was transported via Petra to Rhinocolura, It is identified usually with the present fortified village El Anish, which has 400 inhabitants, excluding the garrison, situated half a mile from the sea, and has some ruins of the Roman period. It was taken by the French in 1799, who signed there in 1800 the treaty by which they evacuated Egypt. To-day it and its vicinity are occupied by Egypt, after having been for a long period claimed by Turkey. The village is near a stream which bears its name (Wadi el-Arish), and receives its waters from central Sinai; it does not flow in winter, but is torrential after heavy rain. It is the "nahal Misraim", or stream of Egypt, frequently mentioned in the Bible (Gen., xv, 18, etc.), as marking on the south-west the frontier of the Promised Land. Instead of the ordinary translation of the Hebrew name, the Septuagint in Is., xxvii, 12, render it by Hrinokoroura; see St. Jerome (In Isaiam, XXVII, 12 in P. L., XXIV, 313).

Le Quien (Oriens Christianus, II, 541) gives a list of thirteen bishops of Rhinocolura: the first does not belong to it. A Coptic manuscript also wrongly names a bishop said to have assisted in 325 at the Council of Nice. The first authentic titular known is St. Melas, who suffered exile under Valens and is mentioned on 16 January in the Roman Martyrology. He was succeeded by his brother Solon. Polybius was the disciple of St. Epiphanius of Cyprus, whose life he wrote. Hermogenes assisted at the Council of Ephesus (431), was sent to Rome by St. Cyril, and received many letters from his suffragan St. Isidore. His successor Zeno defended Eutyches at the Second Council of Ephesus (451). Other bishops were: Alphius, the Massalian heretic; Ptolemy, about 460, Gregory, 610. Of the other bishops on the list one did not belong to Rhinocolura; the other three are Coptic heretics.

RELAND, Palæstina, 285, 969 sq.; SMITH, Dict. Greek and Roman Geogr., s. v.; MÜLLER, notes on Ptolemy, ed. DIDOT, 1, 683; VIGOUROUX, Dict. de la Bible, s. v. Egypte (torrent ou ruisseau d'); AMÉLINEAU, Géoqraphie de l'Egypte à l'époque copte, 404; RITTER, Erdkunde, XVI, 143; XVI, 39, 41.

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Rhithymna

(RHETHYMNA)

A titular see of Crete, suffragan of Gortyna, mentioned by Ptolemy, III, 15, Pliny, IV, 59, and Stephen of Byzantium. Nothing is known of its ancient history but some of its coins are extant. It still exists under the Greek name of Rhethymnon (Turkish, Resmo, It. and Fr. Retimo). It is a small port on the north side of the island thirty-seven miles south-west of Candia; it has about 10,000 inhabitants (half Greeks, half Mussulmans), and some Catholics who have a church and school. Rhithymna exports oil and soap. During the occupation of Crete by the Venetians it became a Latin see. According to Corner (Creta sacra, II, 138 sq.), this see is identical with Calamona. For a list of twenty-four bishops (1287 to 1592) see Eubel (Hier. cath. med. ævi, I, 161; II, 128; III, 161). Three other names are mentioned by Corner from 1611 to 1641. The Turks who had already ravaged the city in 1572, captured it again in 1646. At present the Greeks have a bishop there who bears the combined titles of Rhethymnon and Aulopotamos. The date of the foundation of the see is unknown. It is not mentioned in the Middle Ages in any of the Greek "Notitiæ episcopatuum".

SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geogr., s. v.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Rhizus

( Rizous.)

A titular see of Pontus Polemoniacus suffragan of Neocaesarea, mentioned by Ptolemy (V, 6) as a port on the Black Sea (Euxine); it is referred to also in other ancient geographical documents, but its history is unknown, Procopius ("De bello gothico", IV, 2), tells us that the town was of some importance and that it was fortified by Justinian. He calls it Rhizaion, and it is so styled in the "Notitiæ Episcopatuum". It was originally a suffragan of Neocaesarea, then an "autocephalous" archdiocese, finally a metropolitan see; the dates of these changes are uncertain. With the decrease of the Christian element the suffragan has become a simple exarchate. To-day there are no more than 400 Greeks among the 2000 inhabitants of Rizeh, as the Turks call the town. It is the capital of the Sanjak of Lazistan in the Vilayet of Trebizond, and exports oranges and lemons. Le Quien (Oriens christianus, I, 517), mentions three bishops; Nectarius, present at the Council of Nice, 787; John, at the Council of Constantinople, 879, and Joachim (metropolitan) in 1565.

SMITH, Dict. Greek and Roman Geogr., s. v.; MÜLLER, Notes on Ptolemy, ed. DIDOT, I, 868.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Giacomo Rho

Missionary, born at Milan, 1593; died at Peking 27 April, 1638. He was the son of a noble and learned jurist, and at the age of twenty entered the Society of Jesus. While poor success attended his early studies, he was later very proficient in mathematics. After his ordination at Rome by Cardinal Bellarmine, he sailed in 1617 for the Far East with forty-four companions. After a brief stay at Goa he proceeded to Macao where, during the siege of that city by the Dutch, he taught the inhabitants the use of artillery and thus brought about its deliverance. This service opened China to him. He rapidly acquired the knowledge of the native language and was summoned in 1631 by the emperor to Peking for the reform of the Chinese calendar. With Father Schall he worked to the end of his life at this difficult task. When he died, amidst circumstances exceptionally favourable to the Catholic mission, numerous Chinese officials attended his funeral. He left works relative to the correction of the Chinese calendar, to astronomical and theological questions.

DE BACKER-SOMMERVOGEL, Biblioth. de la Comp. de Jésus, VI (9 vols., Brussels and Paris, 1890-1900), 1709-11; HUC, Christianity in China, Tartary and Thibet, II (tr. New York, 1884), 265-66.

N. A. WEBER.

Rhode Island

The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, one of the thirteen original colonies, is in extent of territory (land area, 1054 square miles), the smallest state in the American union. It includes the Island of Rhode Island, Block Island, and the lands adjacent to Narragansett Bay, bounded on the north and east by Massachusetts, on the south by the Atlantic Ocean, and on the west by Connecticut.

The population, according to the United States Census of 1910, numbers 542,674. Providence, the capital, situated at head of Narragansett Bay, and having a population of 224,326, is the industrial centre of an extremely wealthy and densely populated district.

Rhode Island has long since ranked as chiefly a manufacturing state, although the agricultural interest in certain sections are still considerable. The agriculture in Rhode Island has not kept pace with manufacturers is illustrated by instances of rural population. Two country towns have fewer inhabitants than in 1748; two others, but a few more than at that date; one town, less than in 1782; two, less than in 1790, and another, less than in 1830. Coal exists and has been mined, but it is of graphitic nature. Granite of high grade is extensively quarried. The value of stone quarried in 1902 was $734,623; the value of all other minerals produced, $39,998. The power supplied by the rivers gave early impetus to manufacturing are general, including cotton, woolen, and rubber goods, jewelry, silverware, machinery and tools. In 1905 there were 1617 manufacturing establishments with a total capitalization of $215,901,375; employing 97,318 workers with a payroll of $43,112,637, and an output of the value of $202,109,583. The total assets of banks and trust companies in June, 1909, were $252,612,122. The bonded State debt,1 Jan., 1910, was $4,800,000 with a sinking fund of $654,999. The direct foreign commerce is small, imports in 1908 being $1,499,116 and exports $21,281. The population of Rhode Island in 1708 was 7181. In 1774 it had increased to 59,707, subsequently decreasing until in 1782 it was 52,391. Thereafter until 1840 the average annual increase was 973; and from 1840 to 1860, 3289.

During the latter period and for several years afterward came a heavy immigration from Ireland, followed by a large influx from Canada. For the last twenty-five years, the increase from European countries, especially Italy, has been great. According to the State census of 1095, the number of foreign-born in Rhode Island is as follows; born in Canada, 38,500; in Ireland, 32,629; In England, 24,431; In Italy, 18,014; In Sweden, 7201; In Scotland, 5649; in Portugal, 5293; In Russia, 4505; in Germany, 4463; in Poland, 4104. This classification does not distinguish the Jews, who are rapidly increasing, and who in 1905 numbered 14,570.

HISTORY

A. Political

It is probable that Verrazano, sailing under the French flag, visited rhode Island waters in 1524. A dutch navigator, Adrian Block, in 1614 explored Narragansett Bay and gave to Block Island the name it bears. The sentence of banishment of Roger Williams from Plymouth Colony was passed in 1635, and in the following year he settled on the site of Providence, acquiring land by purchase from the Indians. One cause of Williams's banishment was his protest against the interference of civil authorities in religious matters. In November, 1637, William Coddington was notified to eave Massachusetts. With the help f of Williams, he settled on the site of Portsmouth, in the northerly part of the island of Rhode Island, which was then call Aquidneck. Disagreements arising at Portsmouth, Coddington, with a minority of his townsmen, in 1639 moved southward on the island and began the settlement of New port. Samuel Gorton, another refugee from Massachusetts, in 1638 came first to Portsmouth, and later to Providence, creating discord at both places by denying all power in the magistrates. Gorton finally, in 1643, purchased from the Indians a tract of land in what is now the town of Warwick, and settled there. The four towns, Providence, Warwick, Portsmouth, and Newport, lying in a broken line about thirty miles in length, for many years constituted the municipal divisions of the colony. In 1644 Roger Williams secured from the English Parliament the first charter, which was accepted by an assembly of delegates from the four towns; and a bill of rights, and a brief code of laws, declaring the government to be "held by the common consent of all the free inhabitants", were enacted thereunder. In 1663 was granted the charter of Charles II, the most liberal of all the colonial charters. It ordained that no person should be in any way molested on account of religion; and created the General Assembly, with power to enact all laws necessary for the government of the colony, such laws being not repugnant to but agreeable as near as might be to the laws of England, "considering the nature and constitution of the place and people there"

The separate existence of the little colony was long precarious. Coddington in 1651 secured for himself a commission as governor of the islands of Rhode Island and Conanicut, but his authority was vigorously assailed, and his commission finally revoked. The Puritans in Massachusetts were no friends of the people of Rhode Island, and portions of the meagre territory were claimed by Massachusetts and Connecticut. Rhode Island, like the other colonies was threatened both in England and in America by those who favoured direct control by the English Government. Under the regime of Andros, Colonial Governor at Boston, the charter government was suspended for two years; and had the recommendations of the English commissioner, Lord Bellemont, been adopted, the charter government would have been abolished. In 1710 the colony first issued "bills of credit", paper money, which continued increasing in volume and with great depreciation in value, until after the close of the Revolution, causing and inciting bitter partisan and sectional strife, and at times leading to the verge of civil war. The advocates of this currency defended it on the ground of necessity, lack of specie, and the demand for some medium to pay the expenses os successive wars. In 1787 the State owed £150,047, English money, on interest-bearing notes, which in 1789 the Assembly voted to retire by paying them in paper money then passing at the ratio of twelve to one. By the early part of the eighteenth century the people were extensively engaged in ship-building, and it is said that in the wars in America between Great Britain and France, Rhode Island fitted out more ships for service than any other colony.

The extraordinary measure of self-government granted to the colonists by the charter fostered in them a spirit of loyalty toward the mother country, substantially and energetically manifested on every occasion; but which, nevertheless, when the danger from the foreign foe was no longer imminent, was supplanted by a feeling of jealous apprehension of the encroachments on that the colonist s had now learned to regard as their natural rights. Rhode Island heartily joined the other colonies in making the Revolution her cause. In 1768 the Assembly ratified the Massachusetts remonstrance against the British principle of taxation, in spite of Lord Hillsborough's advice to treat it with "the contempt it deserves". The first overt act of the Revolution, the scuttling of the revenue sloop "Liberty", took place in Newport harbour, 19 July, 1769; followed three years later by the burning of the British ship of war "Gaspee" at Providence. A strong loyalist party in the colony for social and commercial reasons was anxious to avoid an open breach with the mother country, but the enthusiasm with which the news of Lexington was received showed that the majority of the people welcomed the impending struggle. on 4 May, 1776, the Rhode Island Assembly by formal act renounced its allegiance to Great Britain, and in the following July voted its approval of the Declaration of Independence. The colony bore its burden, too, of the actual conflict. From 1776 until 1779, the British occupied Newport as their headquarters, ruining the commerce of the town and wasting the neighbouring country. The evident strategic importance of the possession of Newport by the British, and the possibility of the place's becoming the centre of a protracted and disastrous war, created great alarm not only in the colony but throughout New England. Two attempts were made to dislodge the enemy, the second with the co-operation of the French fleet, but both failed. The levies of men and money were promptly met by the people of the colony in spite of the widespread privation and actual suffering. At last the British headquarters were shifted to the south, and the French allies Newport until the end of the war.

The same consideration, the instinct for local self-government, which prompted Rhode Island to resist the mother country, made her slow to join with the other colonies in establishing a strong centralized government. "We have not seen our way clear to do it consistent with our idea of the principles upon which we are all embarked together", wrote the Assemble to the President of Congress. The proposed federal organization seemed scarcely less objectionable than the former British rule. Rhode Island took no part in the Convention of 1787, and long refused even to submit the question of the adoption of the Constitution to a state convention. Eight times the motion to submit was lost in the Assemble, and it was only when it became evident that the other states did not regard Rhode Island's condition single independence as an "eligible" one, and where quite ready to act in support of their opinion even to the extent of parcelling her territory among themselves, that the Constitution was submitted to a convention and adopted by a majority of two votes, 29 May, 1790. Admitted to the Union, Rhode Island did not follow the example of most of the other states in framing a constitution adapted to the new national life, but continued under the old charter. This fact underlies here political history for the next fifty years. The charter of Charles II, though suitable to its time, was bound to become oppressive. First, it fixed the representation of the several towns without providing for a readjustment to accord with the relative changes therein. Hence, the natural and social forces, necessarily operating in the course of two hundred years to enlarge some communities and to reduce others, failed to find a corresponding political expression. Again, the charter had conferred the franchise upon the "freemen" of the towns, leaving to the Assemble the task of defining the term. From early colonial days the qualification had fluctuated until in 1798 it was fixed at the ownership of real estate to the value of $134, or of $7 annual rental (the eldest sons of freeholders being also eligible). Agitation for a constitution began as soon as Rhode Island had entered the Union, and continued for many years with little result. It came to a head ultimately in 1841 in the Dorr Rebellion, the name given to that movement whereby a large part in the state, under the leadership of Thomas W. Dorr of Providence, proceeded to frame a constitution, independently of the existing government and to elect officers thereunder. The movement was readily put down by the authorities after some display of force, and Dorr was obliged to flee the state. Returning later, he was indicted for treason, convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He was pardoned and set at liberty within a year. His work was not a failure, however, for in 1842 a constitution was adopted incorporating his proposed reforms. A personal property qualification was instituted, practically equivalent to the real estate qualification; and neither was required, except in voting upon an proposition to impose a tax or to expend money, or for the election of the City Council of Providence. The personal property qualification was not available, to foreign-born citizens, and this discrimination persisted until 1888, when it was abolished by constitutional amendment. Each town and city was entitled to one member in the Senate; and the membership of the Lower House, limited to seventy-two, was apportioned among the towns and cities on the basis of population, with the proviso that now town or city should have more than one-sixth of the total membership. In 1909, an amendment was adopted increasing the membership of the Lower House to one hundred, apportioned as before among the towns and cities on the basis of population, with the proviso that no town or city should have more than one-fourth of the total membership. It is significant that under this amendment the City of Providence has twenty-five representatives whereas its population warrants forty-one. In the same year, the veto power was for the first time bestowed upon the governor. Notwithstanding these approaches toward a republican form of government, there is a strong demand for a thorough revision of the Constitution. According to an opinion of the Supreme Court a constitutional convention is out of the question, inasmuch as the Constitution itself contains no provision therefor (In re The Constitutional Convention, IIV R. I., 469), and the only hope of reform seems to be in the slow and difficult process of amendment.

B. Religious

The earliest settlers in this state were criticized by their enemies for lack of religion. Cotton Mather described them as a "colluvies" of everything but Roman Catholics and real Christians. In Providence Roger Williams was made pastor of the first church, the beginning of the present First Baptist Church. In 1739 there were thirty-three churches in the colony; twelve Baptist, ten Quaker, six Congregational or Presbyterian, and five Episcopalian. It is said that in 1680 there was not one Catholic in the colony, and for a long period their number must have been small. In 1828 there were probably less than 1000 Catholics in the state. In that year Bishop Fenwick of Boston assigned Rev. Robert Woodley to a "parish" which included all of Rhode Island and territory to the east in Massachusetts. A church was built in Pawtucket in 1829. Father Woodley in 1828 acquired in Newport a lot and building which was used for a church and school. In 1830 Rev. John Corry was assigned to Taunton and Providence, and built a church in Taunton in that year. The first Catholic church in Providence was built in 1837 on the site of the present cathedral. At that time Father Corry was placed in charge of Providence alone. From 1844 to 1846 the mission of Rev. James Fitton included Woonsocket, Pawtucket, Crompton and Newport, a series of districts extending the length of the state. In 1846, Newport was made a parish by itself. Woonsocket received a pastor at about the same time; Pawtucket in 1847; Warren in 1851; Pascoag in 1851; East Greenwich in 1853; Georgiaville in 1855. These parishes were not confined to the limits of the towns or villages named, but included the surrounding territory. In 1844 the Diocese of Hartford was created, including Rhode Island and Connecticut, with the episcopal residence at Providence. At this time there were only six priests in the two states. In 1872 the diocese of Hartford was divided and the Diocese of Providence created, including all Rhode Island, and in Massachusetts, the counties of Bristol, Barnstable, Dukes and Nantucket, also the towns of Mattapoisset, Marion, and Wareham in the County of Plymouth. In 1904 the Diocese of Fall River was created, leaving the Diocese of Providence coextensive with the state. After 1840, and especially following the famine in Ireland, the Irish increased with great rapidity and long formed the bulk of the Catholic population. The growth of cotton manufactures after the Civil War drew great numbers of Canadian Catholics. In more recent years Italians have settled in Rhode Island in great numbers, and many Polish Catholics. Included in the Catholic population are approximately 65,000 Canadians and French, 40,000 Italians, 10,000 Portuguese,8000 Poles, and 1000 Armenians and Syrians. According to a special government report on the census of religious bodies of the United States, 76.5 per cent, of the population of the City of Providence are Catholics. There are 199 priests in the diocese, including about 47 Canadian and French priests, 8 Italian, and 5 Polish priests. Thirty parishes support parochial schools. Under Catholic auspices are two orphan asylums, one infant asylum, two hospitals, one home for the aged poor, one industrial school, one house for working boys, and two houses for working girls.

The first Catholic governor of the State was James H. Higgins, a Democrat, who was elected for two terms, 1907, 1908. He was succeeded by Aram J. Pothier, A Catholic, and a Republican.

The State census of 1905 gives the following statistics of religious denominations:

• Catholic: 200,00 members (76 churches)
• Protestant Episcopal: 15,441 members (68 churches)
• Baptist: 14,761 members (75 churches)
• Methodist Episcopal: 5,725 members (45 churches)
• Congregationalist: 9,738 members (42 churches)
• Lutheran: 2,217 members (12 churches)
• Free Baptist: 3,306 members (30 churches)
• Presbyterian: 993 members (4 churches)
• Universalist: 1,166 members (9 churches)
• Unitarian: 1,000 members (4 churches)
• Seventh Day Baptist: 1,040 members (5 churches)
• Friends: 915 members (7 churches)

Value of property owned by certain denominations is stated as follows: Protestant Episcopal, $1,957,518; Congregational, $1,417,089; Baptist, $1,124,348; Methodist Episcopal, $624,900; Unitarian $280,000; Universalist, $259,000; Free Baptist, $242,000.

Education

Provision was made for a public school in New port in 1640. State supervision of public schools was not inaugurated until 1828. The number of pupils enrolled in public schools in 1907 was 74,065, and the number of teachers employed, 2198. The State maintains an agricultural college, a normal school, a school for the deaf, a home and school for dependent children not criminal or vicious, and makes provision for teaching the blind. Schools are supported mainly by the towns wherein they are located. The state appropriates annually $120,000 to be used only for teachers salaries, and to be divided among the towns and cities in proportion to school population, but no town may receive its allotment without appropriating at least an equal amount for the same purpose. Another appropriation is paid to towns maintaining graded high schools. This appropriation in 1910 was $26,500. The total amount expended on public schools in 1907, exclusive of permanent improvements, was $1,800,325, the number of school buildings was 528; and the valuation of school property, $6,550,172. The number of parochial school pupils in 1907 was 16,254; the total attendance of Catholic parochial schools and academies in 1910 was 17,440. These schools cost about $1,500,000, and their annual maintenance about $150,000. The average monthly expense per pupil in the public schools in 1907 was stated as $3.14. Allowing ten months for the school year, on the basis of that cost, the 16,254 parochial school pupils, if attending the public school, would have cost the State and towns $510,375. Providence is the seat of Brown University, a Baptist institution founded in 1764. The corporation consists of a Board of Trustees and a Board of Fellow. A majority of the trustees must be Baptists and the rest of the trustees must be chosen from three other prescribed Protestant denominations. A majority of the fellows including the president, must be Baptists; "the rest indifferently of any or all denominations". It is provided that the places of professors, tutors and all officers, the president alone excepted, shall be free and open to all denominations of Protestants. The total enrollment of the university for the academic year 1909-10 was 967, including the graduate department and the Women's College.

Legislation Affecting Religion

In 1657 the Assembly denied the demand of the commissioners of the United Colonies that Quakers should be banished from Rhode Island, and later passed a law that military service should not be exacted from those whose religious belief forbade the bearing of arms. The Charter of 1663 guaranteed freedom of conscience, and the colonial laws prohibited compulsory support of any form of worship. In 1663, Charles II wrote to the Assembly declaring that all men of civil conversation, obedient to magistrates though of differing judgments, might be admitted as freemen, with liberty to choose and be chosen to office, civil and military. In this communication it was voted that all those who should take an oath of allegiance to Charles II and were of competent estate, should be admitted as freemen; but none should vote or hold office until admitted by vote of the assembly. In the volume of laws printed in 1719, appeared a provision that all men professing Christianity, obedient to magistrates, and of civil conversation, though of differing judgments in religious matters, Roman Catholics alone excepted should have liberty to choose and be chosen to offices both civil and military. The date of the original enactment of this exception is not known. It was repealed in 1783. The State Constitution of 1842 guarantees freedom of conscience, and provides that no man's civil capacity shall be increased or diminished on account of his religious belief.

The Sunday law of Rhode Island, following the original English statute (Charles II, e. VII, sect. 1) differs from the law of most other states in that it forbids simply the exercise of one's ordinary calling upon the Lord's day; excepting of course works of charity and necessity. Hence a release given on Sunday has been held good (Allen v. Gardiner, VII, R.I. 22); and probably any contracts not in pursuance of one's ordinary calling would be sustained though made on Sunday. A characteristic exception exists in favour of Jews and Sabbatarians, who are permitted with certain restrictions, to pursue their ordinary calling on the first day of the week. Fishing and fowling, except on one's own property, and all games, sports, plays, and recreations on Sunday are forbidden. The penalty for the first violation of the statute is $5, and $10 for subsequent violations. Service of civil process on Sunday is void.

Witnesses are sworn with the simple formality of raising the right hand; or they make affirmation upon peril of the penalty for perjury. Judges assemblymen, and all State officers, civil and military, must take an oath of office. The substance of the oath is to support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution and laws of this State, and faithfully and impartially to discharge the duties of the office. The judges of the Supreme and Superior Courts also swear to administer justice without respect of persons, and to do equal right to the poor and to the rich. Lawyers, auditors and almost every city and town official take an oath office. Blasphemy is punished by imprisonment not exceeding two months or fine not exceeding $200; profane cursing swearing by fine not exceeding $5. New State and municipal governments are generally inaugurated with prayer.

Legal holidays include New Year's Day, Columbus Day, and Christmas. Good Friday is a Court holiday by rule of Court and a school holiday in Providence by vote of the school committee.

There is no statute or reported decision regarding evidence of statements made under the seal of confession. Should a question arise concerning this, it would have to be decided on precedent and on grounds of public policy. The sole statutory privilege is that accorded to communications between husband and wife; although the common law privilege of offers of compromise and settlement and of communications between attorney and client are recognized. Physicians may be compelled to disclose statements made to them by patients regarding physical condition.

Incorporation and Taxation

In 1869 an act was passed enabling the bishop of the Diocese of Hartford, with the vicar-general, the pastor and two lay members of any Catholic congregation in this State, to incorporate, and to hold the Church property of such congregation, by filing with the secretary of State an agreement to incorporate. This act was amended upon the creation of the Diocese of Providence. The property of all the organized and self-sustaining Catholic parishes is held by corporations so formed. The system furnishes a convenient means of continuing the ownership of the property of the respective parishes. In 1900 the bishop of the Diocese of Providence and his successors were created a corporation sole with power to hold property for the religious and charitable purposes of the Roman Catholic Church. Since 1883 there has existed an act enabling Episcopalian parishes to incorporate. Special chatters are freely granted when desired. There is a general law allowing libraries, lyceums and societies for religious charitable, literary, scientific, artistic, musical or social purposes to incorporate by filing an agreement stating the names of the promoters and the object of the corporation, and by paying a nominal charge. Such corporations may hold property up to $100,000 in value.

By general law, buildings for religious worship, and the land on which they stand, not exceeding one acre, so far as such land and buildings are occupied and used exclusively for religious or educational purposes, are exempt from taxation. The exemption does not apply to pastors' houses. The buildings and personal property of any corporation used for schools, academies, or seminaries of learning, and of any incorporated public charity, and the land, not exceeding one acre, on which such buildings stand, are exempt. School property is exempt only so far as it is used exclusively for educational purposes. Property used exclusively for burial purposes, hospitals, public libraries, and property used for the aid of the poor, are exempt.

Any church property other than that specified is taxed, unless it is in a form exempted by national law. Clergymen are exempt from jury and military duty.

Marriage and Divorce

Marriage between grandparent and grandchild, or uncle and niece, and between persons more closely related by blood, is void; as is marriage with a step-parent, with the child or grandchild or one's husband or wife, with the husband or wife of one's child or grandchild, and with the parent or grandparent of one's wife or husband. The statute contains no express requirement regarding the age of the parties contracting marriage, but it is a defence to an indictment for bigamy that the prior marriage was contracted when the man was under fourteen years of age, and the woman under twelve. Marriages among Jews are valid in law if they are valid under the Jewish religion. Marriages may be performed by licensed clergymen and by the judges of the Supreme and Superior Courts. Before marriage, parties must obtain a licence by personal application from the town clerk, or city clerk, or registrar; and a non-resident woman must obtain such licence at least five days previous to the marriage. The licence must be presented to the clergyman or judge officiating, who must make return of the marriage. Two witnesses are required to the marriage ceremony. Failure to observe the licence regulations will not invalidate the marriage provided either of the contracting parties supposes they have been complied with; but the noncompliance is punished by fine or imprisonment. Causes for divorce include adultery, extreme cruelty, wilful desertion for five years, or for a shorter time in the discretion of the Court, continued drunkenness, excessive use of opium, morphine, or chloral, neglect of husband to provide necessaries for this wife, and an other gross misbehaviour and wickedness repugnant to the marriage covenant. If the parties have been separated for ten years, the Court may in its discretion decree a divorce. Under the law of Rhode Island marriage is regarded as a status, pertaining to the citizen, which the State may regulate or alter. Hence a Court having jurisdiction over one of the parties to a marriage as a bona fide domiciled citizen of the State, may dissolve the marriage although the other party is beyond the jurisdiction; and such dissolution will be recognized by other states b virtue of the comity provision of the Federal Constitution (Ditson vs. Ditson, IV R.I. 87).

Liquor Laws, Corrections, etc.

A Constitutional amendment prohibiting the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquor was adopted in 1886, and repealed in 1889. At present Rhode Island is a local option state, the question of licence or no-licence being submitted annually to the voters of the several cities and towns. The licensing boards may in their discretion refuse any application. The number of licences in any town may not exceed the proportion of one licence to each 500 inhabitants. The owners of the greater part of the land within two hundred feet of any location may bar its licence. No licence can be granted for a location within two hundred feet, measured on the street, of any public or parochial school. Maximum and minimum licence fees are fixed by statute, and the exact sum is determined by the licensing boards. For retail licences the minimum fee is $300, and the maximum, $1000.

In the City of Cranston are located the "State institutions", so-called, including the State prison, the county jail, the State workhouse, a reform school for girls, and another for boys. The probation system is extensively employed, and in the case of juvenile offenders especially, the State makes every effort to prevent their becoming hardened criminals. Probation officers have the power of bail over persons committed to them. In proper cases, probation officers may provide for the maintenance of girls and women apart from their families. Capital punishment does not exist in the State except in cases where a life convict commits murder.

Wills disposing of personal property may be made by persons eighteen years of age or over; wills disposing of real estate, by persons twenty-one years of age or over. Probate clerks are required to notify corporations and voluntary associations of all gifts made to them by will. If a gift for charity is made by will to a corporation and the acceptance thereof would be ultra vires, the corporation may at once receive the gift, and may retain it on condition of securing the consent of the legislature within one year. It has been held that a legacy for Masses should be paid in full even if the estate were insufficient to pay general pecuniary legacies in full, on the ground that the gift for Masses is for services to be rendered and is not gratuitous, furthermore that a gift for Masses is legal and is not void as being a superstitious use (Sherman v. Baker, XX R.I., 446, 613).

Cemeteries are regulated to the extent that town councils may prevent their location in thickly populated districts, and for the protection of health may pass ordinances regarding burials and the use of the grounds. Desecration of graves is punished. Towns may receive land for burial purposes, and town councils may hold funds for the perpetual care of burial lots. Cemeteries are generally owned by corporations specially chartered, by churches and families.

Field, State of R.I. and Providence Plantations (Boston, 1902); Arnold, Hist. of R.I. (New York, 1860); Staples, Annals of Providence (Providence, 1843); Dowling, Hist. of the Catholic Church in New England (Boston, 1899); R.I. Colonial Records.

ALBERT B. WEST

Alexandre De Rhodes

A missionary and author, born at Avignon, 15 March, 1591; died at Ispahan, Persia, 5 Nov., 1660. He entered the novitiate of the Society of Jesus at Rome, 24 April, 1612, with the intention of devoting his life to the conversion of the infidels. He was assigned to the missions of the East Indies, and inaugurated his missionary labours in 1624 with great success in Cochin China. In 1627 he proceeded to Tongking where, within the space of three years, he converted 6000 persons, including several bonzes. When in 1630 persecution forced him to leave the country, the newly-made converts continued the work of evangelization. Rhodes was later recalled to Rome where he obtained permission from his superiors to undertake missionary work in Persia. Amidst the numerous activities of a missionary career, he found time for literary productions: "Tunchinensis historiæ libri duo" (Lyons, 1652); "La glorieuse mort d'André, Catéchiste . . ." (Paris, 1653); "Catechismus", published in Latin and in Tongkingese at Rome in 1658.

DE BACKER-SOMMERVOGEL, Biblioth. de la Comp. de Jésus, VI (9 vols., Brussels and Paris, 1890-1900), 1718-21; CARAYON, Voyages et Missions du P. Rhodes (Paris and Le Mans, 1854).

N. A. WEBER.

Rhodes

(RHODUS)

A titular metropolitan of the Cyclades (q. v.). It is an island opposite to Lycia and Caria, from which it is separated by a narrow arm of the sea. It has an area of about 564 sq. miles, is well watered by many streams and the river Candura, and is very rich in fruits of all kinds. The climate is so genial that the sun shines ever there, as recorded in a proverb already known to Pliny (Hist. natur., II, 62). The island, inhabited first by the Carians and then by the Phoenicians (about 1300 b.c.) who settled several colonies there, was occupied about 800 b.c. by the Dorian Greeks. In 408 b.c. the inhabitants of the three chief towns, Lindus, Ialysus, and Camirus founded the city of Rhodes, from which the island took its name. This town, built on the side of a hill, had a very fine port. On the breakwater, which separated the interior from the exterior port, was the famous bronze statue, the Colossus of Rhodes, 105 feet high, which cost 300 talents. Constructed (280) from the machines of war which Demetrius Poliorcetes had to abandon after his defeat before the town, it was thrown down by an earthquake in 203 B.C.; its ruins were sold in the seventh century by Caliph Moaviah to a Jew from Emesus, who loaded them on 900 camels. After the death of Alexander the Great and the expulsion of the Macedonian garrison (323 b.c.) the island, owing to its navy manned by the best mariners in the world, became the rival of Carthage and Alexandria. Allied with the Romans, and more or less under their protectorate, Rhodes became a centre of art and science; its school of rhetoric was frequented by many Romans, including Cato, Cicero, Cæsar, and Pompey. Ravaged by Cassius in 43 b.c. it remained nominally independent till a.d. 44, when it was incorporated with the Roman Empire by Claudius, becoming under Diocletian the capital of the Isles or of the Cyclades, which it long remained.

The First Book of Machabees (xv, 23) records that Rome sent the Rhodians a decree in favour of the Jews. St. Paul stopped there on his way from Miletus to Jerusalem (Acts, xxi, 1); he may even have made converts there. In three other passages of Holy Writ (Gen., x, 4; I Par., i, 7; Ezech., xxvii, 15) the Septuagint renders by Rhodians what the Hebrew and the Vulgate rightly call Dodanim and Dedan. If we except some ancient inscriptions supposed to be Christian, there is no trace of Christianity until the third century, when Bishop Euphranon is said to have opposed the Encratites. Euphrosynus assisted at the Council of Nicæa (325). As the religious metropolitan of the Cyclades, Rhodes had eleven suffragan sees towards the middle of the seventh century (Gelzer, "Ungedruckte. . . . Texte der Notitiæ episcopatuum", 542); at the beginning of the tenth century, it had only ten (op. cit., 558); at the close of the fifteenth, only one, Lerne (op. cit., 635), which has since disappeared. Rhodes is still a Greek metropolitan depending on the Patriarchate of Constantinople. On 15 August, 1310, under the leadership of Grand Master Foulques de Villaret, the Knights of St. John captured the island in spite of the Greek emperor, Andronicus II, and for more than two centuries, thanks to their fleet, were a solid bulwark between Christendom and Islam. In 1480 Rhodes, under the orders of Pierre d'Aubusson, underwent a memorable siege by the lieutenants of Mahomet II; on 24 October, 1522, Villiers de l'Isle Adam had to make an honorable capitulation to Solyman II and deliver the island definitively to the Turks. From 1328 to 1546 Rhodes was a Latin metropolitan, having for suffragans the sees of Melos, Nicaria, Carpathos, Chios, Tinos, and Mycone; the list of its bishops is to be found in Le Quien (Oriens christ., III, 1049) and Eubel (Hierarchia catholica medii ævi, I, 205; II, 148; III, 188). The most distinguished bishop is Andreas Colossensis (the archdiocese was called Rhodes or Colossi) who, in 1416 at Constance and 1439 at Florence, defended the rights of the Roman Church against the Greeks, and especially against Marcus Eugenicus. After the death of Marco Cattaneo, the last residential archbishop, Rhodes became a mere titular bishopric, while Naxos inherited its metropolitan rights. On 3 March, 1797 it became again a titular archbishopric but the title was thenceforth attached to the See of Malta. Its suffragans are Carpathos, Leros, Melos, Samos, and Tenedos. By a decree of the Congregation of the Propaganda, 14 August, 1897, a prefecture Apostolic, entrusted to the Franciscans, was established in the Island of Rhodes; it has in addition jurisdiction over a score of neighbouring islands, of which the principal are Carpathos, Leros, and Calymnos. There are in all 320 Catholics, while the island, the capital of the vilayet of the archipelago, contains 30,000 inhabitants. The Franciscans have three priests; the Brothers of the Christian Schools have established there a scholasticate for the Orient as well as a school; the Franciscan Sisters of Gemona have a girls' school. The most striking feature of the city, in addition to a series of medieval towers and fortifications, is the Street of the Knights, which still preserves their blason (Order of St. John) and the date of the erection of each house or palace; several of the mosques are former churches.

MEURSIUS, Creta, Cyprus, Rhodus (Amsterdam, 1675): CORONELLI, Isola di Rodi geographica, storica (Venice, 1702); LE QUIEN, Oriens christ., I, 923 30; PAULSEN, Commentatio exhibens Rhodi descriptionem macedonica oetate (Göttingsn, 1818); MENGE, Ueber die Vorgesch. der Insel Rhodus (Cologne, 1827): ROTTIERS, Description des monuments de Rhodes (Brussels, 1828); ROSS, Reisen auf den griech. Inseln, III, 70-113; IDEM, Reisen nach Kos, Halikarnassos, Rhodos (Stuttgart, 1840); BERG, Die Insel Rhodos (Brunswick, 1860); SCHNEIDERWIRTH, Gesch. der Insel Rhodos (Heiligenstadt. 1868); GUÉRIN, L'île de Rhodes (Paris, 1880); BILLIOTI AND COTTERET, L'île de Rhodes (Paris, 1891); BECKER, De Rhodiorum primordiis (Leipzig, 1882); TORR, Rhodes in Ancient Times (Cambridge, 1885); IDEM, Rhodes in Modern Times (Cambridge, 1887); SCHUMACHER, De Republica Rhodiorum commentatio (Heidelberg, 1886); VON GELDER, Gesch. der alten Rhodier (La Haye, 1900); SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geogr., s. v.; FILLION in VIGOUROUX, Dict. de la Bible, s. v.; Missiones catholicae (Rome, 1907).

S. VAILHÉ

Rhodesia

A British possession in South Africa, bounded on the north and north-west by the Congo Free State and German East Africa; on the east by German East Africa, Nyassaland, and Portuguese East Africa; on the south by the Transvaal and Bechuanaland; on the west by Bechuanaland and Portuguese West Africa. Cecil John Rhodes, to whom the colony owes its name, desired to promote the expansion of the British Empire in South Africa. The Dutch South African Republic and Germany were contemplating annexations in the neighbourhood of the Zambesi River. To thwart these enemies of unity without delay and without the aid of the British Parliament was the task to which Mr. Rhodes and his colleagues set themselves. Early in 1888 Lobengula, King of Matabeleland, entered into a treaty with Great Britain and on 30 October of the same year he granted to Rhodes's agents "the complete and exclusive charge over all metals and minerals" in his dominions. On 28 October, 1889, the British South Africa Company was formed under a royal charter. The company, on Lobengula's advice, first decided to open up Mashonaland, which lies north and west of Matabeleland and south of the Zambesi. In September, 1890, an expeditionary column occupied that country and, in the next four years, much was done to develop its resources. In 1893 the company, who questioned the right of the Matabele to make annual raids among their neighbours the Mashonas, came to blows with King Lobengula. Five weeks of active operations and the death of the king, probably by self-administered poison, brought the whole of Southern Rhodesia under the absolute control of the company.

After the war, the settlement and opening up of the country was carried on under the direction of Mr. Rhodes who, on the ruins of Lobengula's royal kraal at Bulawayo, built Government House, and in the vicinity, laid out the streets and avenues of what was intended soon to become a great city. At one time Bulawayo had a population of some 7000 white inhabitants and seemed to be fulfilling the dreams of its founder when its progress and that of the whole country was cut short by the cattle pest, the native rebellion of 1896, and by years of stagnation and inactivity consequent upon the Boer War. Its white population (1911) is 5200. Besides Southern Rhodesia the chartered company own the extensive teritories of North-western and North-eastern Rhodesia which lie north of the Zambesi and which, with the more populous southern province, cover an area of some 450,000 square miles and form a country larger than France, Germany, and the Low Countries combined. The black population is less than 1,500,000, while the whites hardly exceed 16,000. All the native tribes of Rhodesia belong to the great Bantu family of the negro race. Before the arrival of the pioneer columns the dominant race south of the Zambesi were the Matabele, an off-shoot of the Zulus, who conquered the country north of the Limpopo River in the middle of the last century. They formed a military caste which lived by war and periodical raids upon their weaker neighbours. The destruction of this military despotism was a necessary step to the evangelizing of the country. Before the arrival of the Matabele warriors the principal inhabitants of Southern Rhodesia were the Makaranga whose ancestors had formed the once powerful empire of Monomotapa. North-western Rhodesia or Barotseland is ruled partly by an administrator residing at Livingstone, near the Victoria Falls of the Zambesi and partly by its native King Lewanika, the chief of the Barotse, who has been heavily subsidised by the company. The predominant people in North-eastern Rhodesia are the Awemba and the Angoni whose raiding propensities and coöperation with the Arab slave drivers caused much trouble and expense until their definitive annexation by the company in 1894.

The earliest attempt to evangelize Matabeleland was made in 1879 when three Jesuit Fathers, travelling by ox-wagon, accomplished the journey of some twelve hundred miles between Grahamstown and Bulawayo. They were hospitably received by King Lobengula who had been assured by some resident traders that the missionaries had come for his people's good. He granted them a free passage through his dominions and allowed them to train his subjects in habits of industry but not to preach the Gospel of Christ which, as he well knew, would lead to drastic changes, not only in the domestic life of his people, but in his whole system of government. For some fourteen years the missionaries held their ground awaiting events and it was only through the conquest of the country by the company that free missionary work was rendered possible. It was during this period that Baron von Hubner, who was not without personal experience of South Africa, declared that he would never contribute a penny to the Zambesi Mission, since he thought it contrary to his duty to foster an enterprise doomed to failure and disaster. Events seemed to justify his prognostications, for the mission, owing to fever and the hardships of travel, seemed to be losing more workers than it made converts. In 1893, however, the power of Lobengula was broken and mission stations began to grow up in the neighbourhood of Salisbury, the capital, and of Bulawayo. In Matabeleland there are two mission stations, one at Bulawayo and the second at Empandeni, some sixty miles away. This last station owns a property of about one hundred square miles most of which formed the original grant of Lobengula and the title to which was confirmed by the company. The principal station among the Mashonas or Makaranga is Chishawasha, fourteen miles from Salisbury (founded in 1892). There are other stations of more recent date at Salisbury, Driefontein, Hama's Kraal, and Mzondo, near Victoria, all under the charge of the Jesuit Fathers. The Missionaries of Marianhill, recently separated from the Trappists, have two missions in Mashonaland at Macheke and St. Trias Hill. The Makaranga who are thus being evangelized from seven mission stations are the descendants of the predominant tribe who received the faith from the Ven. Father Gonçalo de Silveira in 1561. Among the Batongas, who owe a somewhat doubtful allegiance to King Lewanika in North-western Rhodesia, there are two Jesuit mission stations on the Chikuni and Nguerere Rivers. These missions are under the jurisdiction of the Jesuit Prefect Apostolic of the Zambesi, resident in Bulawayo. There are 35 priests, 30 lay brothers, and 83 nuns in charge of the missions. The Catholic native population is about 3000. For the missions of North-eastern Rhodesia see NYASSA, VICARIATE, APOSTOLIC OF. The land of the mission stations in Rhodesia is usually a grant from the Government made on condition of doing missionary work and is therefore inalienable without a special order in Council. Native schools, in some cases, are in receipt of a small grant from the Government. The Jesuit Fathers have one school for white boys (120) at Bulawayo, while the Sisters of the Third Order of St. Dominic have three: at Bulawayo (210), Salisbury (130) and Gwelo (40). These schools are undenominational and receive grants from the Government. Hence Catholics who were first in the field, have a very considerable share in the education of the country. New Government schools have been built recently in Salisbury, Bulawayo, and Gwelo and other places in order to meet the growing demand for education and they have, so far, succeeded in filling their school-rooms without taking many pupils from the schools managed by Catholics.

The chief source of information about the Zambesi Mission is the Zambesi Mission Record, issued quarterly (Roehampton, England); HENSMAN, A History of Rhodesia (London, 1900); HONE, Southern Rhodesia (London, 1909); HALL, Prehistoric Rhodesia (London, 1909); MICHELL, Life of C. J. Rhodes (2 vols., London, 1910).

JAMES KENDAL.

Rhodiopolis

A titular see of Lycia, suffragan of Myra, called Rhodia by Ptolemy (V, 3) and Stephanus Byzantius; Rhodiapolis on its coins and inscriptions; Rhodiopolis by Pliny (V, 28), who locates it in the mountains to the north of Corydalla. Its history is unknown. Its ruins may be seen on a hill in the heart of a forest at Eski Hissar, vilayet of Koniah. They consist of the remains of an aqueduct, a small theatre, a temple of Escalapius, sarcophagi, and churches. Only one bishop is known, Nicholas, present in 518 at a Council of Constantinople. The "Notitiæ episcopatuum" continue to mention the see as late as the twelfth or thirteenth century.

LE QUIEN, Oriens christianus, I, 991; SPRATT AND FORBES, Travels in Lycia, I, 166, 181; SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman geogr., s. v.

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Rhodo

A Christian writer who flourished in the time of Commodus (180-92); he was a native of Asia who came to Rome where he was a pupil of Tatian's. He wrote several books, two of which are mentioned by Eusebius (Hist. eccl., V, xiii), viz., a treatise on "The Six Days of Creation" and a work against the Marcionites in which he dwelled upon the various opinions which divided them. Eusebius, upon whom we depend exclusively for our knowledge of Rhodo, quotes some passages from the latter work, in one of which an account is given of the Marcionite Apelles. St. Jerome (De vir. ill.) amplifies Eusebius's account somewhat by making Rhodo the author of a work against the Cataphrygians -- probably he had in mind an anonymous work quoted by Eusebius a little later (op. cit., V, xvi).

HARNACK, Altchrist Lit., p . 599; BARDENHEWER, Patrology (tr. SHAHAN, St. Louis, 1908), 117.

F.J. BACCHUS

Rhosus

A titular see in Cilicia Secunda, suffragan to Anazarba. Rhosus or Rhossus was a seaport situated on the Gulf of Issus, now Alexandretta, southwest of Alexandria (Iskenderoun or Alexandretta). It is mentioned by Strabo (XIV, 5; XVI, 2), Ptolemy (V, 14), Pliny (V, xviii, 2), who place it in Syria, and by Stephanus Byzantius; later by Hierocles (Synecd. 705, 7), and George of Cyprus (Descriptio orbis romani, 827), who locate it in Cilicia Secunda. Towards 200, Serapion of Antioch composed a treatise on the Gospel of Peter for the faithful of Rhosus who had become heterodox on account of that book (Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.", VI, xii, 2). Theodoret (Philoth. Hist., X, XI), who places it in Cilicia, relates the history of the hermit Theodosius of Antioch, founder of a monastery in the mountain near Rhosus, who was forced by the inroads of barbarians to retire to Antioch, where he died and was succeeded by his disciple Romanus, a native of Rhosus; these two religious are honoured by the Greek Church on 5 and 9 February. Six bishops of Rhosus are known (Le Quien, "Or. Christ.", II, 905): Antipatros, at the Council of Antioch, 363; Porphyrius, a correspondent of St. John Chrysostom; Julian, at the Council of Chalcedon, 451; a little later a bishop (name unknown), who separated from his metropolitan to approve of the reconciliation effected between John of Antioch and St. Cyril; Antoninus, at the Council of Mopsuestra, 550; Theodore, about 600. The see is mentioned among the suffragans of Anazarba in "Notitiæ episcopatuum" of the Patriarchate of Antioch, of the sixth century (Vailhé in "Echos d'Orient", X, 145) and one dating from about 840 (Parthey, "Hieroclis synecd. et notit. gr. episcopat.", not. Ia, 827). In another of the tenth century Rhosus is included among the exempt sees (Vailhé, ibid 93 seq.). In the twelfth century the town and neighbouring fortress fell into the hands of the Armenians; in 1268 this castle was captured from the Templars by Sultan Bibars (Alishan, "Sissouan", Venice, 1899, 515). Rhosus is near the village of Arsous in the vilayet of Adana.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Rhymed Bibles

The rhymed versions of the Bible are almost entirely collections of the psalms. The oldest English rhymed psalter is a pre-Reformation translation of the Vulgate psalms, generally assigned to the reign of Henry II and still preserved in Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. The Bodleian Library, Oxford, has another Catholic rhyming psalter of much the same style, assigned epigraphically to the time of Edward II. Thomas Brampton did the Seven Penitential Psalms, from the Vulgate into rhyming verse in 1414; the Manuscript is in the Cottonian collection, British Museum. These and other pre-Reformation rhyming psalters tell a story of popular use of the vernacular Scripture in England which they ignore who say that the singing of psalms in English began with the Reformation. Sir Thomas Wyat (died 1521) is said to have done the whole psalter. We have only "Certayne Psalmes chosen out of the Psalter of David, commonly called the VII Penitential Psalmes, Drawen into English metre". Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey (died 1547), translated Pss. lv, lxxiii, lxxxviii into English verse. Miles Coverdale (died 1567) translated several psalms in "Goastly psalmes and spirituall songs drawen out of the Holy Scripture". The old Version of the Anglican Church, printed at the end of the Prayer Book (1562) contains thirty-seven rhyming psalms translated by Thomas Sternhold, fifty-eight by John Hopkins, twenty-eight by Thomas Norton, and the remainder by Robert Wisdom (Ps. cxxv), William Whittingham (Ps. cxix of 700 lines) and others. Sternhold's psalms had been previously published (1549). Robert Crowley (1549) did the entire psalter into verse. The Seven Penitential Psalms were translated by very many; William Hunnis (1583) entitles his translation, with quaint Elizabethan conceit, "Seven Sobs of a Sorrowful Soul for Sinne". During the reign of Edward VI, Sir Thomas Smith translated ninety-two of the psalms into English verse, while imprisoned in the Tower. A chaplain to Queen Mary, calling himself the "symple and unlearned Syr William Forrest, preeiste", did a poetical version of fifty psalms (1551). Matthew Parker (1557), later Archbishop of Canterbury, completed a metrical psalter. The Scotch had their Psalmes buickes from 1564. One of the most renowned of Scotch versifiers of the Psalms was Robert Pont (1575). Zachary Boyd, another Scotchman, published the Psalms in verse early in the seventeenth century. Of English rhyming versifications of the Psalms, the most charming are those of Sir Philip Sidney (d. 1586) together with his sister, Countess of Pembroke. This complete psalter was not published till 1823. The rich variety of the versification is worthy of note; almost all the usual varieties of lyric metres of that lyric age are called into requisition and handled with elegance.

The stately and elegant style of Lord Bacon is distinctive of his poetical paraphrases of several psalms. Richard Verstegan, a Catholic, published a rhyming version of the Seven Penitential Psalms (1601). George Sandys (1636) published a volume containing a metrical version of other parts of the Bible together with "a Paraphrase upon the Psalmes of David, set to new Tunes for Private Devotion, and a Thorow Base for Voice and Instruments"; his work is touching in its simplicity and unction. The Psalm Books of the various Protestant churches are mostly rhyming versions and are numerous: New England Psalm Book (Boston, 1773); Psalm Book of the Reformed Dutch Church in North America (New York, 1792); The Bay Psalm Book (Cambridge, 1640). Noteworthy also, among the popular and more recent rhymed psalters are: Brady and Tate (poet laureate), "A new Version of the Psalms of David" (Boston, 1762); James Merrick, "The Psalms in English Verse" (Reading, England, 1765); I. Watts, "The Psalms of David" (27th ed., Boston, 1771); J. T. Barrett, "A Course of Psalms" (Lambeth, 1825); Abraham Coles, "A New Rendering of the Hebrew Psalms into English Verse" (New York, 1885); David S. Wrangham, "Lyra Regis" (Leeds, 1885); Arthur Trevor Jebb "A Book of Psalms" (London, 1898). Such are the chief rhyming English psalters. Other parts of Holy Writ done into rhyming English verse are: Christopher Tye's "The Acts of the Apostles translated into English Metre" (1553); Zachary Boyd's "St. Matthew" (early seventeenth cent.); Thomas Prince's "Canticles, parts of Isaias and Revelations" in New England Psalm Book (1758); Henry Ainswort, "Solomon's Song of Songs" (1642); John Mason Good's "Song of Songs" (London, 1803); C. C. Price's "Acts of the Apostles" (New York, 1845). The French have had rhyming psalters since the "Sainctes Chansonettes en Rime Française" of Clement Marot (1540). Some Italian rhymed versions of the Bible are: Abbate Francesco Rezzano, "II Libro di Giobbe" (Nice, 1781); Stefano Egidio Petroni, "Proverbi di Salomone" (London, 1815); Abbate Pietro Rossi, "Lamentazioni di Geremia, i Sette Salmi Penitenziali e il Cantico di Mose" (Nizza, 1781); Evasio Leone, "II Cantico de' Cantici" (Venice, 1793); Francesco Campana, "Libro di Giuditta" (Nizza, 1782).

Bibliotheca Sussexiana, II (London. 1839); WARTON, History of English Poetry (1774-81); HOLLAND, The Psalmists of Britain (London, 1843).

WALTER DRUM.

Rhythmical Office

I. DESCRIPTION, DEVELOPMENT, AND DIVISION

By rhythmical office is meant a liturgical horary prayer, the canonical hours of the priest, or an office of the Breviary, in which not only the hymns are regulated by a certain rhythm, but where, with the exception of the psalms and lessons, practically all the other parts show metre, rhythm, or rhyme; such parts for instance as the antiphons to each psalm, to the Magnificat, Invitatorium, and Benedictus, likewise the responses and versicles to the prayers, and after each of the nine lessons; quite often also the benedictions before the lessons, and the antiphons to the minor Horœ (Prime, Terce, Sext, and None).

The old technical term for such an office was Historia, with or without an additional " rhytmata" or rimata, an expression that frequently caused misunderstanding on the part of later writers. The reason for the name lay in the fact that originally the antiphons or the responses, and sometimes the two together, served to amplify or comment upon the history of a saint, of which there was a brief sketch in the readings of the second nocturn. Gradually this name was transferred to offices in which no word was said about a "history", and thus we find the expression "Historia ss. Trinitatis". The structure of the ordinary office of the Breviary in which antiphons, psalms, hymns, lessons, and responses followed one another in fixed order, was the natural form for the rhythmical office. It was not a question of inventing something new, as with the hymns, sequences, or other kinds of poetry, but of creating a text in poetic form in the place of a text in prose form, where the scheme existed, definitely arranged in all its parts. A development therefore which could eventually serve as a basis for the division of the rhythmical offices into distinct classes is of itself limited to a narrow field, namely the external form of the parts of the office as they appear in poetic garb. Here we find in historical order the following characters:

• (1) a metrical, of hexameters intermixed with prose or rhymed prose;
• (2) a rhythmical, in the broadest sense, which will be explained below;
• (3) a form embellished by strict rhythm and rhyme.

Consequently one may distinguish three classes of rhythmical offices:

• (1) metrical offices, in hexameters or distichs;
• (2) offices in rhymed prose, i. e., offices with very free and irregular rhythm, or with dissimilar assonant long lines;
• (3) rhymed offices with regular rhythm and harmonious artistic structure.

The second class represents a state of transition, wherefore the groups may be called those of the first epoch, the groups of the transition period, and those of the third epoch, in the same way as with the sequences, although with the latter the characteristic difference is much more pronounced. If one desires a general name for all three groups, the expression "Rhymed Office", as suggested by " Historia rimata"" would be quite appropriate for the pars major et potior, which includes the best and most artistic offices; this designation: " gereimtes Officium" (Reimofficium) has been adopted in Germany through the "Analecta Hymnica". The term does not give absolute satisfaction, because the first and oldest offices are without rhyme, and cannot very well be called rhymed offices. In the Middle Ages the word "rhythmical" was used as the general term for any kind of poetry to be distinguished from prose, no matter whether there was regular rhythm in those poems or not. And for that reason it is practical to comprise in the name "rhythmical offices" all those which are other than pure prose, a designation corresponding to the "Historia rhytmata".

Apart from the predilection of the Middle Ages for the poetic form, the Vitœ metricœ of the saints were the point of departure and motive for the rhythmical offices. Those Vitœ were frequently composed in hexameters or distichs. From them various couples of hexameters or a distich were taken to be used as antiphon or response respectively. In case the hexameters of the Vitœ metricœ did not prove suitable enough, the lacking parts of the office were supplemented by simple prose or by means of verses in rhymed prose, i. e., by text lines of different length in which there was very little of rhythm, but simply assonance. Such offices are often a motley mixture of hexameters, rhythmical stanzas, stanzas in pure prose, and again in rhymed prose. An example of an old metrical office, intermixed with Prose Responses, is that of St. Lambert (Anal. Hymn., XXVII, no. 79), where all the antiphons are borrowed from that saint's Vitœ metricœ, presumably the work of Hucbald of St. Amand; the office itself was composed by Bishop Stephen of Liège about the end of the ninth century:

Antiphona I:

Antiphona II:

A mixing of hexameters, of rhythmical stanzas, and of stanzas formed by unequal lines in rhymed prose is shown in the old Office of Rictrudis, composed by Hucbald about 907 (Anal. Hymn., XIII, no. 87). By the side of regular hexameters, as in the Invitatorium:

we find rhythmical stanzas, like the first antiphon to Lauds:

or stanzas in very free rhythm, as e. g., the second response to the first nocturn:

From the metrical offices, from the pure as well as from those mixed with rhymed prose, the transition was soon made to such as consisted of rhymed prose merely. An example of this kind is in the Offices of Ulrich, composed by Abbot Berno of Reichenau (d. 1048); the antiphon to the Magnificat of the first Vespers begins thus:

Much more perfectly developed on the other hand, is the rhythm in the Office which Leo IX composed in honour of Gregory the Great (Anal. Hymn., V, no. 64). This office, the work of a pope, appeared in the eleventh century in the Roman breviaries, and soon enjoyed widespread circulation; all its verses are iambic dimeters, but the rhythm does not as yet coincide with the natural accent of the word, and many a verse has a syllable in excess or a syllable wanting. For example, the first antiphon of the first nocturn:

This author does not yet make use of pure rhyme, but only of assonance, the precursor of rhyme. Hence we have before us an example of transition from offices of the first epoch to those of the second. With these latter the highest development of the rhythmical office is reached. It is marvellous how in many offices of this artistic period, in spite of all symmetry in rhythm and rhyme, the greatest variety exists in the structure of the stanzas, how a smooth and refined language matches the rich contents full of deep ideas, and how the individual parts are joined together in a complete and most striking picture of the saint or of the mystery to be celebrated. A prominent example is the Office of the Trinity by Archbishop Pecham of Canterbury.

The first Vespers begins with the antiphons:

1. Sedenti super solium
   Congratulans trishagium
   Seraphici clamoris
   Cum patre laudat filium
   Indifferens principium
   Reciproci amoris.
2. Sequamur per suspirium,
   Quod geritur et gaudium
   In sanctis cæli choris;
   Levemus cordis studium
   In trinum lucis radium
   Splendoris et amoris.

It is interesting to compare with the preceding the antiphons to the first nocturn, which have quite a different structure; the third of them exhibits the profound thought:

again the first response to the third nocturn:

upon which follows as second response the beautiful picture of the Trinity in the following form:

II. HISTORY AND SIGNIFICANCE

It cannot be definitely stated which of the three old abbeys: Prüm, Landévennec, or Saint-Amand can claim priority in composing a rhythmical office. There is no doubt however that Saint-Amand and the monasteries in Hainault, Flanders, and Brabant, was the real starting-point of this style of poetry, as long ago as the ninth century. The pioneer in music, the Monk Hucbald of Saint-Amand, composed at least two, probably four, rhythmical offices; and the larger number of the older offices were used liturgically in those monasteries and cities which had some connexion with Saint-Amand. From there this new branch of hymnody very soon found its way to France, and in the tenth and eleventh, and particularly in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, showed fine, if not the finest results, both in quality and quantity. Worthy of especial mention as poets of this order are: the Abbots Odo (927-42) and Odilo (994-1049) of Cluny, Bishop Fulbert of Chartres (1017-28), the Benedictine Monk Odorannus of Sens (died 1045), Pope Leo IX (died 1054); Bishop Stephen of Tournay (1192-1203); Archdeacon Rainald of St. Maurice in Angers (died about 1074); Bishop Richard de Gerberoy of Amiens (1204-10); Prior Arnaud du Prè of Toulouse (died 1306), and the General of the Dominican Order, Martialis Auribelli, who in 1456 wrote a rhymed office for the purpose of glorifying St. Vincent Ferrer. The most eminent poet and composer of offices belongs to Germany by birth, but more so to France by reason of his activity; he is Julian von Speyer, director of the orchestra at the Frankish royal court, afterwards Franciscan friar and choir master in the Paris convent, where about 1240 he composed words and music for the two well-known offices in honour of St. Francis of Assisi and of St. Anthony of Padua (Anal. Hymn., V, nos. 61 and 42). These two productions, the musical value of which has in many ways been overestimated, served as a prototype for a goodly number of successive offices in honour of saints of the Franciscan Order as well as of others. In Germany the rhymed offices were just as popular as in France. As early as in the ninth century an office, in honour of St. Chrysantus and Daria, had its origin probably in Prüm, perhaps through Friar Wandalbert (Anal. Hymn,, XXV, no. 73); perhaps not much later through Abbot Gurdestin of Landévennec a similar poem in honour of St. Winwalœus (Anal. Hymn., XVIII, no. 100). As hailing from Germany two other composers of rhythmical offices in the earlier period have become known: Abbot Berno of Reichenau (died 1048) and Abbot Udalschalc of Maischach at Augsburg (died 1150).

The other German poets whose names can be given belong to a period as late as the fifteenth century, as e. g. Provost Lippold of Steinberg and Bishop Johann Hofmann of Meissen. England took an early part in this style of poetry, but unfortunately most of the offices which originated there have been lost. Brilliant among the English poets is Archbishop Pecham whose office of the Trinity has been discussed above. Next to him are worthy of especial mention Cardinal Adam Easton (died 1397) and the Carmelite John Horneby of Lincoln, who about 1370 composed a rhymed office in honour of the Holy Name of Jesus, and of the Visitation of Our Lady. Italy seems to have a relatively small representation; Rome itself, i. e. the Roman Breviary, as we know, did not favour innovations, and consequently was reluctant to adopt rhythmical offices. The famous Archbishop Alfons of Salerno (1058-85) is presumably the oldest Italian poet of this kind. Besides him we can name only Abbot Reinaldus de Colle di Mezzo (twelfth century), and the General of the Dominicans, Raymundus de Vineis from Capua (fourteenth century). In Sicily and in Spain the rhymed offices were popular and quite numerous, but with the exception of the Franciscan Fra Gil de Zamora, who about the middle of the fifteenth century composed an office in honour of the Blessed Virgin (Anal. Hymn., XVII, no. 8) it has been impossible to cite by name from those two countries any other poet who took part in composing rhythmical offices. Towards the close of the thirteenth century, Scandinavia also comes to the fore with rhymed offices, in a most dignified manner. Special attention should be called to Bishop Brynolphus of Skara (1278-1317), Archbishop Birgerus Gregorii of Upsala (died 1383), Bishop Nicolaus of Linköping (1374-91), and Johannes Benechini of Oeland (about 1440). The number of offices where the composer's name is known is insignificantly small. No less than seven hundred anonymous rhythmical offices have been brought to light during the last twenty years through the "Analecta Hymnica". It is true not all of them are works of art; particularly during the fifteenth century many offices with tasteless rhyming and shallow contents reflect the general decadence of hymnody. Many, however, belong to the best products of religious lyric poetry. For six centuries in all countries of the West, men of different ranks and stations in life, among them the highest dignitaries of the Church, took part in this style of poetry, which enjoyed absolute popularity in all dioceses. Hence one may surmise the significance of the rhythmical offices with reference to the history of civilization, their importance in history and development of liturgy, and above all their influence on other poetry and literature.

BLUME AND DREVES, Analecta Hymnica medii œvi, V, XIII, XVII, XVIII-XXVI, XXVIII, XL Va, LII, appendix (Leipzig, 1889-1909); BÄUMER, Reimofficien, 356-64, in Gesch. des Breviers (Freiburg, 1895); BLUME, Zur Poesie des kirchlichen Stundengebetes, 132-45, in Stimmen aus Maria-Laach (1898); FELDER, Liturgische Reimofficien auf die hll. Franziskus und Antonius (Fribourg, 1901).

CLEMENS BLUME.

Pedro de Ribadeneira

(or RIBADENEYRA and among Spaniards often RIVADENEIRA)

Pedro De Ribadeneira was born at Toledo, of a noble Castilian family, 1 Nov., 1526 (Astrain, I, 206); died 22 Sept., 1611. His father Alvaro Ortiz de Cisneros, was the son of Pedro Gonzales Cedillo and grandson of Hernando Ortiz de Cisneros whom Ferdinand IV had honoured with the governorship of Toledo and important missions. His mother, of the illustrious house of Villalobos, was still more distinguished for her virtue than for her birth. Already the mother of three daughters, she promised to consecrate her fourth child to the Blessed Virgin if it should be a son. Thus vowed to Mary before his birth, Ribadeneira received in baptism the name of Pedro which had been borne by his paternal grandfather and that of Ribadeneira in memory of his maternal grandmother, of one of the first families of Galicia. In the capacity of page he followed Cardinal Alexander Farnese to Italy, and at Rome entered the Society of Jesus at the age of fourteen, on 18 Sept., 1540, eight days before the approval of the order by Paul III.

After having attended the Universities of Paris, Louvain, and Padua, where, besides the moral crises which assailed him, he often had to encounter great hardships and habitually confined himself to very meagre fare [he wrote to St. Ignatius (Epp. mixtæ, V, 649): "Quanto al nostro magnare ordinariamente é, a disnare un poco de menestra et un poco de carne, et con questo è finito"]. He was ordered in November, 1549, to go to Palermo, to profess rhetoric at the new college which the Society had just opened in that city. He filled this chair for two years and a half, devoting his leisure time to visiting and consoling the sick in the hospitals. Meanwhile St. Ignatius was negotiating the creation of the German College which was to give Germany a chosen clergy as remarkable for virtue and orthodoxy as for learning: his efforts were soon successful, and during the autumn of 1552 he called on the talent and eloquence of the young professor of rhetoric at Palermo. Ribadeneira amply fulfilled the expectations of his master and delivered the inaugural address amid the applause of an august assembly of prelates and Roman nobles. He was ordained priest 8 December, 1553 (Epp. mixtæ, III, 179); during the twenty-one years which followed he constantly filled the most important posts in the government of his order. From 1556 to 1560 he devoted his activity to securing the official recognition of the Society of Jesus in the Low Countries. At the same time he was charged by his general with the duty of promulgating and causing to be accepted in the Belgian houses the Constitutions, which St. Ignatius had just completed at the cost of much labour.

But these diplomatic and administrative missions did not exhaust Ribadeneira's zeal. He still applied himself ardently to preaching. In December, 1555 he preached at Louvain with wonderful success, and likewise in January, 1556, at Brussels. On 25 November of the same year he left Belgium and reached Rome 3 February, 1557, setting out again, 17 October for Flanders. His sojourn in the Low Countries was interrupted for five months (November, 1558 to March, 1559); this period he spent in London, having been summoned thither on account of the sickness of Mary Tudor, Queen of England, which ended in her death. In the summer of 1559 he was once more with his general, Lainez, whose right hand he truly was. On 3 November, 1560, he made his solemn profession, and from then until the death of St. Francis Borgia (1572) he continued to reside in Italy, filling in turn the posts of provincial of Tuscany, of commissary-general of the Society in Sicily, visitor of Lombardy, and assistant for Spain and Portugal. The accession of Father Everard Mercurian as general of the order brought a great change to Ribadeneira. His health being much impaired, he was ordered to Spain, preferably to Toledo, his native town, to recuperate. This was a dreadful blow to the poor invalid, a remedy worse than the disease. He obeyed, but had been scarcely a year in his native land when he began to importune his general by letter to permit him to return to Italy. These solicitations continued for several years. At the same time his superiors saw that he was as sick in mind as in body, and that his religious spirit was somewhat shaken. Not only was he lax in his religious observances, but he did not hesitate to criticize the persons and affairs of the Society, so much so that he was strongly suspected of being the author of the memoirs then circulated through Spain against the Jesuits (Astrain, III, 106-10). This, however, was a mistake, and his innocence was recognized in 1578. He it was who took upon himself the task of refuting the calumnies which mischief-makers, apparently Jesuits, went about disseminating against the Constitutions of the Society, nor did he show less ardour and filial piety in making known the life of St. Ignatius Loyola and promoting his canonization.

Outside of the Society of Jesus, Ribadeneira is chiefly known for his literary works. From the day of his arrival in Spain to repair his failing health until the day of his death his career was that of a brilliant writer. His compatriots regard him as a master of Castilian and rank him among the classic authors of their tongue. All lines were familiar to him, but he preferred history and ascetical literature. His chief claim to glory is his Life of St. Ignatius Loyola, in which he speaks as an eye-witness, admirably supported by documents. Perhaps the work abounds too much in anecdotal details which tend to obscure the grand aspect of the saint's character and genius (Analecta Bolland., XXIII, 513). It appeared for the first time in Latin at Naples in 1572 (ibid., XXI, 230). The first Spanish edition, revised and considerably augmented by the author, dates from 1583. Other editions followed, all of them revised by the author; that of 1594 seems to contain the final text. It was soon translated into most of the European languages. Among his other works must be mentioned his "Historia eclesiástica del Cisma del reino de Inglaterra" and the "Flos sanctorum", which has been very popular in many countries. Some unpublished works of his deserve publication, notably his History of the persecution of the Society of Jesus and his History of the Spanish Assistancy.

ASTRAIN, Historia de la Compañía de Jesús en le Asistencia de España (Madrid, 1902-09); PEAT, Histoire du Père Ribadeneyra, disciple de S. Ignace (Paris, 1862); SOMMERVOGEL, Bibliothèque de la C. de J., VI, 1724-58; DE LA FUENTE, Obras escojidas del Padre Pedro de Rivadeneira, con una noticia de su vida y juicio crítico de sus escritos in Biblioteca de autores Españoles, LX (1868); Monumenta historica S.J.; Ignatiana, ser. I, Epistolœ, II; ser. IV, I; POLANCO, Chronicon Soc. Jesu, VI; Epistolœ mixtœ, V.

FRANCIS VAN ORTROY.

Andrés Pérez De Ribas

A pioneer missionary, historian of north-western Mexico; born at Cordova, Spain, 1576; died in Mexico, 26 March, 1655. He joined the Society of Jesus in 1602, coming at once to America, and finishing his novitiate in Mexico in 1604. In the same year he was sent to undertake the Christianization of the Ahome and Suaqui of northern Sinaloa, of whom the former were friendly and anxious for teachers, while the latter had just been brought to submission after a hard campaign. He succeeded so well that within a year he had both tribes gathered into regular towns, each with a well-built church, while all of the Ahome and a large part of the Suaqui had been baptized. The two tribes together numbered about 10,000 souls. In 1613, being then superior of the Sinaloa district, he was instrumental in procuring the submission of a hostile mountain tribe. In 1617, in company with other Jesuit missionaries whom he had brought from Mexico City, he began the conversion of the powerful and largely hostile Yaqui tribe (q.v.) of Sonora, estimated at 30,000 souls, with such success that within a few years most of them had been gathered into orderly town communities. In 1620 he was recalled to Mexico to assist in the college, being ultimately appointed provincial, which post he held for several years. After a visit to Rome in 1643 to take part in the election of a general of the order, he devoted himself chiefly to study and writing until his death.

He left numerous works, religious and historical, most of which are still in manuscript, but his reputation as an historian rests secure upon his history of the Jesuit missions of Mexico published at Madrid in 1645, one year after its completion, under the title: "Historia de los Triunfos de Nuestra Santa Fe entre gentes las más bárbaras . . . conseguidos por los soldados de la milicia de Ia Compañía de Jesús en las misiones de la Provincia de Nueva-España". Of this work Bancroft says: "It is a complete history of Jesuit work in Nueva Vizcaya, practically the only history the country had from 1590 to 1644, written not only by a contemporary author but by a prominent actor in the events narrated, who had access to all the voluminous correspondence of his order, comparatively few of which documents have been preserved. In short, Ribas wrote under the most favourable circumstances and made good use of his opportunities."

ALEGRE, Historia de la Compañía de Jesús (Mexico, 1841); BANCROFT, Hist. North Mexican States and Texas, I (San Francisco, 1886); BERÍSTAIN Y SOUZA, Biblioteca Hispano-Americana Setentrional, III (Amecemeca, 1883).

JAMES MOONEY

Ribeirao Preto

(DE RIBERAO PRETO)

A suffragan see of the Archdiocese of São Paulo, Brazil, established 7 June, 1908, with a Catholic population of 500,000 souls. The first and present bishop, Rt. Rev. Alberto José Gonçalves, was born 20 July, 1859, elevated 5 December, 1908, and consecrated 29 April, 1909. The district of Ribeirão Preto is at present the most important one of the State of São Paulo, both on account of the richness of its soil and the great number of agricultural, industrial, and commercial establishments therein. Its principal product is coffee, the shipments of which are so considerable as to necessitate the constant running of an extraordinary number of trains.

The seat of the diocese is the city of Ribeirão Preto, situated on the shores of Ribeirão Preto and Ribeirão Retiro, 264 miles from the capital of the state. The municipality, created by law of 1 April, 1889, is divided into four wards, viz.: Villa Tibeiro, Barracão, Morro do Cipó, and Republica. It is, like most of the interior towns of São Paulo, of modern construction. The city is lighted by electric light and has excellent sewer and water-supply systems. The streets are well laid, straight, and intersecting at right angles, with many parks and squares. The cathedral now nearing completion will be one of the finest buildings of its kind in Brazil. It is well provided with schools and colleges, prominent among which are those maintained by the Church.

JULIAN MORENO-LACALLE.

Jusepe de Ribera

Jusepe De Ribera, called also SPAGNOLETTO, L'ESPAGNOLET (the little Spaniard), painter born at Jativa, 12 Jan., 1588; died at Naples, 1656. Fantastic accounts have been given of his early history; his father was said to be a noble, captain of the fortress of Naples, etc. All this is pure romance. A pupil of Ribalta, the author of many beautiful pictures in the churches of Valencia, the young man desired to know Italy. He was a very determined character. At eighteen, alone and without resources, he begged in the streets of Rome in order to live, and performed the services of a lackey. A picture by Caravaggio aroused his admiration, and he set out for Naples in search of the artist, but the latter had just died (1609). Ribera was then only twenty. For fifteen years the artist is entirely lost sight of; it is thought that he travelled in upper Italy. He is again found at Naples in 1626, at which time he was married, living like a nobleman, keeping his carriage and a train of followers, received by viceroys, the accomplished host of all travelling artists, and very proud of his title of Roman Academician. Velasquez paid him a visit on each of his journeys (1630, 1649). A sorrow clouded the end of his life; his daughter was seduced by Don Juan of Austria. Her father seems to have died of grief, but the story of his suicide is a fiction.

Ribera's name is synonymous with a terrifying art of wild-beast fighters and executioners. Not that he did not paint charming figures. No artist of his time, not excepting Rubens or Guido Reni, was more sensitive to a certain ideal of Correggio-like grace. But Ribera did not love either ugliness or beauty for themselves, seeking them in turn only to arouse emotion. His fixed idea, which recurs in every form in his art, is the pursuit and cultivation of sensation. In fact the whole of Ribera's work must be understood as that of a man who made the pathetic the condition of art and the reason of the beautiful. It is the negation of the art of the Renaissance, the reaction of asceticism and the Catholic Reformation on the voluptuous paganism of the sixteenth century. Hence the preference for the popular types, the weather-beaten and wrinkled beggar, and especially the old man. This "aging" of art about 1600 is a sign of the century. Heroic youth and pure beauty were dead for a long time. The anchorites and wasted cenobites, the parchment-like St. Jeromes, these singular methods of depicting the mystical life seem Ribera's personal creation; to show the ruins of the human body, the drama of a long existence written in furrows and wrinkles, all engraved by a pencil which digs and scrutinizes, using the sunlight as a kind of acid which bites and makes dark shadows, was one of the artist's most cherished formulas.

No one demonstrates so well the profound change which took place in men's minds after the Reformation and the Council of Trent. Thenceforth concern for character and accent forestalled every other consideration. Leanness, weariness, and abasement became the pictorial signs of the spiritual life. A sombre energy breathes in these figures of Apostles, prophets, saints, and philosophers. Search for character became that of ugliness and monstrosity. Nothing is so personal to Ribera as this love of deformity. Paintings like the portrait of "Cambazo", the blind sculptor, the "Bearded Woman" (Prado, 1630), and the "Club Foot" of the Louvre (1651) inaugurate curiosities which had happily been foreign to the spirit of the Renaissance. They show a gloomy pleasure in humiliating human nature. Art, which formerly used to glorify life, now violently emphasized its vices and defects. The artist seized upon the most ghastly aspects even of antiquity. Cato of Utica howling and distending his wound, Ixion on his wheel, Sisyphus beneath his rock. This artistic terrorism won for Ribera his sinister reputation, and it must be admitted that it had depraved and perverted qualities. The sight of blood and torture as the source of pleasure is more pagan than the joy of life and the laughing sensuality of the Renaissance. At times Ribera's art seems a dangerous return to the delights of the amphitheatre. His "Apollo and Marsyas" (Naples) his "Duel" or "Match of Women" (Prado) recall the programme of some spectacle manager of the decadence. In nothing is Ribera more "Latin" than in this sanguinary tradition of the games of the circus.

However, it would be unjust wholly to condemn this singular taste in accordance with our modern ideas. At least we cannot deny extraordinary merit to the scenes of martyrdom painted by Ribera. This great master has never been surpassed as a practical artist. For plastic realism, clearness of drawing and evidence of composition the "Martyrdom of St. Bartholomew" (there are in Europe a dozen copies, of which the most beautiful is at the Prado) is one of the masterpieces of Spanish genius. It is impossible to imagine a more novel and striking idea. No one has spoken a language more simple and direct. In this class of subjects Rubens usually avoids atrocity by an oratorical turn, by the splendour of his discourse, the lyric brilliancy of the colouring. Ribera's point of view is scarcely less powerful with much less artifice. It is less transformed and developed. The action is collected in fewer persons. The gestures are less redundant, with a more spontaneous quality. The tone is more sober and at the same time stronger. Everything seems more severe and of a more concentrated violence. The art also, while perhaps not the most elevated of all, is at least one of the most original and convincing. Few artiste have given us, if not serene enjoyment, more serious thoughts. The "St. Lawrence" of the Vatican is scarcely less beautiful than the "St. Bartholomew".

Moreover it must not be thought that these ideas of violence exhaust Ribera's art. They are supplemented by sweet ideas, and in his work horrible pictures alternate with tender ones. There is a type of young woman or rather young girl, still almost a child, of delicate beauty with candid oval features and rather thin arms, with streaming hair and an air of ignorance, a type of paradoxical grace which is found in his "Rapture of St. Magdalen" (Madrid, Academy of S. Fernando), or the "St. Agnes" of the Dresden Museum. This virginal figure is truly the "eternal feminine" of a country which more than any other dreamed of love and sought to deify its object summarizing in it the most irreconcilable desires and virtues. No painter has endowed the subject of the Immaculate Conception with such grandeur as Ribera in his picture for the Ursulines of Salamanca (1636). Even a certain familiar turn of imagination, a certain intimate and domestic piety, a sweetness, an amicable and popular cordiality which would seem unknown to this savage spirit were not foreign to him. In more than one instance he reminds us of Murillo. He painted several "Holy Families", "Housekeeping in the Carpenter Shop" (Gallery of the Duke of Norfolk). All that is inspired by tender reverie about cradles and chaste alcoves, all the distracting delights in which modern religion rejoices and which sometimes result in affectation, are found in more than germ in the art of this painter, who is regarded by many as cruel and uniformly inhuman. Thus throughout his work scenes of carnage are succeeded by scenes of love, atrocious visions by visions of beauty. They complete each other or rather the impression they convey is heightened by contrast. And under both forms the artist incessantly sought one object, namely to obtain the maximum of emotion; his art expresses the most intense nervous life.

This is the genius of antithesis. It forms the very basis of Ribera's art, the condition of his ideas, and even dictates the customary processes of his chiaroscuro. For Ribera's chiaroscuro, scarcely less personal than that of Rembrandt, is, no less than the latter's, inseparable from a certain manner of feeling. Less supple than the latter less enveloping, less penetrating, less permeable by the light, twilight, and penumbra, it proceeds more roughly by clearer oppositions and sharp intersections of light and darkness. Contrary to Rembrandt, Ribera does not decompose or discolour, his palette does not dissolve under the influence of shadows, and nothing is so peculiar to him as certain superexcited notes of furious red. Nevertheless, compared to Caravaggio, his chiaroscuro is much more than a mere means of relief. The canvas assumes a vulcanized, carbonized appearance. Large wan shapes stand out from the asphalt of the background, and the shadows about them deepen and accumulate a kind of obscure tragic capacity. There is always the same twofold rhythm, the same pathetic formula of a dramatized universe regarded as a duel between sorrow and joy, day and night. This striking formula, infinitely less subtile than that of Rembrandt, nevertheless had an immense success. For all the schools of the south Caravaggio's chiaroscuro perfected by Ribera had the force of law, such as it is found throughout the Neapolitan school, in Stanzioni, Salvator Rosa, Luca Giordano. In modern times Bonnat and Ribot painted as though they knew no master but Ribera.

Rest came to this violent nature towards the end of his life; from the idea of contrast he rose to that of harmony. His last works, the "Club Foot" and the "Adoration of the Shepherds" (1650), both in the Louvre, are painted in a silvery tone which seems to foreshadow the light of Velasquez. His hand had not lost its vigour, its care for truth; he always displayed the same implacable and, as it were, inflexible realism. The objects of still life in the "Adoration of the Shepherds" have not been equalled by any specialist, but these works are marked by a new serenity. This impassioned genius leaves us under a tranquil impression; we catch a ray— should it rather be called a reflection?— the Olympian genius of the author of "The Maids of Honour".

Ribera was long the only Spanish painter who enjoyed a European fame; this he owed to the fact that he had lived at Naples and has often been classed with the European school. Because of this he is now denied the glory which was formerly his. He is regarded more or less as a deserter, at any rate as the least national of Spanish painters. But in the seventeenth century Naples was still Spanish, and by living there a man did not cease to be a Spanish subject. By removing the centre of the school to Naples, Ribera did Spain a great service. Spanish art, hitherto little known, almost lost at Valencia and Seville, thanks to Ribera was put into wider circulation. Through the authority of a master recognized even at Rome the school felt emboldened and encouraged. It is true that his art, although more Spanish than any other, is also somewhat less specialized; it is cosmopolitan. Like Seneca and Lucian, who came from Cordova, and St. Augustine, who came from Carthage, Ribera has expressed in a universal language the ideal of the country where life has most savour.

DOMINICI, Vite de' pittori . . . napoletani (Naples, 1742-1743; 2nd ed., Naples, 1844); PALOMINO, El Museo Pictórico, I (Madrid, 1715); II (Madrid, 1724); Noticias, Elogios y Vidas de Los Pintores, at the end of vol. II, Separate edition (London, 1742), in German (Dresden, 1781); BERMÚDEZ, Diccionario historíco de los más ilustres profesores de las bellas artes en España (Madrid, 1800); STIRLING. Annals of the artists of Spain (London, 1848); VIARDOT, Notices sur les principaux peintres de l'Espagne (Paris, 1839); BLANC, Ecole Espagnole (1869); MEYER, Ribera (Strasburg, 1908); LAFOND, Ribera et Zurbaran (Paris, 1910).

LOUIS GILLET.

Ricardus Anglicus

Ricardus Anglicus, Archdeacon of Bologna, was an English priest who was rector of the law school at the University of Bologna in 1226, and who, by new methods of explaining legal proceedings, became recognized as the pioneer of scientific judicial procedure in the twelfth century. His long-lost work "Ordo Judiciarius" was discovered in Manuscript by Wunderlich in Douai and published by Witt in 1851. A more correct Manuscript was subsequently discovered at Brussels by Sir Travers Twiss, who, on evidence which seems insufficient, followed Panciroli in identifying him with the celebrated Bishop Richard Poor (died 1237). Probably he graduated in Paris, as a Papal Bull of 1218 refers to "Ricardus Anglicus doctor Parisiensis", but there is no evidence to connect him with Oxford. He also wrote glosses on the papal decretals, and distinctions on the Decree of Gratian. He must be distinguished from his contemporary, Ricardus Anglicanus, a physician.

RASHDALL, Mediæval Universities, II, 750 (London, 1895); TWISS, Law Magazine and Review, May, 1894; SARTI AND FATTORINI, De claris Archigymnasii Bononiensis Professoribus; BLAKISTON in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v. Poor, Richard.

EDWIN BURTON.

Nicholas Riccardi

A theologian, writer and preacher; born at Genoa, 1585; died at Rome, 30 May, 1639. Physically he was unprepossessing, even slightly deformed. His physical deficiencies, however, were abundantly compensated for by mentality of the highest order. His natural taste for study was encouraged by his parents who sent him to Spain to pursue his studies in the Pincian Academy. While a student at this institution he entered the Dominican order and was invested with its habit in the Convent of St. Paul, where he studied philosophy and theology. So brilliant was his record that after completing his studies he was made a professor of Thomistic theology at Pincia. While discharging his academic duties, he acquired a reputation as a preacher second only to his fame as a theologian. As a preacher Philip III of Spain named him "The Marvel", a sobriquet by which he was known in Spain and at Rome till the end of his life. On his removal to Rome in 1621, he acquired the confidence of Urban VIII. He was made regent of studies and professor of theology at the College of the Minerva. In 1629 Urban VIII appointed him Master of the Sacred Palace to succeed Niccolò Ridolphi, recently elected Master General of the Dominicans. Shortly after this the same pontiff appointed him pontifical preacher. These two offices he discharged with distinction. His extant works number twenty. Besides several volumes of sermons for Advent, Lent, and special occasions, his writings treat of Scripture, theology, and history. One of his best known works is the "History of the Council of Trent" (Rome, 1627). His commentaries treat of all the books of Scripture, and are notable for their originality, clearness, and profound learning. Two other commentaries treat of the Lord's Prayer and the Canticle of Canticles.

QUÉTIF-ECHARD, SS. Ord. Praed., II, 503, 504.

JOHN B. O'CONNOR.

Lorenzo Ricci

General of the Society of Jesus b. at Florence, 2 Aug., 1703; d. at the Castle of Sant' Angelo, Rome, 24 Nov., 1775. He belonged to one of the most ancient, and illustrious families of Tuscany. He had two brothers, one of whom subsequently became canon of the. cathedral and the other was raised by Francis I, Grand Duke of Tuscany, to the dignity of first syndic of the Grand duchy. Sent when very young to Prato to pursue, his studies under the direction of the Society of Jesus in the celebrated Cicognini college, he entered the society when he was scarcely fifteen, 16 Dec., 1718, at the novitiate of S. Andrea at Rome. Having made the usual course of philosophical and theological studies and twice defended with rare success public theses in these subjects, he was successively charged with teaching belles lettres and philosophy it Siena, and philosophy and theology at the Roman College, from which he was promoted to the foremost office of his order. Meanwhile he was admitted to the profession of the four vows, 15 Aug., 1736. About 1751 his edifying and regular life, his discretion, gentleness, and simplicity caused him to be appointed to the important office of spiritual father, the duties of which he discharged to the satisfaction of all. In 1755 Father Luigi Centurione, who appreciated his eminent qualities, chose him as secretary of the society. Finally in the Nineteenth Congregation he was elected general by unanimous vote, (21 May, 1758). It was at the most stormy and distressed period of its existence that the senate of the society placed its government and its destinies in the, hand of a man deeply virtuous and endowed with rare merit, but, who was inexperienced in the art of governing and who had always lived apart from the world and diplomatic intrigues. The historiographer Julius Cordara, who lived near Ricci and seems to have known him intimately, deplored this choice: "Eundem tot, inter iactationes ac fluctus cum aliquid praeter morem audendum et malis inusitatis inusitata remedia adhibenda videbantur, propter ipsam nature placiditatem et nulla unquam causa incalescentem animum, minus aptum arbitrabar" (On account of his placid nature and too even temper, I regarded him as little suited for a time when disturbance and storm seem to require extraordinary application of unusual remedies to unusual evils). (Denkwurdigkeiten der Jesuiten, p.19.) On the other hand it must be admitted that the new general did not have much leeway.

In his first interview with Clement XIII, who had assumed the tiara 6 July, 1758, and always showed himself deeply attached to the Jesuits, the pope counselled him: "Silentium, patientiam et preces; cetera sibi curae fore" (Cordara, op. cit., 22), The saintly superior followed this line of conduct to the letter and incessantly inculcated it in his subordinates. The seven encyclical letters which he addressed to them in the fifteen years of his generalship all breathe the sweetest and tenderest piety and zeal for their religious perfection. "Preces vestras", he says in the last, that of 21 Feb., 1773, "animate omni pietatis exercitio accurate fervideque obeundo, mutua inter vosmetipsos caritate, obedientia et observantia erga eos qui vobis Dei loco sunt, tolerantia laborurn, aerumnarum, paupertatis, contumeliarum, secessu et solitudine, prudentia et evangelica in agendo simplicitate, boni exempli operibus, piisque colloquiis" (Let your prayers be inspired by every practice of piety, with mutual charity among yourselves, obedience and respect for those who hold the place of God in your regard, en durance of labour, of hardships, of poverty, of insult in retreat and solitude, with prudence and evangelical simplicity of conduct, the example of good works, and pious conversation). (Epistolae praepositorum generalium S.J., 11, Ghent 1847, 306). This pious and profoundly upright man was nevertheless not wanting on occasion in courage and firmness. When it was suggested to save the French provinces of his order by giving them a superior entirely independent of the general of Rome he refused thus to transgress the. constitutions committed to his care and uttered to the pope the ever famous saying: "Sint ut sunt aut non sint" (Leave them as they are or not at all). (Cordara, op. cit., 35) Unfortunately he placed all his confidence in hi,, assistant for Italy, Father Timoni, of Greek origin, "vir quippe praefidens sibi, iudiciique sui plus nimio tenax" (Idem, op. cit., 20), who, like many other expected the society to be saved by a miracle of Providence. When, to the mass of pamphlets aimed against the Jesuits, the Portuguese episcopate brought the reinforcement of pastoral letters, a number of bishops wrote to the pope letters which were very eulogistic of the Society of Jesus and its Institute, and Clement XIII hastened to send a copy to Father Ricci. It was a brilliant apologia for the order Cordara and many of his brethren considered it, expedient to publish this correspondence in full with the sole title: "ludicium Ecclesiae, universae, de statu praesenti Societatis Iesu" (op. cit., 26). Timoni, who fancied that no one would dare any thing against the Jesuits of Portugal, was of a contrary opinion, and the general was won over to his way of thinking.

Disaster followed disaster, and Ricci experienced the most serious material difficulties in assisting the members who were expelled from every country. At his instance, and perhaps even with his collaboration, Clement XIII, solicitous for the fate of the Society, published 7 January, 1765, the Bull "Apostolicam pascendi", which was a cogent defence of the Institute and its members (Masson, "Le cardinal de, Bernis depuis son ministere" 80). But even the pontiff's intervention could not stay the devastating torrent. After the suppression of the Jesuits in Naples and the Duchy of Parma, the ambassadors of France, Spain, and Portugal went (Jan., 1769) to request officially of the pope the total suppression of the society. This was the death-blow of Clement XIII, who died some days later (2 Feb., 1769) of an apoplectic attack. His successor, the conventual Ganganelli, little resembled him. Whatever may have been his sympathies for the order prior to his elevation to the sovereign pontificate, and his indebtedness to Ricci, who had used his powerful influence to secure for him the cardinal's hat, it is indisputable that once he became pope he assumed at least in appearance a hostile attitude. "Se palam Jesuitis infensum praebere atque ita quidem, ut ne generalem quidem praepositum in conspectum admitteret" (Cordara, 43). There is no necessity of repeating even briefly the history of the pontificate of Clement XIV (18 May, 1769-22 Sept., 1774), which was absorbed by his measures to bring about the suppression of the Society of Jesus. Despite the exactions and outrageous injustices which the Jesuit houses had to undergo even at Rome, the general did not give up hope of a speedy deliverance, as is testified by the letter he wrote to Cordara the day after the feast of St. Ignatius, 1773 (Cordara, loc. cit., 53). Although the Brief of abolition had been signed by the pope ten days previously, Father Ricci was suddenly notified on the evening of 16 August. The next day he was assigned the English College as residence, until 23 Sept., 1773, when he was removed to the Castle of Sant' Angelo, where he was held in strict captivity for the remaining two years of his life. The surveillance was so severe that he did not learn of the death of his secretary Cornolli, imprisoned with him and in his vicinity, until six months after the event=2E To satisfy the hatred of his enemies his trial and that of his companions was hastened, but the judge ended by recognizing "nunquam objectos sibi reos his innocentiores; Riccium etiam ut hominem vere sanctum dilaudabat" (Cordara, op. cit., 62); and Cardinal de Bernis dared to write (5 July): "There are not, perhaps, sufficient proofs for judges, but there are enough for upright and reasonable men" (Masson, op. cit., 324).

Justice required that the ex-general be at once set at liberty, but nothing was done, apparently through fear lest the scattered Jesuits should gather about their old head, to reconstruct their society at the centre of Catholicism. At the end of August, 1775, Ricci sent an appeal to the new pope, Pius VI, to obtain his release. But while his claims were being considered by the circle of the Sovereign Pontiff, death came to summon the venerable old man to the tribunal of the supreme Judge. Five days previously, when about to receive Holy Viaticum, he made this double protest: (1) "I declare and protest that the suppressed Society of Jesus has not given any cause for its suppression; this I declare and protest with all that moral certainty that a superior well informed of his order can have. (2) I declare and protest that I have not given any cause, even the slightest, for my imprisonment; this I declare and protest with that supreme certainty and evidence that each one has of his own actions. I make this second protest only because it is necessary for the reputation of the suppressed Society of Jesus, of which I was the general." (Murr, "Journal zur Kunstgeschichte", IX, 281.) To do honour to his memory the pope caused the celebration of elaborate funeral services in the church of St. John of the Florentines near the Castle of Sant' Angelo. As is customary with prelates, the body was placed on a bed of state. It was carried in the evening to the Church of the Gesu where it was buried in the vault reserved for the burial of his predecessors in the government of the order.

CORDARA, Denkwürdigkeiten in DÖLLINGER, Beiträge zur politischen, kirchlichen und Culturgesch., III (1882), 1-74. These memoirs carry much weight, inasmuch as Cordara speaks with severity of his former brothers in arms, and of the Society of Jesus. CARAYON, Documents inedits concernant la Compagnie de Jesus, XVII, Le Pere Ricci et la suppression de la Compagnie de Jesus en 1773, CLXXIV (Poitiers, 1869); Epistoloe proepositorum generalium Societatis Jesu, If (Ghent, 1847); SMITH, The Suppression of the Society of Jesus in The Month (1902-03); MURR, Journal zur Kunstgesch. u. zur allgemeinen Litteratur, IX (Nuremberg, 1780), 254-309; MASSON, Le Cardinal de Bernis depuis son ministere 1758-1794 (Paris, 1903), a good collection of documents, but the author does not know the history of the Jesuits; RAVIGNAN, Clement XIII et Clement XI V, supplementary volume, historical and critical documents (Paris, 1854); BOERO, Osservazioni sopra l'istoria del pontificato di Clemente XIV scritta dal P. A. Theiner (2nd ed., Monza, 1854), useful for documents.

FRANCIS VAN ORTROY

Matteo Ricci

Founder of the Catholic missions of China, b. at Macerata in the Papal States, 6 Oct. 1552; d. at Peking, 11 May, 1610.

Ricci made his classical studies in his native town, studied law at Rome for two years, and on 15 Aug., 1571, entered the Society of Jesus at the Roman College, where he made his novitiate, and philosophical and theological studies. While there he also devoted his attention to mathematics, cosmology, and astronomy under the direction of the celebrated Father Christopher Clavius. In 1577 he asked to be sent on the missions in Farthest Asia, and his request being granted he embarked at Lisbon, 24 March, 1578. Arriving at Goa, the capital of the Portuguese Indies, on 13 Sept. of this year, he was employed there and at Cochin in teaching and the ministry until the end of Lent, 1582, when Father Alessandro Valignani (who had been his novice-master at Rome but who since August, 1573, was in charge of all the Jesuit missions in the East Indies) summoned him to Macao to prepare to enter China. Father Ricci arrived at Macao on 7 August, 1582.

Beginning of the Mission

In the sixteenth century nothing remained of the Christian communities founded in China by the Nestorian missionaries in the seventh century and by the Catholic monks in the thirteenth and fourteenth (see CHINA). Moreover it is doubtful whether the native Chinese population was ever seriously affected by this ancient evangelisation. For those desiring to resume the work everything therefore remained to be done, and the obstacles were greater than formerly. After the death of St. Francis Xavier (27 November, 1552) many fruitless attempts had been made. The first missionary to whom Chinese barriers were temporarily lowered was the Jesuit, Melchior Nuñez Barreto, who twice went as far as Canton, where he spent a month each time (1555). A Dominican, Father Gaspar da Cruz, was also admitted to Canton for a month, but he also had to refrain from "forming a Christian Christianity". Still others, Jesuits, Augustinians, and Fransciscans in 1568, 1575, 1579, and 1582 touched on Chinese soil, only to be forced, sometimes with ill treatment, to withdraw. To Father Valignani is due the credit of having seen what prevented all these undertakings from having lasting results. The attempts had hitherto been made haphazard, with men insufficiently prepared and incapable of profiting by favourable circumstances had they encountered them. Father Valignani substituted the methodical attack with previous careful selection of missionaries who, the field once open, would implant Christianity there. To this end he first summoned to Macao Father Michele de Ruggieri, who had also come to India from Italy in 1578. Only twenty years had elapsed since the Portuguese had succeeded in establishing their colony at the portals of China, and the Chinese, attracted by opportunities for gain, were flocking thither. Ruggieri reached Macao in July, 1579, and, following the given orders applied himself wholly to the study of the Mandarin language, that is, Chinese, as it is spoken throughout the empire by the officials and the educated. His progress, though very slow, permitted him to labour with more fruit than his predecessors in two sojourns at Canton (1580-81) allowed him by an unwonted complacency of the mandarins. Finally, after many untoward events, he was authorized (10 Sept., 1583) to take up his residence with Father Ricci at Chao-k'ing, the administrative capital of Canton.

Method of the Missionaries

The exercise of great prudence alone enabled the missionaries to remain in the region which they had had such difficulty in entering. Omitting all mention at first of their intention to preach the Gospel, they declared to the mandarins who questioned them concerning their object "that they were religious who had left their country in the distant West because of the renown of the good government of China, where they desired to remain till their death, serving god, the Lord of Heaven". Had they immediately declared their intention to preach a new religion, they would never have been received; this would have clashed with Chinese pride, which would not admit that China had anything to learn from foreigners, and it would have especially alarmed their politics, which beheld a national danger in every innovation. However, the missionaries never hid their Faith nor the fact that they were Christian priests. As soon as they were established at Chao-k'ing they placed in a conspicuous part of their house a picture of the Blessed Virgin with the Infant Jesus in her arms. Visitors seldom failed to inquire the meaning of this, to them, novel representation, and the missionaries profited thereby to give them a first idea of Christianity. The missionaries assumed the initiative in speaking of their religion as soon as they had sufficiently overcome Chinese antipathy and distrust to see their instructions desired, or at least to be certain of making them understood without shocking their listeners. They achieved this result by appealing to the curiosity of the Chinese, by making them feel, without saying so, that the foreigners had something new and interesting to teach; to this end they made use of the European things they had brought with them. Such were large and small clocks, mathematical and astronomical instruments, prisms revealing the various colours, musical instruments, oil paintings and prints, cosmographical, geographical, and architectural works with diagrams, maps, and views of towns and buildings, large volumes, magnificently printed and splendidly bound, etc.

The Chinese, who had hitherto fancied that outside of their country only barbarism existed, were astounded. Rumours of the wonders displayed by the religious from the West soon spread on all sides, and thenceforth their house was always filled, especially with mandarins and the educated. It followed, says Father Ricci, that "all came by degrees to have with regard to our countries, our people, and especially of our educated men, an idea vastly different from that which they had hitherto entertained". This impression was intensified by the explanations of the missionaries concerning their little museum in reply to the numerous questions of their visitors.

One of the articles which most aroused their curiosity was a map of the world. The Chinese had already had maps, called by their geographers "descriptions of the world", but almost the entire space was filled by the fifteen provinces of China, around which were painted a bit of sea and a few islands on which were inscribed the names of countries of which they had heard -- all together was not as large as a small Chinese province. Naturally the learned men of Chao-k'ing immediately protested when Father Ricci pointed out the various parts of the world on the European map and when they saw how small a part China played. But after the missionaries had explained its construction and the care taken by the geographers of the West to assign to each country its actual position and boundaries, the wisest of them surrendered to the evidence, and beginning with the Governor of Chao-k'ing, all urged the missionary to make a copy of his map with the names and inscriptions in Chinese. Ricci drew a larger map of the world on which he wrote more detailed inscriptions, suited to the needs of the Chinese; when the work was completed the governor had it printed, giving all the copies as presents to his friends in the province and at a distance. Father Ricci does not hesitate to say: "This was the most useful work that could be done at that time to dispose China to give credence to the things of our holy Faith. . . . Their conception of the greatness of their country and of the insignificance of all other lands made them so proud that the w hole world seemed to them savage and barbarous compared with themselves; it was scarcely to be expected that they, while entertaining this idea, would heed foreign masters." But now numbers were eager to learn of European affairs from the missionaries, who profited by these dispositions to introduce religion more frequently with their explanations. For example, their beautiful Bibles and the paintings and prints depicting religious subjects, monuments, churches, etc., gave them an opportunity of speaking of "the good customs in the countries of the Christians, of the falseness of idolatry, of the conformity of the law of God with natural reason and similar teachings found in the writings of the ancient sages of China". This last instance shows that Father Ricci already knew how to draw from his Chinese studies testimony favourable to the religion which he was to preach.

It was soon evident to the missionaries that their remarks regarding religion were no less interesting to many of their visitors than their Western curiosities and learning, and, to satisfy those who wished to learn more, they distributed leaflets containing a Chinese translation of the Ten Commandments, an abbreviation of the moral code much appreciated by the Chinese, composed a small catechism in which the chief points of Christian doctrine were explained in a dialogue between a pagan and a European priest. This work, printed about 1584, was also well received, the highest mandarins of the province considering themselves honoured to receive it as a present. The missionaries distributed hundreds and thousands of copies and thus "the good odour of our Faith began to be spread throughout China". Having begun their direct apostolate in this manner, they furthered it not a little by their edifying regular life, their disinterestedness, their charity, and their patience under persecutions which often destroyed the fruits of their labours.

Development of the Missions

Father Ricci played the chief part in these early attempts to make Christianity known to the Chinese. In 1607 Father Ruggieri died in Europe, where he had been sent in 1588 by Father Valignani to interest the Holy See more particularly in the missions. Left alone with a young priest, a pupil rather than an assistant, Ricci was expelled from Chao-k'ing in 1589 by a viceroy of Canton who had found the house of the missionaries suited to his own needs; but the mission had taken root too deeply to be exterminated by the ruin of its first home. Thenceforth in whatever town Ricci sought a new field of apostolate he was preceded by his reputation and he found powerful friends to protect him. He first went to Shao-chow, also in the province of Canton, where he dispensed with the services of interpreters and adopted the costume of the educated Chinese. In 1595 he made an attempt on Nan-king, the famous capital in the south of China, and, though unsuccessful, it furnished him with an opportunity of forming a Christian Church at Nan-ch'ang, capital of Kiang-si, which was so famous for the number and learning of its educated men. In 1598 he made a bold but equally fruitless attempt to establish himself at Peking. Forced to return to Nan-king on 6 Feb., 1599, he found Providential compensation there; the situation had changed completely since the preceding year, and the highest mandarins were desirous of seeing the holy doctor from the West take up his abode in their city. Although his zeal was rewarded with much success in this wider field, he constantly longed to repair his repulse at Peking. He felt that the mission was not secure in the provinces until it was established and authorized in the capital. On 18 May, 1600, Ricci again set out for Peking and, when all human hope of success was lost, he entered on 24 January, 1601, summoned by Emperor Wan-li.

Last Labours

Ricci's last nine years were spent at Peking, strengthening his work with the same wisdom and tenacity of purpose which had conducted it so far. The imperial goodwill was gained by gifts of European curiosities, especially the map of the world, from which the Asiatic ruler learned for the first time the true situation of his empire and the existence of so many other different kingdoms and peoples; he required Father Ricci to make a copy of it for him in his palace. At Peking, as at Nan-king and elsewhere, the interest of the most intelligent Chinese was aroused chiefly by the revelations which the European teacher made to them in the domain of the sciences, even those in which they considered themselves most proficient. Mathematics and astronomy, for example, had from time immemorial formed a part of the institutions of the Chinese Government, but, when they listened to Father Ricci, even the men who knew most had to acknowledge how small and how mingled with errors was their knowledge. But this recognition of their ignorance and their esteem for European learning, of which they had just got a glimpse, impelled very few Chinese to make serious efforts to acquire this knowledge, their attachment to tradition or the routine of national teaching being too deep-rooted. However, the Chinese governors, who even at the present day have made no attempt at reform in this matter, did not wish to deprive the country of all the advantages of European discoveries. To procure them recourse had to be had to the missionaries, and thus the Chinese mission from Ricci's time until the end of the eighteenth century found its chief protection in the services performed with the assistance of European learning. Father Ricci made use of profane science only to prepare the ground and open the way to the apostolate properly so called. With this object in view he employed other means, which made a deep impression on the majority of the educated class, and especially on those who held public offices. He composed under various forms adapted to the Chinese taste little moral treatises, e.g., that called by the Chinese "The Twenty-five Words", because in twenty-five short chapters it treated "of the mortification of the passions and the nobility of virtue". Still greater admiration was aroused by the "Paradoxes", a collection of practical sentences, useful to a moral life, familiar to Christians but new to the Chinese, which Ricci developed with accounts of examples, comparisons, and extracts from the Scriptures and from Christian philosophers and doctors. Not unreasonably proud of their rich moral literature, the Chinese were greatly surprised to see a stranger succeed so well; they could not refrain from praising his exalted doctrine, and the respect which they soon acquired for the Christian writings did much to dissipate their distrust of strangers and to render them kindly disposed towards the Christian religion.

But the book through which Ricci exercised the widest and most fortunate influence was his "T'ien-chu-she-i" (The True Doctrine of God). This was the little catechism of Chao-k'ing which had been delivered from day to day, corrected and improved as occasion offered, until it finally contained all the matter suggested by long years of experience in the apostolate. The truths which must be admitted as the necessary preliminary to faith -- the existence and unity of God, the creation, the immortality of the soul, reward or punishment in a future life -- are here demonstrated by the best arguments from reason, while the errors most widespread in China, especially the worship of idols and the belief in the transmigration of souls, are successfully refuted. To the testimony furnished by Christian philosophy and theology Ricci added numerous proofs from the ancient Chinese books which did much to win credit for his work. A masterpiece of apologetics and controversy, the "T'ien-chu-she-i", rightfully became the manual of the missionaries and did most effacacious missionary work. Before its author's death it had been reprinted at least four times, and twice by the pagans. It led countless numbers to Christianity, and aroused esteem for our religion in those readers whom it did not convert. The perusal of it induced Emperor K'ang-hi to issue his edict of 1692 granting liberty to preach the Gospel. The Emperor Kien-long, although he persecuted the Christians, ordered the "T'ien-chu-she-i" to be placed in his library with his collection of the most notable productions of the Chinese language. Even to the present time missionaries have experienced its beneficent influence, which was not confined to China, being felt also in Japan, Tong-king, and other countries tributary to Chinese literature.

Besides the works intended especially for the infidels and the catechumens whose initiation was in progress, Father Ricci wrote others for the new Christians. As founder of the mission he had to invent formulae capable of expressing clearly and unequivocally our dogmas and rites in a language which had hitherto never been put to such use (except for the Nestorian use, with which Ricci was not acquainted). It was a delicate and difficult task, but it formed only a part of the heavy burden which the direction of the mission was for Father Ricci, particularly during his last years. While advancing gradually on the capital Ricci did not abandon the territory already conquered; he trained in his methods the fellow-workers who joined him and commissioned them to continue his work in the cities he left. Thus in 1601, the mission included, besides Peking, the three residences of Nan-king, Nan-ch'ang, Shao-chow, to which was added in 1608 that of Shang-hai. In each of these there were two or three missionaries with "brothers", Chinese Christians from Macao who had been received into the Society of Jesus, and who served the mission as catechists. Although as yet the number of Christians was not very great (2000 baptized in 1608), Father Ricci in his "Memoirs" has said well that considering the obstacles to the entrance of Christianity into China the result was "a very great miracle of Divine Omnipotence". To preserve and increase the success already obtained, it was necessary that the means which had already proved efficacious should continue to be employed; everywhere and always the missionaries, without neglecting the essential duties of the Christian apostolate, had to adapt their methods to the special conditions of the country, and avoid unnecessary attacks on traditional customs and habits. The application of this undeniably sound policy was often difficult. In answer to the doubts of his fellow-workers Father Ricci outlined rules, which received the approval of Father Valignano; these insured the unity and fruitful efficacy of the apostolic work throughout the mission.

Question of the Divine Names and the Chinese Rites

The most difficult problem in the evangelization of China had to do with the rites or ceremonies, in use from time immemorial, to do honour to ancestors or deceased relatives and the particular tokens of respect which the educated felt bound to pay to their master, Confucius. Ricci's solution of this problem caused a long and heated controversy in which the Holy See finally decided against him. The discussion also dealt with the use of the Chinese terms T'ien (heaven) and Shang-ti (Sovereign Lord) to designate God; here also the custom established by Father Ricci had to be corrected. The following is a short history of this famous controversy which was singularly complicated and embittered by passion. With regard to the designations for God, Ricci always preferred, and employed from the first, the term T'ien chu (Lord of Heaven) for the God of Christians; as had been seen, he used it in the title of his catechism. But in studying the most ancient Chinese books he considered it established that they said of T'ien (Heaven) and Shang-ti (Sovereign Lord) what we say of the true God, that is, they described under these two names a sovereign lord of spirits and men who knows all that takes place in the world, the source of all power and all lawful authority, the supreme regulator and defender of the moral law, rewarding those who observe and punishing those who violate it. Hence he concluded that, in the most revered monuments of China, T'ien and Shang'ti designate nothing else than the true God whom he himself preached. Ricci maintained this opinion in several passages of his T'ien-chu-she-i; it will be readily understood of what assistance it was to destroy Chinese prejudices against the Christian religion. It is true that, in drawing this conclusion, Ricci had to contradict the common interpretation of modern scholars who follow Chu-Hi in referring T'ien and Shang-ti to apply to the material heaven; but he showed that this material interpretation does not do justice to the texts and it is at least reasonable to see in them something better. In fact he informs us that the educated Confucianists, who did not adore idols, were grateful to him for interpreting the words of their master with such goodwill. Indeed, Ricci's opinion has been adopted and confirmed by illustrious modern Sinologists, amongst whom it suffices to mention James Legge ("The Notions of the Chinese concerning God and Spirits", 1852; "A Letter to Prof. Max Muller chiefly on the Translation of the Chinese terms Ti and Chang-ti", 1880).

Therefore it was not without serious grounds that the founder of the Chinese mission and his successors believed themselves justified in employing the terms T'ien and Shang-ti as well as T'ien-chu to designate the true God. However, there were objections to this practice even among the Jesuits, the earliest rising shortly after the death of Father Ricci and being formulated by the Japanese Jesuits. In the ensuing discussion carried on in various writings for and against, which did not circulate beyond the circle of the missionaries only one of those working in China declared himself against the use of the name Shang-ti. This was Father Nicholas Longobardi, Ricci's successor as superior general of the mission, who, however, did not depart in anything from the lines laid down by its founder. After allowing the question to be discussed for some years, the superior ordered the missionaries to abide simply by the custom of Father Ricci; later this custom together with the rites was submitted to the judgment of the Holy See. In 1704 and 1715 Clement XI, without pronouncing as to the meaning of T'ien and Shang-ti in the ancient Chinese books, forbade, as being open to misconstruction, the use of these names to indicate the true God, and permitted only the T'ien-chu. Regarding the rites and ceremonies in honour of ancestors and Confucius, Father Ricci was also of the opinion that a broad toleration was permissible without injury to the purity of the Christian religion. Moreover, the question was of the utmost importance for the progress of the apostolate. To honour their ancestors and deceased parents by traditional prostrations and sacrifices was in the eyes of the Chinese the gravest duty of filial piety, and one who neglected it was treated by all his relatives as an unworthy member of his family and nation. Similar ceremonies in honour of Confucius were an indispensable obligation for scholars, so that they could not receive any literary degree nor claim any public office without having fulfilled it. This law still remains inviolable; Kiang-hi, the emperor who showed most goodwill towards the Christians, always refused to set it aside in their favour. In modern times the Chinese Government showed no more favour to the ministers of France, who, in the name of the treaties guaranteeing the liberty of Catholicism in China, claimed for the Christians who had passed the examinations, the titles and advantages of the corresponding degrees without the necessity of going through the ceremonies; the Court of Peking invariably replied that this was a question of national tradition on which it was impossible to compromise.

After having carefully studied what the Chinese classical books said regarding these rites, and after having observed for a long time the practice of them and questioned numerous scholars of every rank with whom he was associated during this eighteen years of apostolate, Ricci was convinced that these rites had no religious significance, either in their institution or in their practice by the enlightened classes. The Chinese, he said, recognized no divinity in Confucius any more than in their deceased ancestors; they prayed to neither; the made no requests nor expected any extraordinary intervention from them. In fact they only did for them what they did for the living to whom they wished to show great respect. "The honour they pay to their parents consists in serving them dead as they did living. They do not for this reason think that the dead come to eat their offerings [the flesh, fruit, etc.] or need them. They declare that they act in this manner because they know no other way of showing their love and gratitude to their ancestors. . . . Likewise what they do [especially the educated], they do to thank Confucius for the excellent doctrine which he left them in his books, and through which they obtained their degrees and mandarinships. Thus in all this there is nothing suggestive of idolatry, and perhaps it may even be said that there is no superstition." The "perhaps" added to the last part of this conclusion shows the conscientiousness with which the founder acted in this matter. That the vulgar and indeed even most of the Chinese pagans mingled superstition with their national rites Ricci never denied; neither did he overlook the fact that the Chinese, like infidels in general, mixed superstition with their most legitimate actions. In such cases superstition is only an accident which does not corrupt the substance of the just action itself, and Ricci thought this applied also to the rites. Consequently he allowed the new Christians to continue the practice of them avoiding everything suggestive of superstition, and he gave them rules to assist them to discriminate. He believed, however, that this tolerance, though licit, should be limited by the necessity of the case; whenever the Chinese Christian community should enjoy sufficient liberty, its customs, notably its manner of honouring the dead, must be brought into conformity with the customs of the rest of the Christian world. These principles of Father Ricci, controlled by his fellow-workers during his lifetime, and after his death, served for fifty years as the guide of all the missionaries.

In 1631 the first mission of the Dominicans was founded at Fu-kien by two Spanish religious; in 1633 two Franciscans, also Spanish, came to establish a mission of their order. The new missionaries were soon alarmed by the attacks on the purity of religion which they thought they discerned in the communities founded by their predecessors. Without taking sufficient time perhaps to become acquainted with Chinese matters and to learn exactly what was done in the Jesuit missions they sent a denunciation to the bishops of the Philippines. The bishops referred it to Pope Urban VIII (1635), and soon the public was informed. As early as 1638 a controversy began in the Philippines between the Jesuits in defence of their brethren on the one side and the Dominicans and Franciscans on the other. In 1643 one of the chief accusers, the Dominican, Jean-Baptiste Moralez, went to Rome to submit to the Holy See a series of "questions" or "doubts" which he said were controverted between the Jesuit missionaries and their rivals. Ten of these questions concerned the participation of Christians in the rites in honour of Confucius and the dead. Moralez's petition tended to show that the cases on which he requested the decision of the Holy See represented the practice authorized by the Society of Jesus; as soon as the Jesuits learned of this they declared that these cases were imaginary and that they had never allowed the Christians to take part in the rites as set forth by Moralez. In declaring the ceremonies illicit in its Decree of 12 Sept., 1645 (approved by Innocent X), the congregation of the Propaganda gave the only possible reply to the questions referred to it.

In 1651 Father Martin Martini (author of the "Novus Atlas Sienensis") was sent from China to Rome by his brethren to give a true account of the Jesuits practices and permissions with regard to the Chinese rites. This delegate reached the Eternal City in 1654, and in 1655 submitted four questions to the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office. This supreme tribunal, in its Decree of 23 March, 1656, approved by Pope Alexander VII, sanctioned the practice of Ricci and his associates as set forth by Father Martini, declaring that the ceremonies in honour of Confucius and ancestors appeared to constitute "a purely civil and political cult". Did this decree annul that of 1645? Concerning this question, laid before the Holy Office by the Dominican, Father John de Polanco, the reply was (20 Nov., 1669) that both decrees should remain "in their full force" and should be observed "according to the questions, circumstances, and everything contained in the proposed doubts".

Meanwhile an understanding was reached by the hitherto divided missionaries. This reconciliation was hastened by the persecution of 1665 which assembled for nearly five years in the same house at Canton nineteen Jesuits, three Dominicans, and one Franciscan (then the sole member of his order in China). Profiting by their enforced leisure to agree on a uniform Apostolic method, the missionaries discussed all the points on which the discipline of the Church should be adapted to the exigencies of the Chinese situation. After forty days of conferences, which terminated on 26 Jan., 1668, all (with the possible exception of the Franciscan Antonio de Santa Maria, who was very zealous but extremely uncompromising) subscribed to forty-two articles, the result of the deliberations, of which the forty-first was as follows: "As to the ceremonies by which the Chinese honour their master Confucius and the dead, the replies of the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition approved by our Holy Father Alexander VII, in 1656, must be followed absolutely because they are based on a very probable opinion, to which it is impossible to offset any evidence to the contrary, and, this probability assumed, the door of salvation must not be closed to the innumerable Chinese who would stray from the Christian religion if they were forbidden to what they may do licitly and in good faith and which they cannot forego without serious injury." After the subscription, however, a new courteous discussion of this article in writing took place between Father Domingo Fernandez Navarrete, superior of the Dominicans, and the most learned of the Jesuits at Canton. Navarrette finally appeared satisfied and on 29 Sept., 1669, submitted his written acceptance of the article to the superior of the Jesuits. However, on 19 Dec. of this year he secretly left Canton for Macao whence he went to Europe. There, and especially at Rome where he was in 1673, he sought from now on only to overthrow what had been attempted in the conferences of Canton. He published the "Tratados historicos, politicos, ethicos, y religiosos de la monarchia de China" (I, Madrid, 1673; of vol. II, printed in 1679 and incomplete, only two copies are known). This work is filled with impassioned accusations against the Jesuit missionaries regarding their methods of apostolate and especially their toleration of the rites. Nevertheless, Naverrette did not succeed in inducing the Holy See to resume the question, this being reserved for Charles Maigrot, a member of the new Société des Missions Étrangères. Maigrot went to China in 1683. He was Vicar Apostolic of Fu-kien, before being as yet a bishop, when, on 26 March, 1693, he addressed to the missionaries of his vicariate a mandate proscribing the names T'ien and Shang-ti; forbidding that Christians be allowed to participate in or assist at "sacrifices or solemn oblations" in honour of Confucius or the dead; prescribing modifications of the inscriptions on the ancestral tablets; censuring and forbidding certain, according to him, too favourable references to the ancient Chinese philosophers; and, last but not least, declaring that the exposition made by Father Martini was not true and that consequently the approval which the latter had received from Rome was not to be relied on.

By order of Innocent XII, the Holy Office resumed in 1697 the study of the question on the documents furnished by the procurators of Mgr Maigrot and on those showing the opposite side brought by the representatives of the Jesuit missionaries. It is worthy of note that at this period a number of the missionaries outside the Society of Jesus, especially all the Augustinians, nearly all the Franciscans, and some Dominicans, were converted to the practice of Ricci and the Jesuit missionaries. The difficulty of grasping the truth amid such different representations of facts and contradictory interpretations of texts prevented the Congregation from reaching a decision until towards the end of 1704 under the pontificate of Clement XI. Long before then the pope had chosen and sent to the Far East a legate to secure the execution of the Apostolic decrees and to regulate all other questions on the welfare of the missions. The prelate chosen was Charles-Thomas-Maillard de Tournon (b. at Turin) whom Clement XI had consecrated with his own hands on 27 Dec., 1701, and on whom he conferred the title of Patriarch of Antioch. Leaving Europe on 9 Feb., 1703, Mgr de Tournon stayed for a time in India (see MALABAR RITES) reaching Macao on 2 April, 1705, and Peking on 4 December of the same year. Emperor K'ang-hi accorded him a warm welcome and treated him with much honour until he learned, perhaps through the imprudence of the legate himself, that one of the objects of his embassy, if not the chief, was to abolish the rites amongst the Christians. Mgr de Tournon was already aware that the decision against the rites had been given since 20 Nov., 1704, but not yet published in Europe, as the pope wished that it should be published first in China. Forced to leave Peking, the legate had returned to Nan-king when he learned that the emperor had ordered all missionaries, under penalty of expulsion, to come to him for a piao or diploma granting permission to preach the Gospel. This diploma was to be granted only to those who promised not to oppose the national rites. On the receipt of this news the legate felt that he could no longer postpone the announcement of the Roman decisions. By a mandate of 15 January, 1707, he required all missionaries under pain of excommunication to reply to Chinese authority, if it questioned them, that "several things" in Chinese doctrine and customs did not agree with Divine law and that these were chiefly "the sacrifices to Confucius and ancestors" and "the use of ancestral tablets", moreover that Shang-ti and "T'ien" were not "the true God of the Christians". When the emperor learned of this Decree he ordered Mgr de Tournon to be brought to Macao and forbade him to leave there before the return of the envoys whom he himself sent to the pope to explain his objections to the interdiction of the rites. While still subject to this restraint, the legate died in 1710.

Meanwhile Mgr Maigrot and several other missionaries having refused to ask for the piao had been expelled from China. But the majority (i.e. all the Jesuits, most of the Franciscans, and other missionary religious, having at their head the Bishop of Peking, a Franciscan, and the Bishop of Ascalon, Vicar Apostolic of Kiang-si, an Augustinian) considered that, to prevent the total ruin of the mission, they might postpone obedience to the legate until the pope should have signified his will. Clement XI replied by publishing (March, 1709) the answers of the Holy Office, which he had already approved on 20 November, 1704, and then by causing the same Congregation to issue (25 Sept., 1710) a new Decree which approved the acts of the legate and ordered the observance of the mandate of Nan-king, but interpreted in the sense of the Roman replies of 1704, omitting all the questions and most of the preambles, and concluded with a form of oath which the pope enjoined on all the missionaries and which obliged them under the severest penalties to observe and have observed fully and without reserve the decisions inserted in the pontifical act. This Constitution, which reached China in 1716, found no rebels among the missionaries, but even those who sought most zealously failed to induce the majority of their flock to observe its provisions. At the same time the hate of the pagans was reawakened, enkindled by the old charge that Christianity was the enemy of the national rites, and the neophytes began to be the objects of persecutions to which K'ang-hi, hitherto so well-disposed, now gave almost entire liberty. Clement XI sought to remedy this critical situation by sending to China a second legate, John-Ambrose Mezzabarba, whom he named Patriarch of Alexandria. This prelate sailed from Lisbon on 25 March, 1720, reaching Macao on 26 September, and Canton on 12 October. Admitted, not without difficulty, to Peking and to an audience with the emperor, the legate could only prevent his immediate dismissal and the expulsion of all the missionaries by making known some alleviations of the Constitution "Ex illâ die", which he was authorized to offer, and allowing K'ang-hi to hope that the pope would grant still others. Then he hastened to return to Macao, whence he addressed (4 November, 1721) a pastoral letter to the missionaries of China, communicating to them the authentic text of his eight "permissions" relating to the rites. He declared that he would permit nothing forbidden by the Constitution; in practice, however, his concessions relaxed the rigour of the pontifical interdictions, although they did not produce harmony or unity of action among the apostolic workers. To bring about this highly desirable result the pope ordered a new investigation, the chief object of which was the legitimacy and opportuneness of Mezzabarba's "permissions"; begun by the Holy Office under Clement XII a conclusion was reached only under Benedict XIV. On 11 July, 1742, this pope, by the Bull "Ex quo singulari", confirmed and reimposed in a most emphatic manner the Constitution "Ex illâ die", and condemned and annulled the "permissions" of Mezzabarba as authorizing the superstitions which that Constitution sought to destroy. This action terminated the controversy among Catholics.

The Holy See did not touch on the purely theoretical questions, as for instance what the Chinese rites were and signified according to their institution and in ancient times. In this Father Ricci may have been right; but he was mistaken in thinking that as practised in modern times they are not superstitious or can be made free from all superstition. The popes declared, after scrupulous investigations, that the ceremonies in honour of Confucius or ancestors and deceased relatives are tainted with superstition to such a degree that they cannot be purified. But the error of Ricci, as of his fellow-workers and successors, was but an error in judgment. The Holy See expressly forbade it to be said that they approved of idolatry; it would indeed be an odious calumny to accuse such a man as Ricci, and so many other holy and zealous missionaries, of having approved and permitted their neophytes practices which they knew to be superstitions and contrary to the purity of religion. Despite this error, Matto Ricci remains a splendid type of missionary and founder, unsurpassed for his zealous intrepidity, the intelligence of the methods applied to each situation, and the unwearying tenacity with which he pursued the projects he undertook. To him belongs the glory not only of opening up a vast empire to the Gospel, but of simultaneously making the first breach in that distrust of strangers which excluded China from the general progress of the world. The establishment of the Catholic mission in the heart of this country also had its economic consequences: it laid the foundation of a better understanding between the Far East and the West, which grew with the progress of the mission. It is superfluous to detail the results from the standpoint of the material interests of the whole world. Lastly, science owes to Father Ricci the first exact scientific knowledge received in Europe concerning China, its true geographical situation, its ancient civilization, its vast and curious literature, its social organization so different from what existed elsewhere. The method instituted by Ricci necessitated a fundamental study of this new world, and if the missionaries who have since followed him have rendered scarcely less service to science than to religion, a great part of the credit is due to Ricci.

[MATTEO RICCI], "Dell' entrata della Campagnia di Giesu e christianita nella Cina" (MS. Of Father Ricci, extant in the archives of the Society of Jesus; cited in the foregoing article as the "Memmoirs of Father Ricci", a somewhat free tr. Of his work is given in TRIGAULT, "De christiana expeditione apud Sinas suscepta ab Societate Jesu". "Ex P. Matthaei Ricci commentariis libri", V (Augsbrg, 1615); DE URSIS, "P. Matheus Ricci, S.J. Relacao escripta pelo seu companhiero" (Rome, 1910); BARTOLI, "Dell' Historia della Compagnia di Gesu. La Cina", I-II (Rome, 1663). Bartoli is the most accurate biographer of Ricci; d'ORLEANS, "La vie du Pere Matthieu Ricci" (Paris, 1693); NATALI, "Il secondo Confucio" (Rome, 1900); VENTURI, "L'apostolato del P. M. Ricci d. C. d. G. in Cina secondo I suoi scritti inediti" (Rome, 1910); BRUCKER, "Le Pere Matthieu Ricci" in "Etudes", CXXIV (Paris, 1910), 5-27; 185-208; 751-79; DE BACKER-SOMMERVOGEL, "Bibl. Des ecrivains de la C. de J", VI, 1792-95). Chinese Rites.-BRUCKER in VACANT, "Dict. De Theol. cath., s.v. "Chinois (Rites"" and works indicated; CORDIER, "Bibl. Sinica", II, 2nd. Ed., 869-925; IDEM, "Hist. Des relations de la Chine avec les puissances occidentales", III (Paris, 1902) xxv.

JOSEPH BRUCKER

Giovanni Battista Riccioli

Italian astronomer, b. at Ferrara 17 April, 1598; d. at Bologna 25 June, 1671. He entered the Society of Jesus 6 Oct., 1614. After teaching philosophy and theology for a number of years, chiefly at Parma and Bologna, he devoted himself, at the request of his superiors, entirely to the study of astronomy, which at that time, owing to the discoveries of Kepler and the new theories of Copernicus, was a subject of much discussion. Realizing the many defects of the traditional astronomy inherited from the ancients, he conceived the bold idea of undertaking a reconstruction of the science with a view to bringing it into harmony with contemporary progress. This led to his "Almagestum novum, astronomiam veterem novamque complectens" (2 vols., Bologna, 1651), considered by many the most important literary work of the Jesuits during the seventeenth century. The author in common with many scholars of the time, notably in Italy, rejected the Copernican theory, and in this work, admittedly of great erudition, gives an elaborate refutation in justification of the Roman Decrees of 1616 and 1633. He praises, however, the genius of Copernicus and readily admits the value of his system as a simple hypothesis. His sincerity in this connexion has been called into question by some, e.g. Wolf, but a study of the work shows beyond doubt that he wrote from conviction and with the desire of making known the truth. Riccioli's project also included a comparison of the unit of length of various nations and a more exact determination of the dimensions of the earth. His topographical measurements occupied him at intervals between 1644 and 1656, but defects of method have rendered his results of but little value. His most important contribution to astronomy was perhaps his detailed telescopic study of the moon, made in collaboration with P. Grimaldi. The latter's excellent lunar map was inserted in the "Almagestum novum", and the lunar nomenclature they adopted is still in use. He also made observations on Saturn's rings, though it was reserved for Huyghens to determine the true ring-structure. He was an ardent defender of the new Gregorian calendar. Though of delicate health, Riccioli was an indefatigable worker and, in spite of his opposition to the Copernican theory, rendered valuable services to astronomy and also to geography and chronology. His chief works are: "Geographiæ et hydrographiæ reformatæ libri XII" (Bologna, 1661); "Astronomia reformata" (2 vols., Bologna, 1665); "Chronologia reformata" (1669); "Tabula latitudinum et longitudinum" (Vienna, 1689).

SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. de la C. de J., VI (Paris, 1895), 1795; DELAMBRE, Hist. de l'Astronomie Moderne, II (Paris, 1821), 274; WOLF, Gesch. d. Astronomie (Munich, 1877), 434; WALSH, Catholic Churchmen in Science (2nd series, Philadelphia, 1909); LINSMEIER, Natur. u. Offenbarung, XLVII, 65 sqq.

H. M. BROCK

Edmund Ignatius Rice

Founder of the Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools (better known as "Irish Christian Brothers"), b. at Callan, Co. Kilkenny, 1762; d. at Waterford, 1844. He was educated in a Catholic school which, despite the provision of the iniquitous penal laws, the authorities suffered to exist in the City of Kilkenny. In 1779 he entered the business house of his uncle, a large export and import trader in the City of Waterford, and, after the latter's death, became sole proprietor. As a citizen he was distinguished for his probity, charity, and piety; he was an active member of a society established in the city for the relief of the poor. About 1794 he meditated entering a continental convent, but his brother, an Augustinian who had but just returned from Rome, discountenanced the idea. Rice, thereupon, devoted himself to the extension of his business. Some years later, however, he again desired to become a religious. As he was discussing the matter with a friend of his, a sister of Bishop Power of Waterford, a band of ragged boys passed by. Pointing to them Miss Power exclaimed: "What! would you bury yourself in a cell on the continent rather than devote your wealth and your life to the spiritual and material interest of these poor youths?" The words were an inspiration. Rice related the incident to Dr. Lanigan, bishop of his native Diocese of Ossory, and to others, all of whom advised him to undertake the mission to which God was evidently calling him. Rice settled his worldly affairs, his last year's business (1800) being the most lucrative one he had known, and commenced the work of the Christian schools.

Assisted by two young men, whom he paid for their services, he opened his fist school in Waterford in 1802. In June of this year Bishop Hussey of Waterford laid the foundation stone of a schoolhouse on a site which he named Mount Sion. The building was soon ready for occupation, but Rice's assistants had fled and could not be induced to return even when offered higher salaries. In this extremity two young men from Callan offered themselves as fellow-labourers. Other workers soon gathered round him, and by 1806 Christian schools were established in Waterford, Carrick-on-Suir, and Dungarvan. The communities adopted a modified form of the Rule of the Presentation order of nuns, and, in 1808, pronounced their vows before Bishop Power. Houses were established in Cork, Dublin, Limerick, and elsewhere. Though the brothers, as a rule, made their novitiate in Mount Sion and regarded Rice as their father and model, he was not their superior; they were subject to the bishops of their respective dioceses. In 1817, on the advice of Bishop Murray, coadjutor to the Archbishop of Dublin, and of Father Kenny, S.J., a special friend, Rice applied to the Holy See for approbation and a constitution for his society. In 1820 Pius VII formally confirmed the new congregation of "Fratres Monachi" by the Brief "Ad pastoralis dignitatis fastigium". This was the first confirmation by the Church of a congregation of religious men in Ireland. Brother Rice was unanimously elected superior general by the members. All the houses were united except the house in Cork, where Bishop Murphy refused his consent. Later, however, in 1826, the Brothers in Cork attained the object of their desire, but one of their number, preferring the old condition of things, offered his services to the bishop, who placed him in charge of a school on the south side of the city. This secession of Br. Austin Reardon was the origin of the teaching congregation of the Presentation Brothers. The confirmation of the new Institute attracted considerable attention, even outside of Ireland, and many presented themselves for the novitiate. The founder removed the seat of government to Dublin.

At this time the agitation for Catholic Emancipation was at its height and the people were roused to indignation by the reports of the proselytizing practices carried on in the Government schools. Brother Rice conceived the idea of establishing a "Catholic Model School". The "Liberator" entered warmly into his scheme, and procured a grant of £1500 from the Catholic Association in aid of the proposed building. On St. Columba's day, 1828, Daniel O'Connell laid the foundation stone, in North Richmond Street, Dublin, of the famous school, since known as the "O'Connell Schools". In his speech on the occasion he referred to Brother Rice as "My old friend, Mr. Rice, the Patriarch of the Monks of the west". The founder resigned his office in 1838 and spent his remaining years in Mount Sion. Before his death he saw eleven communities of his institute in Ireland, eleven in England, and one in Sydney, Australia, while applications for foundations had been received from the Archbishop of Baltimore and from bishops in Canada, Newfoundland, and other places.

PATRICK J. HENNESSY

Richard

A Friar minor and preacher, appearing in history between 1428 and 1431, whose origin and nationality are unknown. He is sometimes called the disciple of St. Bernardine of Sienna and of St. Vincent Ferrer, but probably only because, like the former, he promoted the veneration of the Holy Name of Jesus and, like the latter, announced the end of the world as near. In 1428 Richard came from the Holy Land to France, preached at Troyes, next year in Paris during ten days (16-26 April) every morning from about five o'clock to ten or eleven. He had such a sway over his numerous auditors that after his sermons the men burned their dice, and the women their vanities. Having been threatened by the Faculty of Theology on account of his doctrine — perhaps, also, because he was believed to favour Charles VII, King of France, whilst Paris was then in the hands of the English — he left Paris suddenly and betook himself to Orléans and Troyes. In the latter town he first met Bl. Joan of Arc. Having contributed much to the submission of Troyes to Charles VII, Richard now followed the French army and became confessor and chaplain to Bl. Joan. Some differences, however, arose between the two on account of Catherine de la Rochelle, who was protected by the friar, but scorned by Joan. Richard's name figures also in the proceedings against Bl. Joan of Arc in 1431; in the same year he preached the Lent in Orléans and shortly after was interdicted from preaching by the inquisitor of Poitiers. No trace of him is found after this.

DE KERVAL, Jeanne d'Arc et les Franciscains (Vanves, 1893); DEBOUT, Jeanne d'Arc (Paris, 1905-07), I, 694-97 and passim; WALLON, Jeanne d'Arc (Paris, 1883), 125, 200, 261.

LIVARIUS OLIGER

Richard I, King Of England

Richard I, born at Oxford, 6 Sept, 1157; died at Chaluz, France, 6 April, 1199; was known to the minstrels of a later age, rather than to his contemporaries, as "Coeur-de-Lion". He was only the second son of Henry II, but it was part of his father's policy, holding, as he did, continental dominions of great extent and little mutual cohesion, to assign them to his children during his own lifetime and even to have his sons brought up among the people they were destined to govern. To Richard were allotted the territories in the South of France belonging to his mother Eleanor of Aquitaine, and before he was sixteen he was inducted as Duke of that province. It was a weak point in the old King's management of his sons, that, while dazzling them with brilliant prospects, he invested them with very little of the substance of power. In 1173 the young Henry, who, following a German usage, had already been crowned king in the lifetime of his father, broke out into open revolt, being instigated thereto by his father-in-law, Louis VII, King of France. Under the influence of their mother Eleanor, who bitterly resented her husband's infidelities, Geoffrey and Richard in 1173 also threw in their lot with the rebel and took up arms against their father. Allies gathered round them and the situation grew so threatening, that Henry II thought it well to propitiate heaven by doing penance at the tomb of the martyred Archbishop St. Thomas (11 July, 1174). By a remarkable coincidence, on the very next day, a victory in Northumberland over William, King of Scotland, disposed of Henry's most formidable opponent. Returning with a large force to France, the King swept all before him, and though Richard for a while held out alone he was compelled by 21 Sept. to sue for forgiveness at his father's feet.

The King dealt leniently with his rebellious children, but this first outbreak was only the harbinger of an almost uninterrupted series of disloyal intrigues, fomented by Louis VII and by his son and successor, Philip Augustus, in which Richard, who lived almost entirely in Guienne and Poitou, was engaged down to the time of his father's death. He acquired for himself a great and deserved reputation for knightly prowess, and he was often concerned in chivalrous exploits, showing much energy in particular in protecting the pilgrims who passed through his own and adjacent territories on their way to the shrine of St. James of Compostella. His elder brother Henry grew jealous of him and insisted that Richard should do him homage. On the latter's resistance war broke out between the brothers. Bertrand de Born, Count of Hautefort, who was Richard's rival in minstrelsy as well as in feats of arms, lent such powerful support to the younger Henry, that the old King had to intervene on Richard's side. The death of the younger Henry, 11 June, 1183, once more restored peace and made Richard heir to the throne. But other quarrels followed between Richard and his father, and it was in the heat of the most desperate of these, in which the astuteness of Philip Augustus had contrived to implicate Henry's favourite son John, that the old King died broken-hearted, 6 July, 1189. Despite the constant hostilities of the last few years, Richard secured the succession without difficulty. He came quickly to England and was crowned at Westminster on 3 Sept. But his object in visiting his native land was less to provide for the government of the kingdom than to collect resources for the projected Crusade which now appealed to the strongest, if not the best, instincts of his adventurous nature, and by the success of which he hoped to startle the world. Already, towards the end of 1187, when the news had reached him of Saladin's conquest of Jerusalem, Richard had taken the cross. Philip Augustus and Henry II had subsequently followed his example, but the quarrels which had supervened had so far prevented the realization of this pious design. Now that he was more free the young King seems to have been conscientiously in earnest in putting the recovery of the Holy Land before everything else. Though the expedients by which he set to work to gather every penny of ready money upon which he could lay hands were alike unscrupulous and impolitic, there is something which commands respect in the energy which he threw into the task. He sold sheriffdoms, justiceships, church lands, and appointments of all kinds, both lay and secular, practically to the highest bidder. He was not ungenerous in providing for his brothers John and Geoffrey, and he showed a certain prudence in exacting a promise from them to remain out of England for three years, in order to leave a free hand to the new Chancellor William of Longehamp, who was to govern England in his absence. Unfortunately he took with him many of the men, e. g. Archbishop Baldwin, Hubert Walter, and Ranulf Glanvill, whose statesmanship and experience would have been most useful in governing England and left behind many restless spirits like John himself and Longehamp, whose energy might have been serviceable against the infidel.

Already on 11 Dec., 1189, Richard was ready to cross to Calais. He met Philip Augustus, who was also to start on the Crusade, and the two Kings swore to defend each other's dominions as they would their own. The story of the Third Crusade has already been told in some detail (see CRUSADES). It was September, 1190, before Richard reached Marseilles; he pushed on to Messina and waited for the spring. There miserable quarrels occurred with Philip, whose sister he now refused to marry, and this trouble was complicated by an interference in the affairs of Sicily, which the Emperor Henry VI watched with a jealous eye, and which later on was to cost Richard dear. Setting sail in March, he was driven to Cyprus, where he quarrelled with Isaac Comnenus, seized the island, and married Berengaria of Navarre. He at last reached Acre in June and after prodigies of valour captured it. Philip then returned to France but Richard made two desperate efforts to reach Jerusalem, the first of which might have succeeded had he known the panic and weakness of the foe. Saladin was a worthy opponent, but terrible acts of cruelty as well as of chivalry took place, notably when Richard slew his Saracen prisoners in a fit of passion. In July, 1192, further effort seemed hopeless, and the King of England's presence was badly needed at home to secure his own dominions from the treacherous intrigues of John. Hastening back Richard was wrecked in the Adriatic, and falling eventually into the hands of Leopold of Austria, he was sold to the Emperor Henry VI, who kept him prisoner for over a year and extorted a portentous ransom which England was racked to pay. Recent investigation has shown that the motives of Henry's conduct were less vindictive than political. Richard was induced to surrender England to the Emperor (as John a few years later was to make over England to the Holy See), and then Henry conferred the kingdom upon his captive as a fief at the Diet of Mainz, in Feb., 1194 (see Bloch, "Forschungen", Appendix IV). Despite the intrigues of King Philip and John, Richard had loyal friends in England. Hubert Walter had now reached home and worked energetically with the Justices to raise the ransom, while Eleanor the Queen Mother obtained from the Holy See an excommunication against his captors. England responded nobly to the appeal for money and Richard reached home in March, 1194.

He showed little gratitude to his native land, and after spending less than two months there quitted it for his foreign dominions never to return. Still, in Hubert Walter, who was now both Archbishop of Canterbury and Justiciar, he left it a capable governor. Hubert tried to wring unconstitutional supplies and service from the impoverished barons and clergy, but failed in at least one such demand before the resolute opposition of St. Hugh of Lincoln. Richard's diplomatic struggles and his campaigns against the wily King of France were very costly but fairly successful. He would probably have triumphed in the end, but a bolt from a cross-bow while he was besieging the castle of Chaluz inflicted a mortal injury. He died, after receiving the last sacraments with signs of sincere repentance. In spite of his greed, his lack of principle, and, on occasions, his ferocious savagery, Richard had many good instincts. He thoroughly respected a man of fearless integrity like St. Hugh of Lincoln, and Bishop Stubbs says of him with justice that he was perhaps the most sincerely religious prince of his family. "He heard Mass daily, and on three occasions did penance in a very remarkable way, simply on the impulse of his own distressed conscience. He never showed the brutal profanity of John."

Lingard and all other standard Histories of England deal fully with the reign and personal character of Richard. DAVIS, A History of England in Six Volumes, II (2nd ed., London, 1909), and ADAMS, The Political History of England. II (London, 1905), may be specially recommended. The Prefaces contributed by Bishop Stubbs to his editions of various Chronicles in the R. S. are also very valuable, notably those to Roger of Hoveden (London, 1868-71); Ralph de Diceto (1875); and Benedict of Peterborough (1867). Besides these should be mentioned in the same series the two extremely important volumes of Chronicles and Memorials of the Reign of Richard I (London, 1864-65), also edited by Stubbs; the Magna Vita S. Hugonis, edited by Dimock, 1864; and Randulphi de Coggeshall Chronicon Anglicanum, ed. Stevenson, 1875. See also NORGATE, England under the Angevin Kings (London, 1889); LUCRAIRE AND LAVISSE, Histoire de France (Paris, 1902); KNELLER, Des Richard Löwenherz deutsche Gefangenshaft (Freiburg, 1893); BLOCH, Forschungen zur Politik Kaisers Heinrich VI in den Jahren 1191-1194 (Berlin, 1892); KINDT, Gründe der Gefangenschaft Richard I von England (Halle, 1892); and especially RÖHRICHT, Gesch. d. Konigreich Jerusalem (Innsbruck, 1890).

HERBERT THURSTON.

Charles-Louis Richard

Theologian and publicist; b. at Blainville-sur-l'Eau, in Lorraine, April, 1711; d. at Mons, Belgium, 16 Aug., 1794. His family, though of noble descent, was poor, and he received his education in the schools of his native town. At the age of sixteen he entered the Order of St. Dominic and, after his religious profession, was sent to study theology in Paris, where he received the Doctorate at the Sorbonne. He next applied himself to preaching and the defense of religion against d'Alembert, Voltaire, and their confederates. The outbreak of the Revolution forced him to seek refuge at Mons, in Belgium. During the second invasion of that country by the French, in 1794, old age prevented him from fleeing, and, though he eluded his pursuers for some time, he was at last detected, tried by court martial, and shot, as the author of "Parallèle des Juifs qui ont crucifié Jésus-Christ, avec les Français qui ont exécuté leur roi" (Mons, 1794). Among his works may be mentioned "Bibliothèque sacrée, ou dictionnaire universelle des sciences ecclésiastiques" (5 vols., Paris, 1760) and "Supplément" (Paris, 1765), the last and enlarged edition being that of Paris, 1821-27, 29 vols., and "Analyses des conciles généraux et particuliers" (5 vols., Paris, 1772-77).

MOULAERT, Ch. L. Richard aus dem Predigerorden (Ratisbon, 1870); Nomenclator, III (3rd ed.), 433-35.

H.J. SCHROEDER

Richard de Bury

Bishop and bibliophile, b. near Bury St. Edmund's, Suffolk, England, 24 Jan., 1286; d. at Auckland, Durham, England, 24 April, 1345. He was the son of Sir Richard Aungerville, but was named after his birthplace. He studied at Oxford and became a Benedictine. Having been appointed tutor to Prince Edward, son of Edward II and Isabella of France, he was exposed to some danger during the stormy scenes that led to the deposition of the king. On the accession of his pupil to the throne (1327), de Bury eventually rose to be Bishop of Durham (1333), High Chancellor (1334), and Treasurer of England (1336). He was sent on two embassies to John XXII of Avignon, and on one of his visits, probably in 1330, he made the acquaintance of the poet Petrarch. He continued to enjoy the favor of the king, and in his later years took a prominent part in the diplomatic negotiations with Scotland and France. He died at his manor of Auckland, and was buried in the cathedral of Durham. He founded Durham College at Oxford, and according to tradition bequeathed to its library most of the books which he had spent his life in collecting. There they remained until the dissolution of the College by Henry VIII. They were then scattered, some going to Balliol College, others to the university (Duke Humphrey's) library, and still others passing into the possession of Dr. George Owen, the purchaser of the site whereon the dissolved college had stood. These books were of course all in manuscript, for the art of printing had not yet been discovered.

Bale mentions three of de Bury's works, namely: "Philobiblon"; "Epistolae Familiarium"; and "Orationes ad Principes". It is by the "Philobiblon" that he is principally remembered. It was first printed at Cologne in 1473, then at Spires in 1483, in Paris in 1500, and at Oxford in 1598-99. Subsequent editions were made in Germany in 1610, 1614, 1674, and 1703, and in Paris in 1856. It was translated into English in 1832 by J. B. Inglis, and of this translation a reprint was made at Albany, New York, in 1861. The standard Latin text—the result of a collation of 28 manuscripts and of the printed editions—was established by Ernest C. Thomas and edited by him, with English translation, in 1888. A reprint of Thomas's translation appeared in the "Past and Present" Library in 1905.

Bishop Richard had a threefold object in writing the "Philobiblon": he wished to inculcate on the clergy the pursuit of learning and the cherishing of books as its receptacles; to vindicate to his contemporaries and to posterity his own action in devoting so much time, attention, and money to the acquisition of books; and to give directions for the management of the library which he proposed to establish at Durham College, Oxford. The work is important for its side-lights on the state of learning and manners and on the habits of the clergy in fourteenth-century England. He is the true type of the book-lover. He had a library in each of his residences. Conspicuous in his legacy are Greek and Hebrew grammars. He did not despise the novelties of the moderns, but he preferred the well-tested labors of the ancients, and, while he did not neglect the poets, he had but little use for law-books. He kept copyists, scribes, binders, correctors, and illuminators, and he was particularly careful to restore defaced or battered texts. His directions for the lending and care of the books intended for his college at Oxford are minute, and evince considerable practical forethought. His humility and simple faith are shown in the concluding chapter, in which he acknowledges his sins and asks the future students of his college to pray for the repose of his soul.

BALE, Scriptorum Illustrium majoris Britanniae, quam nunc Angliam et Scotiam vocant, Catalogus (Basle, 1557); WARTON, History of English Poetry, I, 146; HALLAM, Introduction to the Literature of Europe in the Fifteenth, Sixteenth, and Serenteenth Centuries; THOMAS, The Philobiblon newly translated, published under the title of The Love of Books in the Past and Present Library (1905); SURTEES SOCIETY, edition of Scriptores Tres; WHARTON, Anglia Sacra; Cambridge Modern History, I, xvii; The Cambridge History of English Literature, II, 410; BLADES, The Enemies of Books; CLARK, The Care of Books.

P.J. LENNOX

François-Marie-Benjamin Richard de la Vergne

Archbishop of Paris, born at Nantes, 1 March, 1819; died in Paris, 28 January, 1908.

Educated at the Seminary of Saint-Sulpice he became in 1849 secretary to Bishop Jacquemet at Nantes, then, from 1850 to 1869, vicar-general. In 1871 he became Bishop of Belley where he began the process for the beatification of the Curé d'Ars. On 7 May, 1875, he became coadjutor of Cardinal Guibert, Archbishop of Paris, whom he succeeded 8 July, 1886, becoming cardinal with the title of Santa Maria in Via, 24 May, 1889. He devoted much energy to the completion of the Basilica of the Sacred Heart at Montmartre, which he consecrated. Politically, Cardinal Richard was attached by ties of esteem and sympathy to the Monarchist Catholics. In 1892, when Leo XIII recommended the rallying of Catholics to the Republic (see FRANCE, The Third Republic and the Church in France), the cardinal created the "Union of Christian France" (Union de la France Chrétienne), to unite all Catholics on the sole basis of the defence of religion. The Monarchists opposed this "rallying" (Ralliement) with the policy which this union represented, and at last, at the pope's desire, the union was dissolved. On many occasions Cardinal Richard spoke in defence of the religious congregations, and Leo XIII addressed to him a letter (27 December, 1900) on the religious who were menaced by the then projected Law of Associations. In the domain of hagiography he earned distinction by his "Vie de la bienheureuse Françoise d'Amboise" (1865) and "Saints de l'église de Bretagne" (1872).

L'episcopat français, 1802-1905, s. v. Belley, Paris; LECANUET, L'Eglise de France sous la troisieme republique, II (Paris, 1910).

GEORGES GOYAU

St. Richard de Wyche

Bishop and confessor, b. about 1197 at Droitwich, Worcestershire, from which his surname is derived; d. 3 April, 1253, at Dover. He was the second son of Richard and Alice de Wyche. His father died while he was still young and the family property fell into a state of great delapidation. His elder brother offered to resign the inheritance to him, but Richard refused the offer, although he undertook the management of the estate and soon restored it to a good condition. He went to Oxford, where he and two companions lived in such poverty that they had only one tunic and hooded gown between them, in which they attended lectures by turns. He then went to Paris and on his return proceeded Master of Arts. At Bologna he studied canon law, in which he acquired a great reputation and was elected Chancellor of the University of Oxford.

His learning and sanctity were so famed that Edmund Rich, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln, both offered him the post of chancellor of their respective dioceses. Richard accepted the archbishop's offer and thenceforward became St. Edmund's intimate friend and follower. He approved the archbishop's action in opposing the king on the question of the vacant sees, accompanied him in his exile to Pontigny, was present at Soissy when he died, and made him a model in life. Richard supplied Matthew Paris with material for his biography, and, after attending the translation of his relics to Pontigny in 1249, wrote an account of the incident in a letter published by Matthew Paris (Historia major, V, VI). Retiring to the house of the Dominicans at Orleans, Richard studied theology, was ordained priest, and, after founding a chapel in honour of St. Edmund, returned to England where he became Vicar of Deal and Rector of Charring. Soon afterwards he was induced by Boniface of Savoy, the new Archbishop of Canterbury, to resume his former office of chancellor.

In 1244 Ralph Neville, Bishop of Chichester, died; the election of Robert Passelewe, Archdeacon of Chichester, to the vacant see, was quashed by Boniface at a synod of his suffragans, held 3 June, 1244, and on his recommendation the chapter elected Richard, their choice being immediately confirmed by the archbishop. Henry III was indignant, as Robert Passelewe was a favourite, and he refused to surrender to Richard the temporalities of his see. The Saint took his case to Innocent IV, who consecrated him in person at Lyons, 5 March, 1245, and sent him back to England. But Henry was immovable. Thus homeless in his own diocese, Richard was dependent on the charity of his clergy, one of whom, Simon of Tarring, shared with him the little he possessed. At length, in 1246, Henry was induced by the threats of the pope to deliver up the temporalities. As bishop, Richard lived in great austerity, giving away most of his revenues as alms. He compiled a number of statutes which regulate in great detail the lives of the clergy, the celebration of Divine service, the administration of the sacraments, church privileges, and other matters. Every priest in the diocese was bound to obtain a copy of these statutes and bring it to the diocesan synod (Wilkins, "Concilia", I, 688-93); in this way the standard of life among the clergy was raised considerably. For the better maintenance of his cathedral Richard instituted a yearly collection to be made in every parish of the diocese on Easter or Whit Sunday. The mendicant orders, particularly the Dominicans, received special encouragement from him.

In 1250 Richard was named as one of the collectors of the subsidy for the crusades (Bliss, "Calendar of Papal Letters", I, 263) and two years later the king appointed him to preach the crusade in London. He made strenuous efforts to rouse enthusiasm for the cause in the Dioceses of Chichester and Canterbury, and while journeying to Dover, where he was to consecrate a new church dedicated to St. Edmund, he was taken ill. Upon reaching Dover, he went to a hospital called "Maison Dieu", performed the consecration ceremony on 2 April, but died the next morning. His body was taken back to Chichester and buried in the cathedral. He was solemnly canonized by Urban IV in the Franciscan church at Viterbo, 1262, and on 20 Feb. a papal licence for the translation of his relics to a new shrine was given; but the unsettled state of the country prevented this until 16 June, 1276, when the translation was performed by Archbishop Kilwardby in the presence of Edward I. This shrine, which stood in the feretory behind the high altar, was rifled and destroyed at the Reformation. The much-restored altar tomb in the south transept now commonly assigned to St. Richard has no evidence to support its claim, and no relics are known to exist. The feast is celebrated on 3 April. The most accurate version of St. Richard's will, which has been frequently printed, is that given by Blaauw in "Sussex Archaeological Collections", I, 164-92, with a translation and valuable notes. His life was written by his confessor Ralph Bocking shortly after his canonization and another short life, compiled in the fifteenth century, was printed by Capgrave. Both these are included in the notice of St. Richard in the Bollandist "Acta Sanctorum".

HARDY, Descriptive catalogue of MSS. relating to the history of Great Britain and Ireland, III (London, 1871), 136-9; Acta SS., April, I (Venice, 1768), 277-318; CAPGRAVE, Nova legenda Angliae (London, 1516), 269; PARIS, Historia major, ed. MADDEN in R. S., II, III (London, 1866); Annales monastici, ed. LUARD in R. S. (London, 1864); Flores historiarum, ed. IDEM in R. S., II (London, 1890); Rishanger's Chronicle, ed. RILEY in R. S. (London, 1865); TRIVET, ed. HOG, Annales sex regum Angliae (London, 1845); Calendar of Papal Letters, ed. BLISS, I (London, 1893); Vita di S. Ricardo vescovo di Cicestria (Milan, 1706); STEPHENS, Memorials of the See of Chichester (London, 1876), 83-98, contains the best modern life; WALLACE, St. Edmund of Canterbury (London, 1893), 196-205; GASQUET, Henry III and the Church (London, 1905), 222, 343; CHALLONER, Britannia sancta (London, 1745), 206-13; STANTON, Menology of England and Wales (London, 1887), 141-3.

G. ROGER HUDLESTON

Bl. Richard Fetherston

Priest and martyr; died at Smithfield, 30 July, 1540. He was chaplain to Catharine of Aragon and schoolmaster to her daughter, Princess Mary, afterwards queen. He is called sacrae theologiae Doctor by Pits (De illustribus Angliae scriptoribus, 729). He was one of the theologians appointed to defend Queen Catharine's cause in the divorce proceedings before the legates Wolsey and Campeggio, and is said to have written a treatise "Contra divortium Henrici et Catharinae, Liber unus". No copy of this work is known to exist. He took part in the session of Convocation which began in April, 1529, and was one of the few members who refused to sign the Act declaring Henry's marriage with Catharine to be illegal ab initio, through the pope's inability to grant a dispensation in such a case. In 1534 he was called upon to take the Oath of Supremacy and, on refusing to do so, was committed to the Tower, 13 December, 1534. He seems to have remained in prison till 30 July, 1540, when he was hanged, drawn, and quartered at Smithfield, together with the Catholic theologians, Thomas Abel and Edward Powell, who like himself had been councillors to Queen Catharine in the divorce proceedings, and three heretics, Barnes, Garret, and Jerome, condemned for teaching Zwinglianism. All six were drawn through the streets upon three hurdles, a Catholic and a heretic on each hurdle. The Protestants were burned, and the three Catholics executed in the usual manner, their limbs being fixed over the gates of the city and their heads being placed upon poles on London Bridge. Richard was beatified by Leo XIII, 29 December, 1886.

PITS, De illustribus Angliae scriptoribus (Paris, 1619), 729; SANDER, tr. LEWIS, Rise and Growth of the Anglican Schism (London, 1877), 65, 67, 150; BURNET, History of the Reformation, ed. POCOCK (Oxford, 1865), I, 260, 472, 566-67; IV, 555, 563; TANNER, Bibliotheca Britannico-Hibernica (London, 1748), 278; Original Letters Relative to the English Reformation (Parker Society, Cambridge, 1846), I, 209; Calendar of State Papers, Henry VIII, ed. GAIRDNER (London, 1882, 1883, 1885, VI, 311, 1199; VII, 530; VIII, 666, 1001.

G. ROGER HUDLESTON

Richard of Cirencester

Chronicler, d. about 1400. He was the compiler of a chronicle from 447 to 1066, entitled "Speculum Historiale de Gestis Regum Angliae". The work, which is in four books, is of little historical value, but contains several charters granted to Westminster Abbey. Nothing is known of Richard's life except that he was a monk of Westminster, who made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem in 1391, was still at Westminster in 1397, and that he lay sick in the infirmary in 1400. Two other works are attributed to him: "De Officiis", and "Super Symbolum Majus et Minus", but neither is now extant. In the eighteenth century his name was used by Charles Bertram as the pretended author of his forgery "Richardus Copenensis de situ Britanniae", which deceived Stukeley and many subsequent antiquarians and historians, including Lingard, and which was only finally exposed by Woodward in 1866-67. This spurious chronicle, however, still appears under Richard's name in Giles, "Six English Chronicles" (London, 1872).

Ricardi Cicestrensis Speculum Historiale, ed. MAYOR, Rolls Series (London, 1863-69); STUKELEY An Account of Richard of Cirencester and his works (London, 1757); HARDY Descriptive Catalogue (London, 1871); HUNT in Dict. Nat. Biog, s. v.; BOLLANDISTS. Catalogus cod. hagiog. Lat. B. N. (Paris, 1893).

EDWIN BURTON

Richard of Cornwall

(RICHARD RUFUS, RUYS, ROSSO, ROWSE).

The dates of his birth and death are unknown, but he was still living in 1259. He was an Oxford Franciscan, possibly a Master of Arts of that university, who had studied for a time in Paris (1238), and then returned to Oxford. He was chosen with Haymo of Faversham to go to Rome to oppose the minister-general Elias. In 1250 he was lecturing at Oxford on the "Sentences", till he was driven away by the riots, when he returned to Paris and continued lecturing there, gaining the title Philosophus Admirabilis; but according to Roger Bacon his teaching was very mischievous, and produced evil results for the next forty years. He was again at Oxford in 1255 as regent-master of the friars. Several works, all still in MS., are attributed to him. These are: "Commentaries on the Master of the Sentences", a work formerly at Assisi; "Commentary on Bonaventure's third book of Sentences" (Assisi); and a similar commentary on the fourth book (Assisi); Pits ("De illustribus Angliae scriptoribus") denies his identity with Richard Rufus on the ground that Rufus was born at Cirencester in Gloucestershire, and not in Cornwall.

Monumenta Franciscana, ed. BREWER AND HOWLETT in R. S. (London, 1858-82); WADDING, Annales Minorum, IV (Lyons and Rome, 1650); 2nd ed. (Rome, 1731-45); and supplement by SBARALEA (1806); PARKINSON, Collectanea Anglo-Minoritica (London, 1726); LITTLE, The Grey Friars in Oxford (Oxford, 1892); DENIFLE, Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis (Paris 1889); see also tr. of THOMAS OF ECCLESTON by FR. CUTHBERT, The Friars and how they came to England (London, 1903), and The Chronicle of Thomas of Eccleston (London, 1909).

EDWIN BURTON

Richard of Middletown

(A MEDIA VILLA).

Flourished at the end of the thirteenth century, but the dates of his birth and death and most incidents of his life are unknown. Middleton Stoney in Oxfordshire and Middleton Cheyney in Northamptonshire have both been suggested as his native place, and he has also been claimed as a Scotsman. He probably studied first at Oxford, but in 1283 he was at the University of Paris and graduated Bachelor of Divinity in that year. He entered the Franciscan order. In 1278 he had been appointed by the general of his order to examine the doctrines of Peter Olivus, and the same work was again engaging his attention in 1283. In 1286 he was sent with two other Franciscans to Naples to undertake the education of two of the sons of Charles II, Ludwig, afterwards a Franciscan, and Robert. After the defeat of Charles by Peter of Arragon the two princes were carried as hostages to Barcelona and Richard accompanied them, sharing their captivity till their release in 1295. The rest of his life lies in obscurity. A new point of interest at the present day lies in the fact that, medieval scholastic though he was, he knew and studied the phenomena of hypnotism, and left the results of his investigations in his "Quodlibeta" (Paris, 1519, fol. 90 8) where he treats of what would now be termed auto-suggestion and adduces some instances of tele pathy.

His works include "Super sententias Petri Lombardi", written between 1281 and 1285, and first printed at Venice, 1489; "Quaestiones Quodlibetales" in MS. at Oxford and elsewhere; "Quodlibeta tria" printed with the Sentences at Venice, 1509; "De gradibus formarum" in MS. at Munich; and "Quae stiones disputatae" in MS. at Assisi. Other works which have been attributed. to him are: "Super epistolas Pauli"; "Super evangelia"; "Super distinctiones decreti"; "De ordine judiciorum"; "De clavium sacerdotalium potestate"; "Contra Patrem Joannem Olivum"; a poem, "De conceptione immaculata Virginis Mariae"; three MS. sermons now in the Bibliotheque Nationale (MS. 14947, nos. 47, 69, 98), and a sermon on the Ascension, the MS. of which is at Erlangen. Works erroneously ascribed to him are a treatise on the rule of St. Francis; the "Quadragesimale" which was written by Francis of Asti; the completion of the "Summa" of Alexander of Hales, and an "Expositio super Ave Maria", probably by Richard of Saxony. His death is assigned by some to 1307 or 1308, by Pits to 1300, by Parkinson to some earlier date on the ground that he was one of the "Four Masters", the expositors of the Rule of St. Francis.

WADDING, Annales Minorum (2nd ed., Rome, 1731-45), and supplement by SBARALEA (1806); PARKINSON, Collectanea Anglo Minoritica (London, 1726); DE MARTIGNE, La Scolastique et les traditions Franciscaines: Richard de Middletown in Revue. scien., eccles., II (1885); PORTALIE, L'hypnotisme au moyen age: Aricenne Avicenne et Richard Middletown in etudes relig. hist. Litt., LV (1892); CHEVALIER, Repertoire des sources historiques du Moyen Age (Paris, 1905); KINGSFORD in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v. Middleton.

EDWIN BURTON

Richard of St. Victor

Theologian, native of Scotland, but the date and place of his birth are unknown; d. 1173 and was commemorated on 10 March in the necrology of the abbey. He was professed at the monastery of St. Victor under the first Abbot Gilduin (d. 1155) and was a disciple of the great mystic Hugo whose principles and methods he adopted and elaborated. His career was strictly monastic, and his relations with the outer world were few and slight. He was sub-prior of the monastery in 1159, and subsequently became prior. During his tenure of the latter office, serious trouble arose in the community of St. Victor from the misconduct of the English Abbot Ervisius, whose irregular life brought upon him a personal admonition from Alexander III, and was subsequently referred by the pope to a commission of inquiry under the royal authority; after some delay and resistance on the part of the abbot his resignation was obtained and he retired from the monastery. A letter of exhortation was addressed by the pope to "Richard, the prior" and the community in 1170. Richard does not appear to have taken any active part in these proceedings, but the disturbed condition of his surroundings may well have accentuated his desire for the interior solace of mystical contemplation. Ervisius's resignation took place in 1172. In 1165, St. Victor had been visited by St. Thomas of Canterbury, after his flight from Northampton; and Richard was doubtless one of the auditors of the discourse delivered by the archbishop on that occasion. A letter to Alexander III, dealing with the affairs of the archbishop, and signed by Richard is extant and published by Migne. Like his master, Hugo, Richard may probably have had some acquaintance and intercourse with St. Bernard, who is thought to have been the Bernard to whom the treatise "De tribus appropriatis personis in Trinitate" is addressed. His reputation as a theologian extended far beyond the precincts of his monastery, and copies of his writings were eagerly sought by other religious houses. Exclusively a theologian, unlike Hugo, he appears to have had no interest in philosophy, and took no part in the acute philosophieal controversies of his time; but, like all the School of St. Victor, he was willing to avail himself of the didactic and constructive methods in theology which had been introduced by Abelard. Nevertheless, he regarded merely secular learning with much suspicion, holding it to be worthless as an end in itself, and only an occasion of worldly pride and self-seeking when divorced from the knowledge of Divine things. Such learning he calls, in the antithetical style which characterizes all his writing, "Sapientia insipida et doctrina indocta"; and the professor of such learning is "Captator famae, neglector conscientiae". Such worldly-minded persons should stimulate the student of sacred things to greater efforts in his own higher sphere—"When we consider how much the philosophers of this world have laboured, we should be ashamed to be inferior to them"; "We should seek always to comprehend by reason what we hold by faith."

His works fall into the three classes of dogmatic, mystical, and exegetical. In the first, the most important is the treatise in six books on the Trinity, with the supplement on the attributes of the Three Persons, and the treatise on the Incarnate Word. But greater interest now belongs to his mystical theology, which is mainly contained in the two books on mystical contemplation, entitled respectively "Benjamin Minor" and "Benjamin Major", and the allegorical treatise on the Tabernacle. He carries on the mystical doctrine of Hugo, in a somewhat more detailed scheme, in which the successive stages of contemplation are described. These are six im number, divided equally among the three powers of the soul—the imagination, the reason, and the intelligence, and ascending from the contemplation of the visible things of creation to the rapture in which the soul is carried "beyond itself" into the Divine Presence, by the three final stages of "Dilatio, sublevatio, alienatio". This schematic arrangement of contemplative soul-states is substantially adopted by Gerson in his more systematic treatise on mystical theology, who, however, makes the important reservation that the distinction between reason and intelligence is to be understood as functional and not real. Much use is made in the mystical treatises of the allegorical interpretation of Scripture for which the Victorine school had a special affection. Thus the titles "Benjamin Major" and "Minor" refer to Ps. lxvii, "Benjamin in mentis excessu". Rachel represents the reason, Lia represents charity; the tabernacle is the type of the state of perfection, in which the soul is the dwelling-place of God. In like manner, the mystical or devotional point of view predominates in the exegetical treatises; though the critical and doctrinal exposition of the text also receives attention. The four books entitled "Tractatus exceptionum", and attributed to Richard, deal with matters of secular learning. Eight titles of works attributed to him by Trithemius (De Script. Eccl.) refer probably to MS. fragments of his known works. A "Liber Penitentialis" is mentioned by Montfauçon as attributed to a "Ricardus Secundus a Sancto Victore", and may probably be identical with the treatise "De potestate solvendi et ligandi" above mentioned. Nothing is otherwise known of a second Richard of St. Victor. Fifteen other MSS. are said to exist of works attributed to Richard which have appeared in none of the published editions, and are probably spurious. Eight editions of his works have been published: Venice, 1506 (incomplete) and 1592; Paris, 1518 and 1550; Lyons, 1534; Cologne, 1621; Rouen, 1650, by the Canons of St. Victor; and by Migne.

HUGONIN, Notice sur R. de St. Victor in P.L., CXCVI; ENGELHARDT, R. von St. Victor u. J. Ruysbroek (Erlangen, 1838); VAUGHAN, Hours uith the Mystics V (London, 1893); INGE, Christian Mysticism (London, 1898); DE WULF, Histoire de la philosophie medievale (Louvain, 1905); BUONAMICI, R. di San Vittore saggi di studio sulla filosofia mistica del secolo XII (Alatri, 1898); VON HUGEL, The Mystical Element in Religion (London, 1909); UNDERHILL, Mysticism (London, 1911).

A.B. SHARPE

Ven. William Richardson

( Alias Anderson.) Last martyr under Queen Elizabeth; b. according to Challoner at Vales in Yorkshire (i.e. presumably Wales, near Sheffield), but, according to the Valladolid diary, a Lancashire man; executed at Tyburn, 17 Feb., 1603. He arrived at Reims 16 July, 1592 and on 21 Aug. following was sent to Valladolid, where he arrived 23 Dec. Thence, 1 Oct., 1594, he was sent to Seville where he was ordained. According to one account he was arrested at Clement's Inn on 12 Feb., but another says he had been kept a close prisoner in Newgate for a week before he was condemned at the Old Bailey on the 15 Feb., under stat. 27 Eliz., c. 2, for being a priest and coming into the realm. He was betrayed by one of his trusted friends to the Lord Chief Justice, who expedited his trial and execution with unseemly haste, and seems to have acted more as a public prosecutor than as a judge. At his execution he showed great courage and constancy, dying most cheerfully, to the edification of all beholders. One of his last utterances was a prayer for the queen.

JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT

Bl. Richard Thirkeld

Martyr; b. at Coniscliffe, Durham, England; d. at York, 29 May, 1583. From Queen's College, Oxford, where he was in 1564-5, he went to Reims, where he was ordained priest, 18 April, 1579, and left 23 May for the mission, where he ministered in or about York, and acted as confessor to Ven. Margaret Clitheroe. On the eve of the Annunciation, 1583, he was arrested while visiting one of the Catholic prisoners in the Ousebridge Kidcote, York, and at once confessed his priesthood, both to the pursuivants, who arrested him, and to the mayor before whom he was brought, and for the night was lodged in the house of the high sheriff. The next day his trial took place, at which he managed to appear in cassock and biretta. The charge was one of having reconciled the queen's subjects to the Church of Rome. He was found guilty on 27 May and condemned 28 May. He spent the night in instructing his fellow-prisoners, and the morning of his condemnation in upholding the faith and constancy of those who were brought to the bar. No details of his execution are extant: six of his letters still remain, and are summarized by Dom Bede Camm.

JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT

Blessed Richard Whiting

Last Abbot of Glastonbury and martyr, parentage and date of birth unknown, executed 15 Nov., 1539; was probably educated in the claustral school at Glastonbury, whence he proceeded to Cambridge, graduating as M.A. in 1483 and D.D. in 1505. If, as is probable, he was already a monk when he went to Cambridge he must have received the habit from John Selwood, Abbot of Glastonbury from 1456 to 1493. He was ordained deacon in 1500 and priest in 1501, and held for some years the office of chamberlain of his monastery. In February, 1525, Richard Bere, Abbot of Glastonbury, died, and the community, after deciding to elect his successor per formam compromissi, which places the selection in the hands of some one person of note, agreed to request Cardinal Wolsey to make the choice of an abbot for them. After obtaining the king's permission to act and giving a fortnight's inquiry to the circumstances of the case Wolsey on 3 March, 1525, nominated Richard Whiting to the vacant post. The first ten years of Whiting's rule were prosperous and peaceful, and he appears in the State papers as a careful overseer of his abbey alike in spirituals and temporals. Then, in August, 1535, came the first "visitation" of Glastonbury by Dr. Layton, who, however, found all in good order. In spite of this, however, the abbot's jurisdiction over the town of Glastonbury was suspended and minute "injunctions" were given to him about the management of the abbey property; but then and more than once during the next few years he was assured that there was no intention of suppressing the abbey.

By January, 1539, Glastonbury was the only monastery left in Somerset, and on 19 September in that year the royal commissioners, Lavton, Pollard and Moyle, arrived there without warning. Whiting happened to be at his manor of Sharpham. Thither the commissioners followed and examined him according to certain articles received from Cromwell, which apparently dealt with the question of the succession to the throne. The abbot, was then taken back to Glastonbury and thence sent up to London to the Tower that Cromwell might examine him for himself, but the precise charge on which he was arrested, and subsequently executed, remains uncertain though his case is usually referred to as one of treason. On 2 October, the commissioners wrote to Cromwell that they had now come to the knowledge of "divers and sundry treasons committed by the Abbot of Glastonbury", and enclosed a "book" of evidences thereof with the accusers' names, which however is no longer forthcoming. In Cromwell's MS., "Remembrances", for the same month, are the entries: "Item, Certayn persons to be sent to the Towre for the further examenacyon of the Abbot, of Glaston . . . . Item. The Abbot, of Glaston to (be) tryed at Glaston and also executvd there with his complvcys. . . Item. Councillors to give evidence against the Abbot of Glaston, Rich. Pollard, Lewis Forstew (Forstell), Thos. Moyle." Marillac, the French Ambassador, on 25 October wrote: "The Abbot of Glastonbury. . . has lately, been put in the Tower, because, in taking the Abbey treasures, valued at 200,000 crowns, they found a written book of arguments in behalf of queen Katherine." If the charge was high treason, which appears most probable, then, as a member of the House of Peers, Whiting should have been attainted by an Act of Parliament passed for the purpose, but his execution was an accomplished fact, before Parliament even met. In fact it seems clear that his doom was deliberately wrapped in obscurity by Cromwell and Henry, for Marillac, writing to Francis I on 30 November, after mentioning the execution of the Abbots of Reading and Glastonbury, adds: "could learn no particulars of what they were charged with, except that it was the relics of the late lord marquis"; which makes things more perplexing than ever. Whatever the charge, however, Whiting was sent back to Somerset in the care of Pollard and reached Wells on 14 November. Here some sort of trial apparently took place, and next day, Saturday, 15 November, he was taken to Glastonbury with two of his monks, Dom John Thorne and Dom Roger James, where all three were fastened upon hurdles and dragged by horses to the top of Toe Hill which overlooks the town. Here they were hanged, drawn and quartered, Abbot Whiting's head being fastened over the gate of the now deserted abbey and his limbs exposed at Wells, Bath, Ilchester and Bridgewater. Richard Whiting was beatified by Pope Leo XIII in his decree of 13 May, 1895. His watch and seal are still preserved in the museum at Glastonbury.

G. ROGER HUDDLESTON

Armand-Jean du Plessis, Duke de Richelieu

Cardinal; French statesman, b. in Paris, 5 September, 1585; d. there 4 December 1642. At first he intended to follow a military career, but when, in 1605, his brother Alfred resigned the Bishopric of Luçon and retired to the Grande Chartreuse, Richelieu obtained the see from Henry IV and withdrew to the country to take up his theological studies under the direction of Bishop Cospéan of Aire. He was consecrated bishop on 17 April, 1607; he was not yet twenty-two years old, although the Brief of Paul V dated 19 December, 1606, announcing his appointment contains the statement: "in vigesimo tertio aetatis anno tantum constitutus". Mgr. Lacroix, the historian of Richelieu's youth, believes that in a journey made to Rome at the end of 1606, Richelieu deceived the pope as to his age, but the incident is still obscure. In his diocese, Richelieu showed great zeal for the conversion of Protestants and appointed the Oratorians and the Capuchins to give missions in all the parishes. Richelieu represented the clergy of Poitou in the States General of 1614, where his political career began. There he was the mouth-piece of the Church, and in a celebrated discourse demanded that bishops and prelates be summoned to the royal councils, that the distribution of ecclesiastical benefices to the laity be forbidden, that the Church be exempt from taxation, that Protestants who usurped churches or had their coreligionists interred in them be punished, and that the Decrees of the Council of Trent be promulgated throughout France. He ended by assuring the young king Louis XIII that the desire of the clergy was to have the royal power so assured that it might be "comme un ferme rocher qui brise tout ce qui le heurte" (as a firm rock which crushes all that opposes it).

Richelieu was named secretary of state on 30 November, 1616, but after the assassination of Concini, favourite of Maria de' Medici, he was forced to leave the ministry and follow the queen mother to Blois. To escape the political intrigues which pursued him he retired in June, 1617, to the priory of Coussay and, during this time of leisure caused by his disgrace, published in October, 1617 (date confirmed by Mgr. Lacroix), his "Les principaux points de la foi de l'église catholique, défendus contre l'éecrit adressé au Roi par les quartre ministres de Charenton"; it was upon reading this book half a century later that Jacques de Coras, a Protestant pastor of Tonneins, was converted to Catholicism. Richelieu continued to be represented to the king as an enemy to his power; the Capuchin, Leclerc du Tremblay, never succeeded in completely clearing him in Louis XIII's opinion. To disarm suspicion Richelieu asked the king to name a place of exile, and at his order went in 1618 to Avignon, where he passed nearly a year and where he composed a catechism which became famous under the name of "Instruction du chrétien". This book, destined to be read in every parish each Sunday at the sermon, was a real blessing at a time when ignorance of religion was the principal evil. When Maria de' Medici escaped from Blois in 1619, Richelieu was chosen by the minister Luynes to negotiate for peace between Louis XIII and his mother. By Brief of 3 November, 1622, he was created cardinal by Gregory XV. On 19 April, 1624, he re-entered the Council of Ministers, and on 12 August, 1624, was made its president. Richelieu's policy can be reduced to two principal ideas: the domestic unification of France and opposition to the House of Austria. At home he had to contend with constant conspiracies in which Maria de' Medici, Queen Anne of Austria, Gaston d'Orléans (the king's brother), and the highest nobles of the court were involved. The executions of Marillac (1632), Montmorency (1632), Cinq-Mars and of de Thou (1642) intimidated the enemies of the cardinal. He had also to contend with the Protestants who were forming a state within the state (see HUGUENOTS). The capitulation of La Rochelle and the peace of Alais (28 June, 1629) annihilated Protestantism as a political party.

Richelieu's foreign policy (for which see LECLERC DU TREMBLAY) was characterized by his fearlessness in making alliances with the foreign Protestants. At various times the Protestants of the Grisons, Sweden, the Protestant Princes of Germany, and Bernard of Saxe-Weimar were his allies. The favourable treaties signed by Mazarin were the result of Richelieu's policy of Protestant alliances, a policy which was severely censured by a number of Catholics. At the end of 1625, when Richelieu was preparing to give back Valteline to the Protestant Grisons, the partisans of Spain called him "Cardinal of the Huguenots", and two pamphlets, attributed to the Jesuits Eudemon Joannes and Jean Keller, appeared against him; these he had burned. Hostilities, however, increased until finally the king's confessor opposed the foreign policy of the cardinal. This was a very important episode, and on it the recent researches of Father de Rochemonteix in the archives of the Society of Jesus have cast new light. Father Caussin, author of "La Cour Sainte", the Jesuit whom Richelieu, on 25 March, 1636, had made the king's confessor, tried to use against the cardinal the influence of Mlle. de La Fayette, a lady for whom the king had entertained a certain regard and who had become a nun. On 8 December, 1637, in a solemn interview Caussin recalled to the king his duties towards his wife, Anne of Austria, to whom he was too indifferent; asked him to allow his mother, Maria de' Medici, to return to France; and pointed out the dangers to Catholicism which might arise through Richelieu's alliance with the Turks and the Protestant princes of Germany. After this interview Caussin gave Communion to the king and addressed him a very beautiful sermon, entreating him to obey his directions. Richelieu was anxious that the king's confessor should occupy himself solely with "giving absolutions", consequently, on 10 December, 1637, Caussin was dismissed and exiled to Rennes, and his successor, Father Jacques Sirmond, celebrated for his historical knowledge, was forced to promise that, if he saw "anything censurable in the conduct of the State", he would report it to the cardinal and not attempt to influence the king's conscience. However, Father Caussin's fears concerning Richelieu's foreign policy were not shared by all of his confrères. Father Lallemand, for instance, affirmed that it was rash to blame the king's political alliance with the Protestant princes -- an alliance which had been made only after an unsuccessful attempt to form one with Bavaria and the Catholic princes of Germany.

That Richelieu was possessed of religious sentiments cannot be contested. It was he who in February, 1638, prompted the declaration by which Louis XIII consecrated the Kingdom of France to the Virgin Mary; in the ministry he surrounded himself with priests and religious; as general he employed Cardinal de la Valette; as admiral, Sourdis, Archbishop of Bordeaux; as diplomat, Bérulle; as chief auxiliary he had Leclerc du Tremblay. He himself designated Mazarin his successor. He had a high idea of the sacerdotal dignity, was continually protesting against he encroachments of the parlements on the jurisdiction of the Church, and advised the king to choose as bishops only those who should "have passed after their studies a considerable time in the seminaries, the places established for the study of the ecclesiastical functions". He wished to compel the bishops to reside in their dioceses, to establish seminaries there, and to visit their parishes. He aided the efforts of St. Vincent de Paul to induce the bishops to institute the "exercises des ordinants", retreats, during which the young clerics were to prepare themselves for the priesthood. Richelieu foresaw the perils to which nascent Jansenism would expose the Church. Saint-Cyran's doctrines on the constitution of the Church, his views on the organization of the "great Christian Republic", his liaison with Jansenius (who in 1635 had composed a violent pamphlet against France under the names of Mars gallicus), and the manner in which he opposed the annulment of the marriage of Gaston d'Orléans, drew upon him the cardinal's suspicion. In having him arrested 14 May, 1638, Richelieu declared that "had Luther and Calvin been confined before they had begun to dogmatize, the states would have been spared many troubles". Two months later Richelieu forced the solitaries of Port Royal-des- Champs to disperse; some were sent to Paris, others to Ferte-Milon. Saint-Cyran remained in the dungeon of Vincennes until the cardinal's death. With the co-operation of the Benedictine Gregoire Tarisse, Richelieu devoted himself seriously to the reform of the Benedictines. Named coadjutor to the Abbot of Cluny in 1627, and Abbot of Cluny in 1629, he called to this monastery the Reformed Benedictines of Saint-Vannes. He proposed forming the congregations of Saint-Vannes and Saint-Maur into one body, of which he was to have been superior. Only half of this project was accomplished, however, when in 1636 he succeeded in uniting the Order of Cluny with the Congregation of Saint-Maur. From 1622 Richelieu was proviseur of the Sorbonne, and was in virtue of this office head of the Association of Doctors of the Sorbonne. He had the Sorbonne entirely rebuilt between 1626 and 1629, and between 1635 and 1642 built the church of the Sorbonne, in which he is now buried.

On the question of the relations between the temporal and the spiritual powers, Richelieu really professed the doctrine called Duvalism after the theologian Duval, who admitted at the same time the supreme power of the pope and the supreme power of the king and the divine right of both. In the dissensions between Rome and the Gallicans he most frequently acted as mediator. When in 1626 a book by the Jesuit Sanctarel appeared in Paris, affirming the right of the popes to depose kings for wrong-doing, heresy, or incapacity, it was burned in the Place de Greve; Father Coton and the three superiors of the Jesuits houses summoned before the Parlement were forced to repudiate the work. The enemies ofthe Jesuits wished immediately to create a new disturbance on the occasion of the publication of the "Somme theologique des vérités apostoliques capitales de la religion chrétienne", by Father Garasse, but Richelieu opposed the continued agitation. It was, however, renewed at the end of 1626, owing to a thesis of the Dominican Têtefort, which maintained that the Decretals formed part of the Scripture. Richelieu again strove to allay feeling, and in a discourse (while still affirming that the king held his kingdom from God alone) declared that "the king cannot make an article of faith unless this article has been so declared by the Church in her oecumenical councils". Subsequently, Richelieu gave satisfaction to the pope when on 7 December,1 629, he obtained a retraction from the Gallican Edmond Richer, syndic of the theological faculty, who submitted his book "La puissance ecclesiastique et politique" to the judgment of the pope. Nine years alter, however, Richelieu's struggles against the resistance offered by the French clergy to taxes led him to assume an attitude more deliberately Gallican. Contrary to the theories which he had maintained in his discourse of 1614 he considered, now that he was a minister, that the needs of the State constituted a case of force majeure, which should oblige the clergy to submit to all the fiscal exigencies of the civil power. As early as 1625 the assembly of the clergy, tired of the incessant demands of the Government for money, had decreed that no deputy could vote supplies without having first received full powers on the subject; Richelieu, contesting this principle, declared that the needs of the State were actual, while those of the Church were chimerical and arbitrary.

In 1638 the struggle between the State and the clergy on the subject of taxes became critical, and Richelieu, to uphold his claims, enlisted the aid of the brothers Pierre and Jacques Dupuy, who about the middle of 1638 published "Les libertés de l'église gallicane". This book established the independence of the Gallican Church in opposition to Rome only to reduce it into servile submission to the temporal power. The clergy and the nuncio complained; eighteen bishops assembled at the house of Cardinal de la Rouchefoucald, and denounced to their colleagues this "work of the devil". Richelieu then exaggerated his fiscal exigencies in regard to the clergy; an edict of 16 April, 1639, stipulated that ecclesiastics and communities were incapable of possessing landed property in France, that the king could compel them to surrender their possessions and unite them to his domains, but that he would allow them to retain what they had in consideration of certain indemnities which should be calculated in going back to the year 1520. In Oct., 1639, after the murder of an equerry of Marshal d'Estrees, the French Ambassador, Estrees declared the rights of the people violated. Richelieu refused to receive the nuncio (October, 1639); a decree of the royal council, 22 December, restrained the powers of the pontifical Briefs, and even the canonist Marca proposed to break the Concordat and to hold a national council at which Richelieu was to have been made patriarch. Precisely at this date Richelieu had a whole series of grievances against Rome: Urban VIII had refused successively to name him Legate of the Holy See in France, Legate of Avignon, and coadjutor to the Bishop of Trier; he had refused the purple to Father Joseph, and had been opposed the annulment of the marriage of Gaston d'Orléans. But Richelieu, however furious he was, did not wish to carry things to extremes. After a certain number of polemics on the subject of the taxes to be levied on the clergy, the ecclesiastical assembly of Mantes in 1641 accorded to the Government (which was satisfied therewith) five and a half millions, and Richelieu, to restore quiet, accepted the dedication of Marca's book "La concorde du sacerdoce et de l'empire", in which certain exceptions were taken to Dupuy's book. At the same time the sending of Mazarin as envoy to France by Urban VIII, and the presentation to him of the cardinal's hat put an end to the differences between Richelieu and the Holy See.

Upon the whole, Richelieu's policy was to preserve a just mean between the parliamentary Gallicans and the Ultramontanes. "In such matters", he wrote in his political testament, "one must believe neither the people of the palace, who ordinarily measure the power of the king by the shape of his crown, which, being round, has no end, nor those who, in the excesses of an indiscreet zeal, proclaim themselves openly as partisans of Rome". One may believe that Pierre de Marca's book was inspired by him and reproduces his ideas. According to this book the liberties of the Gallican Church have two foundations: (1) the recognition of the primacy and the sovereign authority ofthe Church of Rome, a primacy consisting in the right to make general laws, to judge without appeal, and to be judged neither by bishops nor by councils; (2) the sovereign right of the kings which knows no superior in temporal affairs. It is to be noted that Marca does not give the superiority of a council over the pope as a foundation of the Gallican liberties. (For Richelieu's work in Canada see article CANADA.) In 1636 Richelieu founded the Academie Française. He had great literary pretensions, and had several mediocre plays of his own composition produced in a theatre belonging to him. With a stubbornness inexplicable to-day Voltaire foolishly denied that Richelieu's "Testament politique" was authentic; the researches of M. Hanotaux have proved its authenticity, and given the proper value to admirable chapters such as the chapter entitled, "Le conseil du Prince", into which Richelieu, says M. Hanotaux, "has put all his soul and his genius". [For Richelieu's "Mémoires" see HARLAY, FAMILY OF: (2) Achille de Harlay.]

Besides the works indicated in the articles LECLERC DU TREMBLAY and MARIA DE' MEDICI the following may be consulted: Maximes d'etat et fragments politiques du cardinal de Richelieu, ed. HANTAUX (Paris, 1880); Lettres, instructions diplomatiques et papiers d'etat du cardinal de Richelieu, ed. AVERNEL (8 vols., Paris, 1853-77); Memoires du cardinal de Richelieu, ed. HORRIC DE BEAUCAIRE, I (Paris, 1908); LAIR, LAVOLLEE, BRUEL, GABRIEL DE MUN, and LECESTRE, Rapports et notices sur l'edition des Memoires du cardinal de Richelieu preparee pour la societe de l'histoire de France (3 fasc., Paris, 1905-07); HANOTAUX, Hist. du cardinal de Richelieu (2 tomes in 3 vols., Paris, 1893-1903), extends to 1624; CAILLET, L'Administration en France sous le ministere du cardinal de Richelieu (2 vols., Paris, 1863); D'AVENEL, Richelieu et la monarchie absolue (4 vols., Paris, 1880-7); IDEM, La noblesse francaise sous Richelieu (Paris, 1901); IDEM, Pretres, soldats et juges sous Richelieu (Paris, 1907); LACROIX, Richelieu a Lucon, sa jeunese, son episcopat (Paris, 1890); GELEY, Fancan et la politique de Richelieu de 1617 a 1627 (Paris, 1884); DE ROCHEMONTEIX, Nicholaus Caussin, confesseur de Louis XIII, et le cardinal de Richelieu (Paris, 1911); PERRAUD, Le cardinal de Richelieu eveque, theologien et protecteur des lettres (Autun, 1882); VALENTIN, Cardinalis Richelieu scriptor ecclesiasticus (Toulouse, 1900); LODGE, Richelieu (London, 1896); PERKINS, Richelieu and the Growth of French Power (New York, 1900).

GEORGES GOYAU

Diocese of Richmond

(RICHMONDENSIS.)

Suffragan of Baltimore, established 11 July, 1820, comprises the State of Virginia, except the Counties of Accomac and Northampton (Diocese of Wilmington); and Bland, Buchanan, Carroll, Craig (partly), Dickinson, Floyd, Giles, Grayson, Lee, Montgomery, Pulaski, Russell, Scott, Smyth, Tazewell, Washington, Wise, and Wythe (Diocese of Wheeling); and in the State of West Virginia, the Counties of Berkeley, Grant, Hampshire, Hardy, Jefferson, Mineral, Morgan, and Pendleton. It embraces 31,518 square miles in Virginia and 3290 square miles in West Virginia. Originally it included also the territory of the present Diocese of Wheeling, created 23 July, 1850.

Colonial Period

In the summer of 1526 a Spanish Catholic settlement was made in Virginia on the very spot (according to Ecija, the pilot-in-chief of Florida) where, in 1607, eighty-one years later, the English founded the settlement of Jamestown. Lucas Vasques de Ayllón, one of the judges of the island of San Domingo, received from the King of Spain, 12 June, 1523, a patent empowering him to explore the coast for 800 leagues, establish a settlement within three years and Christianize the natives. In June, 1526, Ayllón sailed from Puerto de la Plata, San Domingo, with three vessels, 600 persons of both sexes, horses and supplies. The Dominicans Antonio de Montesinos and Antonio de Cervantes, with Brother Peter de Estrada, accompanied the expedition. Entering the Capes at the Chesapeake, and ascending a river (the James), he landed at Guandape, which he named St. Michael. Buildings were constructed and the Holy Sacrifice offered in a chapel, the second place of Catholic worship on American soil. Ayllón died of fever, 18 Oct., 1526. The rebellion of the settlers and hostility of the Indians caused Francisco Gomez, the next in command, to abandon the settlement in the spring of 1527, when he set sail for San Domingo in two vessels, one of which foundered. Of the party only 150 reached their destination.

A second expedition sent by Menendez, the Governor of Florida and nominal Governor of Virginia, settled on the Rappahannock River at a point called Axacan, 10 Sept., 1570. It consisted of Fathers Segura, Vice-Provincial of the Jesuits, and Luis de Quiros, six Jesuit brothers, and a few friendly Indians. A log building served as chapel and home. Through the treachery of Don Luis de Velasco, an Indian pilot of Spanish name, Father Quiros and Brothers Solis and Mendez were slain by the Indians, 14 Feb., 1571. Four days later were martyred Father Segura, Brothers Linares, Redondo, Gabriel, Gomez, and Sancho Zevalles. Menendez, several months later, sailed for Axacan, where he had eight of the murderers hanged; they being converted before death by Father John Rogel, a Jesuit missionary.

Attempts to found Catholic settlements in Virginia were made by Lord Baltimore in 1629, and Captain George Brent in 1687. In the spring of 1634 Father John Altham, a Jesuit companion of Father Andrew White, the Maryland missionary, laboured amongst some of the Virginia tribes on the south side of the Potomac. Stringent laws were soon enacted in Virginia against Catholics. In 1687 Fathers Edmonds and Raymond were arrested at Norfolk for exercising their priestly functions. During the last quarter of the eighteenth century the few Catholic settlers at Aquia Creek, near the Potomac, were attended by Father John Carroll and other Jesuit missionaries from Maryland.

American Period

Rev. Jean Dubois, afterwards third Bishop of New York, accompanied by a few French priests and with letters of introduction from Lafayette to several prominent Virginia families, came to Norfolk in August, 1791, where he laboured a few months, and probably left the priests who came with him. Proceeding to Richmond towards the end of the year, he offered in the House of Delegates, by invitation of the General Assembly, the first Mass ever said in the Capital City. His successors at Richmond, with interruptions, were the Revs. T.C. Mongrand, Xavier Michel, John McElroy, John Baxter, John Mahoney, James Walsh, Thomas Hore, and Fathers Horner and Schreiber.

Tradition tells us that at an early date, probably at the time of the Declaration of Independence, Alexandria had a log chapel with an unknown resident priest. Rev. John Thayer of Boston was stationed there in 1794. Rev. Francis Neale, who in 1796 constructed at Alexandria a brick church, erected fourteen years later a more suitable church where Fathers Kohlmann, Enoch, and Benedict Joseph Fenwick, afterwards second Bishop of Boston, frequently officiated. About 1796 Rev. James Bushe began the erection of a church at Norfolk. His successors were the Very Rev. Leonard Neale, afterwards Archbishop of Baltimore (see Baltimore, Archdiocese of), Revs. Michael Lacy, Christopher Delaney, Joseph Stokes, Samuel Cooper, J. VanHorsigh, and A.L. Hitzelberger.

Bishops of Richmond

(1) Right Rev. Patrick Kelly, D.D., consecrated first Bishop of Richmond, 24 Aug., 1820, came to reside at Norfolk, where the Catholics were much more numerous than at Richmond, 19 Jan., 1821. The erection of Virginia into a diocese had been premature and was accordingly opposed by the Archbishop of Baltimore. Because of factions and various other difficulties, Bishop Kelly soon petitioned Rome to be relieved of his charge. He left Virginia in July, 1822, having been transferred to the See of Waterford and Lismore, where he died, 8 Oct., 1829. Archbishop Marechal of Baltimore was appointed administrator of the diocese.

Rev. Timothy O'Brien, who came as pastor to Richmond in 1832, did more for Catholicism during his eighteen years' labour than any other missionary, excepting the Bishops of the See. In 1834 he built St. Peter's Church, afterwards the cathedral, and founded St. Joseph's Female Academy and Orphan Asylum, bringing as teachers three Sisters of Charity.

(2) The Right Rev. Richard Vincent Whelan, D.D., consecrated 21 March, 1841, established the same year, on the outskirts of Richmond, St. Vincent's Seminary and College, discontinued in 1846. Leaving Rev. Timothy O'Brien at St. Peter's, Richmond, the Bishop took up his residence at the seminary, and acted as president. In 1842 Bishop Whelan dedicated St. Joseph's Church, Petersburg, and St. Patrick's Church, Norfolk, and the following year that of St.Francis at Lynchburg. In 1846 he built a church at Wheeling and, two years later, founded at Norfolk St. Vincent's Female Orphan Asylum. Wheeling was made a separate see, 23 July, 1850, and to it was transferred Bishop Whelan.

(3) Right Rev. John McGill, D.D., consecrated 10 Nov., 1850, was present in Rome in 1854 when the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception was proclaimed. By pen and voice he opposed Knownothingism. In 1855 Bishop McGill convened the First Diocesan Synod. During the yellow fever plague of the same year, Rev. Matthew O'Keefe of Norfolk and Rev. Francis Devlin of Portsmouth won renown; the latter dying a martyr to priestly duty. In 1856 St. Vincent's Hospital, Norfolk, was founded. Alexandria, formerly in the Baltimore archdiocese as part of the District of Columbia, but ceded back to Virginia, was annexed to the Richmond diocese, 15 Aug., 1858. In 1860 the bishop transferred St. Mary's German Church, Richmond, to the Benedictines. During the Civil War Bishop McGill wrote two learned works, "The True Church Indicated to the Inquirer", and "Our Faith, the Victory", republished as "The Creed of Catholics". The bishop established at Richmond the Sisters of the Visitation, and at Alexandria the Sisters of the Holy Cross. He also took part in the Vatican Council. Bishop McGill died at Richmond, 14 January, 1872.

(4) Right Rev. James Gibbons, D.D. (afterwards archbishop and cardinal), consecrated titular Bishop of Adramyttum to organize North Carolina into a vicariate, 16 Aug., 1868, was appointed Bishop of Richmond, 30 July, 1872. He established at Richmond the Little Sisters of the Poor, and St. Peter's Boys' Academy. Erecting new parishes, churches, and schools, making constant diocesan visitations, frequently preaching to large congregations of both Catholics and non-Catholics, Bishop Gibbons, during his short rule of five years, accomplished in the diocese a vast amount of religious good. Made coadjutor Bishop of Baltimore, 29 May, 1877, he succeeded Archbishop Bayley in that see, 3 Oct., 1877.

(5) Right Rev. John Joseph Keane, D.D. (afterwards archbishop), consecrated, 25 Aug., 1878. Gifted with ever-ready and magnetic eloquence, Bishop Keane drew great numbers of people to hear his inspiring discourses. He held the Second Diocesan Synod in 1886, and introduced into the diocese the Josephites and the Xaverian Brothers. Bishop Keane was appointed first Rector of the Catholic University, Washington, 12 Aug., 1888, created titular Archbishop of Damascus, 9 Jan., 1897, and transferred to the See of Dubuque, 24 July, 1900.

(6) Right Rev. Augustine Van De Vyver, D.D., consecrated, 29 Oct., 1889, began an able and vigorous rule. On 3 June, 1903, he publicly received the Most Rev. Diomede Falconio, Apostolic Delegate, who the following day laid the cornerstone of the new Sacred Heart Cathedral, one of the most artistic edifices in the country, designed by Joseph McGuire, architect, of New York. A handsome bishop's house and a pastoral residence adjoin the cathedral. The latter was solemnly conscrated by Mgr. Falconio on 29 Nov., 1906. The event was the most imposing Catholic ceremony in the history of the diocese. Besides Cardinal Gibbons, and the Apostolic Delegate, there were present 18 archbishops and bishops. Bishop Van De Vyver convened a quasi-synod, 12 Nov., 1907, which approved the decrees of the Second Synod and enacted new and needed legislation. In 1907 the Knights of Columbus held at the Jamestown Exposition their national convention and jubilee celebration, participated in by the Apostolic Delegate, and several archbishops and bishops; while the following year the St. Vincent de Paul Society held a similar celebration in Richmond. In June, 1909, St. Peter's (Richmond) handsome new residence and the adjoining home of the McGill Union and the Knights of Columbus were completed, at a total cost of about $50,000. In the following autumn St. Peter's Church (the old cathedral) celebrated the diamond jubilee of its existence. With it, either as bishops or as priests, are indelibly linked the names of Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishops Keane and Janssens, and Bishops Van De Vyver, Whelan, McGill, Becker, Kelley and O'Connell of San Francisco. Most Rev. John J. Kain, deceased archbishop of St. Louis, had also been a priest of the diocese. Bishop Van De Vyver introduced into the diocese the Fathers of the Holy Ghost; additional Benedictine and Josephite Fathers and Xaverian Brothers; the Christian Brothers; additional Sisters of Charity; the Benedictine and Franciscan Sisters; Sisters of Charity of Nazareth, of the Blessed Sacrament and of the Perpetual Adoration. Under his regime have been founded 12 new parishes, 32 churches, 3 colleges, 4 industrial schools, 2 orphan asylums, 1 infant asylum (coloured), and many parochial schools.

Notable Benefactors

Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Fortune Ryan, of New York, the former donating, the latter furnishing, the imposing Sacred Heart Cathedral (nearly $500,000), together with other notable benefactions. Mrs.Ryan has built churches, schools, and religious houses in various parts of the state. Other generous benefactors were Right Rev. Bernard McQuaid, D.D., Joseph Gallego, John P. Matthews, William S. Caldwell, Mark Downey, and John Pope.

Statistics (1911)

Secular priests, 50; Benedictines, 10; Josephites, 6; Holy Ghost Fathers, 2; Brothers, Xaverian, 35; Christian, 12; Sisters of Charity, 60; of St. Benedict, 50; Visitation Nuns, 23; Sisters of Charity of Nazareth, Kentucky, 20; of the Holy Cross, 20; Little Sisters of the Poor, 18; Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament, 18; of St. Francis, 12; of Perpetual Adoration, 10; parishes with resident priests, 35; msisions with churches, 48; colleges, 3 (1 coloured), academies, 9; parochial schools, 26; industrial schools, 4 (2 coloured); orphan asylums, 4; infant asylums, 1 (coloured); young people attending Catholic institutions, 7500; home for aged, 1 (inmates, 200); Catholic Hospital, 1 (yearly patients, 3000).

Catholic Societies

Priests' Clerical Fund Association; Eucharistic League; Holy Name; St. Vincent dePaul; League of Good Shepherd; boys' and girls' sodalities; tabernacle, altar, and sanctuary societies; women's benevolent and beneficial; fraternal and social, such as Knights of Columbus, Hibernians, and flourishing local societies. Of parishes there are one each of Germans, Italians, and Bohemians, and 4 for the coloured people. Catholic population, 41,000. The causes of growth are principally natural increase and conversions, there being little Catholic immigration into the diocese.

Magri, The Catholic Church in the City and Diocese of Richmond (Richmond, Virginia, 1906); Parks, Catholic Missions in Virginia (Richmond, 1850); Keiley, Memoranda (Norfolk, Virginia, 1874); Proceedings of the Catholic Benevolent Union (Norfolk, 1875); The Metropolitan catholic Almanac (Baltimore, 1841-61); Catholic Almanac and Directory (New York, 1865-95); Catholic Directory (Milwaukee, 1895-9); Official Catholic Directory (Milwaukee, 1900-11); Hughes, The History of the Society of Jesus in North America, Colonial and Federal (London, 1907); Shea, The History of the Catholic Church in the United States (Akron, Ohio, 1890); foreign references cited by Shea (I, bk II, i,106, 107, 149, 150); Navarette, Real Cedula que contiene el asiento capitulado con Lucas Vasquez de Ayllón; Coleccion de Viages y Descubrimientos (Madrid, 1829), ii, 153, 156; Fernandez, Historia Ecclesiastica de Nuestros Tiempos (Toledo, 1611); Quiros, Letter of 12 Sept., 1570; Rogel, Letter of 9 Dec., 1520; Barcia, Ensayo Cronologico, 142-6; Tanner, Societas Militaris, 447-51.

F. JOSEPH MAGRI

Ricaldo da Monte di Croce

(PENNINI.)

Born at Florence about 1243; d. there 31 October, 1320. After studying in various great European schools, he became a Dominican, 1267; was a professor in several convents of Tuscany (1272-99), made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land (1288), and then travelled for many years as a missionary in western Asia, having his chief headquarters at Bagdad. He returned to Florence before 1302, and was chosen to high offices in his order. His "Itinerarium" (written about 1288-91; published in the original Latin at Leipzig; 1864; in Italian at Florence, 1793; in French at Paris, 1877) was intended as a guide-book for missionaries, and is an interesting description of the Oriental countries visited by him. The "Epistolæ de Perditione Acconis" are five letters in the form of lamentations over the fall of Ptolemais (written about 1292, published at Paris, 1884). Ricoldo's best known work is the "Contra Legem Sarracenorum", written at Bagdad, which has been very popular as a polemical source against Mohammedanism, and has been often edited (first published at Seville, 1500). The "Christianæ Fidei Confessio facta Sarracenis" (printed at Basle, 1543) is attributed to Ricoldo, and was probably written about the same time as the above mentioned works. Other works are: "Contra errores Judæorum" (MS. at Florence); "Libellus contra nationes orientales" (MSS. at Florence and Paris); "Contra Sarracenos et Alcoranum" (MS. at Paris); "De variis religionibus" (MS. at Turin). Very probably the last three works were written after his return to Europe. Ricoldo is also known to have written two theological works--a defence of the doctrines of St. Thomas (in collaboration with John of Pistoia, about 1285) and a commentary on the "Libri sententiarum" (before 1288). Ricoldo began a translation of the Koran about 1290, but it is not known whether this work was completed.

MANDONNET in Revue Biblique (1893), 44-61, 182-202, 584-607; ECHARD-QUÉTIF, Script. Ord. Proed., I, 506; TOURON, Hist. des Hommes illus. de l'ordre de St. Dom., I, 759-63; MURRAY, Discoveries and Travels in Asia, I, 197.

J.A. MCHUGH

Tillmann Riemenschneider

One of the most important of Frankish sculptors, b. at Osterode am Harz in or after 1460; d. at Würzburg, 1531. In 1483 he was admitted into the Guild of St. Luke at Würzburg, where he worked until his death. In the tombstone of the Ritter von Grumbach he still adheres to the Gothic style, but in his works for the Marienkapelle at Würzburg he adopts the Renaissance style, while retaining reminiscences of earlier art. For the south entrance he carved, besides an annunciation and a representation of Christ as a gardener, the afterwards renowned statues of Adam and Eve, the heads of which are of special importance. There also he showed his gift of depicting character in the more than life-size statues of Christ, the Baptist, and the Twelve Apostles for the buttresses. Elsewhere indeed we seek in vain for the merits of rounded sculpture. He had a special talent for the noble representation of female saints (cf. for example, Sts. Dorothea and Margareta in the same chapel, and the Madonna in the Münsterkirche). A small Madonna (now in the municipal museum at Frankfort) is perfect both in expression and drapery. Besides other works for the above-mentioned churches and a relief with the "Vierzehn Nothelfer" for the hospital (St. Burkhard), he carved for the cathedral of Würzburg a tabernacle reaching to the ceiling, two episcopal tombs, and a colossal cross--all recognized as excellent works by those familiar with the peculiar style of the master. Riemenschneider's masterpiece is the tomb of Emperor Henry II in the Cathedral of Bamberg; the recumbent forms of the emperor and his spouse are ideal, while the sides of the tomb are adorned with fine scenes from their lives. The figures instinct with life, the drapery, and the expression of sentiment, are all of equal beauty. Among his representations of the "Lament over Christ", those of Heidingsfeld and Maidbrunn, in spite of some defects, are notable works; resembling the former, but still more pleasing, is a third in the university collection. The defects in many of his works are probably to be referred for the most part to his numerous apprentices. There are a great number of other works by him in various places, e.g. a beautiful group of the Crucifixion in the Darmstadt Museum, another at Volkach am Main representing Our Lady surrounded by a rosary with scenes from her life in relief and being crowned by angels playing music--the picture is suspended from the roof.

There is a second Meister Tillmann Riemenschneider, who carved the Virgin's altar in Creglingen. This bears so close a resemblance to the works of the younger "Master Dill", that recently many believed it should be referred to him; in that case, however, he would have executed one of his best works as a very young man.

BODE, Gesch. der deutschen Plastik (Berlin, 1885); WEBER, Leben u. Wirken T. Riemenschneiders (2nd ed., Würzburg, 1888); TONNERS, Leben u. Werke T. Riemenschneiders (Strasburg, 1900); ADELMANN in Walhalla, VI (1910).

G. GIETMANN

Cola di Rienzi

(i.e., NICOLA, son of Lorenzo)

A popular tribune and extraordinary historical figure. His father was an innkeeper at Rome in the vicinity of the Trastevere; though it was believed that he was really the son of the Emperor Henry VII. His childhood and youth were passed at Anagni, with some relatives to whom he was sent on the death of his mother. Though he was thus brought up in the country he succeeded in acquiring a knowledge of letters and of Latin, and devoted himself to a study of the history of ancient Rome in the Latin authors, Livy, Valerius Maximus, Cicero, Seneca, Boethius, and the poets. When his father died he returned to Rome and practised as a notary. The sight of the remains of the former greatness of Rome only increased his admiration for the city and the men described in his favourite authors. Contemplating the condition in which Rome then was in the absence of the popes, torn by the factions of the nobles who plundered on all sides and shed innocent blood, he conceived a desire of restoring the justice and splendour of former days. His plans became more definite and settled when his brother was slain in a brawl between the Orsini and the Colonna. Thenceforth he thought only of the means of breaking the power of the barons. To accomplish this he had first to win the favour of the populace by upholding the cause of the oppressed.

In consequence of this and on account of the eloquence with which he spoke in Latin, he was sent to Avignon in 1343 to Clement VI, by the captain of the people, to ask him to return to Rome and grant the great jubilee every five years. Cola explained to the pope the miserable condition of Rome. Clement was much impressed, and appointed him to the office of notary (secretary) of the Camera Capitolina, in which position he could gain a better knowledge of the misfortunes of the city. Cola then by his public discourses and private conversations prepared the people; a conspiracy was formed, and on 19 May, 1347, he summoned the populace to assemble the following day in the Campidoglio. There Cola explained his plans and read a new democratic constitution which, among other things, ordained the establishment of a civic militia. The people conferred absolute power on him; but Cola at first contented himself with the title of tribune of the people; later, however, he assumed the bombastic titles of Candidatus Spiritus Sancti, Imperator Orbis, Zelator Italiæ, Amator Orbis et Tribunus Augustus (candidate of the Holy Spirit, emperor of the world, lover of Italy, of the world, august tribune). He was wise enough to select a colleague, the pope's vicar, Raymond, Bishop of Orvieto. The success of the new regime was wonderful. The most powerful barons had to leave the city; the others swore fealty to the popular government. An era of peace and justice seemed to have come. The pope, on learning what had happened, regretted that he had not been consulted, but gave Cola the title and office of Rector, to be exercised in conjunction with the Bishop of Orvieto. His name was heard everywhere, princes had recourse to him in their disputes, the sultan fortified his ports.

Cola then thought of reestablishing the liberty and independence of Italy and of Rome, by restoring the Roman Empire with an Italian emperor. In August, 1347, two hundred deputies of the Italian cities assembled at his request. Italy was declared free, and all those who had arrogated a lordship to themselves were declared fallen from power; the right of the people to elect the emperor was asserted. Louis the Bavarian and Charles of Bohemia were called upon to justify their usurpation of the imperial title. Cola flattered himself secretly with the hope of becoming emperor; but his high opinion of himself proved his ruin. He was a dreamer rather than a man of action; he lacked many qualities for the exercise of good government, especially foresight and the elements of political prudence. He had formed a most puerile concept of the empire. He surrounded himself with Asiatic luxury, to pay for which he had to impose new taxes; thereupon the enthusiasm of the people, weary of serving a theatrical emperor, vanished. The barons perceived this, and forgetting for the moment their mutual discord, joined together against their common enemy. In vain the bell summoned the people to arms in the Campidoglio. No one stirred. Cola had driven out the barons, but he had not thought of reducing them to inaction; on the contrary he had rendered them more hostile by his many foolish and humiliating acts. Lacking all military knowledge he could offer no serious resistance to their attacks. The discontent of the people increased; the Bishop of Orvieto, the other Rector of Rome, who had already protested against what had occurred at the convention of the Italian deputies, abandoned the city; the pope repudiated Cola in a Bull. Thus deserted, and not believing himself safe, he took refuge in the Castle of S.Angelo, and three days later (18 Dec., 1347) the barons returned in triumph to restore things to their former condition.

Cola fortunately succeeded in escaping. He sought refuge with the Spiritual Franciscans living in the hermitages of Monte Maiella. But the plague of 1348, the presence of bands of adventurers and the jubilee of 1350 had increased the mysticism of the people and still more of the Spirituals. One of the latter, Fra Angelo, told Rienzi that it was now the proper moment to think of the common weal, to co-operate in the restoration of the empire and in the purification of the Church: all of which had been predicted by Joachim of Flora, the celebrated Calabrian abbot, and that he ought to give his assistance. Cola betook himself thence to Charles IV at Prague (1350), who imprisoned him, either as a madman or as a heretic. After two years Cola was sent at the request of the pope to Avignon, where through the intercession of Petrarch, his admirer, though now disillusioned, he was treated better. When Innocent VI sent Cardinal Albornoz into Italy (at the beginning of 1353) he allowed Cola di Rienzi to accompany him. The Romans, who had fallen back into their former state of anarchy, invited him to return, and Albornoz consented to appoint him senator (sindaco) of Rome. On 1 Aug., 1354, Rienzi entered Rome in triumph. But the new government did not last long. His luxury and revelry, followed by the inevitable taxation, above all the unjust killing of several persons (among whom was Fra Moriale, a brigand, in the service of Cola), provoked the people to fury. On 8 Oct., 1354, the cry of "Death to Rienzi the traitor!" rose in the city. Cola attempted to flee, but was recognized and slain, and his corpse dragged through the streets of the city. Cola represented, one might say, the death agony of the Guelph (papal-national-democratic) idea and the rise of the classical (imperial and æsthetic) idea of the Renaissance.

Vita Nicolai Laurentii in MURATORI, Antiquitates; Vita Nicolai Laurentii, ed. DEL Rè (Florence, 1854); GABRIELLI, Epistolario de Cola Rienzo (Rome, 1890); PAPENCORDT, Cola de Rienzo und seine Zeit (Hamburg, 1841); RODOCANACHI, Cola di Rienzo (Paris, 1888).

U. BENIGNI

Rieti

(REATINA).

Diocese in Central Italy, immediately subject to the Holy See. The city is situated in the valley of the River Velino, which, on account of the calcareous deposits that accumulate in it, grows shallower and imperils the city, so that even in ancient days it was necessary to construct canals and outlets, like that of Marius Curius Dentatus (272 B.C.) which, repaired and enlarged by Clement VIII, has produced the magnificent waterfall of the Velino, near Terni. The city, which was founded by the Pelasgians, was the chief town of the Sabines, and became later a Roman municipium and prefecture. After the Longobard invasion it was the seat of a "gastaldo", dependent on the Duchy of Spoleto. It was presented to the Holy See by Otto I in 962; in 1143, after a long siege, it was destroyed by King Roger of Naples. It was besieged again in 1210 by Otto of Brunswick when forcing his way into the Kingdom of Naples. In the thirteenth century the popes took refuge there on several occasions, and in 1288 it witnessed the coronation of Charles II of Naples; later an Apostolic delegate resided at Rieti. In 1860, by the disloyalty of a delegate, it was occupied by the Italian troops without resistance. Rieti was the birthplace of Blessed Colomba (1501); in the sixth century it contained an Abbey of St. Stephen; the body of St. Baldovino, Cistercian, founder of the monastery of Sts. Matthew and Pastor (twelfth century) is venerated in the cathedral. Near Rieti is Greccio, where St. Francis set up the first Christmas crib. The cathedral is in Lombard style, with a crypt dating from the fourth or fifth century. It should be remarked that in medieval documents there is frequent confusion between Reatinus (Rieti), Aretinus (Arezzo), and Teatinus (Chieti). The first known Bishop of Rieti is Ursus (499); St. Gregory mentions Probus and Albinus (sixth century). The names of many bishops in the Longobard period are known. Later we meet with Dodonus (1137), who repaired the damage done by King Roger; Benedict, who in 1184 officiated at the marriage of Queen Constance of Naples and Henry VI; Rainaldo, a Franciscan (1249), restorer of discipline, which work was continued by Tommaso (1252); Pietro Guerra (1278), who had Andrea Pisano erect the episcopal palace with materials taken from the ancient amphitheatre of Vespasian; Lodovico Teodonari (1380), murdered while engaged in Divine service, on account of his severity, which deed was cruelly punished by Boniface IX; Angelo Capranica (1450), later a cardinal; Cardinal Pompeo Colonna (1508), who for rebellion against Julius II and Clement VII was twice deprived of his cardinalitial dignity; Scipione Colonna (1520), his nephew, took part in the revolt against Clement VII in 1528, and was killed in an encounter with Amico of Ascoli, Abbot of Farfa; Marianus Victorius (1572, for a few days), a distinguished writer and petrologist; Giorgio Bolognetti (1639), restored the episcopal palace and was distinguished for his charity; Gabrielle Ferretti (1827), later a cardinal, a man of great charity. At present the diocese contains 60 parishes, 142,100 inhabitants, 250 secular priests, 7 religious houses with 63 priests, 15 houses of nuns; 2 educational establishments for boys, and 4 for girls.

CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d'Italia, V; DE SANCTIS, Notizie stor iche di Rieti (Rieti, 1887); MARONI, Commentarii de Ecclesia Reatina (Rome, 1753). U. BENIGNI

Abbey of Rievaulx

(RIEVALL.)

Thurston, Archbishop of York, was very anxious to have a monastery of the newly founded and fervent order of Cistercians in his diocese; and so, at his invitation, St. Bernard of Clairvaux sent a colony of his monks, under the leadership of Abbot William, to make the desired foundation. After some delay Walter Espec became their founder and chief benefactor, presenting them with a suitable estate, situated in a wild and lonely spot, in the valley of the rivulet Rie (from whence the abbey derived its name), and surrounded by precipitous hills, in Blakemore, near Helmesley. The community took possession of the ground in 1131, and began the foundation, the first of their order in Yorkshire. The church and abbey, as is the case with all monasteries of the order, were dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary. At first their land being crude and uncultivated, they suffered much until, after a number of years, their first benefactor again came to their assistance and, later on, joined their community. Their land, also, through their incessant labours, eventually became productive, so that, with more adequate means of subsistence, they were able to devote their energies to the completion of church and monastic buildings, though these were finished only after a great lapse of time, on account of their isolation and the fact that the monastery was never wealthy. The constructions were carried on section by section, permanent edifices succeeding those that were temporary after long intervals. The final buildings, however, as attested by the magnificent, though melancholy, ruins yet remaining, were completed on a grand scale.

Within a very few years after its foundation the community numbered three hundred members, and was by far the most celebrated monastery in England; many others sprang from it, the most important of them being Melrose, the first Cistecian monastery built in Scotland. Rievaulx early became a billiant centre of learning and holiness; chief amongst its lights shone St. Aelred, its third abbot (1147-67), who from his sweetness of character and depth of learning was called Bernardo prope par. He had been, before his entrance into the cloister, a most dear friend and companion of St. David, King of Scotland. History gives us but scant details of the later life at Rievaulx. At the time of its suppression and confiscation by Henry VIII the abbot, Rowland Blyton, with twenty-three religious composed its community. The estates of this ancient abbey are now in the possession of the Duncombe family.

MANRIQUE, Annales Cistercienses (Lyons, 1642); MARTENE AND DURAND, Thesaurus novus anecdotorum, IV (Paris, 1717); HENRIQUEZ, Phoenix reviviscens (Brussels, 1626); DUGDALE, Monasticon Anglicanum, V (London, 1817-30); Cartularium abbatiae de Rievalle in Surtees' Soc. Publ. (London, 1889); St. Aelred, Abbot of Rievaulx (London, 1845); OXFORD, Ruins of Fountains Abbey (London, 1910); HODGES, Fountains Abbey (New York, 1904).

EDMOND M. OBRECHT

Caspar Riffel

Historian, b. at Budesheim, Bingen, Germany, 19 Jan., 1807, d. at Mainz, 15 Dec., 1856. He studied under Klee at Mainz and Bonn and under Möhler at Tübingen. After his ordination to the priesthood, 18 Dee., 1830, he was named assistant priest at Bingen. In 1835 he was appointed to a parish at Giessen, and to the chair of moral theology in the local theological faculty. His transfer to the professorship in Church history followed in 1837. The publication of the first volume of his Church history in 1841 aroused a storm of indignation among Protestants, to whom his accurate though not flattering account of the Reformation was distasteful. The Hessian Government hastened to pension the fearless teacher (19 Nov., 1842). This measure caused intense indignation among the diocesan Catholic clergy, who denounced the Protestant atmosphere of the university. Riffel retired to Mainz, where Bishop von Ketteler appointed him in 1851 professor of Church history in his newly organized ecclesiastical seminary. Death put a premature end to the teaching of this Catholic educator, who contributed largely to the restoration of a truly ecclesiastical spirit among the German clergy. He wrote: "Geschichtliche Darstellung des Verhältnisses zwischen Kirche und Staat", Mainz, 1836; "Predigten auf alle Sonn- und Festtage des Jahres", Mainz, 1839-40, 3rd ed., 1854; "Christliche Kirchengeschichte der neuesten Zeit", Mainz, 1841-46; "Die Aufhebung des Jesuitenordens", 3rd ed., Mainz, 1855.

GOYAU, L'Allemagne religieuse: le Catholicisme, II (Paris, 1905), 313.

N.A. WEBER

St. John Rigby

English martyr; b. about 1570 at Harrocks Hall, Eccleston, Lancashire; executed at St. Thomas Waterings, 21 June, 1600. He was the fifth or sixth son of Nicholas Rigby, by Mary, daughter of Oliver Breres of Preston. In the service of Sir Edmund Huddleston, at a time when his daughter, Mrs. Fortescue, being then ill, was cited to the Old Bailey for recusancy, Rigby appeared on her behalf; compelled to confess himself a Catholic, he was sent to Newgate. The next day, 14 February, 1599 or 1600, he signed a confession, that, since he had been reconciled by the martyr, John Jones the Franciscan, in the Clink some two or three years previously, he had declined to go to church. He was then chained and remitted to Newgate, till, on 19 February, he was transferred to the White Lion. On the first Wednesday in March (which was the 4th and not, as the martyr himself supposes, the 3rd) he was brought to the bar, and in the afternoon given a private opportunity to conform. The next day he was sentenced for having been reconciled; but was reprieved till the next sessions. On 19 June he was again brought to the bar, and as he again refused to conform, he was told that his sentence must be carried out. On his way to execution, the hurdle was stopped by a Captain Whitlock, who wished him to conform and asked him if he were married, to which the martyr replied, "I am a bachelor; and more than that I am a maid", and the captain thereupon desired his prayers. The priest, who reconciled him, had suffered on the same spot 12 July, 1598.

[ Note: Both John Rigby and the Franciscan priest, John Jones, were canonized by Pope Paul VI in 1970 among the Forty Martyrs of England and Wales, whose joint feastday is kept on 25 October.]

CHALLONER, Missionary Priests, II (London, 1878), n. 117; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., V, 420; Chatham Society's Publications, LXXXI (1870), 74.

JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT

Nicholas Rigby

Born 1800 at Walton near Preston, Lancashire; died at Ugthorpe, 7 September, 1886. At twelve years he went to Ushaw College, where he was for a time professor of elocution. Ordained priest in September, 1826, he was sent to St. Mary's, Wycliffe, for six months, and was then given the united missions of Egton Bridge and Ugthorpe. After seven years the two missions were again separated, and he took up his residence at Ugthorpe. There he built a church (opened in 1855), started a new cemetery, and founded a middle-class college. About 1884 he resigned the mission work to his curate, the Rev. E.J. Hickey. His obituary notice, in the "Catholic Times" of 17 September, 1886, gives a sketch of his life. He wrote: "The Real Doctrine of the Church on Scripture", to which is added an account of the conversion of the Duke of Brunswick (Anton Ulrich, 1710), and of "Father Ignatius" Spencer (1830), (York, 1834), dedicated to the Rev. Benedict Rayment. Other works, chiefly treatises on primary truths, or sermons of a controversial character, are described in Gillow, "Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath."

PATRICK RYAN

Right

Right, as a substantive (my right, his right), designates the object of justice. When a person declares he has a right to a thing, he means he has a kind of dominion over such thing, which others are obliged to recognize. Right may therefore be defined as a moral or legal authority to possess, claim, and use a thing as one's own. It is thus essentially distinct from obligation; in virtue of an obligation we should, in virtue of a right, we may do or omit something. Again, right is a moral or legal authority, and, as such, is distinct from merely physical superiority or pre-eminence; the thief who steals something without being detected enjoys the physical control of the object, but no right to it; on the contrary, his act is an mjustice:, a violation of right, and he is bound to return the stolen object to its owner. Right is called a moral or legal authority, because it emanates from a law which assigns to one the dominion over the thing and imposes on others the obligation to respect this dominion. To the right of one person corresponds an obligation on the part of others, so that right and obligation condition each other. If I have the right to demand one hundred dollars from a person, he is under the obligation to give them to me; without this obligation, right would be illusory. One may even say that the right of one person consists in the fact that, on his account, others are bound to perform or omit something.

The clause, "to possess, claim, and use, anything as one's own", defines more closely the object of right. Justice assigns to each person his own (suum cuique). When anyone asserts that a thing is his own, is his private property, or belongs to him, he means that this object stands in a special relation to him, that it is in the first place destined for his use, and that he can dispose of it according to his will, regardless of others. By a thing is here meant not merely a material object, but everything that can be useful to man, including actions, omissions, etc. The connexion of a certain thing with a certain person, in virtue of which the person may declare the thing his own, can originate only on the basis of concrete facts. It is an evident demand of human reason in general that one may give or leave one's own to anyone; but what constitutes one's own is determined by facts. Many things are physically connected with the human per-son by conception or birth--his limbs, bodily and mental qualities, health, etc. From the order imposed by the Creator of Nature, we recognize that, from the first moment of his being, his faculties and members are granted a person primarily for his own use, and so that they may enable him to support himself and develop and fulfil the tasks appointed by the Creator for this life. These things (i.e., his qualities, etc.) are his own from the first moment of his existence, and whoever injures them or deprives him of them violates his right. However, many other things are connected with the human person, not physically, but only morally. In other words, in virtue of a certain fact, everyone recognizes that certain things are specially destined for thc use of one person, and must be recognized as such by all. Persons who build a house for themselves, make an implement, catch game in the unreserved forest, or fish in the open sea, become the owners of these things in virtue of occupation of their labour; they can claim these things as their own, and no one can forcibly appropriate or injure these things without a violation of their rights. Whoever has lawfully purchased a thing, or been presented with it by another, may regard such thing as his own, since by the purchase or presentation he succeeds to the place of the other person and possesses his rights. As a right gives rise to a certain connection between person and person with respect to a thing, we may distinguish in right four elements: the holder, the object, the title, and the terminus of the right. The holder of the right is the person who possesses the right, the terminus is the person who has the obligation corresponding to the right, the object is the thing to which the right refers, and the title is the fact on the ground of which a person may regard and claim the thing as his own. Strictly speaking, this fact alone is not the title of thc right, which originates, indeed, in the fact, but taken in connection with thc: principle that one must assign to each his own property; however, since this principle may be presupposed as self-evident, it is customary to regard the simple fact as the title of the right.

The right of which we have hitherto been speaking is individual right, to which the obligation of commutative justice corresponds. Commutative justice regulates the relations of the members of human society to one another, and aims at securing that each member renders to his fellow-members what is equally theirs. In addition to this commutative justice, there is also a legal and distributive justice; these virtues regulate the relations between the complete societies (State and Church) and their members. From the propensities and needs of human nature we recognize the State as resting on a Divine ordinance; only in the State can man support himself and develop according to his nature. But, if the Divine Creator of Nature has willed the existence of the State, He must also will the means necessary for its maintenance and the attainment of its objects. This will can be found only in the right of the State to demand from its members what is necessary for the general good. It must be authorized to make laws, to punish violations of such, and in general to arrange everything for the public welfare, while, on their side, the members must be under the obligation corresponding to this right. The virtue which makes all members of society contribute what is necessary for its maintenance is called legal justice, because the law has to determine in individual cases what burdens are to be borne by the members. According to Catholic teaching, the Church is, like the State, a complete and independent society, wherefore it also must be justified in demanding from its members whatever is necessary for its welfare and the attainment of its object. But the members of the State have not only obligations towards the general body; they have likewise rights. The State is bound to distribute public burdens (e.g. taxation) according to the powers and capability of the members, and is also under the obligation of distributing public goods (offices and honours) according to the degree of worthiness and services. To these duties of the general body or its leaders corresponds a right of the members; they can demand that the leaders observe the claims of distributive justice, and failure to do this on the part of the authorities is a violation of the right of the members.

On the basis of the above notions of right, its object can be more exactly determined. Three species of right and justice have been distinguished. The object of the right, corresponding to even-handed justice, has as its object the securing for the members of human society in their intercourse with one another freedom and independence in the use of their own possessions. For the object of right can only be the good for the attainment of which we recognize right as necessary, and which it effects of its very nature, and this good is the freedom and independence of every member of society in the use of his own. If man is to fulfil freely the tasks imposed upon him by God, he must possess the means necessary for this purpose, and be at liberty to utilize such independently of others. He must have a sphere of free activity, in which he is secure from the interference of others; this object is attained by the right which protects each in the free use of his own from the encroachments of others. Hence the proverbs: "A willing person suffers no injustice" and "No one is compelled to make use of his rights". For the object of the right which corresponds to commutative justice is the liberty of the possessor of the right in the use of his own, and this right is not attained if each is bound always to make use of and insist upon his rights. The object of the right which corresponds to legal justice is the good of the community; of this right we may not say that "no one is bound to make use of his right", since the community---or, more correctly, its leaders--must make use of public rights, whenever and wherever the good of the community requires it. Finally, the right corresponding to the object of distributive justice is the defence of the members against the community or its leaders; they must not be laden with public burdens beyond their powers, and must receive as much of the public goods as becomes the condition of their meritoriousness arid services. Although, in accordance with the above, each of the three kinds of rights has its own immediate object, all three tend in common towards one remote object, which, according to St. Thomas (Cont. Gent., III, xxxiv), is nothing else than to secure that peace be maintained among men by procuring for each the peaceful possession of his own.

Right (or more precisely speaking, the obligation corresponding to right) is enforceable at least in general--that is, whoever has a right with respect to some other person is authorized to employ physical force to secure the fulfilment of this obligation, if the other person will not voluntarily fulfil it. This enforceable character of the obligation arises necessarily from the object of right. As already said, this object is to secure for every member of society a sphere of free activity and for society the means necessary for its development, and the attainment of this object is evidently indispensable for social life; but it would not be sufficiently attained if it were left to each one's discretion whether he should fulfil his obligations or not. In a large community there are always many who would allow themselves to be guided, not by right or justice, but by their own selfish inclinations, and would disregard the rights of their fellowmen, if they were not forcibly confined to their proper sphere of right; consequently, the obligation corresponding to a right must be enforceable in favour of the possessor of the right. But in a regulated community the power of compulsion must be vested in the public authority, since, if each might employ force against his fellowmen whenever his right was infringed, there would soon arise a general conflict of all against all, and order and safety would be entirely subverted. Only in cases of necessity, where an unjust attack on one's life or property has to be warded off and recourse to the authorities is impossible, has the individual the right of meeting violence with violence.

While right or the obligation corresponding to it is enforceable, we must beware of referring the essence of right to this enforcibility or even to the authority to enforce it, as is done by many jurists since the time of Kant. For enforcibility is only a secondary characteristic of right and does not pertain to all rights; although, for example, under a real monarchy the subjects possess some rights with respect to the ruler, they can usually exercise no compulsion towards him, since he is irresponsible, and is subject to no higher authority which can employ forcible measures against him. Rights are divided, according to the title on which they rest, into natural and positive rights, and the latter are subdivided into Divine and human rights. By natural rights are meant all those which we acquire by our very birth, e.g. the right to live, to integrity of limbs, to freedom, to acquire property, etc.; all other rights are called acquired rights, although many of them are acquired, independently of any positive law, in virtue of free acts, e.g. the right of the husband and wife in virtue of the marriage contract, the right to ownerless goods through occupation, the right to a house through purchase or hire, etc. On the other hand, other rights may be given by positive law; according as the law is Divine or human, and the latter civil or ecclesiastical, we distinguish between Divine or human, civil or ecclesiastical rights. To civil rights belong citizenship in a state, active or passive franchise, etc.

V. CATHREIN

St. Rimbert

Archbishop of Bremen-Hamburg, died at Bremen 11 June, 888. It is uncertain whether he was a Fleming or a Norman. He was educated at the monastery of Turholt near Brügge in Flanders. There St. Ansgar, first Archbishop of Hamburg, became acquainted with him, and later made him his constant companion When Ansgar died on 2 February, 865, Rimbert was chosen his successor. Pope Nicholas I sent him the pallium in December, 865. As Ansgar's missionary system was based on a connection with the Benedictine Order, Rimbert became, shortly after his consecration, a monk at Corvey, and subsequently made missionary journeys to West Friesland, Denmark, and Sweden, but concerning these unfortunately we have no detailed information. In 884 he succeeded in putting to flight the Norman marauders on the coast of Friesland; in remembrance of this incident he was later held in special veneration in Friesland. Among his episcopal achievements the foundation of a monastery in Bücken near Bremen and his care for the poor and sick are especially emphasized. Historians are indebted to him for a biography of St. Ansgar, which is distinguished by valuable historical information and a faithful character sketch. On the other hand, the biography of Rimbert himself, written by a monk of Corvey, is, while very edifying, poor in actual information; hence we know so little of his life.

KLEMENS LÖFFLER

Council of Rimini

The second Formula of Sirmium (357) stated thc doctrine of the Anomoeans, or extreme Arians. Against this the Semi-Arian bishops, assembled at Ancyra, the episcopal city of their leader Basilius, issued a counter formula, asserting that the Son is in all things like the Father, afterwards approved by the Third Synod of Sirmium (358). This formula, though silent on the term "homousios", consecrated by the Council of Nicaea, was signed by a few orthodox bishops, and probably by Pope Liberius, being, in fact, capable of an orthodox interpretation. The Emperor Constantius cherished at that time the hope of restoring peace between the orthodox and the Semi-Arians by convoking a general council. Failing to convene one either at Nicaea or at Nicomedia, he was persuaded by Patrophilus, Bishop of Scythopolis, and Narcissus, Bishop of Neronias, to hold two synods, one for the East at Seleucia, in Isauria, the other for the West at Rimini, a proceeding justified by diversity of language and by expense. Before the convocation of the councils, Ursacius and Valens had Marcus, Bishop of Arethusa, designated to draft a formula (the Fourth of Sirmium) to be submitted to the two synods. It declared that the Son was born of the Father before all ages (agreeing so far with the Third Formula); but it added that when God is spoken of, the word ousia, "essence ', should be avoided, not being found in Scripture and being a cause of scandal to the faithful; by this step they intended to exclude the similarity of essence.

The Council of Rimini was opened early in July, 359, with over four hundred bishops. About eighty Semi-Arians, including Ursacius, Germinius, and Auxentius, withdrew from the orthodox bishops, the most eminent of whom was Restitutus of Carthage; Liberius, Eusebius, Dionysius, and others were still in exile. The two parties sent separate deputations to the emperor, the orthodox asserting clearly their firm attachment to the faith of Nicaea, while the Arian minority adhered to the imperial formula. But the inexperienced representatives of the orthodox majority allowed themselves to be deceived, and not only entered into communion with the heretical delegates, but even subscribed, at, Nice in Thrace, a formula to the effect merely that the Son is like the Father according to the Scriptures (the words "in all things" being omitted). On their return to Rimini, they were met with the unanimous protests of their colleagues. But the threats of the consul Taurus, the remonstrances of the Semi-Arians against hindering peace between East and West for a word not contained in Scripture, their privations and their homesickness--all combined to weaken the constancy of the orthodox bishops. And the last twenty were induced to subscribe when Ursacius had an addition made to the formula of Nice, declaring that the Son is not a creature like other creatures. Pope Liberius, having regained his liberty, rejected this formula, which was thereupon repudiated by many who had signed it. In view of the hasty manner of its adoption and the 1ack of approbation by the Holy See, it could have no authority. In any case, the council was a sudden defeat of orthodoxy, and St. Jerome could say: "The whole world groaned in astonishment to find itself Arian".

U. BENIGNI

Rimini

DIOCESE OF RIMINI (ARIMINUM).

Suffragan of Ravenna. Rimini is situated near the coast between the rivers Marecchia (the ancient Ariminus) and Ausa (Aprusa). Coast navigation and fishing are the principal industries. The thirteenth-century cathedral (San Francesco) was originally Gothic, but was transformed by order of Sigismondo Malatesta (1446-55) according to the designs of Leone Baptista Alberti and never completed; the cupola is lacking, also the upper part of the façade; in the cathedral are the tombs of Sigismondo and his wife Isotta. The plastic decorations of the main nave and some of the chapels, a glorification to Sigismondo and Isotta, are by Agostino di Duccio, and breathe the pagan spirit of the Renaissance. On the southern side are the tombs of illustrious humanists, among them that of the philosopher Gemistus Pletho, whose remains were brought back by Sigismondo from his wars in the Balkans. There is a remarkable fresco of Piero della Francesca. In San Giuliano is the great picture of Paul Veronese representing the martyrdom of that saint, also pictures of Bittino da Faenza (1357) dealing with some episodes of the saint's life. Among the profane edifices are the Arch of Augustus (27 B. C.), the remains of an amphitheatre, and the five-arched bridge of Augustus over the Marecchia. The town hall has a small but valuable gallery (Perin del Vaga, Ghirlandajo, Bellini, Benedetto Coda, Tintoretto, Agostino di Duccio); the Gambalunga Library (1677) has valuable manuscripts. There is an archæological museum and a bronze statue of Paul V; the castle of Sigismondo Malatesta is now used as a prison.

Ariminum was built by the Umbri. In the sixth century B. C. it was taken by the Gauls; after their last defeat (283) it returned to the Umbri and became in 263 a Latin colony, very helpful to the Romans during the late Gallic wars. Rimini was reached by the Via Flamminia, and here began the Via Æmilia that led to Piacenza. Augustus did much for the city and Galla Placida built the church of San Stefano. When the Goths conquered Rimini in 493, Odoacer, besieged in Ravenna, had to capitulate. During the Gothic wars Rimini was taken and retaken many times. In its vicinity Narses overthrew (553) the Alamanni. Under Byzantine dominion it belonged to the Pentapolis. In 728 it was taken with many other cities by the Lombard King Liutprand but returned to the Byzantines about 735. King Pepin gave it to the Holy See, but during the wars of the popes and the Italian cities against the emperors, Rimini sided with the latter. In the thirteenth century it suffered from the discords of the Gambacari and Ansidei families. In 1295 Malatesta I da Verucchio was named "Signore" of the city, and, despite interruptions, his family held authority until 1528. Among his successors were: Malatesta II (1312-17); Pandolfo I, his brother (d. 1326), named by Louis the Bavarian imperial vicar in Romagna; Ferrantino, son of Malatesta II (1335), opposed by his cousin Ramberto and by Cardinal Bertando del Poggetto (1331), legate of John XXII; Malatesta III, Guastafamiglia (1363), lord also of Pesaro; Malatesta IV l'Ungaro (1373); Galeotto, uncle of the former (1385), lord also of Fano (from 1340), Pesaro, and Cesena (1378); his son Carlo (1429), the noblest scion of the family, laboured for the cessation of the Western Schism, and was the counsellor, protector, and ambassador of Gregory XII, and patron of scholars; Galeotto Roberto (1432); his brother Sigismondo Pandolf (1468) had the military and intellectual qualities of Carlo Malatesta but not his character. He was tyrannous and perfidious, in constant rebellion against the popes, a good soldier, poet, philosopher, and lover of the fine arts, but a monster of domestic and public vices; in 1463 he submitted to Pius II, who left him Rimini; Robert, his son (1482), under Paul II nearly lost his state and under Sixtus IV became the commanding officer of the pontifical army against Alfonso of Naples, by whom he was defeated in the battle of Campo Morto (1482); Pandolfo V, his son (1500), lost Rimini to Cesare Borgia (1500-3), after whose overthrow it fell to Venice (1503-9), but was retaken by Julius II and incorporated with the territory of the Holy See. After the death of Leo X Pandolfo returned for several months, and with his son Sigismondo held tyrannous rule. Adrian VI gave Rimini to the Duke of Urbino, the pope's vicar. In 1527 Sigismondo managed to regain the city, but the following year the Malatesta dominion passed away forever. Rimini was thenceforth a papal city, subject to the legate at Forlì. In 1845 a band of adventurers commanded by Ribbotti entered the city and proclaimed a constitution which was soon abolished. In 1860 Rimini and the Romagna were incorporated with the Kingdom of Italy.

Rimini was probably evangelized from Ravenna. Among its traditional martyrs are: St. Innocentia and companions; Sts. Juventinus, Facundinus, and companions; Sts. Theodorus and Marinus. The see was probably established before the peace of Constantine. Among the bishops were: Stennius, at Rome in 313; Cyriacus, one of his successors, sided with the Arians; under St. Gaudentius the famous Council of Rimini was held (359); he was later put to death by the Arians for having excommunicated the priest Marcianus; Stephanus attended at Constantinople (551); the election of Castor (591) caused much trouble to St. Gregory I, who had to send to Rimini a "visitor"; Agnellus (743) was governor of the city subject to the Archbishop of Ravenna; Delto acted frequently as legate for John VIII; Blessed Arduino (d. in 1009); Uberto II is mentioned with praise by St. Peter Damian; Opizo was one of the consecrators of the Antipope Clement III (Guiberto, 1075); Ranieri II degli Uberti (1143) consecrated the ancient cathedral of St. Colomba; Alberigo (1153) made peace between Rimini and Cesena; Bonaventura Trissino founded the hospital of Santo Spirito; under Benno (1230) some pious ladies founded a hospital for the lepers, and themselves cared for the afflicted. At the end of the thirteenth century the Armenians received at Rimini a church and a hospital. From 1407 Gregory XII resided at Rimini. Giovanni Rosa united the eleven hospitals of Rimini into one. Under Giulio Parisani (1549) the seminary was opened (1568). Giambattista Castelli (1569) promoted the Tridentine reforms and was nuncio at Paris. Andrea Minucci was severely tried during the French Revolution; under him the Malatesta church (San Francesco) became the cathedral. The diocese has 124 parishes, 125,400 inhabitants, 336 priests, 10 houses of religious with 56 priests, 24 houses of religious women, who care for the hospitals, orphanages, and other charitable institutions, or communal and private schools. There are also 1 school for boys and 3 for girls.

CAPPELLETTI, Le Chiese d'Italia, II; NARDI, Cronotassi dei pastori della Chiesa di Rimini (Rimini, 1813); TONINI, Storia civile e sacra di Rimini (6 vols., Rimini, 1848-88); IDEM, Compendio della storia di Rimini (1896); YRIARTE, Rimini: Etudes sur les lettres et les arts à la cour des Malatesta (Paris, 1882).

U. BENIGNI

Rimouski

DIOCESE OF RIMOUSKI (SANCTI GERMANI DE RIMOUSKI)

Suffragan of Quebec, comprises the counties of Bonaventure, Gaspé (except Magdalen Islands), Rimouski and the greater part of Temiscouata, and forms the eastern extremity of the province of Quebec. At the extreme point of the Gaspé peninsula (formerly called Honguedo), Jacques Cartier landed on his first voyage of discovery (1534) and planted a cross with the royal arms of France. The Souriquois or Micmacs occupied the shores of Baie des Chaleurs, and their successive missionaries, Recollets, Capuchins, Jesuits, amongst them Father Labrosse, and Spiritians (or priests of the seminary of the Holy Ghost), including the celebrated Pierre Maillard, ministered to that region of the Rimouski diocese. The first Mass was celebrated near the city of Rimouski, at a place since called Pointe-au-Père, by the Jesuit Henri Nouvel, in 1663, on his way to the Papinachois and Montagnais of Tadoussac, on the north shore. The first settler at Rimouski was Germain Lepage (1696), whose patronymic was chosen as titular of the future parish and diocese. The seigniory had been conceded to his son René in 1688. The latest statistics give 120 churches and chapels, with 148 priests. Two wooden churches were built at Rimouski, in 1712 and 1787 respectively; the first stone church, 1824, was replaced by the present cathedral in 1854. Before the creation of the see, Rimouski was successively visited by Bishops Hubert (1791), Denaut (1798), Plessis (1806-14-22), Panet (1810-26), Signay (1833-38-43), Turgeon (1849), and Baillargeon (1855-60-65). The see was created and its first titular nominated on 15 January, 1867, and acquired civil incorporation ipso facto the same day, according to the law of the country.

The first bishop, Jean-Pierre-François Laforce-Langevin, was b. at Quebec, 22 Sept., 1821, and ordained on 12 Sept., 1844. as director of the Quebec seminary he was one of the joint founders of Laval University (1852). He successively filled the offices of pastor to the parishes of Ste Claire and Beauport, and of principal of Laval Normal School. He was consecrated 1 may, 1867, resigned 1891, and died 1892. He completed the organization of a classical college previously founded by the Abbés C. Tanguay and G. Potvin and adopted it as the seminary of the diocese. He introduced the Sisters of the Congregation of Notre-Dame (Montreal) and sanctioned the foundation (1879) of the Sisters of the Most Holy Rosary, a flourishing institute largely due to the zeal of Vicar-General Langevin, his brother. Bishop Langevin established the cathedral chapter in 1878.

The second bishop, still in office, André-Albert Blais, b. at St-Vallier, P.Q., 1842, studied at the college of Ste Anna de la Pocatière, graduated in Rome Doctor of Canon Law, and taught the same branch at Laval University. He was consecrated bishop 18 May, 1890, and took possession of the see in 1891. Bishop Blais created many new parishes in the diocese, and founded a normal school under the management of the Ursulines. The clergy, exclusively French-Canadian, study classics and philosophy at the diocesan seminary, and theology principally at Laval University, in some cases at the Propaganda, Rome. (For parochial system, incorporation of religious institutions, etc. see CANADA, and QUEBEC, PROVINCE OF.) There are no cities besides Rimouski, but all the larger rural parishes have fine churches and convent-schools; the only domestic mission is that of the Micmacs at Ristigouche, under the care of the Capuchins. Besides a Priests' Aid Society, there are several benevolent and mutual aid societies for the laity. The religious orders of men are the Capuchins, Eudists, and Brothers of the Cross of Jesus; those of women are the Ursulines, Sisters of Charity, of the Good Shepherd (teaching), of the Holy Rosary, of the Holy Family, and the Daughters of Jesus. Retreats for the clergy are given each year; conferences to discuss theological cases take place every three months. Nearly all the secular clergy (110 our of 137) belong to the Eucharistic league. Out of a total Catholic population of 118,740, only 3695 are not French Canadians. The Indians number 610. The Protestant element amounts to 8798. There is no friction between these different elements and no difficult racial problem to solve, the parishes containing an English-speaking element as well as the Micmacs being instructed in their native tongues.

GUAY, Chroniques de Rimouski (Quebec, 1873); Le Canada ecclesiastique (Montreal, 1911).

LIONEL LINDSAY

Rings

In General

Although the surviving ancient rings, proved by their devices, provenance, etc., to be of Christian origin, are fairly numerous (See Fortnum in "Arch. Journ.", XXVI, 141, and XXVIII, 275), we cannot in most cases identify them with any liturgical use. Christians no doubt, just like other people, wore rings in accordance with their station in life, for rings are mentioned without reprobation in the New Testament (Luke, xv, 22, and James, ii, 2). Moreover, St. Clement of Alexandria (Paed., III, c. xi) says that a man might lawfully wear a ring on his little finger, and that it should bear some religious emblem--a dove, or a fish, or an anchor - though, on the other hand, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, and the Apostolic Constitutions (I, iii) protest against the ostentation of Christians in decking themselves with rings and gems. In any case the Acts of Sts. Perpetua and Felicitas (c. xxi), about the beginning of the third century, inform us of how the martyr Saturus took a ring from the finger of Pudens, a soldier who was looking on, and gave it back to him as a keepsake, covered with his own blood.

Knowing, as we do, that in the pagan days of Rome every flamen Dialis (i.e., a priest specially consecrated to the worship of Jupiter) had, like the senators, the privilege of wearing a gold ring, it would not be surprising to find evidence in the fourth century that rings were worn by Christian bishops. But the various passages that have been appealed to, to prove this, are either not authentic or else are inconclusive. St. Augustine indeed speaks of his sealing a letter with a ring (Ep. ccxvii, in P.L., XXXIII, 227), but on the other hand his contemporary Possidius expressly states that Augustine himself wore no ring (P.L., XXXII, 53), whence we are led to conclude that the possession of a signet does not prove the use of a ring as part of the episcopal insignia. However, in a Decree of Pope Boniface IV (A.D. 610) we hear of monks raised to the episcopal dignity as anulo pontificali subarrhatis, while at the Fourth Council of Toledo, in 633, we are told that if a bishop has been deposed from his office, and is afterwards reinstated, he is to receive back stole, ring, and crosier (orarium, anulum et baculum). St. Isidore of Seville at about the same period couples the ring with the crosier and declares that the former is conferred as "an emblem of the pontifical dignity or of the sealing of secrets" (P.L., LXXXIII, 783). From this time forth it may be assumed that the ring was strictly speaking an episcopal ornament conferred in the rite of consecration, and that it was commonly regarded as emblematic of the betrothal of the bishop to his Church. In the eighth and ninth centuries in MSS. of the Gregorian Sacramentary and in a few early Pontificals (e.g., that attributed to Archbishop Egbert of York) we meet with various formulae for the delivery of the ring. The Gregorian form, which survives in substance to the present day, runs in these terms: "Receive the ring, that is to say the seal of faith, whereby thou, being thyself adorned with spotless faith, mayst keep unsullied the troth which thou hast pledged to the spouse of God, His holy Church."

These two ideas--namely of the seal, indicative of discretion, and of conjugal fidelity--dominate the symbolism attaching to the ring in nearly all its liturgical uses. The latter idea was pressed so far in the case of bishops that we find ecclesiastical decrees enacting that "a bishop deserting the Church to which he was consecrated and transferring himself to another is to be held guilty of adultery and is to be visited with the same penalties as a man who, forsaking his own wife, goes to live with another woman" (Du Saussay, "Panoplia episcopalis", 250). It was perhaps this idea of espousals which helped to establish the rule, of which we hear already in the ninth century, that the episcopal ring was to be placed on the fourth finger (i.e., that next the little finger) of the right hand. As the pontifical ring had to be worn on occasion over the glove, it is a common thing to find medieval specimens large in size and proportionately heavy m execution. The inconvenience of the looseness thus resulting was often met by placing another smaller ring just above it as a keeper (see Lacy, "Exeter Pontifical", 3). As the pictures of the medieval and Renaissance periods show, it was formerly quite usual for bishops to wear other rings along with the episcopal ring; indeed the existing "Caeremoniale episcoporum" (Bk. II, viii, nn. 10-11) assumes that this is still likely to be the case. Custom prescribes that a layman or a cleric of inferior grade on being presented to a bishop should kiss his hand, that is to say his episcopal ring, but it is a popular misapprehension to suppose that any indulgence is attached to the act. Episcopal rings, both at an earlier and later period, were sometimes used as receptacles for relics. St. Hugh of Lincoln had such a ring which must have been of considerable capacity. (On investiture by ring and staff see Investitures, Conflict of.)

Besides bishops, many other ecclesiastics are privileged to wear rings. The pope of course is the first of bishops, but he does not habitually wear the signet ring distinctive of the papacy and known as "the Ring of the Fisherman" (see below in this article), but usually a simple cameo, while his more magnificent pontifical rings are reserved for solemn ecclesiastical functions. Cardinals also wear rings independently of their grade in the ecclesiastical hierarchy. The ring belonging to the cardinalitial dignity is conferred by the pope himself in the consistory in which the new cardinal is named to a particular "title". It is of small value and is set with a sapphire, while it bears on the inner side of the bezel the arms of the pope conferring it. In practice the cardinal is not required to wear habitually the ring thus presented, and he commonly prefers to use one of his own. The privilege of wearing a ring has belonged to cardinal-priests since the time of Innocent III or earlier (see Sägmüller, "Thatigkeit und Stellung der Cardinale", 163). Abbots in the earlier Middle Ages were permitted to wear rings only by special privilege. A letter of Peter of Blois in the twelfth century (P.L., CCVII, 283) shows that at that date the wearing of a ring by an abbot was apt to be looked upon as a piece of ostentation, out in the later Pontificals the blessing and delivery of a ring formed part of the ordinary ritual for the consecration of an abbot, and this is still the case at the present day. On the other hand: there is no such ceremony indicated in the blessing of an abbess, though certain abbesses have received, or assumed, the privilege of wearing a ring of office. The ring is also regularly worn by certain other minor prelates, for example prothonotaries, but the privilege cannot be said to belong to canons as such (B. de Montault, "Le costume, etc.", I, 170) without special indult. In any case such rings cannot ordinarily be worn by these minor prelates during the celebration of Mass. The same restriction, it need hardly be said, applies to the ring which is conferred as part of the insignia of the doctorate either of theology or of canon law.

The plain rings worn by certain orders of nuns and conferred upon them in the course of their solemn profession, according to the ritual provided in the Roman Pontifical appear to find some justification in ancient tradition. St. Ambrose (P.L., XVII, 701, 735) speaks as though it were a received custom for virgins consecrated to God to wear a ring in memory of their betrothal to their heavenly Spouse. This delivery of a ring to professed nuns is also mentioned by several medieval Pontificals, from the twelfth century onwards. Wedding rings, or more strictly, rings given in the betrothal ceremony, seem to have been tolerated among Christians under the Roman Empire from a quite early period. The use of such rings was of course of older date than Christianity, and there is not much to suggest that the giving of the ring was at first incorporated in any ritual or invested with any precise religious significance. But it is highly probable that, if the acceptance and the wearing of a betrothal ring was tolerated among Christians, such rings would have been adorned with Christian emblems. Certain extant specimens, more particularly a gold ring found near Arles, belonging apparently to the fourth or fifth century, and bearing the inscription, Tecla vivat Deo cum marito seo [suo], may almost certainly be assumed to be Christian espousal rings. In the coronation ceremony, also, it has long been the custom to deliver both to the sovereign and to the queen consort a ring previously blessed. Perhaps the earliest example of the use of such a ring is in the case of Judith, the step-mother of Alfred the Great. It is however in this instance a little difficult to determine whether the ring was bestowed upon the queen in virtue of her dignity as queen consort or of her nuptials to Ethelwulf.

Rings have also occasionally been used for other religious purposes. At an early date the small keys which contained filings from the chains of St. Peter seem to have been welded to a band of metal and worn upon the finger as reliquaries. In more modern times rings have been constructed with ten small knobs or protuberances, and used for saying the rosary.

Babington in Dict. Christ. Antiq.; Leclercq in Dict. dæarch. chret., I (Paris, 1907), s. v. Anneaux; Deloche, Etude historique et archeologique sur les anneaux (Paris, 1900); Du Saussay, Panoplia episcopalis (Paris, 1646), 175-294; Dalton, Catalogue of early Christian Antiquities in the British Museum (London, 1901); Barbier de Montault, Le costume et les usages ecclesiastiques selon la tradition romaine (Paris, 1897-1901).

HERBERT THURSTON

The Ring of the Fisherman

The earliest mention of the Fisherman's ring worn by the popes is in a letter of Clement IV written in 1265 to his nephew, Peter Grossi. The writer states that popes were then accustomed to seal their private letters with "the seal of the Fisherman", whereas public documents, he adds, were distinguished by the leaden "bulls" attached (see BULLS AND BRIEFS). From the fifteenth century, however, the Fisherman's ring has been used to seal the class of papal official documents known as Briefs. The Fisherman's ring is placed, by the cardinal camerlengo on the finger of a newly elected pope. It is made of gold, with a representation of St. Peter in a boat, fishing, and the name of the reigning pope around it.

BABINGTON in Dict. Christ. Antiq., s. v., 3.

MAURICE M. HASSETT

Giovanni Battista Rinuccini

Born at Rome, 1592; d. at Fermo, 1653, was the son of a Florentine patrician, his mother being a sister of Cardinal Ottavo. Educated at Rome and at the Universities of Bologna, Perugia and Pisa, in due course he was ordained priest, having at the age of twenty-two obtained his doctor's degree from the University of Pisa. Returning to Rome he won distinction as an advocate in the ecclesiastical courts, and in 1625 became Archbishop of Fermo. For the twenty years following, his life was the uneventful one of a hard-working chief pastor, and then, in 1645, he was sent as papal nuncio to Ireland. Maddened by oppression, the Irish Catholics had taken up arms, had set up a legislative assembly with an executive government, and had bound themselves by oath not to cease fighting until they had secured undisturbed possession of their lands and religious liberty. But the difficulties were great. The Anglo-Irish and old Irish disagreed, their generals were incompetent or quarrelled with each other, supplies were hard to get, and the Marquis of Ormond managed to sow dissension among the members of the Supreme Council at Kilkenny. In these circumstances the Catholics sought for foreign aid from Spain and the pope; and the latter sent them Rinuccini with a good supply of arms, ammunition, and money. He arrived in Ireland, in the end of 1645, after having narrowly escaped capture at sea by an English vessel. Acting on his instructions from the pope, he encouraged the Irish Catholics not to strive for national independence, but rather to aid the king against the revolted Puritans, provided there was a repeal of the penal laws in existence. Finding, however, that Ormond, acting for the king, would grant no toleration to the Catholics, Rinuccini wished to fight both the Royalists and the Puritans. The Anglo-Irish, satisfied with even the barest toleration, desired negotiations with Ormond and peace at any price, while the Old Irish were for continuing the war until the Plantation of Ulster was undone, and complete toleration secured. Failing to effect a union between such discordant elements, Rinuccini lost courage; and when Ormond surrendered Dublin to the Puritans, and the Catholics became utterly helpless from dissension, he left Ireland, in 1649, and retired to his diocese, where he died.

Rinuccini, The Embassy to Ireland (tr. Hutton, Dublin, 1873); Gilbert, History of Irish Affairs (1641-52, 1880); Meehan, Confederation of Kilkenny (Dublin, 1846); D'Alton, History of Ireland (London, 1910).

E.A. D'ALTON

Alexis-François Rio

French writer on art, b. on the Island of Arz, Department of Morbihan, 20 May, 1797; d. 17 June, 1874. He was educated at the college of Vannes, where he received his first appointment as instructor, which occupation however proved to be distasteful. He proceeded to Paris, but was temporarily disappointed in his hope of obtaining there a chair of history. His enthusiastic championship of the liberty of the Greeks attracted the attention of the Government, which appointed him censor of the public press. His refusal of this appointment won him great popularity and the lifelong friendship of Montalembert. In 1828 he published his first work, "Essai sur l'histoire de l'esprit humain dans l'antiquité", which brought him the favour of the minister de La Ferronays and a secretariate in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This position allowed him (as Montalembert later wrote to him) to become for Christian, what Winckelmann had been for ancient, art. He spent the greater portion of the period 1830-60 in travels through Italy, Germany, and England. In Munich he became acquainted with the spokesmen of contemporary Catholicism -- Boisserée, Baader, Döllinger, Görres, and Rumohr -- and also with Schelling. Schelling gave him an insight into the aesthetic ideal; Rumohr directed him to Italy, where the realization of this ideal in art could be seen. In 1835 the first volume of his "Art chrétien" appeared under the misleading title, "De la poésie chrétienne--Forme de l'art". This work, which was received with enthusiasm in Germany and Italy, was a complete failure in France. Discouraged, he renounced art study and wrote a history of the persecutions of the English Catholics, a work which was never printed. As the result of his intercourse with the Pre-Raphaelites of England, where he lived for three years and married, and especially of Montalembert's encouragement, he visited again, in company with his wife, all the important galleries of Europe, although he had meanwhile become lame and had to drag himself through the museums on crutches. Prominent men like Gladstone, Manzoni, and Thiers became interested in his studies, which he published in four volumes under the title "L'art chrétien" (1861-7). This work is not a history of all Christian art, but of Italian painting from Cimabue to the death of Raphael. Without any strict method or criticism, he expresses preference for the art of the fifteenth century, not without many an inexact and even unjust judgment on the art of later ages; but, in spite, or rather on account of this partiality, he has contributed greatly towards restoring to honour the forgotten and despised art of the Middle Ages. Rio describes the more notable incidents of his life in the two works, "Histoire d'un collège breton sous l'Empire, la petite chouannerie" (1842) and "Epilogue à l'art chrétien" (2 vols., Paris, 1872). He also published the following works: "Shakespeare" (1864), in which he claims the great dramatist as a Catholic; "Michel-Ange et Raphael" (1867); "L'idéal antique et l'idéal chrétien" (1873).

Lefébure, Portraits de croyants (2nd ed., Paris, 1905), 157-284.

B. KLEINSCHMIDT

Riobamba

Diocese of (Bolivarensis), suffragan of Quito, Ecuador, erected by Pius IX, 5 January, 1863. The city, which has a population of 18,000, is situated 9039 feet above sea-level, 85 miles E.N.E. of Guayaquil. Its streets are wide and its adobe houses generally but one story high on account of the frequent earthquakes. Formerly the city was situated about 18 miles further west near the village of Cajabamba and contained 40,000 inhabitants. but it was completely destroyed on 4 February, 1797, by an earthquake. Old Riobamba was the capital of the Kingdom of Puruha before the conquest of the Incas; it was destroyed by Ruminiahui during his retreat in 1533 after his defeat by Benalcázar. The cathedral and the Redemptorist church in the new city are very beautiful. Velasco the historian and the poets Larrea and Orozco were natives of Riobamba. It was here too that the first national Ecuadorian convention was held in 1830. The diocese, comprising the civil Provinces of Chimborazo and Bolivar (having an area of 4250 square miles), has 63 priests, 48 churches and chapels, and about 200,000 inhabitants. The present bishop, Mgr Andres Machado, S.J., was born at Cuenca, Ecuador, 16 October, 1850, and appointed, 12 November, 1907, in succession to Mgr Arsenio Andrade (b. at Uyumbicho, in the Archdiocese of Quito, 8 September, 1825, appointed on 13 November, 1884, d. 1907).

Mera, Geog. de la republica del Ecuador.

A.A. MacERLEAN

Rio Negro

Prefecture Apostolic in Brazil, bounded on the south by a line running westwards from the confluence of the Rio Negro and Rio Branco along the watershed of the Rio Negro to Colombia, separating the new prefecture from those of Teffé and Upper Solimões, and the See of Amazones (from which it was separated by a Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Consistory, 19 Oct., 1910), on the west by Colombia, on the north by Colombia and Venezuela, on the east by the territory of Rio Branco. The white population is small, and confined to the few villages along the banks of the Rio Negro. As early as 1658 a Jesuit Father, Francisco Gonsales, established a mission among the natives of the Upper Rio Negro, and traces of the work of the Jesuit missionaries still exist in the scattered villages. Two years later a Carmelite, Father Theodosius, evangelized the Tucumaos. The Franciscans labored among the Indians from 1870 and had seven stations on the Rio Uaupés (Tariana Indians), four on the Rio Tikié (Toccana Indians), and one on the Rio Papuri (Macu Indians), but on the fall of the empire most of the missions were abandoned, though some of them were re-established later.

A.A. MACERLEAN

Juan Martínez de Ripalda

Theologian, b. at Pamplona, Navarre, 1594; d. at Madrid, 26 April, 1648. He entered the Society of Jesus at Pamplona in 1609. In the triennial reports of 1642 he says of himself that he was not physically strong, that he had studied religion, arts, and theology, that he had taught grammar one year, arts four, theology nineteen, and had been professed. According to Southwell, he taught philosophy at Monforte, theology at Salamanca, and was called from there to the Imperial College of Madrid, where, by royal decree, he taught moral theology. Later he was named censor to the Inquisition and confessor of de Olivares, the favorite of Philip IV, whom he followed when he was exiled from Madrid. Southwell describes his character by saying that he was a good religious, noted for his innocence. Mentally he qualifies him as subtle in argument, sound in opinion, keen-edged and clear in expression, and well-versed in St. Augustine and St. Thomas. According to Drews, no Jesuit ever occupied this chair in the University of Salamanca with more honor than he, and Hurter places him, with Lugo, first among the contemporary theologians of Spain, and perhaps of all Europe. Among the numerous theological opinions which characterize him the following are worth citing: (1) He thinks that the creation of an intrinsically supernatural substance is possible, in other words, that a creature is possible to which supernatural grace, with the accompanying gifts and intuitive vision, is due. (2) He holds that, by a positive decree of God, supernatural grace is conferred, in the existing providence for every good act whatsoever; so that every good act is supernatural, or at least that every natural good act is accompanied by another which is supernatural. (3) He maintains that, prescinding from the extrinsic Divine law, and taking into account only the nature of things, the supernatural faith which is called lata would be sufficient for justification, that faith, namely, which comes by the contemplation of created things, though assent is not produced with- out grace. (4) He affirms that in the promissory revelations the formal object of faith is God's faithfulness to His promises, the constancy of His will, and the efficacy of omnipotence. (5) He asserts that all the propositions of Baius were condemned for doctrine according to the sense in which he (Baius) held them. (6) He maintains that the Divine maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is of itself a sanctifying form. The following are his works: "De ente supernaturali disputationes in universam theologiam", .three vols., I (Bordeaux, 1634), II (Lyons, 1645), III, written "Adversus Bajanos" (Cologne, 1648); rare editions like that of Lyons, 1663, have been published of the two first volumes. It is a classic work in which he included questions which are not included in ordinary theological treatises. His third volume was attacked in an anonymous work, "P. Joannis Martínez . . . Vulpes capta per theologos . . . Academiae Lovaniensis", which Reusch says was the work of Sinnich. "Expositio brevis litterae Magistri Sententiarum" (Salamanca, 1635), praised by the Calvinist Voet. "Tractatus theologici et scholastici de virtutibus, fide, spe et charitate" (Lyons, 1652), a posthumous work and very rare. Two new editions of all his works have been issued: Vives (8 vols., Paris, 1871-3), Palmé (4 vols., Paris, Rome, Propaganda Fide, 1870-1). "Discurso sobre la elección de sucessor del pontificado en vida del pontifice" (Seville). Uriarte says this work was published in Aragon, perhaps in Huesca, with the anagram of Martín Jirón de Palazeda, written by order of the Count de Olivares. The following are in manuscript: "De visione Dei" (2 vols.); "De praedestinatione"; "De angelis et auxiliis"; "De voluntate Dei" preserved in the University of Salamanca; "Discurso acerca de la ley de desafío y parecer sobre el desafio de Medina Sidonia a Juan de Braganza", preserved in the Biblioteca Nacional.

SOUTHWELL, Biblioteca scriptorum S. J. (Rome, 1670), 478; ANTONIO, Bibliotheca hispana nova, I (Madrid, 1783), 736; HURTER, Nomenclator, I (Innsbruck, 1892), 381; SOMMERVOGEL, Bibliotheque, V., col. 640, Biografia eclesiastica completa, XXII (Madrid, 1864), 179.

ANTONIO PEREZ GOYENA

Ripatransone

(RIPANENSIS).

Diocese in Ascoli Piceno, Central Italy. The city is situated on five hills, not far from the site of ancient Cupra Marittima. The modern name comes from Ripa trans Asonem, "the other bank of the Asone". A castle was erected there in the early Middle Ages, and enlarged later by the bishops of Fermo, who had several conflicts with the people. In 1571 St. Pius V made it an episcopal see, naming as its first bishop Cardinal Lucio Sasso and including in its jurisdiction small portions of the surrounding Dioceses of Fermo, Ascoli, and Teramo. Noteworthy bishops were: Cardinal Filippo Sega (1575); Gaspare Sillingardi (1582), afterwards Bishop of Modena, employed by Alfonso II of Ferrara on various missions to Rome and to Spain, effected a revival of religious life in Ripatransone; Gian Carlo Gentili (1845), historian of Sanseverino and Ripatransone; Alessandro Spoglia (1860-67) not recognized by the Government. The cathedral is the work of Gaspare Guerra and has a beautiful marble altar with a triptych by Crivelli; the church of the Madonna del Carmine possesses pictures of the Raphael School. The diocese, at first directly subject to the Holy See, has been suffragan of Fermo since 1680.

CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d'Italia, III (Venice, 1857); Annuaire pontifical catholique (Paris, 1911), s.v. U. BENIGNI

Marquess of Ripon

George Frederick Samuel Robinson, K.G., P.C., G.C.S.I., F.R.S., Earl de Grey, Earl of Ripon, Viscount Goderich, Baron Grantham, and baronet

Born at the prime minister's residence, 10 Downing Street, London, 24 Oct., 1827; died 9 July, 1909. He was the second son of Frederick John Robinson, Viscount Goderich, afterwards first Earl of Ripon, and Lady Sarah Albinia Louisa, daughter of Robert, fourth Earl of Buckinghamshire; and he was born during his father's brief tenure of the office of prime minister. Before entering public life he married (8 April, 1851) his cousin Henrietta Ann Theodosia, elder daughter of Captain Henry Vyner, and by her had two children, Frederick Oliver, who succeeded to his honours, and Mary Sarah, who died in infancy. Inheriting the principles which were common to the great Whig families, Lord Ripon remained through his long public life one of the most generally respected supporters of Liberalism, and even those who most severely criticised his administrative ability -- and in his time he held very many of the great offices of state -- recognized the integrity and disinterestedness of his aims. He entered the House of Commons as member for Hull in 1852, and after representing Huddersfield (1853-57), and the West Riding of Yorkshire (1857-59), he succeeded his father as Earl of Ripon and Viscount Goderich on 28 Jan., 1859, taking his seat in the House of Lords. In the following November he succeeded his uncle as Earl de Grey and Baron Grantham. In the same year he first took office, and was a member of every Liberal administration for the next half-century. The offices he held were: under secretary of State for war (1859-61); under secretary of State for India (1861-1863); secretary of State for war; (1863-66), all under Lord Palmerston; secretary of State for India (1866) under Earl Russell. In Mr. Gladstone's first administration he was lord president of the council (1868-73) and during this period acted as chairman of the joint commission for drawing up the Treaty of Washington which settled the Alabama claims (1876). For this great public service he was created Marquess of Ripon. He also was grand master of the freemasons from 1871 to 1874, when he resigned this office to enter the Catholic Church. He was received at the London Oratory, 4 Sept., 1874. When Gladstone returned to power in 1880 he appointed Lord Ripon Governor-General and Viceroy of India, the office with which his name will ever be connected, he having made himself beloved by the Indian subjects of the Crown as no one of his predecessors had been. He held this office until 1884. In the short administration of 1886 he was first lord of the admiralty, and in that of 1892-1895 he was secretary of State for the Colonies. When the Liberals again returned to power he took office as lord privy seal. This office he resigned in 1908. Ever a fervent Catholic, Lord Ripon took a great share in educational and charitable works. He was president of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul from 1899 until his death; vice-president of the Catholic Union, and a great supporter of St. Joseph's Catholic Missionary Society.

The Tablet (17 July, 1909); Annual Register (London, 1909).

EDWIN BURTON

Richard Risby

Born in the parish of St. Lawrence, Reading, 1489; executed at Tyburn, London, 20 April, 1534. He entered Winchester College in 1500, and was subsequently a fellow of New College, Oxford, taking his degree in 1510. He resigned in 1513 to enter the Franciscan Order, and eventually became warden of the Observant friary at Canterbury. He was condemned to death by the Act of Attainder, 25 Henry VIII, c. 12, together with Elizabeth Barton, Edward Bocking, Hugh Rich, warden of the Observant friary at Richmond, John Dering, B.D. (Oxon.), Benedictine of Christ Church, Canterbury, Henry Gold, M.A. (Oxon.), parson of St. Mary; Aldermanbury, London, and vicar of Hayes, Middlesex and Richard Master, rector of Aldington, Kent, who was pardoned; but by some strange oversight Master's name is included and Risby's omitted in the catalogue of praetermissi. Father Thomas Bourchier, who took the Franciscan habit at Greenwich about 1557, says that Fathers Risby and Rich were twice offered their lives, if they would accept the king's supremacy.

GAIRDNER, Letters and Papers of the reign of Henry VIII, VI, Vll (London, Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh, and Dublin, 1882-3), passim; GASQUET, Henry VIII and the English Monasteries (London, 1906), 44; KIRBY, Winchester Scholars (London and Winchester, 1888), 98; BOASE, Register of the University of Oxford (Oxford, 1885), 71.

J.B. WAINEWRIGHT

William Rishanger

Chronicler, b. at Rishangles, Suffolk, about 1250; d. after 1312. He became a Benedictine at St. Alban's Abbey, Hertfordshire in 1271, and there revived the custom of composing chronicles which had languished since the time of Matthew Paris. His chief work is the history of the Barons' Wars, "Narratio de bellis apud Lewes et Evesham", covering the period from 1258 to 1267 and including a reference which shows that he was still engaged on it on 3 May, 1312. Apart from its historical matter which is derived from Matthew Paris and his continuators, it is interesting for the evidence it affords of the extreme veneration in which Simon de Montfort was held at that time. He also wrote a short chronicle about Edward I, "Quaedam recapitulatio brevis de gestis domini Edwardi". It is possible, though not very probable, that he wrote the earlier part of a chronicle, "Willelmi Rishanger, monachi S. Albani, Chronica". Four other works attributed to him by Bale are not authentic.

RILEY, Willelmi Rishanger chronica et annales in R. S. (London 1863-76); RILEY in Mon. Germ. Hist., XXVIII (Berlin, 1865); HALLIWELL, Chronicle of William de Rishanger of the Barons' Wars in Camden Society Publications, XV (London, 1840); BEMONT, Simon de Montfort (Paris, 1884); HARDY, Descriptive Catalogue (London, 1862-71), I, 871; III, 171-2, 191-3; TOUT in Dict. Nat. Bioq., s.v.

EDWIN BURTON

Edward Rishton

Born in Lancashire, 1550; died at Sainte-Ménehould, Lorraine, 29 June, 1585. He was probably a younger son of John Rishton of Dunkenhalgh and Dorothy Southworth. He studied at Oxford from 1568 to 1572, when he proceeded B.A. probably from Brasenose College. During the next year he was converted and went to Douai to study for the priesthood. He was the first Englishman to matriculate at Douai, and is said to have taken his M.A. degree there. While a student he drew up and published a chart of ecclesiastical history, and was one of the two sent to Reims in November, 1576, to see if the college could be removed there. After his ordination at Cambrai (6 April, 1576) he was sent to Rome. In 1580 he returned to England, visiting Reims on the way, but was soon arrested. He was tried and condemned to death with Blessed Edmund Campion and others on 20 November, 1581, but was not executed, being left in prison, first in King's Bench, then in the Tower. On 21 January he was exiled with several others, being sent under escort as far as Abbeville, whence he made his way to Reims, arriving on 3 March. Shortly afterwards, at the suggestion of Father Persons, he completed Sander's imperfect "Origin and Growth of the Anglican Schism". With the intention of taking his doctorate in divinity he proceeded to the University of Pont-à-Mousson in Lorraine, but the plague broke out, and though he went to Saint-Ménehould to escape the infection, he died of it and was buried there. Dodd in error ascribes his death to 1586, in which mistake he has been followed hy the writer in the "Dictionary of National Biography" and others. After his death the book on the schism was published by Father Persons, and subsequent editions included two tracts attributed to Rishton, the one a diary of an anonymous priest in the Tower (1580-5), which was probably the work of Father John Hart, S.J.; the other a list of martyrs with later additions by Persons. Recent publication of the "Tower Bills" makes it certain that Rishton did not write the diary, and his only other known works are a tract on the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism (Douai, 1575) and "Profession of his faith made manifest and confirmed by twenty-one reasons".

PITTS, De illustribus Angliae scriptoribus (Paris, 1619); DODD, Church History (Brussels vere Wolverhampton, 1737-42), II, 74, a very inaccurate account; A WOOD, Athenae Oxonienses, ed. BLISS (London, 1813 - 20); KINSELLA AND DEANE, The Rise and Progress of the English Reformation (Dublin, 1827), a translation of Sander; LEWIS, Rise and Growth of the Anglican Schism (London, 1877, the best translation of Sander, the editor accepts the diary in the Tower as being by Rishton; KNOX, First and Second Douay Diaries (London, 1878); FOLEY, Records Eng. Prov. S.J., VI (London 1880); FOSTER, Alumni Oxonienses (Oxford, 1891); GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath. SIMPSON, Edmund Campion, revised ed. (London, 1896-1907); COOPER in Dict. Nat. Biog.; PERSONS, Memoirs in Catholic Record Society, II, IV (London, 1906); Tower Bills, ed. POLLEN in Catholic Record Society, III (London, 1906).

EDWIN BURTON

St. Rita of Cascia

Born at Rocca Porena in the Diocese of Spoleto, 1386; died at the Augustinian convent of Cascia, 1456. Feast, 22 May. Represented as holding roses, or roses and figs, and sometimes with a wound in her forehead.

According to the "Life" (Acta SS., May, V, 224) written at the time of her beatification by the Augustinian, Jacob Carelicci, from two older biographies, she was the daughter of parents advanced in years and distinguished for charity which merited them the surname of "Peacemakers of Jesus Christ". Rita's great desire was to become a nun, but, in obedience to the will of her parents, she, at the age of twelve, married a man extremely cruel and ill-tempered. For eighteen years she was a model wife and mother. When her husband was murdered she tried in vain to dissuade her twin sons from attempting to take revenge; she appealed to Heaven to prevent such a crime on their part, and they were taken away by death, reconciled to God. She applied for admission to the Augustinian convent at Cascia, but, being a widow, was refused. By continued entreaties, and, as is related, by Divine intervention, she gained admission, received the habit of the order and in due time her profession. As a religious she was an example for all, excelled in mortifications, and was widely known for the efficacy of her prayers.

Urban VIII, in 1637, permitted her Mass and Office. On account of the many miracles reported to have been wrought at her intercession she received in Spain the title of La Santa de los impossibiles. She was solemnly canonized 24 May, 1900.

FRANCIS MERSHMAN

Rites

I. NAME AND DEFINITION

Ritus in classical Latin in means primarily, the form and manner of any religious observance, so Livy, 1, 7: "Sacra diis aliis albano ritu, græco Herculi ut ab Evandro instituta erant (Romulus) facit"; then, in general, any custom or usage. In English the word "rite" ordinarily means, the ceremonies, prayers, and functions of any religious body, whether pagan, Jewish, Moslem, or Christian. But here we must distinguish two uses of the word. We speak of any one such religious function as a rite -- the rite of the blessing of palms, the coronation rite, etc. In a slightly different sense we call the whole complex of the services of any Church or group of Churches a rite-thus we speak of the Roman Rite, Byzantine Rite, and various Eastern rites. In the latter sense the word is often considered equivalent to liturgy, which, however, in the older and more proper use of the word is the Eucharistic Service, or Mass; hence for a whole series of religious functions "rite" is preferable.

A Christian rite, in this sense comprises the manner of performing all services for the worship of God and the sanctification of men. This includes therefore: (1) the administration of sacraments, among which the service of the Holy Eucharist, as being also the Sacrifice, is the most important element of all; (2) the series of psalms, lessons, prayers, etc., divided into unities, called "hours", to make up together the Divine Office; (3) all other religious and ecclesiastical functions, called sacramentals. This general term includes blessings of persons (such as a coronation, the blessing of an abbot, various ceremonies performed for catechumens, the reconciliation of public penitents, Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament etc.), blessings of things (the consecration of a church, altar, chalice, etc.), and a number of devotions and ceremonies, e.g. processions and the taking of vows. Sacraments, the Divine Office, and sacramentals (in a wide sense) make up the rite of any Christian religious body. In the case of Protestants these three elements must be modified to suit their theological opinions.

II. DIFFERENCE OF RITE

The Catholic Church has never maintained a principle of uniformity in rite. Just as there are different local laws in various parts of the Church, whereas certain fundamental laws are obeyed by all, so Catholics in different places have, their own local or national rites; they say prayers and perform ceremonies that have evolved to suit people of the various countries, and are only different expressions of the same fundamental truths. The essential elements of the functions are obviously the same everywhere, and are observed by all Catholic rites in obedience to the command of Christ and the Apostles, thus in every rite is administered with water and the invocation of the Holy Trinity; the Holy Eucharist is celebrated with bread and wine over which the words of institution are said; penance involves the confession of sins. In the amplification of these essential elements in the accompanying prayers and practical or ceremonies, various customs have produced the changes which make the different rites. If any rite did not contain one of the essential notes of the service it would be invalid in that point, if its prayers or ceremonies expressed false doctrine it would he heretical. Such rites would not be tolerated in the Catholic Church. But, supposing uniformity in essentials and in faith, the authority of the Church has never insisted on uniformity of rile; Rome has never resented the fact that other people have their own expressions of the same truths. The Roman Rite is the most, venerable, the most archaic, and immeasurably the most important of all, but our fellow Catholics in the East have the same right to their traditional liturgies as we have to ours. Nor can we doubt that other rites too have many beautiful prayers and ceremonies which add to the richness of Catholic liturgical inheritance. To lose these would be a misfortune second only to the loss of the Roman Rite. Leo XIII in his Encyclical, "Præclara" (20 June, 1894), expressed the traditional attitude of the papacy when he wrote of his reverence for the venerable able rites of the Eastern Churches and assured the schismatics, whom be invited to reunion, that there was no jealousy of these things at Rome; that for all Eastern customs "we shall provide without narrowness."

At the time of the Schism, Photius and Cerularius hurled against Latin rites and customs every conceivable absurd accusation. The Latin fast on Saturday, Lenten fare, law of celibacy, confirmation by a bishop, and especially the use of unleavened bread for the Holy Eucharist were their accusations against the West. Latin theologians replied that both were right and suitable, each for the people who used them, that there was no need for uniformity in rite if there was unity in faith, that one good custom did not prove another to be bad, thus defending their customs without attacking those of the East. But the Byzantine patriarch was breaking the unity of the Church, denying the primacy, and plunging the East into schism. In 1054, when Cerularius's schism had begun, a Latin bishop, Dominic of Gradus and Aquileia, wrote concerning it to Peter III of Antioch. He discussed the question Cerularius had raised, the use of azymes at Mass, and carefully explained that, in using this bread, Latins did not intend to disparage the Eastern custom of consecrating leavened bread, for there is a symbolic reason for either practice. "Because we know that the sacred mixture of fermented bread is used and lawfully observed by the most holy and orthodox Fathers of the Eastern Churches, we faithfully approve of both customs and confirm both by a spiritual explanation" (Will, "Acta et scripta quæ de controversiis ecclesiæ græcæ et latinæ sæc. XI composite extant", Leipzig, 1861, 207). These words represent very well the attitude of the papacy towards other rites at all times. Three points, however, may seem opposed to this and therefore require some explanation: the supplanting of the old Gallican Rite by that of Rome almost throughout the West, the modification of Uniat rites, the suppression of the later medieval rites.

The existence of the Gallican Rite was a unique anomaly. The natural principle that rite follows patriarchate has been sanctioned by universal tradition with this one exception. Since the first organization of patriarchates there has been an ideal of uniformity throughout each. The close bond that joined bishops and metropolitans to their patriarch involved the use of his liturgy, just as the priests of a diocese follow the rite of their bishop. Before the arbitrary imposition of the Byzantine Rite on all Orthodox Churches no Eastern patriarch would have tolerated a foreign liturgy in his domain. All Egypt used the Alexandrine Rite, all Syria that of Antioch-Jerusalem, all Asia Minor, Greece, and the Balkan lands, that of Constantinople. But in the vast Western lands that make up the Roman patriarchate, north of the Alps and in Spain, various local rites developed, all bearing a strong resemblance to each other, yet different from that of Rome itself. These form the Gallican family of liturgies. Abbot Cabrol, Dom Cagin, and other writers of their school think that the Gallican Rite was really the original Roman Rite before Rome modified it Paléographie musicale V, Solesmes, 1889; Cabrol, Les origines liturgiques Paris 1906). Most writers, however, maintain with Mgr Duchesne ("Origines du culte Chrétien", Paris, 1898, 8489), that the Gallican Rite is Eastern, Antiochene in origin. Certainly it has numerous Antiochene peculiarities (see GALLICAN RITE), and when it emerged as a complete rite in the sixth and seventh centuries (in Germanus of Paris, etc.), it was different from that in use at Rome at the time. Non-Roman liturgies were used at Milan, Aquileia, even at Gobble at the gates of the Roman province (Innocent I's letter to Decentius of Eugubium; Ep. xxv, in P. L., XX, 551-61). Innocent (401-17) naturally protested against the use of a foreign rite in Umbria; occasionally other popes showed some desire for uniformity in their patriarchate, but the great majority regarded the old state of things with perfect indifference. When other bishops asked them how ceremonies were performed at Rome they sent descriptions (so Pope Vigilius to Profuturus of Braga in 538; Jaffé, "Regesta Rom. Pont.", n. 907), but were otherwise content to allow different uses. St. Gregory I (590-604) showed no anxiety to make the new English Church conform to Rome, but told St. Augustine to take whatever rites he thought most suitable from Rome or Gaul (Ep. xi, 64, in P. L., LXXVII, 1186-7).

Thus for centuries the popes alone among patriarchs did not enforce their own rite even throughout their patriarchate. The gradual romanization and subsequent disappearance of Gallican rites were (beginning in the eighth and ninth centuries), the work not of the popes but of local bishops and kings who naturally wished to conform to the use of the Apostolic See. The Gallican Rites varied everywhere (Charles the Great gives this as his reason for adopting the Roman Use; see Hauck, "Kirchengesch. Deutschlands", 11, 107 sq.), and the inevitable desire for at least local uniformity arose. The bishops' frequent visits to Rome brought them in contact with the more dignified ritual observed by their chief at the tomb of the Apostles, and they were naturally influenced by it in their return home. The local bishops in synods ordered conformity to Rome. The romanizing movement in the West came from below. In the Frankish kingdom Charles the Great, as part of his scheme of unifying, sent to Adrian I for copies of the Roman books, commanding their use throughout his domain. In the history of the substitution of the Roman Rite for the Gallican the popes appear as spectators, except perhaps in Spain and much later in Milan. The final result was the application in the West of the old principle, for since the pope was undoubtedly Patriarch of the West it was inevitable, that sooner or later the West should conform to his rite. The places, however, that really cared for their old local rites (Milan, Toledo) retain them even now.

It is true that the changes made in some Uniat rites by the Roman correctors have not always corresponded to the best liturgical tradition. There are as Mgr Duchesne says, "corrections inspired by zeal that was not always according to knowledge " (Origines du culte, 2nd ed., 69), but they are much fewer than is generally supposed and have never been made with the idea of romanizing. Despite the general prejudice that Uniat rites are mere mutilated hybrids, the strongest impression from the study of them is how little has been changed. Where there is no suspicion of false doctrine, as in the Byzantine Rite, the only change made was the restoration of the name of the pope where the schismatics had erased it. Although the question of the procession of the Holy Ghost has been so fruitful a source of dispute between Rome and Constantinople the Filioque clause was certainly not contained in the original creed, nor did the Roman authorities insist on its addition. So Rome is content that Eastern Catholics should keep their traditional form unchanged, though they believe the Catholic doctrine. The Filioque is only sung by those Byzantine Uniats who wish it themselves, as the Ruthenians. Other rites were altered in places, not to romanize but only to eradicate passages suspected of heresy. All other Uniats came from Nestorian, Monophysite, or Monothelete sects, whose rites had been used for centuries by heretics. Hence, when bodies of these people wished to return to the Catholic Church their services were keenly studied at Rome for possible heresy. In most cases corrections were absolutely necessary. The Nestorian Liturgy, for instance, did not contain the words of institution, which had to be added to the Liturgy of the converted Chaldees. The Monophysite Jacobites, Copts, and Armenians have in the Trisagion the fateful clause: "who wast crucified for us", which has been the watchword of Monophysitism ever since Peter the Dyer of Antioch added it (470-88). If only because of its associations this could not remain in a Catholic Liturgy.

In some instances, however, the correctors were over scrupulous. In the Gregorian Armenian Liturgy the words said by the deacon at the expulsion of the catechumens, long before the Consecration: "The body of the Lord and the blood of the Saviour are set forth (or "are before us") (Brightman, "Eastern Liturgies", 430) were in the Uniat Rite changed to: "are about to be before us". The Uniats also omit the words sung by the Gregorian choir before the Anaphora: "Christ has been manifested amongst us (has appeared in the midst of us)" (ibid., 434), and further change the cherubic hymn because of its anticipation of the Consecration. These misplacements are really harmless when understood, yet any reviser would be shocked by such strong cases. In many other ways also the Armenian Rite shows evidence of Roman influence. It has unleavened bread, our confession and Judica psalm at the beginning of Mass, a Lavabo before the Canon, the last Gospel, etc. But so little is this the effect of union with Rome that the schismatical Armenians have all these points too. They date from the time of the Crusades, when the Armenians, vehemently opposed to the Orthodox, made many advances towards Catholics. So also the strong romanizing of the Maronite Liturgy was entirely the work of the Maronites themselves, when, surrounded by enemies in the East, they too turned towards the great Western Church, sought her communion, and eagerly copied her practices. One can hardly expect the pope to prevent other Churches from imitating Roman customs. Yet in the case of Uniats he does even this. A Byzantine Uniat priest who uses unleavened bread in his Liturgy incurs excommunication. The only case in which an ancient Eastern rite has been wilfully romanized is that of the Uniat Malabar Christians, where it was not Roman authority but the misguided zeal of Alexius de Menezes, Archbishop of Goa, and his Portuguese advisers at the Synod of Diamper (1599) which spoiled the old Malabar Rite.

The Western medieval rites are in no case (except the Ambrosian and Mozarabic Rites), really independent of Rome. They are merely the Roman Rite with local additions and modifications, most of which are to its disadvantage. They are late, exuberant, and inferior variants, whose ornate additions and long interpolated tropes, sequences, and farcing destroy the dignified simplicity of the old liturgy. In 1570 the revisers appointed by the Council of Trent restored with scrupulous care and, even in the light of later studies, brilliant success the pure Roman Missal, which Pius V ordered should alone be used wherever the Roman Rite is followed. It was a return to an older and purer form. The medieval rites have no doubt a certain archæological interest; but where the Roman Rite is used it is best to use it in its pure form. This too only means a return to the principle that rite should follow patriarchate. The reform was made very prudently, Pius V allowing any rite that could prove an existence of two centuries to remain (Bull "Quo primum", 19 July, 1570, printed first in the Missal), thus saving any local use that had a certain antiquity. Some dioceses (e.g. Lyons) and religious orders (Dominicans, Carthusians, Carmelites), therefore keep their special uses, and the independent Ambrosian and Mozarabic Rites, whose loss would have been a real misfortune (see LITURGY, MASS, LITURGY OF THE) still remain.

Rome then by no means imposed uniformity of rite. Catholics are united in faith and discipline, but in their manner of performing the sacred functions there is room for variety based on essential unity, as there was in the first centuries. There are cases (e.g. the Georgian Church) where union with Rome has saved the ancient use, while the schismatics have been forced to abandon it by the centralizing policy of their authorities (in this case Russia). The ruthless destruction of ancient rites in favour of uniformity has been the work not of Rome but of the schismatical patriarchs of Constantinople. Since the thirteenth century Constantinople in its attempt to make itself the one centre of the Orthodox Church has driven out the far more venerable and ancient Liturgies of Antioch and Alexandria and has compelled all the Orthodox to use its own late derived rite. The Greek Liturgy of St. Mark has ceased to exist; that of St. James has been revived for one or two days in the year at Zakynthos and Jerusalem only (see ANTIOCHENE LITURGY). The Orthodox all the world over must follow the Rite of Constantinople. In this unjustifiable centralization we have a defiance of the old principle, since Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Cyprus, in no way belong to the Byzantine Patriarchate. Those who accuse the papacy of sacrificing everything for the sake of uniformity mistake the real offender, the oecumenical patriarch.

III. THE OLD RITES (CATHOLIC AND SCHISMATICAL)

A complete table of the old rites with an account of their mutual relations will be found in the article LITURGY. Here it need only be added that there is a Uniat body using each of the Eastern rites. There is no ancient rite that is not represented within the Catholic Church. That rite, liturgical language, and religious body connote three totally different ideas has been explained at length in the article GREEK RITES. The rite a bishop or priest follows is no test at all of his religion. Within certain broad limits a member of any Eastern sect might use any rite, for the two categories of rite and religion cross each other continually. They represent quite different classifications: for instance, liturgically all Armenians belong to one class, theologically a Uniat Armenian belongs to the same class as Latins, Chaldees, Maronites, etc., and has nothing to do with his Gregorian (Monophysite) fellow-countrymen (see EASTERN CHURCHES). Among Catholics the rite forms a group; each rite is used by a branch of the Church that is thereby a special, though not separate, entity. So within the Catholic unity we speak of local Churches whose characteristic in each case is the rite they use. Rite is the only basis of this classification. Not all Armenian Catholics or Byzantine Uniats obey the same patriarch or local authority; yet they are "Churches" individual provinces of the same great Church, because each is bound together by their own rites. In the West there is the vast Latin Church, in the East the Byzantine, Chaldean, Coptic, Syrian, Maronite, Armenian, and Malabar Uniat Churches. It is of course possible to subdivide and to speak of the national Churches (of Italy, France, Spain, etc.) under one of these main bodies (see LATIN CHURCH). In modern times rite takes the place of the old classification in patriarchates and provinces.

IV. PROTESTANT RITES

The Reformation in the sixteenth century produced a new and numerous series of rites, which are in no sense continuations of the old development of liturgy. They do not all represent descendants of the earliest rites, nor can they be classified in the table of genus and species that includes all the old liturgies of Christendom. The old rites are unconscious and natural developments of earlier ones and go back to the original fluid rite of the first centuries (see LITURGY). The Protestant rites are deliberate compositions made by the various Reformers to suit their theological positions, as new services were necessary for their prayer meetings. No old liturgy could be used by people with their ideas. The old rites contain the plainest statements about the Real Presence, the Eucharistic Sacrifice, prayers to saints, and for the dead, which are denied by Protestants. The Reformation occurred in the West, where the Roman Rite in its various local forms had been used for centuries. No Reformed sect could use the Roman Mass; the medieval derived rites were still more ornate, explicit, in the Reformers' sense superstitious. So all the Protestant sects abandoned the old Mass and the other ritual functions, composing new services which have no continuity, no direct relation to any historic liturgy. However, it is hardly possible to compose an entirely new Christian service without borrowing anything. Moreover, in many cases the Reformers wished to make the breach with the past as little obvious as could be. So many of their new services contain fragments of old rites; they borrowed such elements as seemed to them harmless, composed and re-arranged and evolved in some cases services that contain parts of the old ones in a new order. On the whole it is surprising that they changed as much as they did. It would have been possible to arrange an imitation of the Roman Mass that would have been much more like it than anything they produced.

They soon collected fragments of all kinds of rites, Eastern, Roman, Mozarabic, etc., which with their new prayers they arranged into services that are hopeless liturgical tangles. This is specially true of the Anglican Prayer-books. In some cases, for instance, the placing of the Gloria after the Communion in Edward VI's second Prayer-book, there seems to be no object except a love of change. The first Lutheran services kept most of the old order. The Calvinist arrangements had from the first no connexion with any earlier rite. The use of the vulgar tongue was a great principle with the Reformers. Luther and Zwingli at first compromised with Latin, but soon the old language disappeared in all Protestant services. Luther in 1523 published a tract, "Of the order of the service in the parish" ("Von ordenung gottis diensts [sic] ynn der gemeine" in Clemen, "Quellenbuch zur prakt. Theologie", 1, 24-6), in which he insists on preaching, rejects all "unevangelical" parts of the Mass, such as the Offertory and idea of sacrifice, invocation of saints, and ceremonies, and denounces private Masses (Winkelmessen), Masses for the dead, and the idea of the priest as a mediator. Later in the same year he issued a "Formula missæ et communionis pro ecclesia Vittebergensi" (ibid., 26-34), in which he omits the preparatory prayers, Offertory, all the Canon to qui pridie, from Unde et memores to the Pater, the embolism of the Lord's Prayer, fraction, Ite missa est. The Preface is shortened, the Sanctus is to be sung after the words of institution which are to be said aloud, and meanwhile the elevation may be made because of the weak who would be offended by its sudden omission (ibid., IV, 30). At the end he adds a new ceremony, a blessing from Num., vi, 24-6. Latin remained in this service.

Karlstadt began to hold vernacular services at Wittenberg since 1521. In 1524 Kaspar Kantz published a German service on the lines of Luther's "Formula missæ" (Lohe, "Sammlung liturgischer Formuläre III, Nördlingen, 1842, 37 sq.); so also Thomas Münzer the Anabaptist, in 1523 at Alstedt (Smend, "Die evang. deutschen Messen", 1896, 99 sq.). A number of compromises began at this time among the Protestants, services partly Latin and partly vernacular (Rietschel, "Lehrbuch der Liturgik", 1, 404-9). Vernacular hymns took the place of the old Proper (Introit, etc.). At last in 1526 Luther issued an entirely new German service, "Deudsche Messe und ordnung Gottis diensts" (Clemen, op. cit., 3443), to be used on Sundays, whereas the "Formula missæ", in Latin, might be kept for week-days. In the "Deudsche Messe" "a spiritual song or German psalm" replaces the Introit, then follows Kyrie eleison in Greek three times only. There is no Gloria. Then come the Collects, Epistle, a German hymn, Gospel, Creed, Sermon, Paraphrase of the Lord's Prayer, words of institution with the account of the Last Supper from I Cor, xi, 20-9, Elevation (always kept by Luther himself in spite of Karlstadt and most of his colleagues), Communion, during which the Sanctus or a hymn is sung, Collects, the blessing from Num., vi, 24-6. Except the Kyrie, all is in German; azyme bread is still used but declared indifferent; Communion is given under both kinds, though Luther preferred the unmixed chalice. This service remained for a long time the basis of the Lutheran Communion function, but the local branches of the sect from the beginning used great freedom in modifying it. The Pietistic movement in the eighteenth century, with its scorn for forms and still more the present Rationalism, have left very little of Luther's scheme. A vast number of Agendæ, Kirchenordnungen, and Prayer-books issued by various Lutheran consistories from the sixteenth century to our own time contain as many forms of celebrating the Lord's Supper. Pastors use their own discretion to a great extent, and it is impossible to foresee what service will be held in any Lutheran church. An arrangement of hymns, Bible readings (generally the Nicene Creed), a sermon, then the words of institution and Communion, prayers (often extempore), more hymns, and the blessing from Num., vi, make up the general outline of the service.

Zwingli was more radical than Luther. In 1523 he kept a form of the Latin Mass with the omission of all he did not like in it ("De canone missæ epichiresis" in Clemen, op. cit., 43-7), chiefly because the town council of Zurich feared too sudden a change, but in 1525 he overcame their scruples and issued his "Action oder bruch (=Brauch) des nachtmals" (ibid., 47-50). This is a complete breach with the Mass an entirely new service. On Maundy Thursday the men and women are to receive communion, on Good Friday those of "middle age", on Easter Sunday only the oldest (die alleraltesten). These are the only occasions on which the service is to be held. The arrangement is: a prayer said by the pastor facing the people, reading of 1 Cor, xi, 20-9, Gloria in Excelsis, "The Lord be with you" and its answer, reading of John, vi, 47-63, Apostles' Creed, an address to the people, Lord's Prayer, extempore prayer, words of institution, Communion (under both kinds in wooden vessels), Ps. cxiii, a short prayer of thanksgiving; the pastor says: "Go in peace". On other Sundays there is to be no Communion at all, but a service consisting of prayer, Our Father, sermon, general confession, absolution, prayer, blessing. Equally radical was the Calvinist sect. In 1535 through Farel's influence the Mass was abolished in Geneva. Three times a year only was there to be a commemorative Supper in the baldest form; on other Sundays the sermon was to suffice. In 1542 Calvin issued "La forme des prières ecclésiastiques" " (Clemen, op. cit., 51-8), a supplement to which describes "La manière de célébrer la cène" (ibid., 51-68). This rite, to be celebrated four times yearly, consists of the reading of 1 Cor, xi, an excommunication of various kinds of sinners, and long exhortation. "This being done, the ministers distribute the bread and the cup to the people, taking care that they approach reverently and in good order" (ibid., 60). Meanwhile a psalm is sung or a lesson read from the Bible, a thanksgiving follows (ibid., 55), and a final blessing. Except for their occurrence in the reading of I Cor, xi, the words of institution are not said; there is no kind of Communion form. It is hardly possible to speak of rite at all in the Calvinist body.

The other ritual functions kept by Protestants (baptism, confirmation as an introduction to Communion marriage, funerals, appointment of ministers) went through much the same development. The first Reformers expunged and modified the old rites, then gradually more and more was changed until little remained of a rite in our sense. Psalms, hymns, prayers, addresses to the people in various combinations make up these functions. The Calvinists have always been more radical than the Lutherans. The development and multiple forms of these services may be seen in Rietschel, "Lehrbuch der Liturgik", II, and Clemen, "Quellenbuch zur praktischen Theologie", I (texts only). The Anglican body stands somewhat apart from the others, inasmuch as it has a standard book, almost unaltered since 1662. The first innovation was the introduction of an English litany under Henry VIII in 1544. Cranmer was preparing further changes when Henry VIII died (see Procter and Frere, "A New History of the Book of Common Prayer" London, 1908, 29-35). Under Edward VI (1547-53) many changes were made at once: blessings, holy water, the creeping to the Cross were abolished, Mass was said in English (ibid., 39-41), and in 1549 the first Prayer-book, arranged by Cranmer, was issued. Much of the old order of the Mass remained, but the Canon disappeared to make way for a new prayer from Lutheran sources. The "Kölnische Kirchenordnung" composed by Melanchthon and Butzer supplied part of the prayers. The changes are Lutheran rather than Calvinist. In 1552 the second Prayerbook took the place of the first. This is the present Anglican Book of Common Prayer and represents a much stronger Protestant tendency. The commandments take the place of the Introit and Kyrie (kept in the first book), the Gloria is moved to the end, the Consecration-prayer is changed so as to deny the Sacrifice and Real Presence, the form at the Communion becomes: "Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving" (similarly for the chalice). In 1558 Elizabeth's Government issued a new edition of the second Prayer-book of Edward VI with slight modifications of its extreme Protestantism. Both the Edwardine forms for communion are combined. In 1662 a number of revisions were made. In particular the ordination forms received additions defining the order to be conferred. A few slight modifications (as to the lessons read, days no longer to be kept) have been made since.

The Anglican Communion service follows this order: The Lord's Prayer, Collect for purity, Ten Commandments, Collect for the king and the one for the day, Epistle, Gospel, Creed, sermon, certain sentences from the Bible (meanwhile a collection is made), prayer for the Church militant, address to the people about Communion, general confession and absolution, the comfortable words (Matt., xi, 28; John, iii, 16; 1 Tim., i, 15; 1 John, ii, 1), Preface, prayer ("We do not presume"), Consecration-prayer, Communion at once, Lord's Prayer, Thanksgiving-prayer, "Glory be to God on high", blessing. Very little of the arrangement of the old Mass remains in this service, for all the ideas Protestants reject are carefully excluded. The Book of Common Prayer contains all the official services of the Anglican Church, baptism, the catechism, confirmation, marriage, funeral, ordination, articles of religion, etc. It has also forms of morning and evening prayer, composed partly from the Catholic Office with many modifications and very considerably reduced. The Episcopal Church in Scotland has a Prayer-book, formed in 1637 and revised in 1764, which is more nearly akin to the first Prayer-book of Edward VI and is decidedly more High Church in tone. In 1789 the Protestant Episcopal Church of America accepted a book based on the English one of 1662, but taking some features from the Scotch services. The Anglican service-books are now the least removed from Catholic liturgies of those used by any Protestant body. But this is saying very little. The Non-jurors in the eighteenth century produced a number of curious liturgies which in many ways go back to Catholic principles, but have the fault common to all Protestant services of being conscious and artificial arrangements of elements selected from the old rites, instead of natural developments (Overton, "The Non-jurors", London, 1902, ch. vi). The Irvingites have a not very-successful service-book of this type. Many Methodists use the Anglican book; the other later sects have for the most part nothing but loose arrangements of hymns, readings, extempore prayers, and a sermon that can hardly be called rites in any sense.

V. LITURGICAL LANGUAGE

The language of any Church or rite, as distinct from the vulgar tongue, is that used in the official services and may or may not be the common language. For instance the Rumanian Church uses liturgically the ordinary language of the country, while Latin is used by the Latin Church for her Liturgy without regard to the mother tongue of the clergy or congregation. There are many cases of an intermediate state between these extremes, in which the liturgical language is an older form of the vulgar tongue, sometimes easily, sometimes hardly at all, understood by people who have not studied it specially. Language is not rite. Theoretically any rite may exist in any language. Thus the Armenian, Coptic, and East Syrian Rites are celebrated always in one language, the Byzantine Rite is used in a great number of tongues, and in other rites one language sometimes enormously preponderates but is not used exclusively. This is determined by church discipline. The Roman Liturgy is generally celebrated in Latin. The reason why a liturgical language began to be used and is still retained must be distinguished in liturgical science from certain theological or mystic considerations by which its use may be explained or justified. Each liturgical language was first chosen because it was the natural language of the people. But languages change and the Faith spreads into countries where other tongues are spoken. Then either the authorities are of a more practical mind and simply translate the prayers into the new language, or the conservative instinct, always strong in religion, retains for the liturgy an older language no longer used in common life. The Jews showed this instinct, when, though Hebrew was a dead language after the Captivity, they continued to use it in the Temple and the synagogues in the time of Christ, and still retain it in their services. The Moslem, also conservative, reads the Koran in classical Arabic, whether he be Turk, Persian, or Afghan. The translation of the church service is complicated by the difficulty of determining when the language in which it is written, as Latin in the West and Hellenistic Greek in the East, has ceased to be the vulgar tongue. Though the Byzantine services were translated into the common language of the Slavonic people that they might be understood, this form of the language (Church-Slavonic) is no longer spoken, but is gradually becoming as unintelligible as the original Greek. Protestants make a great point of using languages "understanded of the people", yet the language of Luther's Bible and the Anglican Prayerbook is already archaic.

History

When Christianity appeared Hellenistic Greek was the common language spoken around the Mediterranean. St. Paul writes to people in Greece, Asia Minor, and Italy in Greek. When the parent rites were finally written down in the fourth and fifth centuries Eastern liturgical language had slightly changed. The Greek of these liturgies (Apost. Const. VIII, St. James, St. Mark, the Byzantine Liturgy) was that of the Fathers of the time, strongly coloured by the Septuagint and the New Testament. These liturgies remained in this form and have never been recast in any modern Greek dialect. Like the text of the Bible, that of a liturgy once fixed becomes sacred. The formulæ used Sunday after Sunday are hallowed by too sacred associations to be changed as long as more or less the same language is used. The common tongue drifts and develops, but the liturgical forms are stereotyped. In the East and West, however, there existed different principles in this matter. Whereas in the West there was no literary language but Latin till far into the Middle Ages, in the East there were such languages, totally unlike Greek, that had a position, a literature, a dignity of their own hardly inferior to that of Greek itself. In the West every educated man spoke and wrote Latin almost to the Renaissance. To translate the Liturgy into a Celtic or Teutonic language would have seemed as absurd as to write a prayerbook now in some vulgar slang. The East was never hellenized as the West was latinized. Great nations, primarily Egypt and Syria, kept their own languages and literatures as part of their national inheritance. The people, owing no allegiance to the Greek language, had no reason to say their prayers in it, and the Liturgy was translated into Coptic in Egypt, into Syriac in Syria and Palestine. So the principle of a uniform liturgical language was broken in the East and people were accustomed to hear the church service in different languages in different places. This uniformity once broken never became an ideal to Eastern Christians and the way was opened for an indefinite multiplication of liturgical tongues.

In the fourth and fifth centuries the Rites of Antioch and Alexandria were used in Greek in the great towns where people spoke Greek, in Coptic or Syriac among peasants in the country. The Rite of Asia Minor and Constantinople was always in Greek, because here there was no rival tongue. But when the Faith was preached in Armenia (from Cæsarea) the Armenians in taking over the Cæsarean Rite translated it of course into their own language. And the great Nestorian Church in East Syria, evolving her own literature in Syriac, naturally used that language for her church services too. This diversity of tongues was by no means parallel to diversity of sect or religion. People who agreed entirely in faith, who were separated by no schism, nevertheless said their prayers in different languages. Melchites in Syria clung entirely to the Orthodox faith of Constantinople and used the Byzantine Rite, yet used it translated into Syriac. The process of translating the Liturgy continued later.. After the Schism of the eleventh century, the Orthodox Church, unlike Rome, insisted on uniformity of rite among her members. All the Orthodox use the Byzantine Rite, yet have no idea of one language. When the Slavs were converted the Byzantine Rite was put into Old Slavonic for them; when Arabic became the only language spoken in Egypt And Syria, it became the language of the Liturgy in those countries. For a long time all the people north of Constantinople used Old Slavonic in church, although the dialects they spoke gradually drifted away from it. Only the Georgians, who are Slavs in no sense at all, used their own language. In the seventeenth century as part of the growth of Rumanian national feeling came a great insistence on the fact that they were not Slavs either. They Wished to be counted among Western, Latin races, so they translated their liturgical books into their own Romance language. These represent the old classical liturgical languages in the East.

The Monophysite Churches have kept the old tongues even when no longer spoken; thus they use Coptic in Egypt, Syriac in Syria, Armenian in Armenia. The Nestorians and their daughter-Church in India (Malabar) also use Syriac. The Orthodox have four or five chief liturgical languages: Greek, Arabic, Church-Slavonic, and Rumanian. Georgian has almost died out. Later Russian missions have very much increased the number. They have translated the same Byzantine Rite into German, Esthonian, and Lettish for the Baltic provinces Finnish and Tartar for converts in Finland and Siberia, Eskimo, a North American Indian dialect, Chinese, and Japanese. Hence no general principle of liturgical language can be established for Eastern Churches, though the Nestorians and Monophysites have evolved something like the Roman principle and kept their old languages in the liturgy, in spite of change in common talk. The Orthodox services are not, however, everywhere understood by the people, for since these older versions were made language has gone on developing. In the case of converts of a totally different race, such as Chinese or Red Indians, there is an obvious line to cross at once and there is no difficulty about translating what would otherwise be totally unintelligible to them. At home the spoken language gradually drifts away from the form stereotyped in the Liturgy, and it is difficult to determine when the Liturgy ceases to be understood. In more modern times with the growth of new sects the conservative instinct of the old Churches has grown. The Greek, Arabic, and Church-Slavonic texts are jealously kept unchanged though in all cases they have become archaic and difficult to follow by uneducated people. Lately the question of liturgical language has become one of the chief difficulties in Macedonia. Especially since the Bulgarian Schism the Phanar at Constantinople insists on Greek in church as a sign of Hellenism, while the people clamour for Old-Slavonic or Rumanian.

In the West the whole situation is different. Greek was first used at Rome, too. About the third century the services were translated into the vulgar tongue, Latin (see MASS, LITURGY OF THE), which has remained ever since. There was no possible rival language for many centuries. As the Western barbarians became civilized they accepted a Latin culture in everything, having no literatures of their own. Latin was the language of all educated people, so it was used in church, as it was for books or even letter-writing. The Romance people drifted from Latin to Italian, Spanish, French, etc., so gradually that no one can say when Latin became a dead language. The vulgar tongue was used by peasants and ignorant people only; but all books were written, lectures given, and solemn speeches made in Latin. Even Dante (d. 1321) thought it necessary to write an apology for Italian (De vulgari eloquentia). So for centuries the Latin language was that, not of the Catholic Church, but of the Roman patriarchate. When people at last realized that it was dead, it was too late to change it. Around it had gathered the associations of Western Christendom; the music of the Roman Rite was composed and sung only to a Latin text; and it is even now the official tongue of he Roman Court. The ideal of uniformity in rite extended to language also, so when the rebels of the, sixteenth century threw over the old language, sacred from its long use, as they threw over the old rite and Id laws, the Catholic Church, conservative in all these things, would not give way to them. As a bond of union among the many nations who make up he Latin patriarchate, she retains the old Latin tongue with one or two small exceptions. Along he Eastern coast of the Adriatic Sea the Roman Rite has been used in Slavonic (with the Glagolitic letters) since the eleventh century, and the Roman Mass is said in Greek on rare occasions at Rome.

It is a question how far one may speak of a special liturgical Latin language. The writers of our Collects, hymns, Prefaces, etc., wrote simply in the language of their time. The style of the various elements of the Mass and Divine Office varies greatly according to the time at which they were written. We have texts from the fourth or fifth to the twentieth century. Liturgical Latin then is simply late Christian Latin of various periods. On the other hand the Liturgy had an influence on the style of Christian Latin writers second only to that of the Bible. First we notice Hebraisms (per omnia soecula soeculorum), many Greek constructions (per Dominum nostrum, meaning" for the sake of", dia) and words (Eucharistia, litania, episcopus), expressions borrowed from Biblical metaphors (pastor, liber proedestinationis, crucifigere carnem, lux, vita, Agnus Dei), and words in a new Christian sense (humilitas, compunctio, caritas). St. Jerome in his Vulgate more than any one else helped to form liturgical style. His constructions and phrases occur repeatedly in the non-Biblical parts of the Mass and Office. The style of the fifth and sixth centuries (St. Leo I, Celestine I, Gregory I) forms perhaps the main stock of our services. The mediæval Schoolmen (St. Thomas Aquinas) and their technical terminology have influenced much of the later parts, and the Latin of the Renaissance is an important element that in many cases overlays the ruder forms of earlier times. Of this Renaissance Latin many of the Breviary lessons are typical examples; a comparison of the earlier forms of the hymns with the improved forms drawn up by order of Urban VIII (1623-44) will convince any one how disastrous its influence was. The tendency to write inflated phrases has not yet stopped: almost any modern Collect compared with the old ones in the "Gelasian Sacramentary" will show how much we have lost of style in our liturgical prayers.

Use of Latin

The principle of using Latin in church is in no way fundamental. It is a question of discipline that evolved differently in East and West, and may not be defended as either primitive or universal. The authority of the Church could change the liturgical language at any time without sacrificing any important principle. The idea of a universal tongue may seem attractive, but is contradicted by the fact that the Catholic Church uses eight or nine different liturgical languages. Latin preponderates as a result of the greater influence of the Roman patriarchate and its rite, caused by the spread of Western Europeans into new lands and the unhappy schism of so many Easterns (see Fortescue, "Orthodox Eastern Church", 431). Uniformity of rite or liturgical language has never been a Catholic ideal, nor was Latin chosen deliberately as a sacred language. Had there been any such idea the language would have been Hebrew or Greek.

The objections of Protestants to a Latin Liturgy can be answered easily enough. An argument often made from I Cor., xiv, 4-18, is of no value. The whole passage treats of quite another thing, prophesying in tongues that no one understands, not even the speaker (see 14: "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth but my understanding is without fruit"). The other argument, from practical convenience, from the loss to the people who do not understand what is being said, has some value. The Church has never set up a mysterious unintelligible language as an ideal. There is no principle of sacerdotal mysteries from which the layman is shut out. In spite of the use of Latin the people have means of understanding the service. That they might do so still better if everything were in the vulgar tongue may be admitted, but in making this change the loss would probably be greater than the gain.

By changing the language of the Liturgy we should lose the principle of uniformity in the Roman patriarchate. According to the ancient principle that rite follows patriarchate, the Western rite should be that of the Western patriarch, the Roman Bishop, who uses the local rite of the city of Rome. There is a further advantage in using it in his language, so the use of Latin in the West came about naturally and is retained through conservative instinct. It is not so in the East. There is a great practical advantage to travellers, whether priests or laymen, in finding their rite exactly the same everywhere. An English priest in Poland or Portugal could not say his Mass unless he and the server had a common language. The use of Latin all over the Roman patriarchate is a very obvious and splendid witness of unity. Every Catholic traveller in a country of which he does not know the language has felt the comfort of finding that in church at least everything is familiar and knows that in a Catholic church of his own rite he is at home anywhere. Moreover, the change of liturgical language would be a break with the past. It is a witness of antiquity of which a Catholic may well be proud that in Mass to-day we are still used to the very words that Anselm, Gregory, Leo sang in their cathedrals. A change of language would also abolish Latin chant. Plainsong, as venerable a relic of antiquity as any part of the ritual, is composed for the Latin text only, supposes always the Latin syllables and the Latin accent, and becomes a caricature when it is forced into another language with different rules of accent.

These considerations of antiquity and universal use always made proportionately (since there are the Eastern Uniat rites) but valid for the Roman patriarchate may well outweigh the practical convenience of using the chaos of modern languages in the liturgy. There is also an æsthetic advantage in Latin. The splendid dignity of the short phrases with their rhythmical accent and terse style redolent of the great Latin Fathers, the strange beauty of the old Latin hymns, the sonorous majesty of the Vulgate, all these things that make the Roman Rite so dignified, so characteristic of the old Imperial City where the Prince of the Apostles set up his throne, would be lost altogether in modern English or French translations. The impossibility of understanding Latin is not so great. It is not a secret, unknown tongue, and till quite lately every educated person understood it. It is still taught in every school. The Church does not clothe her prayers in a secret language, but rather takes it for granted that people understand Latin. If Catholics learned enough Latin to follow the very easy style of the Church language all difficulty would be solved. For those who cannot take even this trouble there is the obvious solution of a translation. The Missal in English is one of the easiest books to procure; the ignorant may follow in that the prayers that lack of education prevents their understanding without it.

The liturgical languages used by Catholics are:
1. Latin in the Roman, Milanese, and Mozarabic Rites (except in parts of Dalmatia).
2. Greek in the Byzantine Rite (not exclusively).
3. Syriac in the Syrian, Maronite, Chaldean, and Malabar Rites.
4. Coptic in the Coptic Rite.
5. Armenian by all the Churches of that rite.
6. Arabic by the Melchites (Byzantine Rite).
7. Slavonic by Slavs of the Byzantine Rite and (in Glagolitic letters) in the Roman Rite in Dalmatia.
8. Georgian (Byzantine Rite).
9. Rumanian (Byzantine Rite).

VI. LITURGICAL SCIENCE

A. Rubrics

The most obvious and necessary study for ecclesiastical persons is that of the laws that regulate the performance of liturgical functions. From this point of view liturgical study is a branch of canon law. The rules for the celebration of the Holy Mysteries, administration of sacraments, etc., are part of the positive law of the Church, just as much as the laws about benefices, church property, or fasting, and oblige those whom they concern under pain of sin. As it is therefore the duty of persons in Holy orders to know them, they are studied in all colleges and seminaries as part of the training of future priests, and candidates are examined in them before ordination. Because of its special nature and complication liturgical science in this sense is generally treated apart from the rest of canon law and is joined to similar practical matters (such as preaching, visiting the sick, etc.) to make up the science of pastoral theology. The sources from which it is learned are primarily the rubrics of the liturgical books (the Missal, Breviary, and Ritual). There are also treatises which explain and arrange these rubrics, adding to them from later decrees of the S. Congregation of Rites. Of these Martinucci has not yet been displaced as the most complete and authoritative, Baldeschi has long been a favourite and has been translated into English, De Herdt is a good standard book, quite sound and clear as far as it goes but incomplete, Le Vavasseur is perhaps the most practical for general purposes.

B. History

The development of the various rites, their spread and mutual influence, the origin of each ceremony, etc., form a part of church history whose importance is becoming more and more realized. For practical purposes all a priest need know are the present rules that affect the services he has to perform, as in general the present laws of the Church are all we have to obey. But just as the student of history needs to know the decrees of former synods, even if abrogated since, as he studies the history of earlier times and remote provinces of the Church, because it is from these that he must build up his conception of her continuous life, so the liturgical student will not be content with knowing only what affects him now, but is prompted to examine the past to inquire into the origin of our present rite and study other rites too as expressions of the life of the Church in other lands. The history of the liturgies that deeply affect the life of Christians in many ways, that are the foundation of many other objects of study (architecture, art, music, etc.) is no inconsiderable element of church history. In a sense this study is comparatively new and not yet sufficiently organized though to some extent it has always accompanied the practical study of liturgy. The great mediæval liturgists were not content with describing the rites of their own time. They suggested historical reasons for the various ceremonies and contrasted other practices with those of their own Churches. Benedict XIV's treatise on the Mass discusses the origin of each element of the Latin liturgy. This and other books of seventeenth and eighteenth-century liturgiologists are still standard works. So also in lectures and works on liturgy in our first sense it has always been the custom to add historical notes on the origin of the ceremonies and prayers.

But the interest in the history of liturgy for its own sake and the systematic study of early documents is a comparatively new thing. In this science England led the way and still takes the foremost place. It followed the Oxford Movement as part of the revived interest in the early Church among Anglicans. W. Palmer (Origines liturgicæ) and J. M. Neale in his various works are among those who gave the first impulse to this movement. The Catholic Daniel Rock ("Hierurgia" and "The Church of our Fathers") further advanced it. It has now a large school of followers. F.C. Brightman's edition of "Eastern Liturgies" is the standard one used everywhere. The monumental editions of the "Gelasian Sacramentary" by H.A. Wilson and the "Leonine Sacramentary " by C. L. Feltoe, the various essays and discussions by E. Bishop, C. Atchley, and many others keep up the English standard. In France Dom Guéranger (L'année liturgique) and his school of Benedictines opened a new epoch. Mgr Duchesne supplied a long-felt want with his "Origines du suite chrétien", Dom Cabral and Dom Leclereq ("Mon. eccl. lit.", etc., especially the monumental "Dict. d'arch. chrét. et de liturgie") have advanced to the first place among modern authorities on historical liturgy. From Germany we have the works of H. Daniel (Codex lit. eccl. universæ), Probst, Thalhofer, Gihr, and a school of living students (Drews, Rietschel, Baumstark, Buchwald, Rauschen). In Italy good work is being done by Semeria, Bonaccorsi, and others. Nevertheless the study of liturgy hardly yet takes the place it deserves in the education of church students. Besides the practical instruction that forms a part of pastoral theology, lectures on liturgical history would form a valuable element of the course of church history. As part of such a course other rites would be considered and compared. There is a fund of deeper understanding of the Roman Rite to be drawn from its comparison with others, Gallican or Eastern. Such instruction in liturgiology should include some notion of ecclesiology in general, the history and comparison of church planning and architecture, of vestments and church music. The root of all these things in different countries is the liturgies they serve and adorn.

Dogmatic Value

The dogmatic and apologetic value of liturgical science is a very important consideration to the theologian. It must, of course, be used reasonably. No Church intends to commit herself officially to every statement and implication contained in her official books, any more than she is committed to everything said by her Fathers. For instance, the Collect for St. Juliana Falconieri (19 June) in the Roman Rite refers to the story of her miraculous communion before her death, told at length in the sixth lesson of her Office, but the truth of that story is not part of the Catholic Faith. Liturgies give us arguments from tradition even more valuable than those from the Fathers, for these statements have been made by thousands of priests day after day for centuries. A consensus of liturgies is, therefore, both in space and time a greater witness of agreement than a consensus of Fathers, for as a general principle it is obvious that people in their prayers say only what they believe. This is the meaning of the well known axiom: Lex orandi lex credendi. The prayers for the dead, the passages in which God is asked to accept this Sacrifice, the statements of the Real Presence in the oldest liturgies are unimpeachable witnesses of the Faith of the early Church as to these points. The Bull of Pius IX on the Immaculate Conception ("Ineffabilis Deus", 8 Dec., 1854) contains a classical example of this argument from liturgy. Indeed there are few articles of faith that cannot be established or at least confirmed from liturgies. The Byzantine Office for St. Peter and St. Paul (29. June) contains plain statements about Roman primacy. The study of liturgy from this point of view is part of dogmatic theology. Of late years especially dogmatic theologians have given much attention to it. Christian Pesch, S.J., in his "Prælectiones theologiæ dogmaticæ" (9 vols., Freiburg i. Br.) quotes the liturgical texts for the theses as part of the argument from tradition. There are then these three aspects under which liturgiology should be considered by a Catholic theologian, as an element of canon law, church history, and dogmatic theology. The history of its study would take long to tell. There have been liturgiologists through all the centuries of Christian theology. Briefly the state of this science at various periods is this:

Liturgiologists in the Ante-Nicene period, such as Justin Martyr, composed or wrote down descriptions of ceremonies performed, but made no examination of the sources of rites. In the fourth and fifth centuries the scientific study of the subject began. St. Ambrose's "Liber de Mysteriis" (P. L., XVI, 405-26) the anonymous (pseudo-Ambrose) "De Sacramentis" (P. L., XVI, 435-82), various treatises by St. Jerome (e. g., "Contra Vigilantium" in P. L., XXIII, 354-367) and St. Augustine, St. Cyril of Jerusalem's "Catechetical Instructions" (P. L., XXXIII, 331-1154) and the famous "Peregrinatio Silvæ" (in the "Corpus script. eccl. Latin. of Vienna: "Itinera hierosolymitana", 35-101) represent in various degrees the beginning of an examination of liturgical texts. From the sixth to the eighth centuries we have valuable texts (the Sacramentaries and Ordines) and a liturgical treatise of St, Isidore of Seville ("De eccl. officiis" in P. L., LXXXIII). The Carlovingian revival of the eighth and ninth centuries began the long line of medieval liturgiologists. Alcuin (P. L., C-CI), Amalarius of Metz (P. L., XCIX, CV), Agobard (P. L., CIV), Florus of Lyons (P. L., CXlX, 15-72), Rabanus Maurus (P. L., CVII-CXII), and Walafrid Strabo (P. L., CXIV, 916--66) form at this time a galaxy of liturgical scholars of the first importance. In the eleventh century Berno of Constance ("Micrologus" in P. L., CLI, 974-1022), in the twelfth Rupert of Deutz ("De divinis officiis" in P. L., CLXX, 9-334), Honorius of Autun ("Gemma animæ" and "De Sacramentis" in P. L., CLXXII), John Beleth ("Rationale div. offic." in P. L., CCII, 9-166), and Beroldus of Milan (ed. Magistretti, Milan, 1894) carry on the tradition. In the thirteenth century see DURANDUS) is the most famous of all the William Durandus of Mende ("Rationale div. medieval liturgiologists. There is then a break till the sixteenth century. The discussions of the Reformation period called people's attention again to liturgies, either as defenses of the old Faith or as sources for the compilation of reformed services.

From this time editions of the old rites were made for students, with commentaries. J. Clichtove ("Elucidatorium eccl.", Paris, 1516) and J. Cochlæus ("Speculum ant. devotionis", Mainz, 1549) were the first editors of this kind. Claude de Sainctes, Bishop of Evreux, published a similar collection ("Liturgiæ sive missæ ss. Patrum", Antwerp, 1562). Pamelius's " Liturgies. latin." (Cologne, 157 1) is a valuable edition of Roman, Milanese, and Mozarabic texts. Melchior Hittorp published a collection of old commentaries on the liturgy ("De Cath. eccl. div. offic. " Cologne, 1568) which was re-edited in Bigne's "Bibl. vet. Patrum.", X (Paris, 1610). The seventeenth century opened a great period. B. Gavanti ("Thesaurus sacr. rituum", re-edited by Merati, Rome, 1736-8) and H. Menard, O.S.B. ("Sacramentarium Gregorianum" in P. L., LXXVIII) began a new line of liturgiologists. J. Goar, O.P. ("Euchologion", Paris, 1647), and Leo Allatius in his various dissertations did great things for the study of Eastern rites. The Oratorian J. Morin ("Comm. hist. de disciplina in admin. Sac. Poen." Paris 1651, and "Comm. de sacris eccl. ordinationibus", Paris, 1655). Cardinal John Bons ("Rerum lit. libri duo", Rome, 1671), Card. Tommasi ("Codices sacramentorum", Rome, 1680; "Antiqui libri missarum ", Rome, 1691), J. Mabillon, O.S.B. ("Musæum Italicum" Paris 1687-9), E. Martène, O.S.B. (" De ant. eccl. ritibus; Antwerp, 1736-8), represent the highest point of liturgical study. Dom Claude de Vert wrote a series of treatises on liturgical matters. In the eighteenth century the most important names are: Benedict XIV ("De SS. Sacrificio Missæ", republished at Mainz, 1879), E. Renaudot ("Lit. orient. collectio ", Paris, 1716), the four Assemani, Maronites ("Kalendaria eccl. universæ", Rome, 1755; "Codex lit. eccl. universæ", Rome, 1749-66, etc.) Muratori ("Liturgia romana vetus", Venice, 1748). So we come to the revival of the nineteenth century, Dom Guéranger and the modern authors already mentioned.

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

BENEDICTINE RITE

The only important rite peculiar to the Benedictine Order is the Benedictine Breviary (Breviarium Monasticum). St. Benedict devotes thirteen chapters (viii-xx), of his rule to regulating the canonical hours for his monks, and the Benedictine Breviary is the outcome of this regulation. It is used not only by the so-called Black Benedictines, but also by the Cistercians, Olivetans, and all those orders that have the Rule of St. Benedict as their basis. The Benedictines are not at liberty to substitute the Roman for the Monastic Breviary; by using the Roman Breviary they would not satisfy their obligation of saying the Divine Office. Each congregation of Benedictines has its own ecclesiastical calendar.

MICHAEL OTT

CARMELITE RITE

The rite in use among the Carmelites since about the middle of the twelfth century is known by the name of the Rite of the Holy Sepulchre, the Carmelite Rule, which was written about the year 1210, ordering the hermits of Mount Carmel to follow the approved custom of the Church, which in this instance meant the Patriarchal Church of Jerusalem: "Hi qui litteras noverunt et legere psalmos, per singulas horas eos dicant qui ex institutione sanctorum patrum et ecelesiæ approbata consuetudine ad horas singulas sunt deputati." This Rite of the Holy Sepulchre belonged to the Gallican family of the Roman Rite; it appears to have descended directly from the Parisian Rite, but to have undergone some modifications pointing to other sources. For, in the Sanctorale we find influences of Angers, in the proses traces of meridional sources, while the lessons and prayers on Holy Saturday are purely Roman. The fact is that most of the clerics who accompanied the Crusaders were of French nationality; some even belonged to the Chapter of Paris, as is proved by documentary evidence. Local influence, too, played an important part. The Temple itself, the Holy Sepulchre, the vicinity of the Mount of Olives, of Bethany, of Bethlehem, gave rise to magnificent ceremonies, connecting the principal events of the ecclesiastical year with the very localities where the various episodes of the work of Redemption has taken place. The rite is known to us by means of some manuscripts one (Barberini 659 of A. D. 1160) in the Vatican library, another at Barletta, described by Kohler (Revue de I'Orient Latin, VIII, 1900-01, pp. 383-500) and by him ascribed to about 1240.

The hermits on Mount Carmel were bound by rule only to assemble once a day for the celebration of Mass, the Divine Office being recited privately. Lay brothers who were able to read might recite the Office, while others repeated the Lord's Prayer a certain number of times, according to the length and solemnity of the various offices. It may be presumed that on settling in Europe (from about A. D. 1240) the Carmelites conformed to the habit of the other mendicant orders with respect to the choral recitation or chant of the Office, and there is documentary evidence that on Mount Carmel itself the choral recitation was in force at least in 1254. The General Chapter of 1259 passed a number of regulations on liturgical matters, but, owing to the loss of the acts, their nature is unfortunately not known. Subsequent chapters very frequently dealt with the rite chiefly adding new feasts, changing old established customs, or revising rubrics. An Ordinal, belonging to the second half of the thirteenth century, is preserved at Trinity College, Dublin, while portions of an Epistolarium of about 1270 are at the Maglia, becchiana at Florence (D6, 1787). The entire Ordinal was rearranged and revised in 1312 by Master Sibert de Beka, and rendered obligatory by the General Chapter, but it experienced some difficulty in superseding the old one. Manuscripts of it are preserved at Lambeth (London), Florence, and else where. It remained in force until 1532, when a (committee was appointed for its revision; their work was approved in 1539, but published only in 1544 after the then General Nicholas Audet had introduced some further changes. The, reform of the Roman liturgical books under St. Pius V called for a corresponding reform of the Carmelite Rite, which was taken in hand in 1580, the Breviary appearing in 1584 and the Missal in 1587. At the same time the Holy See withdrew the right hitherto exercised by the chapters and the generals of altering the liturgy of the order, and placed all such matters in the hands of the Sacred Congregation of Rites. The publication of the Reformed Breviary of 1584 caused the newly established Discaleed Carmelites to abandon the ancient rite once for all and to adopt the Roman Rite instead. Besides the various manuscripts of the Ordinal already mentioned, we have examined a large number of manuscript missals and breviaries preserved in public and private libraries in the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, and other countries. We have seen most of the early prints of the Missal enumerated by Weale, as well as some not mentioned by him, and the breviaries of 1480, 1490, 1504, 1516 (Horæ), 1542, 1568, 1575, and 1579.

Roughly speaking, the ancient Carmelite Rite may be said to stand about half way between the Carthusian and the Dominican rites. It shows signs of great antiquity -- e.g. in the absence of liturgical colours, in the sparing use of altar candles (one at low Mass, none on the altar itself at high Mass but only acolytes' torches, even these being extinguished during part of the Mass, four torches and one candle in choir for Tenebræ); incense, likewise, is used rarely and with noteworthy restrictions; the Blessing at the end of the Mass is only permitted where the custom of the country requires it; passing before the tabernacle, the brethren are directed to make a profound inclination, not a genuflexion. Many other features might be quoted to show that the whole rite points to a period of transition. Already according to the earliest Ordinal Communion is given under one species, the days of general Communion being seven, later on ten or twelve a year with leave for more frequent Communion under certain conditions. Extreme Unction was administered on the eyes, ears, nostrils, mouth, both hands (the palms, with no distinction between priests and others) and the feet superius. The Ordinal of 1312 on the contrary orders the hands to be anointed exterius, but also without distinction for the priests; it moreover adds another anointing on the breast (super pectus: per ardorem libidinis).

In the Mass there are some peculiarities. the altar remains covered until the priest and ministers are ready to begin, when the acolytes then roll back the cover; likewise before the end of the Mass they cover the altar again. On great feasts the Introit is said three times, i.e. it is repeated both before and after the Gloria Patri; besides the Epistle and Gospel there is a lesson or prophecy to be recited by an acolyte. At the Lavabo the priest leaves the altar for the piscina where he says that psalm, or else Veni Creator Spiritus or Deus misereatur. Likewise after the first ablution he goes to the piscina to wash his fingers. During the Canon of the Mass the deacon moves a fan to keep the flies away, a custom still in use in Sicily and elsewhere. At the word fregit in the form of consecration, the priest, according to the Ordinal of 1312 and later rubrics, makes a movement as if breaking the host. Great care is taken that the smoke of the thurible and of the torches do not interfere with the clear vision of the host when lifted up for the adoration of the faithful; the chalice, however, is only slightly elevated. The celebrating priest does not genuflect but bows reverently. After the Pater Noster the choir sings the psalm Deus venerunt genies for the restoration of the Holy Land. The prayers for communion are identical with those of the Sarum Rite and other similar uses, viz. domine sancte pater, Domine Jesu Christe (as in the Roman Rite), and Salve salus mundi. The Domine non sum dignus was introduced only in 1568. The Mass ended with Dominus vobiscum, Ite missa est (or its equivalent) and Placeat. The chapter of 1324 ordered the Salve regina to be said at the end of each canonical hour as well as at the end of the Mass. The Last Gospel, which in both ordinals serves for the priest's thanksgiving, appears in the Missal of 1490 as an integral part of the Mass. On Sundays and feasts there was, besides the festival Mass after Terce or Sext, an early Mass (matutina) without solemnities, corresponding to the commemorations of the Office. From Easter till Advent the Sunday Mass was therefore celebrated early in the morning, the high Mass being that of the Resurrection of our Lord; similarly on these Sundays the ninth lesson with its responsory was taken from one of the Easter days; these customs had been introduced soon after the conquest of the Holy Land. A solemn commemoration of the Resurrection was held on the last Sunday before Advent; in all other respects the Carmelite Liturgy reflects more especially the devotion of the order towards the Blessed Virgin.

The Divine Office also presents some noteworthy features. The first Vespers of certain feasts and the Vespers during Lent have a responsory usually taken from Matins. Compline has various hymns according to the season, and also special antiphons for the Canticle. The lessons at Matins follow a somewhat different plan from those of the Roman Office. The singing of the genealogies of Christ after Matins on Christmas and the Epiphany gave rise to beautiful ceremonies. After Tenebræ in Holy Week (sung at midnight) we notice the chant of the Tropi; all the Holy Week services present interesting archaic features. Other points to be mentioned are the antiphons Pro fidei meritis etc. on the Sundays from Trinity to Advent and the verses after the psalms on Trinity, the feasts of St. Paul, and St. Laurence. The hymns are those of the Roman Office; the proses appear to be a uniform collection which remained practically unchanged from the thirteenth century to 1544, when all but four or five were abolished. The Ordinal prescribes only four processions in the course of the year, viz. on Candlemas, Palm Sunday, the Ascension, and the Assumption.

The calendar of saints, in the two oldest recensions of the Ordinal, exhibits some feasts proper to the Holy Land, namely some of the early bishops of Jerusalem, the Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and Lazarus. The only special features were the feast of St. Anne, probably due to the fact that the Carmelites occupied for a short time a convent dedicated to her in Jerusalem (vacated by Benedictine nuns at the capture of that city in 1187), and the octave of the Nativity of Our Lady, which also was proper to the order. In the works mentioned below we have given the list of feasts added in the course of three centuries, and shall here speak only of a few. The Chapter of 1306 introduced those of St. Louis, Barbara, Corpus Christi, and the Conception of Our Lady (in Conceptione seu potius veneratione sanctificationis B. V.); the Corpus Christi procession, however, dates only from the end of the fifteenth century. In 1312 the second part of the Confiteor, which till then had been very short, was introduced. Daily commemorations of St. Anne and Sts. Albert and Angelus date respectively from the beginning and the end of the fifteenth century, but were transferred in 1503 from the canonical Office to the Little Office of Our Lady. The feast of the "Three Maries" dates from 1342, those of the Visitation, of Our Lady ad nives, and the Presentation from 1391. Feasts of the order were first introduced towards the end of the fourteenth century -- viz. the Commemoration (Scapular Feast) of 16 July appears first about 1386; St. Eliseus, prophet and St. Cyril of Constantinople in 1399; St. Albert in 1411; St. Angelus in 1456. Owing to the printing of the first Breviary of the order at Brussels in 1480, a number of territorial feasts were introduced into the order, such as St. Joseph, the Ten Thousand Martyrs, the Division of the Apostles. The raptus of St. Elias (17 June) is first to be found in the second half of the fifteenth century in England and Germany; the feast of the Prophet (20 July) dates at the earliest from 1551. Some general chapters, especially those of 1478 and 1564, added whole lists of saints, partly of real or supposed saints of the order, partly of martyrs whose bodies were preserved in various churches belonging to the Carmelites, particularly that of San Martino ai Monti in Rome. The revision of 1584 reduced the Sanctorale to the smallest possible dimensions, but many feasts then suppressed were afterwards reintroduced.

A word must be added about the singing. The Ordinal of 1312 allows fauxbourdon, at least on solemn occasions; organs and organists are mentioned with ever-increasing frequency from the first years of the fifteenth century, the earliest notice being that of Mathias Johannis de Lucca, who in 1410 was elected organist at Florence; the organ itself was a gift of Johannes Dominici Bonnani, surnamed Clerichinus, who died at an advanced age on 24 Oct., 1416.

BENEDICT ZIMMERMAN

CISTERCIAN RITE

This rite is to be found in the liturgical books of the order. The collection, composed of fifteen books, was made by the General Chapter of Cîteaux, most probably in 1134; they are now included in the Missal, Breviary, Ritual, and calendar, or Martyrology. When Pius V ordered the entire Church to conform to the Roman Missal and Breviary, he exempted the Cistercians from this law, because their rite had been more than 400 years in existence. Under Claude Vaussin, General of the Cistercians (in the middle of the seventeenth century), several reforms were made in the liturgical books of the order, and were approved by Alexander Vll, Clement IX, and Clement XIII. These approbations were confirmed by Pius IX on 7 Feb., 1871, for the Cistercians of the Common as well as for those of the Strict Observance. The Breviary is quite different from the Roman, as it follows exactly the prescriptions of the Rule of St. Benedict, with a very few minor additions. St. Benedict wished the entire Psalter recited each week; twelve psalms are to be said at Matins when there are but two Nocturns; when there is a third Nocturn, it is to be composed of three divisions of a canticle, there being in this latter case always twelve lessons. Three psalms or divisions of psalms are appointed for Prime, the Little Hours, and Compline (in this latter hour the "Nunc dimittis" is never said), and always four psalms for Vespers. Many minor divisions and directions are given in St. Benedict's Rule.

In the old missal before the reform of Claude Vaussin, there were wide divergences between the Cistercian and Roman rites. The psalm "Judica" was not said, but in its stead was recited the "Veni Creator"; the "Indulgentiam" was followed by the "Pater" and "Ave", and the "Oramus te Domine" was omitted in kissing the altar. After the "Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum", the "Agnus Dei" was said thrice, and was followed immediately by "Hæc sacrosancta commixtio corporis", said by the priest while placing the small fragment of the Sacred Host in the chalice; then the "Domine Jesu Christe, Fili Dei Vivi" was said, but the "Corpus Tuum" and "Quod ore sumpsimus" were omitted. The priest said the "Placeat" as now, and then "Meritis et precibus istorum et onmium sanctorum. Suorum misereatur nostri Omnipotens Dominus. Amen", while kissing the altar; with the sign of the Cross the Mass was ended. Outside of some minor exceptions in the wording and conclusions of various prayers, the other parts of the Mass were the same as in the Roman Rite. Also in some Masses of the year the ordo was different; for instance, on Palm Sunday the Passion was only said at the high Mass, at the other Masses a special gospel only being said. However, since the time of Claude Vaussin the differences from the Roman Mass are insignificant.

In the calendar there are relatively few feasts of saints or other modern feasts, as none were introduced except those especially prescribed by Rome for the Cistercian Order; this was done in order to adhere as closely as possible to the spirit of St. Benedict in prescribing the weekly recitation of the Psalter. The divisions of the feasts are: major or minor feast of sermon; major or minor feast of two Masses; feast of twelve lessons and Mass; feast of three lessons and Mass; feast of commemoration and Mass; then merely a commemoration; and finally the feria.

The differences in the ritual are very small. As regards the last sacraments, Extreme Unction is given before the Holy Viaticum, and in Extreme Unction the word "Peccasti" is used instead of the "Deliquisti" in the Roman Ritual. In the Sacrament of Penance a shorter form of absolution may be used in ordinary confessions.

EDMOND M. OBRECHT

DOMINICAN RITE

A name denoting the distinctive ceremonies embodied in the privileged liturgical books of the Order of Preachers.

(a) Origin and development

The question of a special unified rite for the order received no official attention in the time of St. Dominic, each province sharing in the general liturgical diversities prevalent throughout the Church at the time of the order's confirmation (1216). Hence, each province and often each convent had certain peculiarities in the text and in the ceremonies of the Holy Sacrifice and the recitation of the Office. The successors of St. Dominic were quick to recognize the impracticability of such conditions and soon busied themselves in an effort to eliminate the embarrassing distinctions. They maintained that the safety of a basic principle of community life unity of prayer and worship-was endangered by this conformity with different diocesan conditions. This belief was impressed upon them more forcibly by the confusion that these liturgical diversities occasioned at the general chapters of the order where brothers from every province were assembled.

The first indication of an effort to regulate liturgical conditions was manifested by Jordan of Saxony, the successor of St. Dominic. In the Constitutions (1228) ascribed to him are found several rubrics for the recitation of the Office. These insist more on the attention with which the Office should be said than on the qualifications of the liturgical books. However, it is said that Jordan took some steps in the latter direction and compiled one Office for universal use. Though this is doubtful, it is certain that his efforts were of little practical value, for the Chapters of Bologna (1240) and Paris (1241) allowed each convent to conform with the local rites. The first systematic attempt at reform was made under the direction of John the Teuton, the fourth master general of the order. At his suggestion the Chapter of Bologna (1244) asked the delegates to bring to the next chapter (Cologne, 1245) their special rubrics for the recitation of the Office, their Missals, Graduals, and Antiphonaries, "pro concordando officio". To bring some kind of order out of chaos a commission was appointed consisting of four members, one each from the Provinces of France, England, Lombardy, and Germany, to carry out the revision at Angers. They brought the result of their labours to the Chapter of Paris (1246), which approved the compilation and ordered its exclusive use by the whole Order. This same chapter approved the "Lectionary" which had been entrusted to Humbert of Romains for revision. The work of the commission was again approved by the Chapters of Montepulciano (1247) and Paris (1248).

But dissatisfaction with the work of the commission was felt on all sides, especially with their interpretation of the rubrics. They had been hurried in their work, and had left too much latitude for local customs. The question was reopened and the Chapter of London (1250) asked the commission to reassemble at Metz and revise their work in the light of the criticisms that had been made; the result of this revision was approved at the Chapters of Metz (1251) and Bologna (1252) and its use made obligatory for the whole order. It was also ordained that one copy of the liturgical books should be placed at Paris and one at Bologna, from which the books for the other convents should be faithfully copied. However, it was recognized that these books were not entirely perfect, and that there was room for further revision. Though this work was done under the direction of John the Teuton, the brunt of the revision fell to the lot of Humbert of Romains, then provincial of the Paris Province. Humbert was elected Master General of the Chapter of Buda (1254) and was asked to direct his attention to the question of the order's liturgical books. He subjected each of them to a most thorough revision, and after two years submitted his work to the Chapter of Paris (1256). This and several subsequent chapters endorsed the work, effected legislation guarding against corruption, constitutionally recognized the authorship of Humbert, and thus once and for all settled a common rite for the Order of Preachers throughout the world.

(b) Preservation

Clement IV, through the general, John of Vercelli, issued a Bull in 1267 in which he lauded the ability and zeal of Humbert and forbade the making of any changes without the proper authorization. Subsequent papal regulation went much further towards preserving the integrity of the rite. Innocent XI and Clement XII prohibited the printing of the books without the permission of the master general and also ordained that no member of the order should presume to use in his fulfilment of the choral obligation any book not bearing the seal of the general and a reprint of the pontifical Decrees. Another force preservative of the special Dominican Rite was the Decree of Pius V (1570), imposing a common rite on the universal Church but excepting those rites which had been approved for two hundred years. This exception gave to the Order of Friars Preachers the privilege of maintaining its old rite, a privilege which the chapters of the order sanctioned and which the members of the order gratefully accepted. It must not be thought that the rite has come down through the ages absolutely without change. Some slight corruptions crept in despite the rigid legislation to the contrary. Then new feasts have been added with the permission of the Roman Pontiffs and many new editions of the liturgical books have been printed. Changes in the text, when they have been made, have always been effected with the idea of eliminating arbitrary mutilations and restoring the books to a perfect conformity with the old exemplars at Paris and Bologna. Such were the reforms of the Chapters of Salamanca (1551), Rome (1777), and Ghent (1871). Several times movements have been started with the idea of conforming with the Roman Rite; but these have always been defeated, and the order still stands in possession of the rite conceded to it by Pope Clement in 1267.

(c) Sources of the rite

To determine the sources of the Dominican Rite is to come face to face with the haze and uncertainty that seems to shroud most liturgical history. The thirteenth century knew no unified Roman Rite. While the basis of the usages of north-western Europe was a Gallicanized-Gregorian Sacramentary sent by Adrian IV to Charlemagne, each little locality had its own peculiar distinctions. At the time of the unification of the Dominican Rite most of the convents of the order were embraced within the territory in which the old Gallican Rite had once obtained and in which the Gallico-Roman Rite then prevailed. Jordan of Saxony, the pioneer in liturgical reform within the a order, greatly admired the Rite of the Church Paris and frequently assisted at the recitations of the Office at Notre-Dame. Humbert of Romains, who played so important a part in the work of unification, was the provincial of the French Province. These facts justify the opinion that the basis of the Dominican Rite was the typical Gallican Rite of the thirteenth century. But documentary evidence that the rite was adapted from any one locality is lacking. The chronicles of the order state merely that the rite is neither the pure Roman nor the pure Gallican, but based on the Roman usage of the thirteenth century, with additions from the Rites of Paris and other places in which the order existed. Just from where these additions were obtained and exactly what they were cannot be determined, except in a general way, from an examination of each distinctive feature.

Two points must be emphasized here: (1) the Dominican Rite is not an arbitrary elaboration of the Roman Rite made against the spirit of the Church or to give the order an air of exclusiveness, nor can it be said to be more gallicanized then any use of the Gallico-Roman Rite of that period. It was an honest and sincere attempt to harmonize and simplify the widely divergent usages of the early half of the thirteenth century. (2) The Dominican Rite, formulated by Humbert, saw no radical development after its confirmation by Clement IV. When Pius V made his reform, the Dominican Rite had been fixed and stable for over three hundred years, while a constant liturgical change had been taking place in other communities. Furthermore the comparative simplicity of the Dominican Rite, as manifested in the different liturgical books, gives evidence of its antiquity.

(d) Liturgical books

The rite compiled by Humbert contained fourteen books: (1) the Ordinary, which was a sort of an index to the Divine Office, the Psalms, Lessons, Antiphons, and Chapters being indicated by their first words. (2) The Martyrology, an amplified calendar of martyrs and other saints. (3) The Collectarium, a book for the use of the hebdomidarian, which contained the texts and the notes for the prayers, chapters, and blessings. (4) The Processional, containing the hymns (text and music) for the processions. (5) The Psalterium, containing merely the Psalter. (6) The Lectionary, which contained the Sunday homilies, the lessons from Sacred Scripture and the lives of the saints. (7) The Antiphonary, giving the text and music for the parts of the Office sung outside of the Mass. (8) The Gradual, which contained the words and the music for the parts of the Mass sung by the choir. (9) The Conventual Missal, for the celebration of solemn Mass. (10) The Epistolary, containing the Epistles for the Mass and the Office. (11) The Book of Gospels. (12) The Pulpitary, which contained the musical notation for the Gloria Patri, the Invitatory, Litanies, Tracts, and the Alleluia. (13) The Missal for a private Mass. (14) The Breviary, a compilation from all the books used in the choral recitation of the Office, very much reduced in size for the convenience of travellers.

By a process of elimination and synthesis undergone so by the books of the Roman Rite many of the books of Humbert have become superfluous while several others have been formed. These add nothing to the original text, but merely provide for the Addition of feasts and the more convenient recitation of the office. The collection of the liturgical books now contains: (1) Martyrology; (2) Collectarium; (3) Processional; (4) Antiphonary; (5) Gradual; (6) Missal for the conventual Mass; (7) Missal for the private Mass; (8) Breviary; (9) Vesperal; (10) Horæ Diurnæ; (11) Ceremonial. The contents of these books follow closely the books of the same name issued by Humbert and which have just been described. The new ones are: (1) the Horæ Diurnæ (2) the Vesperal (with notes), adaptations from the Breviary and the Antiphonary respectively (3) the Collectarium, which is a compilation from all the rubrics scattered throughout the other books. With the exception of the Breviary, these books are similar in arrangment to the correspondingly named books of the Roman Rite. The Dominican Breviary is divided into two parts: Part I, Advent to Trinity; Part II, Trinity to Advent.

(e) Distinctive marks of the Dominican Rite

Only the most striking differences between the Dominican Rite and the Roman need be mentioned here. The most important is in the manner of celebrating a low Mass. The celebrant in the Dominican Rite wears the amice over his head until the beginning of Mass, and prepares the chalice as soon as he reaches the altar. The Psalm "Judica me Deus" is not said and the Confiteor, much shorter than the Roman, contains the name of St. Dominic. The Gloria and the Credo are begun at the centre of the altar and finished at the Missal. At the Offertory there is a simultaneous oblation of the Host and the chalice and only one prayer, the "Suscipe Sancta Trinitas". The Canon of the Mass is the same as the Canon of the Roman Rite, but after it are several noticeable differences. The Dominican celebrant says the "Agnus Dei" immediately after the "Pax Domini" and then recites three prayers "Hæc sacrosancta commixtio" "Domine Jesu Christe", and "Corpus et sanguis" Then follows the Communion, the priest receiving the Host from his left hand. No prayers are said at the consumption of the Precious Blood, the first prayer after the "Corpus et Sanguis" being the Communion. These are the most noticeable differences in the celebration of a low Mass. In a solemn Mass the chalice is prepared just after the celebrant has read the Gospel, seated at the Epistle side of the sanctuary. The chalice is brought from the altar to the place where the celebrant is seated by the sub-deacon, who pours the wine and water into it and replaces it on the altar.

The Dominican Breviary differs but slightly from the Roman. The Offices celebrated are of seven classes:--of the season (de tempore), of saints (de sanctis), of vigils, of octaves, votive Offices, Office of the Blessed Virgin, and Office of the Dead. In point of dignity the feasts are classified as "totum duplex", "duplex" "simplex" "of three lessons", and "of a memory". The ordinary "totum duplex" feast is equivalent to the Roman greater double. A "totum duplex" with an ordinary octave (a simple or a solemn octave) is equal to the second-class double of the Roman Rite, and a "totum duplex" with a most solemn octave is like the Roman first-class double. A "duplex" feast is equivalent to the lesser double and the "simplex" to the semi-double. There is no difference in the ordering of the canonical hours, except that all during Paschal time the Dominican Matins provide for only three psalms and three lessons instead of the customary nine psalms and nine lessons. The Office of the Blessed Virgin must be said on all days on which feasts of the rank of duplex or "totum duplex" are not celebrated. The Gradual psalms must be said on all Saturdays on which is said the votive Office of the Blessed Virgin. The Office of the Dead must be said once a week except during the week following Easter and the week following Pentecost. Other minor points of difference are the manner of making the commemorations, the text of the hymns, the Antiphons, the lessons of the common Offices and the insertions of special feasts of the order. There is no great distinction between the musical notation of the Dominican Gradual, Vesperal, and Antiphonary and the corresponding books of the new Vatican edition. The Dominican chant has been faithfully copied from the MSS. of the thirteenth century, which were in turn derived indirectly from the Gregorian Sacramentary. One is not surprised therefore at the remarkable similarity between the chant of the two rites. For a more detailed study of the Dominican Rite reference may be had to the order's liturgical books.

IGNATIUS SMITH.

FRANCISCAN RITE

The Franciscans, unlike the Dominicans, Carmelites, and other orders, have never had a peculiar rite properly so called, but, conformably to the mind of St. Francis of Assisi, have always followed the Roman Rite for the celebration of Mass. However, the Friars Minor and the Capuchins wear the amice, instead of the biretta, over the head, and are accustomed to say Mass with their feet uncovered, save only by sandals. They also enjoy certain privileges in regard to the time and place of celebrating Mass, and the Missale Romano-Seraphicum contains many proper Masses not found in the Roman Missal. These are mostly feasts of Franciscan saints and blessed, which are not celebrated throughout the Church, or other feasts having a peculiar connexion with the order, e.g. the Feast of the Mysteries of the Way of the Cross (Friday before Septuagesima), and that of the Seven Joys of the Blessed Virgin (First Sunday after the octave of the Assumption). The same is true in regard to the Breviarium Romano-Seraphicum, and Martyrologium Romano-Seraphicum. The Franciscans exercised great influence in the origin and evolution of the Breviary, and on the revision of the Rubrics of the Mass. They have also their own calendar, or ordo. This calendar may be used not only in the churches of the First Order, but also in the churches and chapels of the Second Order, and Third Order Regular (if aggregated to the First Order) and Secular, as well as those religious institutes which have had some connexion with the parent body. It may also be used by secular priests or clerics who axe members of the Third Order. The order has also its own ritual and ceremonial for its receptions, professions, etc.

FERDINAND HECKMANN

FRIARS MINOR CAPUCHIN RITE

The Friars Minor Capuchin use the Roman Rite, except that in the Confiteor the name of their founder, St. Francis is added after the names of the Apostles, and in the suffrages they make commemorations of St. Francis and all saints of their order. The use of incense in the conventual mass on certain solemnities, even though the Mass is said and not sung, is another liturgical custom (recently sanctioned by the Holy See) peculiar to their order. Generally speaking, the Capuchins do not have sung Masses except in parochial churches, and except in these churches they may not have organs without the minister general's permission. By a Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 14 May, 1890, the minister general, when celebrating Mass at the time of the canonical visitation and on solemnities, has the privileges of a domestic prelate of His Holiness. In regard to the Divine Office, the Capuchins do not sing it according to note but recite it in monotone. In the larger communities they generally recite Matins and Lauds at midnight, except on the three last days of Holy Week, when Tenebræ is chanted on the preceding evening, and during the octaves of Corpus Christi and the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, when matins are recited also on the preceding evening with the Blessed Sacrament exposed. Every day after Compline they add, extra-liturgically, commemorations of the Immaculate Conception, St. Francis, and St. Anthony of Padua. On the feast of St. Francis after second Vespers they observe the service called the "Transitus" of St. Francis, and on all Saturdays, except feasts of first and second class and certain privileged feriæ and octaves, all Masses said in their churches are votive in honour of the Immaculate Conception, excepting only the conventual mass. They follow the universal calendar, with the addition of feasts proper to their order. These additional feasts include all canonized saints of the whole Franciscan Order, all beati of the Capuchin Reform and the more notable beati of the whole order; and every year the 5th of October is observed as a commemoration of the departed members of the order in the same way as the 2nd of November is observed in the universal Church. Owing to the great number of feasts thus observed, the Capuchins have the privilege of transferring the greater feasts, when necessary, to days marked semi-double. According to the ancient Constitutions of the Order, the Capuchins were not allowed to use vestments of rich texture, not even of silk, but by Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 17 December, 1888, they must now conform to the general laws of the Church in this matter. They are, however, still obliged to maintain severe simplicity in their churches, especially when nonparochial.

FATHER CUTHBERT

PREMONSTRATENSIAN RITE

The Norbertine rite differs from the Roman in the celebration of the Sacrifice of the Mass, in the Divine Office, and in the administration of the Sacrament of Penance.

(1) Sacrifice of the Mass

The Missal is proper to the order and is not arranged like the Roman Missal. The canon is identical, with the exception of a slight variation as to the time of making the sign of the cross with the paten at the "Libera nos". The music for the Prefaces etc. differs, though not considerably, from that of the Roman Missal. Two alleluias are said after the "Ite missa est" for a week after Easter; for the whole of the remaining Paschal time one alleluia is said. The rite for the celebration of feasts gives the following grades: three classes of triples, two of doubles, celebre, nine lessons, three lessons. No feasts are celebrated during privileged octaves. There are so many feasts lower than double that usually no privilege is needed for votive Masses. The rubrics regulating the various feasts of the year are given in the "Ordinarius Sen. liber cæremomarum canonici ordinis Præmonstratensis". Rubrics for the special liturgical functions are found in the Missal, the Breviary, the Diurnal, the Processional, the Gradual, and the Antiphonary.

(2) Divine Office

The Breviary differs from the Roman Breviary in its calendar, the manner of reciting it, arrangement of matter. Some saints on the Roman calendar are omitted. The feasts peculiar to the Norbertines are: St. Godfried, C., 16 Jan.; St. Evermodus, B. C., 17 Feb.; Bl. Frederick, Abbot, 3 Mar.; St. Ludolph, B. M., 29 Mar.; Bl. Herman Joseph, C., 7 Apr.; St. Isfrid, B. C.,' 15 June; Sts. Adrian and James, MM., 9 July; Bl. Hrosnata, 19 July, 19; Bl. Gertrude, V., 13 Aug.; Bl. Bronislava, V., 30 Aug.; St. Gilbert, Abbot, 24 Oct.; St. Siardus, Abbot, 17 Nov. The feast of St. Norbert, founder of the order, which falls on 6 June in the Roman calendar, is permanently transferred to 11 July, so that its solemn rite may not be interfered with by the feasts of Pentecost and Corpus Christi. Other feasts are the Triumph of St. Norbert over the sacramentarian heresy of Tanchelin, on the third Sunday after Pentecost, and the Translation of St. Norbert commemorating the translation of his body from Magdeburg to Prague, on the fourth Sunday after Easter. Besides the daily recitation of the canonical hours the Norbertines are obliged to say the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin, except on triple feasts and during octaves of the first class. In choir this is said immediately after the Divine Office.

(3) Administration of the Sacrament of Penance

The form of absolution is not altogether in harmony with that of the Roman Ritual. The following is the Norbertine formula: "Dominus noster Jesus Christus te absolvat, et ego auctoritate ipsius, mihi licet indignissimo concessa, absolvo te in primis, a vinculo excommunicationis ... in quantum possum et indiges", etc.

The liturgical books of the Norbertines were reprinted by order of the general chapter held at Prémontré, in 1738, and presided over by Claude H. Lucas, abbot-general. A new edition of the Missal and the Breviary was issued after the General Chapter of Prague, in 1890. In 1902 a committee was appointed to revise the Gradual, Antiphonary, etc. This committee received much encouragement in its work by the Motu Proprio of Pius X on church music. The General Chapter of Tepl, Austria, in 1908, decided to edit the musical books of the order as prepared, in accordance with ancient MSS. by this committee

G. RYBROOK

SERVITE RITE

The Order of Servites (see SERVANTS OF MARY) cannot be said to possess a separate or exclusive rite similar to the Dominicans and others, but follows the Roman Ritual, as provided in its constitutions, with very slight variations. Devotion towards the Mother of Sorrows being the principal distinctive characteristic of the order, there are special prayers and indulgences attaching to the solemn celebration of the five major Marian feasts, namely, the Annunciation, Visitation, Assumption, Presentation, and Nativity of our Blessed Lady.

The feast of the Seven Dolours of the Blessed Virgin Mary, celebrated always on the Third Sunday of September, has a privileged octave and is enriched with a plenary indulgence ad instar Portiunculoe; that is, as often as a visit is made to a church of the order. In common with all friars the Servite priests wear an amice on the head instead of a biretta while proceeding to and from the altar. The Mass is begun with the first part of the Angelical Salutation, and in the Confiteor the words Septem beatis patribus nostris are inserted. At the conclusion of Mass the Salve Regina and the oration Omnipotens sempiterne Deus are recited. In the recitation of the Divine Office each canonical hour is begun with the Ave Maria down to the words ventris tui, Jesus. The custom of reciting daily, immediately before Vespers, a special prayer called Vigilia, composed of the three psalms and three antiphons of the first nocturn of the Office of the Blessed Virgin, followed by three lessons and responses, comes down from the thirteenth century, when they were offered in thanksgiving for a special favour bestowed upon the order by Pope Alexander IV (13 May, 1259). The Salve Regina is daily chanted in choir whether or not it is the antiphon proper to the season.

LITURGICAL SCIENCE.--RENAUDOT, Liturgiarum orientalium collectio (Frankfurt, 1847); MARTENE Le antiquis ecclesioe ritibus (Antwerp and Milan, 1736-8); ASSEMANI, Codex liturgicus ecclesioe universoe (Rome, 1749-66); DANIEL, Codex liturgicus ecclesioe universoe (Leipzig, 1847); DENZIGER, Ritus Orientalium (Wurzburg, 1863); NILLES, Kalendarium manuals (Innsbruck, 1896); HAMMOND, Liturgies, Eastern and Western (Oxford, 1878); BRIGHTMAN, Eastern Liturgies (Oxford, 1896); CABROL, Introduction aux études liturgiques (Paris, 1907); RIETSCHEL, Lehrbuch der Liturgik (Berlin, 1900); CLEMEN, Quellenbuch zur praktischen Theologie, 1: Liturgik (Giessen, 1910); The Prayer-books of Edward VI and Elizabeth are reprinted in the Ancient and Modern Library of Theological Literature (London); PROCTOR AND FRERE, A New History of the Book of Common Prayer (London, 1908); MAUDE, A History of the Book of Common Prayer (London, 1899).

CARMELITE RITE.--ZIMMERMAN, Le cérémonial de Maitre Sibert de Beka in Chroniques du Carmel Jambes-lez-Namur, 1903-5); IDEM, Ordinaire de l'Ordre de Notre-Dame du Mont Carmel (Paris, 1910), being the thirteenth volume of Bibliothèque liturgique; WESSELS, Ritus Ordinis in Analecta Ordinis Carmelitarum (Rome, 1909); WEALE, Bibliographia liturgica (London, 1886). The oldest Ordinal, now in Dublin but of English origin, written after 1262 and before the publication of the Constitution of Boniface VIII, "Gloriosus Deus," C. Gloriosus, de Reliquiis, in Sexto, has not yet been printed.

CISTERCIAN RITE.-- Missale Cisterciense, MS. of the latter part of the fourteenth century; Mis. Cist. (Strasburg, 1486); Mis. Cist. (Paris, 1516, 1545, 1584); Regula Ssmi Patris Benedicti; Breviarium Cist. cum Bulla Pii Papoe IX die 7 Feb., 1871; BONA, Op. omnia (Antwerp, 1677); GUIGNART, Mon. primitifs de la règle cist. (Dijon, 1878); Rubriques du bréviaire cist., by a religious of La Grande Trappe (1882); TRILHE, Mémoire sur le projet de cérémonial cist. (Toulouse, 1900); IDEM, Man. Coeremoniarum juxta usum S.O. Cist. (Westmalle, 1908).

DOMINICAN RITE.--MORTIER, Hist. des mattres généraux de l'Ordre des Frères Prêcheurs, I (Paris, 1903), 174, 309-312, 579 sq.; CASSITTO, Liturgia Dominicana (Naples, 1804); MASETTI, Mon. et Antiq. vet. discipl. Ord. Præd. (Rome, 1864); DANZAS, Etudes sur too temps prim. de l'ordre do S. Dominique (Paris, 1884); Acta Capitulorum Ord. Proed., ed. REICHERT (Rome, 1898-1904); Litt. Encyc. Magist. Gener. O. P., ed. REICHERT (Rome, 1900); TURON, Hist. des hommes ill. do I'Ordre de St. Dominique, 1, 341; Bullarium O. P., passim.

FRANCISCAN RITE.-- Coerem. Romano-Seraph. (Quaracchi, 1908); Rit. Romano-Seraph. (Quaracchi, 1910); Promptuarium Seraph. Quaracchi, 1910).

CAPUCHIN RITE.-- Ceremoniale Ord. Cap.; Analecta Ord. Cap.; Constit. ord. (Rome).

P.J. GRIFFIN

Rites in the United States

Since immigration from the eastern portion of Europe and from Asia and Africa set in with such volume, the peoples who (both in union with and outside the unity of the Church) follow the various Eastern rites arrived in the United States in large numbers, bringing with them their priests and their forms of worship. As they grew in number and financial strength, they erected churches in the various cities and towns throughout the country. Rome used to be considered the city where the various rites of the Church throughout the world could be seen grouped together, but in the United States they may be observed to a greater advantage than even in Rome. In Rome the various rites are kept alive for the purpose of educating the various national clergy who study there, and for demonstrating the unity of the Church, but there is no body of laymen who follow those rites; in the United States, on the contrary, it is the number and pressure of the laity which have caused the establishment and support of the churches of the various rites. There is consequently no better field for studying the various rites of the Church than in the chief cities of the United States, and such study has the advantage to the exact observer of affording an opportunity of comparing the dissident churches of those rites with those which belong to Catholic unity. The chief rites which have established themselves in America are these: (1) Armenian, (2) Greek or Byzantine, and (3) Syro-Maronite. There are also a handful of adherents of the Coptic, Syrian, and Chaldean rites, which will also be noticed, and there are occasionally priests of the various Latin rites.

I. THE ARMENIAN RITE

This rite alone, of all the rites in the Church, is confined to one people, one language, and one alphabet. It is, if anything, more exclusive than Judaism of old. Other rites are more widely extended in every way: the Roman Rite is spread throughout Latin, Teutonic, and Slavic peoples, and it even has two languages, the Latin and the Ancient Slavonic, and two alphabets, the Roman and the Glagolitic, in which its ritual is written; the Greek or Byzantine Rite extends among Greek, Slavic, Latin, and Syrian peoples, and its services are celebrated in Greek, Slavonic, Rumanian, and Arabic with service-books in the Greek, Cyrillic, Latin, and Arabic alphabets. But the Armenian Rite, whether Catholic or Gregorian, is confined exclusively to persons of the Armenian race, and employs the ancient Armenian language and alphabet. The history and origin of the race have been given in the article ARMENIA, but a word may be said of the language (Hayk, as it is called), and its use in the liturgy. The majority of the Armenians were converted to Christianity by St. Gregory the Illuminator, a man of noble family, who was made Bishop of Armenia in 302. So thoroughly was his work effected that Armenia alone of the ancient nations converted to Christianity has preserved no pagan literature antedating the Christian literature of the people; pagan works, if they ever existed, seem to have perished in the ardour of the Armenians for Christian thought and expression. The memory of St. Gregory is so revered that the Armenians who are opposed to union with the Holy See take pride in calling themselves "Gregorians," implying that they keep the faith taught by St. Gregory. Hence it is usual to call the dissidents "Gregorians," in order to distinguish them from the Uniat Catholics. At first the language of the Christian liturgy in Armenia was Syriac, but later they discarded it for their own tongue, and translated all the services into Armenian, which was at first written in Syriac or Persian letters. About 400 St. Mesrob invented the present Armenian alphabet (except two final letters which were added in the year 1200) and their language, both ancient and modern, has been written in that alphabet ever since. Mesrob also translated the New Testament into Armenian and revised the entire liturgy. The Armenians in their church life have led almost as checkered an existence as they have in their national life. At first they were in full communion with the Universal Church. They were bitterly opposed to Nestorianism, and, when in 451 the council of Chalcedon condemned the doctrine of Eutyches, they seceded, holding the opinion that such a definition was sanctioning Nestorianism, and have since remained separated from and hostile to the Greek Church of Constantinople. In 1054 the Greeks seceded in turn from unity with the Roman Church, and nearly three centuries later the Armenians became reconciled with Rome, but the union lasted only a brief period. Breaking away from unity again, the majority formed a national church which agreed neither with the Greek nor the Roman Church; a minority, recruited by converts to union with the Holy See in the seventeenth century remained united Armenian Catholics.

The Mass and the whole liturgy of the Armenian Church is said in Ancient Armenian, which differs considerably from the modern tongue. The language is an offshoot of the Iranian branch of the Indo-Germanic family of languages, and probably found its earliest written expression in the cuneiform inscriptions; it is unlike the Semitic languages immediately surrounding it. Among its peculiarities are twelve regular declensions and eight irregular declensions of nouns and five conjugations of the verbs, while there are many difficulties in the way of postpositions and the like. It abounds in consonants and guttural sounds; the words of the Lord's Prayer in Armenian will suffice as an example: "Hair mier, vor herghins ies, surp iegitzi anun ko, ieghastze arkautiun ko, iegitzin garnk ko, vorbes hierghins iev hergri, zhatz mier hanabazort dur miez aissor, iev tog miez ezbardis mier, vorbes iev mek togumk merotz bardabanatz, iev mi danir zmez i porsutiun, ail perghea i chare." The language is written from left to right, like Greek, Latin or English, but in an alphabet of thirty-eight peculiar letters which are dissimilar in form to anything in the Greek or Latin alphabet, and are arranged in a most perplexing order. For instance, the Armenian alphabet starts off with a, p, k, t, z, etc., and ends up with the letter f. It may also be noted that the Armenian has changed the consonantal values of most of the ordinary sounds in Christian names; thus George becomes Kevork; Sergius, Sarkis; Jacob, Hagop; Joseph, Hovsep; Gregory, Krikori; Peter, Bedros; and so on. The usual clan addition of the word "son" (ian) to most Armenian family names, something like the use of mac in the Gaelic languages, renders usual Armenian names easy of identification (e.g., Azarian, Hagopian, Rubian, Zohrabian, etc.).

The book containing the regulations for the administration of the sacraments, analogous to the Greek Euchologion or the Roman Ritual, is called the "Mashdotz," after the name of its compiler St. Mesrob, who was surnamed Mashdotz. He arranged and compiled the five great liturgical books used in the Armenian Church: (1) the Breviary (Zhamakirk) or Book of Hours; (2) The Directory (Tzutzak) or Calendar, containing the fixed festivals of the year; (3) The Liturgy (Pataragakirk) or Missal, arranged and enriched also by John Mantaguni; (4) The Book of Hymns (Dagaran), arranged for the principal great feasts of the year; (5) The Ritual or "Mashdotz," mentioned above. A peculiarity about the Armenian Church is that the majority of great feasts falling upon weekdays are celebrated on the Sunday immediately following. The great festivals of the Christian year are divided by the Armenians into five classes: (1) Easter; (2) feasts which fall on Sunday such as Palm Sunday, Pentecost, etc.; (3) feasts which are observed on the days on which they occur: the Nativity, Epiphany, Circumcision, Presentation, and Annunciation; (4) feasts which are transferred to the following Sunday: Transfiguration, Immaculate Conception, Nativity B.V.M., Assumption, Holy Cross, feasts of the Apostles, etc.; (5) other feasts, which are not observed at all unless they can be transferred to Sunday. The Gregorian Armenians observe the Nativity, Epiphany, and Baptism of Our Lord on the same day (6 January), but the Catholic Armenians observe Christmas on 25 December and the Epiphany on 6 January, and they observe many of the other feasts of Our Lord on the days on which they actually fall. The principal fasts are: (1) Lent; (2) the Fast of Nineveh for two weeks, one month before the commencement of Lent -- in reality a remnant of the ancient Lenten fast, now commemorated only in name by our Septuagesima, Sexagesima, and Quinquagesima Sundays; (3) the week following Pentecost. The days of abstinence are the Wednesdays and Fridays throughout the year with certain exceptions (e. g., during the week after the Nativity, Easter, and the Assumption). In the Armenian Church Saturday is observed as the Sabbath, commemorating the Old Law and the creation of man, and Sunday, as the Lord's Day of Resurrection and rejoicing, commemorating the New Law and the redemption of man. Most of the saints' days are dedicated to Armenian saints not commemorated in other lands but the Armenian Catholics in Galicia and Transylvania use the Gregorian (not the Julian) Calendar and have many Roman saints' days and feasts added to their ancient ecclesiastical year.

In the actual arrangement of the church building for worship the Armenian Rite differs both from the Greek and the Latin. While the Armenian Church was in communion with Rome, it seems to have united many Roman practices in its ritual with those that were in accord with the Greek or Byzantine forms. The church building may be divided into the sanctuary and church proper (choir and nave.) The sanctuary is a platform raised above the general level of the church and reached by four or more steps. The altar is always erected in the middle of it and it is again a few steps higher than the level of & sanctuary. It is perhaps possible that the Armenians originally used an altar-screen or iconostasis, like that of the Greek churches, but it has long since disappeared. Still they do not use the open altar like the Latin Church. Two curtains are hung before the sanctuary: a large double curtain hangs before its entrance, extending completely across the space like the Roman chancel rail, and is so drawn as to conceal the altar, the priest, and the deacons at certain parts of the Mass; the second and smaller curtain is used merely to separate the priest from the deacons and to cover the altar after service. Each curtain opens on both sides, and ordinarily is drawn back from the middle. The second curtain is not much used. The use of these curtains is ascribed to the year 340, when they were required by a canon formulated by Bishop Macarius of Jerusalem. Upon the altar are usually the Missal, the Book of Gospels, a cross upon which the image of Our Lord is painted or engraved in low relief, and two or more candles, which are lighted as in the Roman use. The Blessed Sacrament is usually reserved in a tabernacle on the altar, and a small lamp kept burning there at all times. In the choir, usually enclosed within a low iron railing, the singers and priests stand in lines while singing or reciting the Office. In the East, the worshipper, upon entering the nave of the church, usually takes off his shoes, just as the Mohammedans do, for the Armenian founds this practice upon Ex., iii, 5; this custom is not followed in the United States, nor do the Armenians there sit cross-legged upon the floor in their churches, as they do in Asia.

The administration of the sacraments is marked by some ceremonies unlike those of the Roman or Greek Churches, and by some which are a composite of the two. In the Sacrament of Baptism the priest meets the child carried in the arms of the nurse at the church door, and, while reciting Psalms li and cxxx, takes two threads (one white and the other red) and twists them into a cord, which he afterwards blesses. Usually the godfather goes to confession before the baptism, in order that he may fulfil his duties in the state of grace. The exorcisms and renunciations then take place, and the recital of the Nicene Creed and the answers to the responses follow. The baptismal water is blessed, the anointing with oil performed, the prayers for the catechumen to be baptized are said, and then the child is stripped. The priest takes the child and holds it in the font so that the body is in the water, but the head is out, and the baptism takes place in this manner: "N., the servant of God coming into the state of a catechumen and thence to that of baptism, is now baptized by me, in the name of the Father [here he pours a handful of water on the head of the child], and of the Son [here he pours water as before], and of the Holy Ghost [here he pours a third handful]." After this the priest dips the child thrice under the water, saying on each occasion: "Thou art redeemed by the blood of Christ from the bondage of sin, by receiving the liberty of sonship of the Heavenly Father, and becoming a co-heir with Christ and a temple of the Holy Ghost. Amen." Then the child is washed and clothed again, generally with a new and beautiful robe, and the priest when washing the child says: "Ye that were baptized in Christ, have put on Christ, Alleluia. And ye that have been illumined by God the Father, may the Holy Ghost rejoice in you. Alleluia." Then the passage of the Gospel of St. Matthew relating the baptism of Christ in the Jordan is read, and the rite thus completed.

The Sacrament of Confirmation is conferred by the priest immediately after baptism, although the Catholic Armenians sometimes reserve it for the bishop. The holy chrism is applied by the priest to the forehead, eyes, ears, nose, mouth, palms, heart, spine, and feet, each time with a reference to the seal of the Spirit. Finally, the priest lays his hand upon and makes the sign of the cross on the child's forehead saying: "Peace to thee, saved through God." When the confirmation is thus finished, the priest binds the child's forehead with the red and white string which he twisted at the beginning of the baptism and fastens it at the end with a small cross. He gives two candles, one red and one green, to the godfather and has the child brought up to the altar where Communion is given to it by a small drop of the Sacred Blood, or, if it be not at the time of Mass, by taking the Blessed Sacrament from the Tabernacle and signing the mouth of the child with it in the form of the cross, saying in either case: "The plenitude of the Holy Ghost"; if the candidate be an adult, full Communion is administered, and there the confirmation is ended.

The formula of absolution in the Sacrament of Penance is: "May the merciful God have mercy upon you and grant you the pardon of all your sins, both confessed and forgotten; and I by virtue of my order of priesthood and in force of the power granted by the Divine Command: Whosesoever sins you remit on earth they are remitted unto them in heaven; through that same word I absolve you from all participation in sin, by thought, word and deed, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. And I again restore you to the sacraments of the Holy Church; whatsoever good you shall do, shall be counted to you for merit and for glory in the life to come. May the shedding of the blood of the Son of God, which He shed upon the cross and which delivered human nature from hell, deliver you from your sins. Amen." As a rule Armenians are exhorted to make their confession and communion on at least five days in the year: the so-called Daghavork or feasts of Tabernacles, i.e., the Epiphany, Easter, Transfiguration, Assumption, and Exaltation of the Holy Cross. The first two festivals are obligatory and, if an Armenian neglects his duty, he incurs excommunication.

The Sacrament of Extreme Unction (or "Unction with Oil," as it is called) is supposed to be administered by seven priests in the ancient form, but practically it is performed by a single priest on most occasions. The eyes, ears, nose, lips, hands, feet, and heart of the sick man are anointed, with this form: "I anoint thine eyes with holy oil, so that whatever sin thou mayst have committed through thy sight, thou mayst be saved therefrom by the anointing of this oil, through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ", and with a similar reference to the other members anointed.

The Divine Liturgy or Mass is of course the chief rite among the Armenians, whether Catholic or Gregorian, and it is celebrated with a form and ceremonial which partakes in a measure both of the Roman and Byzantine rites. As we have said, the curtains are used instead of the altar-rail or iconostasis of those rites, and the vestments are also peculiar. The Armenians, like the Latins, use unleavened bread, in the form of a wafer or small thin round cake, for consecration; but like the Greeks they prepare many wafers, and those not used for consecration in the Mass are given afterwards to the people as the antidoron. The wine used must be solely the fermented juice of the best grapes obtainable. In the Gregorian churches Communion is given to the people under both species, the Host being dipped in the chalice before delivering it to the communicant, but in the Catholic churches Communion is now given only in one species, that of the Body, although there is no express prohibition against the older form. On Christmas Eve and Easter Eve the Armenians celebrate Mass in the evening; the Mass then begins with the curtains drawn whilst the introductory psalms and prophecies are sung, but, at the moment the great feast is announced in the Introit, the curtains are withdrawn and the altar appears with full illumination. During Lent the altar remains entirely hidden by the great curtains, and during all the Sundays in Lent, except Palm Sunday, Mass is celebrated behind the drawn curtains. A relic of this practice still remains in the Roman Rite, as shown by the veiling of the images and pictures from Passion Sunday till Easter Eve. The Armenian vestments for Mass are peculiar and splendid. The priest wears a crown, exactly in the form of a Greek bishop's mitre, which is called the Saghavard or helmet. This is also worn by the deacons attending on a bishop at pontifical Mass. The Armenian bishops wear a mitre almost identical in shape with the Latin mitre, and said to have been introduced at the time of the union with Rome in the twelfth century, when they relinquished the Greek form of mitre for the priests to wear in the Mass. The celebrant is first vested with the shapik or alb, which is usually narrower than the Latin form, and usually of linen (sometimes of silk). He then puts on each of his arms the bazpans or cuffs, which replace the Latin maniple; then the ourar or stole, which is in one piece; then the goti or girdle, then the varkas or amict, which is a large embroidered stiff collar with a shoulder covering to it; and finally the shoochar, or chasuble, which is almost exactly like a Roman cope. If the celebrant be a bishop, he also wears the gonker or Greek epigonation. The bishops carry a staff shaped like the Latin, while the vartabeds (deans, or doctors of divinity; analogous to the Roman mitred abbots) carry a staff in the Greek form (a staff with two intertwined serpents). No organs are used in the Armenian church, but the elaborate vocal music of the Eastern style, sung by choir and people, is accompanied by two metallic instruments, the keshotz and zinzqha (the first a fan with small bells; the second similar to cymbals), both of which are used during various parts of the Mass. The deacon wears merely an alb, and a stole in the same manner as in the Roman Rite. The subdeacons and lower clergy wear simply the alb.

The Armenian Mass may be divided into three parts: Preparation, Anaphora or Canon, and Conclusion. The first and preparatory portion extends as far as the Preface, when the catechumens are directed by the deacon to leave. The Canon commences with the conclusion of the Preface and ends with the Communion. As soon as the priest is robed in his vestments he goes to the altar, washes his hands reciting Psalm xxvi, and then going to the foot of the altar begins the Mass. After saying the Intercessory Prayer, the Confiteor and the Absolution, which is given with a crucifix in hand, he recites Psalm xlii (Introibo ad altare), and at every two verses ascends a step of the altar. After he has intoned the prayer "In the tabernacle of holiness," the curtains are drawn, and the choir sings the appropriate hymn of the day. Meanwhile the celebrant behind the curtain prepares the bread on the paten and fills the chalice, ready for the oblation. When this is done the curtains are withdrawn and the altar incensed. Then the Introit of the day is sung, then the prayers corresponding to those of the first, second, and third antiphons of the Byzantine Rite, while the proper psalms are sung by the choir. Then the deacon intones "Proschume" (let us attend), and elevates the book of the gospels, which is incensed as he brings it to the altar, making the Little Entrance. The choir then sings the Trisagion (Holy God, Holy and Mighty, Holy and Immortal, have mercy on us) thrice. The Gregorians interpolate after "Holy and Immortal" some words descriptive of the feast day, such as "who was made manifest for us," or "who didst rise from the dead," but this addition has been condemned at Rome as being a relic of the Patripassian heresy. During the Trisagion the Keshotz is jingled in accompaniment. Then the Greek Ektene or Litany is sung, and at its conclusion the reader reads the Prophecy; then the Antiphon before the Epistle is sung, and the epistle of the day read. At the end of each the choir responds Alleluia. Then the deacon announces "Orthi" (stand up) and, taking the Gospels, reads or intones the gospel of the day. Immediately afterwards, the Armenian form of the Nicene Creed is said or sung. It differs from the creed as said in the Roman and Greek Churches in that it has, "consubstantial with the Father by whom all things were made in Heaven and in Earth, visible and invisible; who for us men and our salvation came down from Heaven, was incarnate and was made man and perfectly begotten through the Holy Ghost of the most Holy Virgin Mary; he assumed from her body, soul, and mind, and all that in man is, truly and not figuratively;" and "we believe also in the Holy Ghost, not created, all perfect, who proceedeth from the Father (and the Son), who spake in the Law, in the Prophets and the Holy Gospel, who descended into the Jordan, who preached Him who was sent, and who dwelt in the Saints," and after concluding in the ordinary form adds the sentence pronounced by the First Council of Nicaea: "Those who say there was a time when the Son was not, or when the Holy Ghost was not; or that they were created out of nothing; or that the Son of God and the Holy Ghost are of another substance or that they are mutable; the Catholic and Apostolic church condemns." Then the Confession of St. Gregory is intoned aloud, and the Little Ektene sung. The kiss of peace is here given to the clergy. The deacon at its close dismisses the catechumens, and the choir sings the Hymn of the Great Entrance, when the bread and wine are solemnly brought to the altar. "The Body of our Lord and the Blood of our Redeemer are to be before us. The Heavenly Powers invisible sing and proclaim with uninterrupted voice, Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Hosts."

Here the curtains are drawn, and the priest takes off his crown (or the bishop his mitre). The priest incenses the holy gifts and again washes his bands, repeating Psalm xxvi as before. After the Salutation is sung, the catechumens are dismissed, and the Anaphora or Canon begins. The Preface is said secretly, only the concluding part being intoned to which the choir responds with the Sanctus. The prayer before consecration follows, with a comparison of the Old and the New Law, not found in either Greek or Roman Rite: "Holy, Holy, Holy; Thou art in truth most Holy; who is there who can dare to describe by words thy bounties which flow down upon us without measure? For Thou didst protect and console our forefathers, when they had fallen in sin, by means of the prophets, the Law, the priesthood, and the offering of bullocks, showing forth that which was to come. And when at length He came, Thou didst tear in pieces the register of our sins, and didst bestow on us Thine Only Begotten Son, the debtor and the debt, the victim and the anointed, the Lamb and Bread of Heaven, the Priest and the Oblation for He is the distributor and is always distributed amongst us, without being exhausted. Being made man truly and not apparently, and by union without confusion, He was incarnate in the womb of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, and journeyed through all the passions of human life, sin only excepted, and of His own free will walked to the cross, whereby He gave life to the world and wrought salvation for us." Then follow the actual words of consecration, which are intoned aloud. Then follow the Offering and the Epiklesis, which differs slightly, in the Gregorian and Catholic form; the Gregorian is: "whereby Thou wilt make the bread when blessed truly the body of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ;" and the Catholic form: "whereby Thou hast made the bread when blessed truly the Body of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." As there is actually no blessing or consecration after the Epiklesis, the Catholic form represents the correct belief. Then come the prayers for the living and the dead, and an intoning by the Deacons of the Commemoration of the Saints, in which nearly all the Armenian saints are mentioned. Then the deacon intones aloud the Ascription of Praise of Bishop Chosroes the Great in thanksgiving for the Sacrament of the Altar. After this comes a long Ektene or Litany, and then the Our Father is sung by the choir. The celebrant then elevates the consecrated Host, saying "Holy things for Holy Persons," and when the choir responds, he continues: "Let us taste in holiness the holy and honourable Body and Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ who came down from heaven and is now distributed among us." Then the choir sings antiphons in honour of the sacrifice of the Body and Blood, and the small curtain is drawn. The priest kisses the sacred Victim, saying "I confess and I believe that Thou art Christ, the Son of God, who has borne the sins of the world." The Host is divided into three parts, one of which is placed in the chalice. The choir sing the communion hymns as appointed; the priest and the clergy receive the Communion first, and then the choir and people. The little curtain is withdrawn when the Communion is given, and the great curtains are drawn back when the people come up for Communion.

After Communion, the priest puts on his crown (or the bishop his mitre), and the great curtains are again drawn. Thanksgiving prayers are said behind them, after which the great curtains are withdrawn once more, and the priest holding the book of gospels says the great prayer of peace, and blesses the people. Then the deacon proclaims "Orthi" (stand up) and the celebrant reads the Last Gospel, which is nearly always invariable, being the Gospel of St. John, i, 1 sqq.: "In the beginning was the Word, etc."; the only exception is from Easter to the eve of Pentecost, when they use the Gospel of St. John, xxi, 15-20: "So when they had dined, etc." Then the prayer for peace and the "Kyrie Eleison" (thrice) are said, the final benediction is given, and the priest retires from the altar. Whilst Psalm xxxiv is recited or sung by the people, the blessed bread is distributed. The Catholic Armenians confine this latter rite to high festivals only. The chief editions of the Gregorian Armenian Missals are those printed at Constantinople (1823, 1844), Jerusalem (1841, 1873, and 1884), and Etschmiadzin (1873); the chief Catholic Armenian editions are those of Venice (1808, 1874, 1895), Trieste (1808), and Vienna (1858, 1884).

Armenian Catholics

Armenians had come to the United States in small numbers prior to 1895. In that and the following year the Turkish massacres took place throughout Armenia and Asia Minor, and large numbers of Armenians emigrated to America. Among them were many Armenian Catholics, although these were not sufficiently numerous to organize any religious communities like their Gregorian brethren. In 1898 Msgr. Stephan Azarian (Stephen X), then Catholic Patriarch of Cilicia of the Armenians, who resided in Constantinople, entered into negotiations with Cardinal Ledochowski, Prefect of the Congregation of the Propaganda, and through him obtained the consent of Archbishop Corrigan of New York and Archbishop Williams of Boston for priests of the Armenian Rite to labour in their respective provinces for the Armenian Catholics who had come to this country. He sent as the first Armenian missionary the Very Reverend Archpriest Mardiros Mighirian, who had been educated at the Propaganda and the Armenian College, and arrived in the United States on Ascension Day, 11 May, 1899. He at first went to Boston where he assembled a small congregation of Armenian Catholics, and later proceeded to New York to look after the spiritual welfare of the Catholic Armenians in Manhattan and Brooklyn. He also established a mission station in Worcester, Massachusetts. In New York and Brooklyn the Catholics of the Armenian Rite are divided into those who speak Armenian and those who, coming from places outside of the historic Armenia, speak the Arabic language. At present this missionary is stationed at St. Stephen's church in East Twenty-eighth Street, since large numbers of Armenians live in that vicinity, but has another congregation under his charge in Brooklyn. All these Catholic Armenians are too poor to build any church or chapel of their own, and use the basement portion of the Latin churches. Towards the end of 1906 another Armenian priest, Rev. Manuel Basieganian, commenced mission work in Paterson, New Jersey, and now attends mission stations throughout New England, New Jersey, and Eastern Pennsylvania. In 1908 Rev. Hovsep (Joseph) Keossajian settled in Lawrence, Massachusetts, and established a chapel in St. Mary's Church. He also ministers to the spiritual wants of the Armenian Catholics at Boston, Cambridge, East Watertown, Newton, Lynn, Chelsea, and Lowell. In 1909 Rev. Moses Mazarian took charge of the Armenian mission at Cleveland, Ohio, and in the cities throughout the west. None of these have been able to build independent Armenian churches, but usually hold their services in the Roman Catholic churches. Besides the places already mentioned there are slender Armenian Catholic congregations at Haverhill, Worcester, Fitchburg, Milford, Fall River, Holyoke, and Whiting, in Massachusetts; Nashua and Manchester, New Hampshire; Providence, Pawtucket, and Central Falls in Rhode Island; New Britain and Bridgeport, in Connecticut; Jersey City, West Hoboken, and Newark, in New Jersey; and Philadelphia and Chicago. The number of Catholic Armenians in the United States is very small, being estimated at about 2000 to 2500 all told. So many of them reside among the other Armenians and frequent their churches, that there may be more who do not profess themselves Catholics, and purely Armenian chapels would doubtless bring to light many whom the mission priests on their rounds do not reach.

Gregorian Armenians

Inasmuch as Armenia was converted to the faith of St. Gregory the Illuminator, the Armenians who are not in union with the Holy See pride themselves upon the fact that they more truly hold the faith preached by St. Gregory and they are accordingly called Gregorians, since the word "Orthodox" would be likely to confuse them with the Greeks. By reason of the many schools founded in Armenia and in Constantinople by American Protestant missionaries, their attention was turned to America, and, when the massacres of 1895-96 took place, large numbers came to the United States. Many of them belonged to the Protestant Armenian Church, and identified themselves with the Congregationalists or Presbyterians; but the greater number of them belonged to the national Gregorian Church. In 1889 Rev. Hovsep Sarajian, a priest from Constantinople, was sent to the Armenians in Massachusetts, and a church which was built in Worcester in 1891, is still the headquarters of the Armenian Church in the United States. The emigration increasing greatly after the massacres, Father Sarajian was reinforced by several other Armenian priests; in 1898 he was made bishop, and in 1903 was invested with archiepiscopal authority, having Canada and the United States under his jurisdiction. Seven great pastorates were organized to serve as the nuclei of future dioceses: at Worcester, Boston, and Lawrence (Massachusetts), New York, Providence (Rhode Island), Fresno (California), and Chicago (Illinois). To these was added West Hoboken in 1906. There are numerous congregations and mission stations in various cities. Churches have been built in Worcester, Fresno, and West Hoboken; in Boston and Providence halls are rented, and in other places arrangements are often made with Episcopal churches where their services are held. The Gregorian Armenian clergy comprises the archbishop, seven resident and three missionary priests, while the number of Gregorian Armenians is given at 20,000 in the United States. There are several Armenian societies and two Armenian newspapers, and also Armenian reading-rooms in several places.

II. BYZANTINE OR GREEK RITE

This rite, reckoning both the Catholic and Schismatic Churches, comes next in expansion through the Christian world to the Roman Rite. It also ranks next to the Roman Rite in America, there being now (1911) about 156 Greek Catholic churches, and about 149 Greek Orthodox churches in the United States. The Eastern Orthodox Churches of Russia, Turkey, Rumania, Servia, and Bulgaria, and other places where they are found, make up a total of about 120,000,000, while the Uniat Churches of the same rite, the Greek Catholics in Austria, Hungary, Italy, Bulgaria, Asia, and elsewhere, amount to upwards of 7,500,000. The Byzantine Rite has already been fully described [see CONSTANTINOPLE, THE RITE OF; GREEK RITES; ORTHODOX CHURCH; ALTAR (IN THE GREEK CHURCH); ARCHIMANDRITE; EPIKLESIS; EUCHOLOGION; ICONOSTASIS], as well as the organization and development of the various churches using the Greek or Byzantine Rite (see EASTERN CHURCHES; GREEK CHURCH; RUSSIA). Unlike the Armenian Rite, it has not been confined to any particular people or language, but has spread over the entire Christian Orient among the Slavic, Rumanian and Greek populations. As regards Jurisdiction and authority, it has not been united and homogeneous like the Roman Rite, nor has it, like the Latin Church, been uniform in language, calendar, or particular customs, although the same general teaching, ritual, and observances have been followed. The principal languages in which the liturgy of the Greek Rite is celebrated are: (1) Greek; (2) Slavonic; (3) Arabic, and (4) Rumanian. It is also celebrated in Georgian by a small and diminishing number of worshippers, and sometimes experimentally in a number of modern tongues for missionary purposes; but as this latter use has never been approved, the four languages named above may be considered the official ones of the Byzantine Rite. A portion of the population of all the nations which use this rite, follow it in union with the Holy See, and these have by their union placed the Byzantine Rite in the position which it occupied before the schism of 1054. Thus, the Russians, Bulgarians, and Servians, who are schismatic, use the Old Slavonic in their church books and services; so likewise do the Catholic Ruthenians, Bulgarians, and Servians. Likewise the Rumanians of Rumania and Transylvania, who are schismatic, use the Rumanian language in the Greek Rite; but the Rumanians of Transylvania, who are Catholic, do the same. The Orthodox Greeks of Greece and Turkey use the original Greek of their rite; but the Italo-Greeks of Italy and Sicily and the Greeks of Constantinople, who are Catholic, use it also. The Syro-Arabians of Syria and Egypt, who are schismatic, use the Arabic in the Greek Rite; but the Catholic Melchites likewise use it.

The numerous emigrants from these countries to America have brought with them their Byzantine Rite with all its local peculiarities and its language. In some respects the environment of all people professing the Greek Rite in union with the Holy See but in close touch with their countrymen of the Roman Rite has tended to change in unimportant particulars several of the ceremonies and sometimes particular phrases of the rite (see ITALO-GREEKS; MELCHITES; RUTHENIAN RITE), but not to a greater extent than the various Schismatic Churches have changed the language and ceremonies in their several national Churches. Where this has occurred in the Greek Churches united with the Holy See, it has been fiercely denounced as latinizing; but, where it has occurred in Russia, Bulgaria, or Syria, it is merely regarded by the same denouncers as a mere expression of nationalism. There is in the aggregate a larger number of Catholics of the Byzantine Rite in America than of the Orthodox. The chief nationalities there which are Catholic are the Ruthenians, Rumanians, Melchites, and Italo-Greek; the principal Orthodox ones are the Russians, Greeks, Syro-Arabians, Servians, Rumanians, Bulgarians, and Albanians. The history and establishment of each of these has been already given (see GREEK CATHOLICS IN AMERICA; GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AMERICA). As emigration from those lands increases daily, and the representatives of those rites are increasing in numbers and prosperity, a still wider expansion of the Greek Rite in the United States may be expected. Already the Russian Orthodox Church has a strong hierarchy, an ecclesiastical seminary, and monasteries, supported chiefly by the Holy Synod and the Orthodox Missionary Society of Russia, and much proselytizing is carried on among the Greek Catholics. The latter are not in such a favourable position; they have no home governmental support, but have had to build and equip their own institutions out of their own slender means. The Holy See has provided a bishop for them, but the Russians have stirred up dissensions and made his position as difficult as possible among his own people. The Hellenic Greek Orthodox Church expects soon to have its own Greek bishop, and the Serbians and Rumanians also expect a bishop to be appointed by their home authorities.

III. MARONITE RITE

The Maronite is one of the Syrian rites and has been closely assimilated in the Church to the Roman Rite (see MARONITES). Unlike the Syro-Chaldean or the Syro-Catholic rites, for they all use the Syriac language in the Mass and liturgy, it has not kept the old forms intact, but has modelled itself more and more upon the Roman Rite. Among all the Eastern rites which are now in communion with the Holy See, it alone has no Schismatic rite of corresponding form and language, but is wholly united and Catholic, thereby differing also from the other Syrian rites. The liturgical language is the ancient Syriac or Aramaic, and the Maronites, as well as all other rites who use Syriac, take especial pride in the fact that they celebrate the Mass in the very language which Christ spoke while He was on earth, as evidenced by some fragments of His very words still preserved in the Greek text of the Gospels (e.g., in Matt., xxvii, 46 and Mark, v, 41). The Syriac is a Semitic language closely related to the Hebrew, and is sometimes called Aramaic from the Hebrew word Aram (Northern Syria). As the use of Ancient Hebrew died out after the Babylonian captivity, the Syriac or Aramaic took its place, very much as Italian has supplanted Latin throughout the Italian peninsula. This was substantially the situation at the time of Christ's teaching and the foundation of the early Church. Syriac is now a dead language, and in the Maronite service and liturgy bears the same relation to the vernacular Arabic as the Latin in the Roman Rite does to the modern languages of the people. It is written with a peculiar alphabet, reads from right to left like the Hebrew or Arabic languages, but its letters are unlike the current alphabets of either of these languages. To simplify the Maronite Missals, Breviary, and other service books, the vernacular Arabic is often employed for the rubrics and for many of the best-known prayers; it is written, not in Arabic characters, but in Syriac, and this mingled language and alphabet is called Karshuni. The Epistle, Gospel, Creed and Pater Noster are nearly always given in Karshuni, instead of the original Arabic.

The form of the Liturgy or Mass is that of St. James, so called because of the tradition that it originated with St. James the Less, Apostle and Bishop of Jerusalem. It is the type form of the Syriac Rite, but the Maronite Use has accommodated it more and more to the Roman. This form of the Liturgy of St. James constitutes the Ordinary of the Mass, which is always said in the same manner, merely changing the epistles and gospels according to the Christian year. But the Syrians, whether of the Maronite, Syrian, Catholic, or Syro-Chaldaic rite, have the peculiarity (not found in other liturgies) of inserting different anaphoras or canons of the Mass, composed at various times by different Syrian saints; these change according to the feast celebrated, somewhat analogously to the Preface in the Roman Rite. The principal anaphoras or canons of the Mass used by the Maronites are: (1) the Anaphora according to the Order of the Holy Catholic and Roman Church, the Mother of all the Churches; (2) the Anaphora of St. Peter, the Head of the Apostles; (3) the Anaphora of the Twelve Apostles; (4) the Anaphora of St. James the Apostle, brother of the Lord, (5) the Anaphora of St. John the Apostle and Evangelist; (6) the Anaphora of St. Mark the Evangelist; (7) the Anaphora of St. Xystus, the Pope of Rome; (8) the Anaphora of St. John surnamed Maro, from whom they derive their name; (9) the Anaphora of St. John Chrysostom; (10) the Anaphora of St. Basil; (11) the Anaphora of St. Cyril; (12) the Anaphora of St. Dionysius; (13) the Anaphora of John of Harran, and (14) the Anaphora of Marutha of Tagrith. Besides these they have also a form of liturgy of the Presanctified for Good Friday, after the Roman custom. Frequent use of incense is a noticeable feature of the Maronite Mass, and not even in low Mass is the incense omitted. In their form of church building the Maronites have nothing special like the Greeks with their iconostasis and square altar, or the Armenians with their curtains, but build their churches very much as Latins do. While the sacred vestments are hardly distinguishable from those of the Roman Church, in some respects they approach the Greek form. The alb, the girdle, and the maniple or cuffs on each hand, a peculiar form of amict, the stole (sometimes in Greek and sometimes in Roman form), and the ordinary Roman chasuble make up the vestments worn by the priest at Mass. Bishops use a cross, mitre, and staff of the Roman form. The sacred vessels used on the altar are the chalice, paten or disk, and a small star or asterisk to cover the consecrated Host. They, like us, use a small cross or crucifix, with a long silken banneret attached, for giving the blessings. The Maronites use unleavened bread and have a round host, as in the Roman Rite.

The Maronite Mass commences with the ablution and vesting at the foot of the altar. Then, standing at the middle of the sanctuary, the priest recites Psalm xlii, "Introibo ad altare," moving his head in the form of a cross. He then ascends the altar, takes the censer and incenses both the uncovered chalice and paten, then takes up the Host and has it incensed, puts it on the paten and has the corporals and veils incensed. He next pours wine in the chalice, adding a little water, and then incenses it and covers both host and chalice with the proper veils. Then, going again to the foot of the altar, he says aloud the first prayer in Arabic, which is followed by an antiphon. The strange Eastern music, with its harsh sounds and quick changes, is a marked feature of the Maronite Rite. The altar, the elements, the clergy, servers, and people are incensed, and the Kyrie Eleison (Kurrilison) and the "Holy God, Holy strong one, etc." are sung by choir and people. Then comes the Pater Noster in Arabic, with the response: "For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory, world without end. Amen." The celebrant and deacon intone the Synapte for peace, which is followed by a short form of the Gloria in excelsis: "Glory be to God on high, and on earth peace and good hope to the sons of men, etc." The Phrumiur is then said; this is an introductory prayer, and always comes before the Sedro, which is a prayer of praise said aloud by the priest standing before the altar while the censer is swung. It is constructed by the insertion of verses into a more or less constant framework, commemorative of the feast or season, and seems to be a survival of the old psalm verses with the Gloria. For instance, a sedro of Our Lady will commemorate her in many ways, something like our litany, but more poetically and at length; one of Our Lord will celebrate Him in His nativity, baptism, etc. Then come the commemorations of the Prophets, the Apostles, the martyrs, of all the saints, and lastly the commemoration of the departed: "Be ye not sad, all ye who sleep in the dust, and in the decay of your bodies. The living Body which you have eaten and the saving Blood which you have drunk, can again vivify all of you, and clothe your bodies with glory. O Christ, Who hast come and given peace by Thy Blood to the heights and the depths, give rest to the souls of Thy servants in the promised life everlasting!" The priest then prays for the living, and makes special intercession by name of those living or dead for whom the Mass is offered. He blesses and offers the sacred elements, in a form somewhat analogous to the Offertory in the Roman Rite. Another phrumiun and the great Sedro of St. Ephraem or St. James is said, in which the whole sacrifice of the Mass is foreshadowed. The psalm preparatory to the Epistle in Arabic is recited, and the epistle of the day then read. The Alleluia and gradual psalm is recited, the Book of Gospels incensed, and the Gospel, also in Arabic, intoned or read. The versicles of thanksgiving for the Gospel are intoned, at several parts of which the priest and deacon and precentor chant in unison. The Nicene Creed, said in unison by priest and deacon, follows, and immediately after the celebrant washes his hands saying Psalm xxvi. This ends the Ordinary of the Mass.

The Anaphora, or Canon of the Mass, is then begun, and varies according to season, place, and celebrant. In the Anaphora of the Holy Catholic and Roman Church, which is a typical one, the Mass proceeds with the prayers for peace very much as they stand at the end of the Roman Mass; then follow prayers of confession, adoration, and glory, which conclude by giving the kiss of peace to the deacon and the other clergy. The Preface follows: "Let us lift up our thoughts, our conscience and our hearts! Response. They are lifted up to Thee, O Lord! Priest. Let us give thanks to the Lord in fear, and adore Him with trembling. R. It is meet and just. P. To Thee, O God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, O glorious and holy King of Israel, for ever! R. Glory be to the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, now and forever, world without end. P. Before the glorious and divine mysteries of our Redeemer, with the pleasant things which are imposed, let us implore the mercy of the Lord! R. It is meet and just" (and the Preface continues secretly). Then the Sanctus is sung, and the Consecration immediately follows. The words of Consecration are intoned aloud, the choir answering "Amen." After the succeeding prayer of commemoration of the Resurrection and hope of the Second Coming and a prayer for mercy, the Epiklesis is said: "How tremendous is this hour and how awful this moment, my beloved, in which the Holy and Life-giving Spirit comes down from on high and descends upon this Eucharist which is placed in this sanctuary for our reconciliation. With silence and fear stand and pray! Salvation to us and the peace of God the Father of all of us. Let us cry out and say thrice: Have mercy on us, O Lord, and send down the Holy and Life-giving Spirit upon us! Hear me, O Lord! And let Thy living and it descend upon me and upon this sacrifice! And so complete this mystery, that it be the Body of Christ our God for our redemption!" The prayers for the Pope of Rome, the Patriarch of Antioch, and all the metropolitans and bishops and orthodox professors and believers of the Catholic Faith immediately follow. This in turn is followed by a long prayer by the deacon for tranquillity, peace, and the commemoration of all the saints and doctors of the early Church and of Syria, including St. John Maro, with the petition for the dead at the end. Then comes the solemn offering of the Body and the Blood for the sins of priest and people, concluding with the words: "Thy Body and Thy Holy Blood are the way which leads to the Kingdom!" The adoration and the fraction follow; then the celebrant elevates the chalice together with the Host, and says: "O desirable sacrifice which is offered for us! O victim of reconciliation, which the Father obtained in Thy own person! O Lamb, Who wast the same person as the High Priest who sacrificed!" Then he genuflects and makes the sign of the Cross over the chalice: "Behold the Blood which was shed upon Golgotha for my redemption; because of it receive my supplication." The "Sanctus fortis" is again sung, and the celebrant lifts the Sacred Body on high and says: "Holy things for holy persons, in purity and holiness!" The fraction of the Host follows after several prayers, and the priest mingles a particle with the Blood, receives the Body and the Blood himself, and gives communion to the clergy and then to the people. When it is finished he makes the sign of the Cross with the paten and blesses the people.

Then follow a synapte (litany) of thanksgiving, and a second signing of the people with both paten and chalice, after which the priest consumes all the remaining species saying afterwards the prayers at the purification and ablution. The prayer of blessing and protection is said, and the people and choir sing: "Alleluia! Alleluia! I have fed upon Thy Body and by Thy living Blood I am reconciled, and I have sought refuge in Thy Cross! Through these may I please Thee, O Good Lord, and grant Thou mercy to the sinners who call upon Thee!" Then they sing the final hymn of praise, which in this anaphora contains the words: "By the prayers of Simon Peter, Rome was made the royal city, and she shall not be shaken!" Then the people all say or sing the Lord's Prayer; when it is finished, the final benediction is given, and the priest, coming again to the foot of the altar, takes off his sacred vestments and proceeds to make his thanksgiving.

The principal editions of the Maronite missals and service books for the deacons and those assisting at the altar are The Book of Sacrifice according to the Rite of the Maronite Church of Antioch (Kozhayya, 1816, 1838, and 1885; Beirut, 1888), and The Book of the Ministry according to the Rite of the Maronite Church of Antioch (Kozhayya, 1855).

Maronites in America

The Maronites are chiefly from the various districts of Mount Lebanon and from the city of Beirut, and were at first hardly distinguishable from the other Syrians and Arabic-speaking persons who came to America. At first they were merely pedlars and small traders, chiefly in religious and devotional articles, but they soon got into other lines of business and at present possess many well-established business enterprises. Not only are they established in the United States, but they have also spread to Mexico and Canada, and have several fairly large colonies in Brazil, Argentine, and Uruguay. Their numbers in the United States are variously estimated from 100,000 to 120,000, including the native born. Many of them have become prosperous merchants and are now American citizens. Several Maronite families of title (Emir) have emigrated and made their homes in the United States; among them are the Emirs Al-Kazen, Al-Khouri, Abi-Saab, and others. There is also the well-known Arabic novelist of the present day, Madame Karam Hanna (Afifa Karam) of Shreveport, Louisiana, formerly of Amshid, Mount Lebanon, who not only writes entertaining fiction, but touches on educational topics and even women's rights. Nahum Mokarzel, a graduate of the Jesuit College of Beirut, is a clever writer both in Arabic and English. The Maronites are established in New York, the New England States, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Alabama. The first Maronite priest to visit the United States was Rev. Joseph Mokarzel, who arrived in 1879 but did not remain. Very Rev. Louis Kazen of Port Said, Egypt, came later, but, as there were very few of his countrymen, he likewise returned. On 6 August, 1890, the Rev. Butrosv Korkemas came to establish a permanent mission, and after considerable difficulty rented a tiny chapel in a store on Washington Street, New York City. He was accompanied by his nephew, Rev. Joseph Yasbek, then in deacon's orders, who was later ordained to the priesthood by Archbishop Corrigan, and founded the Maronite mission in Boston; he is now Chor-Bishop of the Maronites and practically the head of that rite in America.

A church was later established in Philadelphia, then one in Troy and one in Brooklyn, after which the Maronites branched out to other cities. At present (1911) there are fifteen Maronite churches in the United States: in New York, Brooklyn, Troy, Buffalo, Boston, Lawrence, Springfield, Philadelphia, Scranton, St. Paul, St. Louis, Birmingham, Chicago, Wheeling, and Cleveland. Meanwhile new congregations are being formed in smaller cities, and are regularly visited by missionary priests. The Maronite clergy is composed of two chor-bishops (deans vested with certain episcopal powers) and twenty-three other priests, of whom five are Antonine monks. In Mexico there are three Maronite chapels and four priests. In Canada there is a Maronite chapel at New Glasgow and one resident priest. There are only two Arabic-English schools, in New York and St. Louis, since many of the Maronite children go to the ordinary Catholic or to the public schools. There are no general societies or clubs with religious objects, although there is a Syrian branch of the St. Vincent de Paul Society. About fifteen years ago Nahum A. Mokarzel founded and now publishes in New York City the daily newspaper, "Al Hoda" (The Guidance), which is now the best known Arabic newspaper in the world and the only illustrated one. His brother also publishes an Arabic monthly magazine, "Al Alam ul Jadid" (The New World), which contains modern Arabic literature and translations of American and English writers. There are also two Maronite papers published in Mexico. The Maronites also have in New York a publishing house on a small scale, in which novels, pamphlets, and scientific and religious works are printed in Arabic, and the usual Arabic literature sold.

IV. OTHER ORIENTAL RITES

The rites already described are the principal rites to be met with in the United States; but there are besides them a few representatives of the remaining Eastern rites, although these are perhaps not sufficiently numerous to maintain their own churches or to constitute separate ecclesiastical entities. Among these smaller bodies are: (1) the Chaldean Catholics and the schismatic Christians of the same rite, known as Nestorians; (2) the Syrian Catholics or Syro-Catholics and their correlative dissenters, the Jacobites, and (3) finally the Copts, Catholic or Orthodox. All of these have a handful of representatives in America, and, as immigration increases, it is a question how great their numbers will become.

(1) Chaldean or Syro-Chaldean Catholic Rite

Those who profess this rite are Eastern Syrians, coming from what was anciently Mesopotamia, but is now the borderland of Persia. They ascribe the origin of the rite to two of the early disciples, Addeus and Maris, who first preached the Gospel in their lands. It is really a remnant of the early Persian Church, and it has always used the Syriac language in its liturgy. The principal features of the rite and the celebration of the Mass have already been described (see ADDEUS AND MARIS, LITURGY OF). The peculiar Syriac which it uses is known as the eastern dialect, as distinguished from that used in the Maronite and Syro-Catholic rites which is the western dialect. The method of writing this church Syriac among the Chaldeans is somewhat different from that used in writing it among the western Syrians. The Chaldeans and Nestorians use in their church books the antique letters of the older versions of the Syriac Scriptures which are called "astrangelo," and their pronunciation is somewhat different. The Chaldean Church in ancient times was most flourishing, and its history under Persian rule was a bright one. Unfortunately in the sixth century it embraced the Nestorian heresy, for Nestorius on being removed from the See of Constantinople went to Persia and taught his views (see NESTORIUS AND NESTORIANISM; PERSIA). The Chaldean Church took up his heresy and became Nestorian. This Nestorian Church not only extended throughout Mesopotamia and Persia, but penetrated also into India (Malabar) and even into China. The inroads of Mohammedanism and its isolation from the centre of unity and from intercommunication with other Catholic bodies caused it to diminish through the centuries. In the sixteenth century the Church in Malabar, India, came into union with the Holy See, and this induced the Nestorians to do likewise. The conversion of part of the Nestorians and the reunion of their ancient Church with the Holy See began in the seventeenth century, and has continued to the present day. The Chaldean Patriarch of Babylon (who really has his see at Mossul) is the chief prelate of the Chaldean Catholics, and has under him two archbishops (of Diarbekir and Kerkuk) and nine bishops (of Amadia, Gezireh, Mardin, Mossul, Sakou, Salmas, Seert, Sena, and Urmiah). The Malabar Christians have no regular Chaldean hierarchy, but are governed by vicars Apostolic. The number of Chaldean Catholics is estimated at about 70,000, while the corresponding schismatic Nestorian Church has about 140,000 (see ASIA; CHALDEAN CHRISTIANS).

There are about 100 to 150 Chaldean Catholics in the United States; about fifty live in Yonkers, New York, while the remainder are scattered in New York City and vicinity. The community in Yonkers is cared for by Rev. Abdul Masih (a married priest from the Diocese of Diarbekir), who came to this country from Damascus some six years ago. He says Mass in a chapel attached to St. Mary's Catholic Church, and some Nestorians also attend. At present (1911) there are two other Chaldean priests in this country: Rev. Joseph Ghariba, from the Diocese of Aleppo, who is a travelling missionary for his people, and Rev. Gabriel Oussani, who is professor of church history, patrology, and Oriental languages in St. Joseph's Seminary at Dunwoodie near Yonkers, and from whom some of these particulars have been obtained. There are also said to be about 150 Nestorians in the United States, the majority of these live and work in Yonkers, New York. They have no priest of their own, and, where they do not attend the Catholic Rite, are drifting into modern Protestantism. Several of them have become members of the Episcopal Church, and they are looked after by Dr. Abraham Yohannan, an Armenian from Persia, now a minister in the Episcopal Church and lecturer on modern Persian at Columbia University. They have no church or chapel of their own.

(2) Syro-Catholic Rite

This rite is professed by those Syriac Christians who were subjects of the ancient Patriarchate of Antioch; these are spread throughout the plains of Syria and Western Mesopotamia, whereas the Maronites live principally on Mount Lebanon and the sea coast of Syria (see ASIA; EASTERN CHURCHES). The Syriac Mass and liturgy is, like the Maronite (which is but a variation of it), the Liturgy of St. James, Apostle and Bishop of Jerusalem. For this reason, but principally for the reason that Jacob Baradaeus and the greater part of the Syriac Church (see BARADAEUS, JACOB) embraced the Monophysite heresy of Eutyches (see MONOPHYSITES AND MONOPHYSITISM), the schismatic branch of this rite are called Jacobites, although they call themselves Suriani or Syrians. Thus we have in the three Syrian rites the historic remembrance of the three greatest heresies of the early Church after it had become well-developed. Nestorians and Chaldeans represent Nestorianism and the return to Catholicism; Jacobites and Syro-Catholics represent Monophysitism, and the return to Catholicism; the Maronites represent a vanished Monothelitism now wholly Catholic (see MONOTHELITISM AND MONOTHELITES). The Syro-Catholics like the Maronites vary the Ordinary of their Mass by a large number of anaphoras or canons of the Mass, containing changeable forms of the consecration service. The Syro-Catholics confine themselves to the anaphoras of St. John the Evangelist, St. James, St Peter, St. John Chrysostom, St. Xystus the Pope of Rome, St. Matthew, and St. Basil; but the schismatic Jacobites not only use these, but have a large number of others, some of them not yet in print, amounting perhaps to thirty or more (see SYRIA; SYRIAN RITE, EAST). The epistles, gospels, and many well-known prayers of the Mass are said in Arabic instead of the ancient Syriac. The form of their church vestments is derived substantially from the Greek or Byzantine Rite. Their church hierarchy in union with the Holy See consists of the Syrian Patriarch of Antioch with three archbishops (of Bagdad, Damascus, and Homs) and five bishops (of Aleppo, Beirut, Gezireh, Mardin-Diarbekir, and Mossul). The number of Catholics is about 25,000 families, and of the Jacobites about 80,000 to 85,000 persons.

There are about 60 persons of the Syro-Catholic Rite in the eastern part of the United States, of whom forty live in Brooklyn, New York. They are mostly from the Diocese of Aleppo, and their emigration thither began only about five years ago. They have organized a church, although there is but one priest of their rite in the United States, Rev. Paul Kassar from Aleppo, an alumnus of the Propaganda at Rome. He is a mission priest engaged in looking after his countrymen and resides in Brooklyn, but he is only here upon an extended leave of absence from the diocese. There are also some thirty or forty Syro-Jacobites in the United States; they are mostly from Mardin, Aleppo, and Northern Syria, and have no priest or chapel of their own.

(3) Coptic Rite

There is only a handful of Copts in this country -- in New York City perhaps a dozen individuals. Oriental theatrical pieces, in which an Eastern setting is required, has attracted some of them thither, principally from Egypt. They have no priest, either Catholic or Orthodox, and no place of worship. As to their Church and its organization, see EASTERN CHURCHES; EGYPT: V. Coptic Church.

I. ISSAVERDENZ, The Armenian Liturgy (Venice, 1873); IDEM, The Armenian Ritual (Venice, 1873); IDEM, The Sacred Rites and Ceremonies of the Armenian Church (Venice, 1888); PRINCE MAXIMILLAN, Missa Armenica (Ratisbon and New York, 1908); FORTESCUE, The Armenian Church (London, 1873); ASDVADZADOURIANTS, Armenian Liturgy, Armenian and English (London, 1887); BRIGHTMAN, Liturgies Eastern and Western (Oxford, 1896); NILLES, Kalendarium Manuale, II (Innsbruck, 1897); U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, Religious Bodies, pt. II (Washington, 1910).

III. DANDINI, Reisebemerkungen ueber die Maroniten (Jena, 1903); ISTAFAN-AL-DAWAIHI, A History of the Maronites (Beirut, 1890); NAU, Opuscules Maronites (Paris, 1899-1900); KOHLER, Die kathol. Kirchen des Morgenlandes (Darmstadt, 1896); PRINCE MAXIMILLAN, Missa Maronitica (Ratisbon and New York, 1907); AZAR, Les Maronites (Cambrai, 1852); ETHERRIDGE, The Syrian Churcha (London, 1879); SILBERNAGL, Verfassung u. gegenwaertiger Bestand saemtlicher Kirchen des Orients (Ratisbon, 1904).

ANDREW J. SHIPMAN

Ritschlianism

Ritschlianism is a peculiar conception of the nature and scope of Christianity, widely held in modern Protestantism, especially in Germany. Its founder was the Protestant theologian, Albrecht Ritschl (born at Berlin, 25 March, 1822; died at Göttingen, 20 March, 1889). Having completed his studies in the gymnasium at Stettin, where his father resided as general superintendent of Pomerania, Ritschl attended the University of Bonn, and was for a time captivated by the "Biblical supernaturalism" of his teacher, K.J. Nitzsch. Mental dissatisfaction caused him to leave Bonn in 1841, and he continued his studies under Julius Müller and Tholuck in the University of Halle, Disabused here also as to the teachings of his professors, he sought and found peace in the reconciliation doctrine of the Tübingen professor, Ferdinand Christian Baur, through whose writings he was won over to the philosophy of Hegel. On 21 May, 1843, he graduated Doctor of Philosophy at Halle with the dissertation, "Expositio doctrinæ Augustini de creatione mundi, peccato, gratia" (Halle, 1843). After a long residence in his parents' house at Stettin, he proceeded to Tübingen, and there entered into personal intercourse with the celebrated head of the (later) Tübingen School, Ferdinand Christian Baur. He here wrote, entirely in the spirit of this theologian, "Das Evangelium Marcions und das kanonische Evangelium des Lukas" (Tübingen, 1846), wherein he attempts to prove that the apocryphal gospel of the Gnostic Marcion forms the real foundation of the Gospel of St. Luke. Having qualified as Privatdocent at Bonn on 20 June, 1846, he was appointed professor extraordinary of Evangelical theology on 22 December, 1852, and ordinary professor on 10 July, 1859. Meanwhile he had experienced a radical change in the earlier views which he had formed under Baur's influence; this change removed him farther and farther from the Tübingen School.

In 1851 he had withdrawn his hypothesis concerning the origin of the Gospel of St. Luke as untenable, and in 1856 he had a public breach with Baur. Henceforth Ritschl was resolved to tread his own path. In the second edition of his "Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche" (Bonn, 1857; 1st ed., 1850), he rejected outright Baur's sharp distinction between St. Paul and the original Apostles — between Paulinism and Petrinism — by maintaining the thesis that the New Testament contains the religion of Jesus Christ in a manner entirely uniform and disturbed by no internal contradictions. At Göttingen, whither he was called at Easter, 1864, his peculiar ideas first found full realization in his "Die christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und Versöhnung" (3 vols., Bonn, 1870-4; 4th ed., 1895-1903). His practical conception of Christianity was described first in his lecture on "Christliche Vollkommenheit" (Göttingen, 1874; 3rd ed., 1902) and then in his "Unterricht in der christlichen Religion" (Bonn, 1875; 6th ed., 1903), which was intended as a manual for the gymnasium, but proved very unsatisfactory for practical purposes. In his small, but important, work, "Theologie und Metaphysik" (Bonn, 1881; 3rd ed., Göttingen, 1902), he denies the influence of philosophy in the formation of theology. In addition to numerous smaller writings, which were re-edited after his death under the title "Gesammelte Aufsätze" (2 vols., Göttingen, 1893-6), he compiled a "Geschichte des Pietismus" (3 vols., Bonn, 1880-6), based upon a wide study of the sources. Pietism itself, as it appeared in Calvinistic and Lutheran circles during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries he condemns as an abortion of modern Protestantism caused by the false Catholic ideal of piety. His last and incomplete, "Fides implicita, oder eine Tintersuchung über Köhlerglauben, Wissen und Glauben, Glauben und Kirche" Bonn, 1890), appeared shortly after his death. After 1888 he suffered from heart disease, of which he died in the following year. Although Ritschl was violently attacked during his lifetime not only by the orthodox party, but also by the Erlangen school named after Hofmann, he attached to himself a large circle of enthusiastic followers with Liberal leanings, who are included under the name of Ritschlianists. The literary organs of Ritschlianism in Germany are the "Theologische Literaturzeitung", the "Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche", and the "Christliche Welt".

To understand and rightly appraise the rather abstruse train of thought in the doctrine of justification, which constitutes the focus of Ritschl's theological system, we must go back to the epistemology on which the whole edifice rests. Influenced by the philosophy of Kant rather than of Lotze, Ritschl denies human reason the power to arrive at a scientific knowledge of God. Consequently religion cannot have an intellectual, but merely a practical-moral foundation. Religious knowledge is essentially distinct from scientific knowledge. It is not acquired by a theoretical insight into truth, but, as the product of religious faith, is bound up with the practical interests of the soul. Religion is practice, not theory. Knowledge and faith are not only distinct domains; they are independent of and separated from each other. While knowledge rests on judgments of existence (Seinsurteile), faith proceeds on independent "judgments of value" (Werturteile), which affirm nothing concerning the essence or nature of Divine things, but refer simply to the usefulness and fruitfulness of religious ideas. Anticipating to some extent the principles of Pragmatism put forward in a later generation by W. James, Schiller, etc., Ritschl declared that knowledge alone valuable which in practice brings us forward. Not what the thing is "in itself", but what it is "for us", is decisive. So far Ritschl is not original, since Schleiermacher had already banished metaphysics from Christian philosophy, and had explained the nature of religion subjectively as springing from the feeling of our absolute dependence on God. Ritschl's teaching is distinguished from that of the Berlin scholar especially by the fact that he seeks to establish a better Biblical and historical foundation for his ideas. In the latter respect he is the promoter of the so-called historical-critical method, of the application of which many Ritschlianists of the present day are thorough masters.

Like Schleiermacher, Ritschl connects mankind's subjective need of redemption with Jesus Christ, the "originator of the perfect spiritual and moral religion". Since we can determine the historical reality of Christ only though the faith of the Christian community, the religious significance of Jesus is really independent of His biography and investigation into His life. A convinced Ritschlianist seems to be ready to persevere in his Christianity, even though radical criticism were to succeed in setting aside the historical existence of Christ. He could be a Christian without Christ, as there could be a Tibetan Buddhist without an historical Buddha (cf. "Christliche Welt", 1901, n. 35). Ritschl himself never wished to separate Christianity from the Person of Christ. Since, as Ritschl especially emphasizes in reply to Baur, the original consciousness of the early Christian community reveals itself with perfect consistency in the writings of the New Testament, theology must in its investigation of the authentic contents of the Christian religion begin with the Bible as source, for the more thorough understanding of which the ancient Christian professions of faith furnish an indirect, and the symbolical books of Protestants (Luther) a direct, guidance. The Reformation rightly elevated the Pauline justification by faith to the central place in Christian doctrine, and in the West carried it to a successful conclusion. As the necessary doctrine of salvation through Christ, this doctrine of justification is thus alone obligatory for theology and Church, while the other convictions and institutions of the earliest Christian community are of a subsidiary nature. For this reason, therefore, Luther himself recognized the Bible as the Word of God only in so far as it "makes for Christ". Since the Christian faith exists only through personal experience or subjective acquaintance with justification and reconciliation, the objects of faith are not presented to the mind from without through a Divine revelation as an authoritative rule of faith, but become vividly present for the Christian only through subjective experience. The revelation of God is given only to the believer who religiously lays hold of it by experience, and recognizes it as such.

Justifying faith especially is no mere passive attitude of man towards God, but an active trust in Him and His grace, evincing itself chiefly in humility, patience, and prayer. It is by no means a dogmatical belief in the truth of Revelation, but it possesses essentially a thoroughly practico-moral character. Ritschlianism can thus speak without any inconsistency of an "undogmatic Christianity" (Kaftan). The harmonizing of the free-religious moral activity of the Christian with dependence on God is proclaimed by Ritschl the "master-question of theology". This fundamental problem he solves as follows: The returning sinner is at first passively determined by God, whereupon justification achieves its practical success in reconciliation and regeneration, which in their turn lead to Christian activity. Justification and reconciliation are so related that the former is also the forgiveness of sin and as such removes man's consciousness of guilt (i.e., mistrust of God), while the latter, as the cessation of active resistance to God, introduces a new direction of the will calculated to develop Christian activity in the true fulfilment of one's vocation. These two — justification and reconciliation — form the basis of our sonship as children of God. This justification identical with forgiveness of sin is however, no real annihilation of sin, but a forensic declaration of righteousness, inasmuch as God regards the believing sinner, in spite of his sins, as just and pleasing in consideration of the work of Christ.

A special characteristic of Ritschlianism lies in the assertion that justifying faith is possible only within the Christian community. The Church of Christ (by which, however, is to be understood no external institution with legal organization) is on the one hand the aggregate of all the justified believers, but on the other hand has, as the enduring fruit of the work of Christ, a duration and existence prior to all its members just as the whole is prior to its parts. Like the children in the family and the citizens in the state, the believers must also be born in an already existing Christian community. In this alone is God preached as the Spirit of Love, just as Jesus Himself preached, and in this alone, through the preaching of Christ and His work, is that justifying faith rendered possible, in virtue of which the individual experiences regeneration and attains to adoption as a son of God (cf. Conrad, "Begriff und Bedeutung der Gemeinde in Ritschl's Theologie" in "Theol. Studien und Krit.", 1911, 230 sqq.). It is plain that, according to this view, Christian baptism loses all its importance as the real door to the Church.

What is Ritschl's opinion of Jesus Christ? Does he consider Him a mere man? If we set aside the pious flourishes with which he clothes the form of the Saviour, we come speedily to the conviction that he does not recognize the true Divinity of Jesus Christ. As the efficacious bearer and transmitter of the Divine Spirit of Love to mankind Jesus is "superordinate" to all men, and has in the eternal decree of God a merely ideal pre-existence. He is therefore, as for the earliest community so also for us, our "God and Saviour" only in the metaphorical sense. All other theological questions — such as the Trinity, the metaphysical Divine sonship of Christ, original sin, eschatology — possess an entirely secondary importance. This self-limitation is specially injurious to the doctrine concerning God: all the Divine attributes, except such as are practico-moral, are set aside as unknowable. The essence of God is love, to which all His other attributes may be traced. Thus, His omnipotence is another phase of love inasmuch as the world is nothing else than the means for the establishment of the Kingdom of God. Even the Divine justice ends in love, especially in God's fidelity to the chosen people in the Old Testament and to the Christian community in the New. Every other explanation of the relation between the just God and sinful mankind — such as the juridical doctrine of satisfaction taught by St. Anselm of Canterbury — is called by Ritschl "sub-Christian". Only the sin against the Holy Ghost, which renders man incapable of salvation, calls forth the anger of God and hurls him into everlasting damnation. Other evils decreed by God are not punishments for sin, but punishments intended for our instruction and improvement. Sin being conceivable only as personal guilt, the idea of original sin is morally inconceivable.

Although Ritschlianism has undergone manifold alterations and developments in one direction or another at the hands of its learned representatives (Harnack, Kaftan, Bender, Sell, and so on), it has remained unchanged in its essential features. The Liberal and modern-positive theology of Germany is distinctly coloured with Ritschlianism, and the efforts of orthodox Protestantism to combat it have met with poor success. More than a decade ago Adolf Zahn ("Abriss einer Geschichte der evangelischen Kirche im 19. Jahrhundert", 3rd ed., Stuttgart, 1893) passed the sharp judgment on Ritschlianism, that it was "a rationalist scepticism and Pelagian moralism, vainly decked out in the truths of the Reformers, the threadbare garment of Lutheranism, for purposes of deceit; the clearest sign of the complete exhaustion and impoverishment of Protestantism, which at the end of the nineteenth century again knows no more than the common folk have ever known: 'Do right and fear no man'." The Catholic critic will probably see in the scorn for metaphysics and the elimination of the intellectual factor the chief errors of Ritschlian theology. The separation of faith and knowledge, of theology and metaphysics, has indeed a long and gloomy history behind it. The philosophy of the Renaissance, with its doctrine of the "double truth" erected the first separating wall between faith and knowledge; this division was increased by Spinoza, when he assigned to faith the rôle of concerning itself with pia dogmata, but entrusted to philosophy alone the investigation of truth. Finally appeared Kant, who cut the last threads which still held together theology and metaphysics. By denying the demonstrability of the existence of God through reason, he consistently effected the complete segregation of faith and knowledge into two "separate households". In this he was followed by Schleiermacher and Ritschl. Since recent Modernism, with its Agnosticism and Immanentism, adopts the same attitude, it is, whether avowedly or not, the death-knell not only of Christianity, but of every objective religion. Consequently, the regulations of Pius X against Modernism represent a contest in which the vital interests of the Catholic religion are at stake. As the foremost champion of the powers and rights of reason in its relations with faith, Catholicism is the defender of the law of causality which leads to the knowledge of metaphysical and Divine truths, the guardian of a constant, eternal, and unalterable truth, and the outspoken foe of every form of Scepticism, Criticism, Relativism, and Pragmatism — always in the interests of Christianity itself, since, without a rational foundation and substructure, Revelation and faith would hang unsupported in the air. In this statement the Catholic opposition to Ritschlianism in one of the most fundamental points of difference is sufficiently characterized.

O. RITSCHL, Albert Ritschl's Leben (Leipzig, 1892-6). Concerning the system Consult: FRICKE, Metaphysik u. Dogmatik in ihrem gegenseitigen Verhältnis unter besonderer Beziehung auf die Ritschl'sche Theologie (Leipzig, 1882); THICOTTER, Darstellung u. Beurteilung der Theologie A. Ritschl's (Leipzig, 1887); FLÜGEL, A. Ritschl's philosoph. Ansichten (Langensalza, 1886); LIPSIUS, Die Ritschl'sche Theologie (Leipzig, 1888); HÄRING, Zu Ritschl's Versöhnungslehre (Zurich, 1888); HERRMANN, Der evangel. Glaube u. die Theologie A. Ritschl's (Marburg, 1890); PFLEIDERER, Die Ritschl'sche Theologie (Brunswick, 1891); BERTRAND, Une nouvelle conception de la Rédemption. La doctrine de la justification et de la réconciliation dans le système théologique de Ritschl (Paris, 1891); GOYAU, L'Allemagne religieuse (Paris, 1897), 94 sqq.; GARVIE, The Ritschlian Theology (Edinburgh, 1899); KATTENBUSCH, Von Schleiermacher zu Ritschl (Halle, 1903); SCHOEN, Les origines histor. de la théol. de Ritschl (Paris, 1893); FABRE, Les principes philosophiques de la théol. de Ritschl (Paris, 1894); VON KUGELCHEN, Grundriss der Ritschl'schen Dogmatik (Göttingen, 1903); SWING, The Theology of A. Ritschl (New York, l901); FABRICIUS, Die Entwickelung in R.'s Theol. von 1874-1889 (Leipzig, 1909); HERRMANN, tr. MATHESON AND STEWART, Faith and Morals: I. Faith as Ritschl Defined it; II. The Moral Law, as Understood in Romanism and Protestantism (London, 1910). Cf. also SANDAY, Christologies Ancient and Modern (Oxford, 1910), 81 sqq. For refutation consult: STRANGE, Der dogmatische Ertrag der Ritschl'schen Theologie nach Kaftan (Leipzig, 1906); SCHÄDER, Theozentrische Theologie, I (Leipzig, 1909); EDGHILL, Faith and Fact, A Study of Ritschlianism (London, 1910) (a fundamental work). See also: O. RITSCHL in Realencykl. für prot. Theol. (Leipzig, 1906), s. v. Ritschl, Albrecht Benjamin; American Journal of Theol. (Chicago, 1906), 423 sqq.; KIEFL, Der geschichtl. Christus u. die moderne Philosophie (Mainz, 1911), 51 sqq.

JOSEPH POHLE

Joseph Ignatius Ritter

Historian, b. at Schweinitz, Silesia, 12 April, 1787; d. at Breslau, 5 Jan., 1857. He pursued his philosophical and theological studies at the University of Breslau, was ordained priest in 1811, and for several years was engaged in pastoral work. An annotated translation of St. John Chrysostom's treatise on the priesthood not only obtained for him the doctorate in theology, but also attracted the attention of the Prussian ministry, which in 1823 named him ordinary professor of church history and patrology at the University of Bonn. Here he made the acquaintance of Hermes, and became favorably disposed towards his system. He was in 1830 named professor and canon at Breslau. As administrator of this diocese (1840-43), he atoned for his earlier Hermesian tendencies by his fearless Catholic policy, notably in the question of mixed marriages. Later he published tracts defending the Church against the attacks of Ronge, the founder of the so-called German Catholics. Also worthy of commendation is his beneficence, exercised particularly towards deserving students. His principal writings which bear on church history and canon law are: "Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte" Elberfeld and Bonn, 1826-33; sixth edition by Ennen, Bonn, 1862; "Irenicon oder Briefe zur Förderung des Friedens zwischen Kirche u. Staat", Leipzig, 1840; "Der Capitularvicar", Münster, 1842; "Geschichte der Diöcese Breslau", Breslau, 1845. With J. W. J. Braun he brought out a new edition of Pellicia's work, "De Christianae ecclesiae politia", Cologne, 1829-38.

BELLAMY, La Theologie Cath. au XIXe siecle (Paris, 1904), 36.

N.A. WEBER

Ritual

The Ritual (Rituale Romanum) is one of the official books of the Roman Rite. It contains all the services performed by a priest that are not in the Missal and Breviary and has also, for convenience, some that are in those books. It is the latest and still the least uniform book of our rite.

When first ritual functions were written in books, the Sacramentary in the West, the Euchologion in the East contained all the priest's (and bishop's) part of whatever functions they performed, not only the holy Liturgy in the strict sense, but all other sacraments, blessings, sacramentals, and rites of every kind as well. The contents of our Ritual and Pontifical were in the Sacramentaries. In the Eastern Churches this state of things still to a great extent remains. In the West a further development led to the distinction of books, not according to the persons who use them, but according to the services for which they are used. The Missal, containing the whole Mass, succeeded the Sacramentary. Some early Missals added other rites, for the convenience of the priest or bishop; but on the whole this later arrangement involved the need of other books to supply the non-Eucharistic functions of the Sacramentary. These books, when they appeared, were the predecessors of our Pontifical and Ritual. The bishop's functions (ordination, confirmation, etc.) filled the Pontifical, the priest's offices (baptism, penance, matrimony, extreme unction, etc.) were contained in a great variety of little handbooks, finally replaced by the Ritual.

The Pontifical emerged first. The book under this name occurs already in the eighth century (Pontifical of Egbert). From the ninth there is a multitude of Pontificals. For the priest's functions there was no uniform book till 1614. Some of these are contained in the Pontificals; often the chief ones were added to Missals and Books of Hours. Then special books were arranged, but there was no kind of uniformity in arrangement or name. Through the Middle Ages a vast number of handbooks for priests having the care of souls was written. Every local rite, almost every diocese, had such books; indeed many were compilations for the convenience of one priest or church. Such books were called by many names-- Manuale, Liber agendarum, Agenda, Sacramentale, sometimes Rituale. Specimens of such medieval predecessors of the Ritual are the Manuale Curatorum of Roeskilde in Denmark (first printed 1513, ed. J. Freisen, Paderborn, 1898), and the Liber Agendarum of Schleswig (printed 1416, Paderborn, 1898). The Roeskilde book contains the blessing of salt and water, baptism, marriage, blessing of a house, visitation of the sick with viaticum and extreme unction, prayers for the dead, funeral service, funeral of infants, prayers for pilgrims, blessing of fire on Holy Saturday, and other blessings. The Schleswig book has besides much of the Holy Week services, and that for All Souls, Candlemas, and Ash Wednesday. In both many rites differ from the Roman forms.

In the sixteenth century, while the other liturgical books were being revised and issued as a uniform standard, there was naturally a desire to substitute an official book that should take the place of these varied collections. But the matter did not receive the attention of the Holy See itself for some time. First, various books were issued at Rome with the idea of securing uniformity, but without official sanction. Albert Castellani in 1537 published a Sacerdotale of this kind; in 1579 at Venice another version appeared, arranged by Grancesco Samarino, Canon of the Lateran; it was re-edited in 1583 by Angelo Rocca. In 1586 Giulio Antonio Santorio, Cardinal of St. Severina, printed a handbook of rites for the use of priests, which, as Paul V says, "he had composed after long study and with much industry and labor" (Apostolicæ Sedis). This book is the foundation of our Roman Ritual. In 1614 Paul V published the first edition of the official Ritual by the Constitution "Apostolicæ Sedis" of 17 June. In this he points out that Clement VIII had already issued a uniform text of the Pontifical and the Cærimoniale Episcoporum, which determines the functions of many other ecclesiastics besides bishops. (That is still the case. The Cærimoniale Episcoporum forms the indispensable complement of other liturgical books for priests too.) "It remained", the pope continues, "that the sacred and authentic rites of the Church, to be observed in the administration of sacraments and other ecclesiastical functions by those who have the care of souls, should also be included in one book and published by authority of the Apostolic See; so that they should carry out their office according to a public and fixed standard, instead of following so great a multitude of Rituals".

But, unlike the other books of the Roman Rite, the Ritual has never been imposed as the only standard. Paul V did not abolish all other collections of the same kind, nor command every one to use only his book. He says: "Wherefore we exhort in the Lord" that it should be adopted. The result of this is that the old local Rituals have never been altogether abolished. After the appearance of the Roman edition these others were gradually more and more conformed to it. They continued to be used, but had many of their prayers and ceremonies modified to agree with the Roman book. This applies especially to the rites of baptism, Holy Communion, the form of absolution, extreme unction. The ceremonies also contained in the Missal (holy water, the processions of Candlemas and Palm Sunday, etc.), and the prayers also in the Breviary (the Office for the Dead) are necessarily identical with those of Paul V's Ritual; these have the absolute authority of the Missal and Breviary. On the other hand, many countries have local customs for marriage, the visitation of the sick, etc., numerous special blessings, processions and sacramentals not found in the Roman book, still printed in various diocesan Rituals. It is then by no means the case that every priest of the roman Rite uses the Roman Ritual. Very many dioceses or provinces still have their own local handbooks under the name of Rituale or another (Ordo administrandi sacramenta, etc.), though all of these conform to the Roman text in the chief elements. Most contain practically all the Roman book, and have besides local additions.

The further history of the Rituale Romanum is this: Benedict XIV in 1752 revised it, together with the Pontifical and Cærimoniale Episcoporum. His new editions of these three books were published by the Brief "Quam ardenti" (25 March, 1752), which quotes Paul V's Constitution at length and is printed, as far as it concerns this book, in the beginning of the Ritual. He added to Paul V's text two forms for giving the papal blessing (V, 6; VIII, 31). Meanwhile a great number of additional blessings were added in an appendix. This appendix is now nearly as long as the original book. Under the title Benedictionale Romanum it is often issued separately. Leo XIII approved an editio typica published by Pustet at Ratisbon in 1884. This is now out of date. The Ritual contains several chants (for processions, burials, Office of the Dead, etc.). These should be conformable to the Motu Proprio of Pius X of 22 Nov., 1903, and the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites of 8 Jan., 1904. All the Catholic liturgical publishers now issue editions of this kind, approved by the Congregation.

The Rituale Romanum is divided into ten "titles" (tituli); all, except the first, subdivided into chapters. In each (except I and X) the first chapter gives the general rules for the sacrament or function, the others give the exact ceremonies and prayers for various cases of administration. Titulus I (caput unicum) is "of the things to be observed in general in the administration of sacraments"; II, About baptism, chap. vi gives the rite when a bishop baptizes, vii the blessing of the font, not on Holy Saturday or Whitsun Eve; III, Penance and absolutions from excommunication; IV, Administration of Holy Communion (not during Mass); V, Extreme Unction, the seven penitential psalms, litany, visitation and care of the dying, the Apostolic blessing, commendation of a departing soul; VI, Of funerals, Office of the Dead, absolutions at the grave on later days, funerals of infants; VII, Matrimony and churching of women; VII, Blessings of holy water, candles, houses (on Holy Saturday), and many others; then blessings reserved to bishops and priests who have special faculties, such as those of vestments, ciboriums, statues, foundation stones, a new church (not, of course, the consecration, which is in the Pontifical), cemeteries, etc.; IX, Processions, for Candlemas, Palm Sunday, Rogation Days, Corpus Christi, etc.; X, Exorcism and forms for filling up parochial books (of baptism, confirmation, marriage, status animarum, the dead). The blessings of tit. VIII are the old ones of the Ritual. The appendix that follows tit. X contains additional forms for blessing baptism water, for confirmation as administered by a missionary priest, decrees about Holy Communion and the "Forty Hours" devotion, the litanies of Loreto and the Holy Name. Then follow a long series of blessings, not reserved; reserved to bishops and priests they delegate, reserved to certain religious orders; then more blessings (novissim) and a second appendix containing yet another collection. These appendixes grow continually. As soon as the Sacred Congregation of Rites approves a new blessing it is added to the next edition of the Ritual.

The Milanese Rite has its own ritual (Rituale Ambrosianum, published by Giacomo Agnelli at the Archiepiscopal Press, Milan). In the Byzantine Rite the contents of our ritual are contained in the Euchologion. The Armenians have a ritual (Mashdotz) like ours. Other schismatical Churches have not yet arranged the various parts of this book in one collection. But nearly all the Eastern Catholics now have Rituals formed on the Roman model (see LITURGICAL BOOKS, IV).

BARUFFALDI, Ad rituale romanum commentaria (Venice, 1731); CATALANI, Rituale romanum . . . perpetuis commentariis exornatum (Rome, 1757); ZACCARIA, Bibliotheca Ritualis (Rome, 1776); THALHOFER, Handbuch der kath. Liturgik, II (Freiburg, 1893), 509-36.

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

Ritualists

The word "Ritualists" is the term now most commonly employed to denote that advanced section of the High Church party in the Anglican Establishment, which since about 1860 has adhered to and developed further the principles of the earlier Tractarian Movement. Although this designation is one that is not adopted but rather resented by the persons to whom it is applied, it cannot exactly be called a nickname. "Ritualism" in the middle of the nineteenth century not uncommonly meant the study or practice of ritual, i. e. ecclesiastical ceremonial; while those who favoured ritualism were apt to be called "ritualists". For example, the Rev. J. Jebb, in a publication of 1856 entitled "The Principle of Ritualism Defended", defines ritualism equivalently as "a sober and chastened regard for the outward accessories of worship", and insists further that "we need something more than a lawyer's mind to examine fairly ecclesiastical questions. The Church requires that divines and ritualists should be called into counsel". It was only some time later, about 1865 or 1866, that the word came to be used as the name of a party and was printed with a capital letter.

Unlike many other party names which have grown up in the course of controversy, the word "Ritualists" does very fairly indicate the original, if not the most fundamental, characteristic which has divided those so designated from their fellow-High-Churchmen. The movement headed by Newman and his friends had been primarily doctrinal. Pusey always stated that the leaders had rather discouraged as too conspicuous anything in the way of ceremonies, fearing that they might awaken prejudice and divert attention from more important issues. Nevertheless the sympathies awakened for the traditions of a Catholic past, and especially the revival of faith in the Real Presence and the Eucharistic Sacrifice, could not fail in the long run to produce an effect upon the externals of worship. Many of the followers were more venturous than the leaders approved. Moreover, the conversion of Newman and other prominent Tractarians, while somewhat breaking up the party and arresting the progress of events at Oxford, had only transferred the movement to the parish churches throughout the country, where each incumbent was in a measure free to follow his own light and to act for himself. The Rev. W. J. E. Bennett, Vicar of St. Paul's, Knightsbridge, became notorious for a number of innovations in ritual, notably in such details as the use of altar lights, cross, and coverings which brought him into conflict with his bishop (in 1850) and led in the end to his resigning his benefice. In 1859 still greater sensation was caused by the "Romish" ceremonial of the Rev. Bryan King at St: George's in the East. The roughs of the district, with some violent Evangelicals, for months together continued to interrupt the services with brawling and rioting. The English Church Union, however, founded at about this period to defend the interests of the High Church movement, lent effective aid, and public opinion turned against the authors of these disturbances.

During the years that followed ceremonial innovations, imitating more and more pronouncedly the worship of the Catholic Church, spread throughout the country. A regular campaign was carried on, organized on the one side by the English Church Union and on the other by the Church Association, which latter was called into existence in 1865 and earned amongst its opponents the nickname of the "Persecution Company Limited". The lovers of ornate ceremonial were for the most part sincerely convinced that they were loyal to the true principles of Anglicanism, and that they were rightly insisting on the observance of the letter of the law embodied in the so-called "Ornaments Rubric", which stands at the head of the Morning Service in the Book of Common Prayer. It could not of course be denied that the practices which the Tractarians were introducing had long been given up in the Church of England. But though these had fallen completely into abeyance, the party contended that the letter of the Prayer Book made it a duty to revive them. It may be said indeed that it is round the Ornaments Rubric that the whole ritualistic controversy has turned down to the present day. For this reason a somewhat full account of it is indispensable.

The first Prayer Book of Edward VI, which came into use on 9 June, 1549, has the following rubric at the beginning of the Mass: "Upon the day and at the time appointed for the administration of the Holy Communion, the Priest that shall execute the holy ministry shall put upon him the vesture appointed for that ministration, that is to say a white Alb plain, with a Vestment or Cope." This first Prayer Book of Edward VI remained in use for three years when it was supplanted by the second Prayer Book of Edward VI (1 Nov., 1552). In this, under the influences of Continental reformers, the rubric just quoted was expunged and the following substituted: "And here is to be noted that the Minister at the time of the Communion, and at all other times in his ministration, shall use neither Albae, Vestment or Cope". After the accession of Elizabeth a revised Prayer Book was issued in 1559, which contained the rubric in the following form: "And here it is to be noted that the minister at the time of the Communion and at all other times in his ministration shall use such ornaments in the Church as were in use by authority of Parliament in the second year of the reign of King Edward VI according to the Act of Parliament set in the beginning of the book." In spite of a brief suppression under the Long Parliament and during the Commonwealth, the same rubric was restored in substantially identical terms in the Prayer Book of 1662 which remains in force to-day. Now it must not of course be forgotten that the word "ornaments" is used in a technical sense which has been defined by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to include "all the several articles used in the performance of the rites and services of the Church". Vestments, books, cloths, chalices, and patens must be regarded as church ornaments. In modern times even organs and bells are held to fall under this denomination. Further there can be no doubt that if the reference to the second year of Edward VI be strictly interpreted, much Catholic ceremonial was then still retained embracing such adjuncts as lights, incense, vestments, crosses, etc. There is considerable controversy regarding the precise meaning of the rubric, but, however we regard it, it certainly gives much more latitude to the lovers of ritual than was recognized by the practice of the English Church in 1850.

Although of recent years the innovators have gone far beyond those usages which could by any possibility be covered by a large interpretation of the Ornaments Rubric, it seems clear that in the beginning the new school of clergy founded themselves upon this and were not exactly accused of doing what was illegal. Their position, a position recognized in 1851 by the bishops themselves, was rather that of wishing "to restore an unusual strictness of ritual observance". Their tendencies no doubt were felt to be "popish", but they were primarily censured by the Protestant party as "ultra-rubricians". The first appeal to legal tribunals in the Westerton v. Liddell case (Mr. Liddell was the successor of Mr. Bennett) terminated, after appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, substantially in favour of the Ritualists. It was decided that the Ornaments Rubric did establish the legality of a credence table, coloured frontals and altar coverings, candlesticks and a cross above the holy table. This gave confidence to the party in other directions and between the years 1857 and 1866 there was a considerable extension of ritual usages such as the Eucharistic vestments, altar lights, flowers, and incense, while the claim was generally made that they were all perfectly lawful.

With the year 1866 began a period of almost incessant controversy. Six specific practices, known as the "Six Points", were about this time recognized as constituting the main features in the claims of the less extreme Ritualists. They were:

• (1) the eastward position (i. e. that by which the minister in consecrating turns his back to the people);
• (2) the use of incense;
• (3) the use of altar lights;
• (4) the mixed chalice;
• (5) the use of vestments;
• (6) the use of wafer bread.

A committee of the Lower House of Convocation in 1866 expressed a strong opinion that most of these things should not be introduced into parish churches without reference to the bishop. A royal commission followed (1867-70), but came to no very clear or unanimous decision except as regards the inexpediency of tolerating any vesture which departs from what had long been the established usage of the English Church. Meanwhile the Dean of Arches, and, after appeal, the Privy Council delivered judgment in the Mackonochie case and between them decided against the legality of the elevation, use of incense, altar lights, ceremonially mixed chalice and against any position of the minister which would hide the manual acts from the communicants. Even more important was the judgement of the same Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the Purchas Case (Ap. 1871), which besides confirming these previous decisions, even as against the opinion of the Dean of Arches, declared in more unequivocal terms the illegality of wafer-bread and of all Eucharistic vestments.

The reaction among the High Church party against this sweeping condemnation was considerable, and it is probably true that much of the strong feeling which has existed ever since against the Judicial Committee as a court of appeal is traceable to this cause, Many of the Ritualists not only refuse to acknowledge the jurisdiction of a secular court in church matters but they declare themselves justified in withholding obedience from their bishops as long as the bishops are engaged in enforcing its decrees. The passing of the Public Worship Regulation Act in 1874 which, as Disraeli stated in Parliament was meant "to put down the Ritualists", seems only to have led to increased litigation, and the Risdale judgment in 1877 by which the Committee of the Privy Council, after elaborate argument by counsel on either side, reconsidered the question of Eucharistic vestments and the eastward position, reaffirming the condemnation of the former but pronouncing the latter to be lawful, providing that it did not render the manual acts invisible to the congregation gave encouragement to the Ritualists by showing that earlier decisions were not irreversible. In any case there were no signs of any greater disposition to submit to authority. The committal of four clergymen to prison in the years 1878-81 for disobedience to the order of the courts whose jurisdiction they challenged, only increased the general irritation and unrest. In 1888 came another sensation. Proceedings were taken before the Archbishop of Canterbury, sitting with episcopal assessors against Dr. King, Bishop of Lincoln, for various ritualistic practices. In his judgment subsequently confirmed by the Privy Council Archbishop Benson sanctioned under carefully defined conditions the eastward position, mixed chalice, altar lights, the ablutions, and the singing of the Agnus Dei, but forbade the signing of the cross in the air when giving the absolution and the benediction.

Naturally the effect of these alternate relaxations and restrictions was not favourable to the cause of sober uniformity. The movement went on. The bishops had probably grown a little weary in repressing an energy which was much more full of conviction than their own, and in the years which followed, especially in the Diocese of London, under Bishop Temple, a large measure of licence seems to have been granted or at any rate taken. The rapid spread of "romanizing" practices, though in their extreme form they were confined to a comparatively small number of churches, began to attract general attention, while causing profound uneasiness to Evangelicals and Nonconformists. In 1898 Sir William Harcourt started a vigorous campaign against ritualistic lawlessness by a series of letters in the "Times", and almost concurrently Mr. John Kensit and his followers appealed to another phase of public opinion by their organized interruptions of the services in the churches they disapproved of. It was felt once again that something must be done and this time the remedy took the form of the so-called "Lambeth Hearings", when the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, after listening to legal and expert argument, delivered a joint "opinion upon certain burning questions, to wit

• (a) the use of incense and processional lights, and
• (b) the practice of reservation.

On 31 July, 1899, they jointly pronounced the use of incense to be inadmissible, and on 1 May, 1900, in two independent "opinions", they concurred in forbidding any form of reservation of the consecrated elements. Very little was effected by this or by a series of Church Discipline Bills which were introduced into Parliament, but which died stillborn. Consequently in 1904 a royal commission was appointed "to inquire into the alleged prevalence of breaches or neglect of the Law relating to the conduct of Divine Service in the Church of England and to the ornaments and fittings of churches." The commission, after collecting an immense mass of evidence from ecclesiastics and laymen of every shade of opinion, not forgetting the agents employed by the Church Association to keep watch on the services in ritualistic churches, issued a voluminous report in 1906.

Although the commission has accomplished little more than the propounding of certain suggestions regarding the reconstitution of the ecclesiastical courts, suggestions which have not yet been acted upon, the "Report" is a document of the highest importance for the evidence which it contains of the developments of Ritualism. The commissioners single out certain practices which they condemn as being graver in character and of a kind that demand immediate suppression. No doubt the numerical proportion of the churches in which the clergy go to these lengths is small, but the number seems to be increasing. The practices censured as of special gravity and significance, are the following: "The interpolation of prayers and ceremonies belonging to the Canon of the Mass. The use of the words 'Behold the Lamb of God' accompanied by the exhibition of a consecrated wafer or bread. Reservation of the sacrament under conditions which lead to its adoration. Mass of the presanctified. Corpus Christi processions with the sacrament. Benediction with the sacrament. Celebration of the Holy Eucharist with the intent that there should be no communicant except the celebrant. Hymns, prayers and devotions involving invocation or a confession to the Blessed Virgin or the saints. The observance of the festivals of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of the Sacred Heart. The veneration of images and roods." These practices are described as having an exceptional character because they are at once

• (1) in flagrant contradiction with the teaching of the Articles and Prayer Book;
• (2) they are illegal, and
• (3) their illegality does not depend upon any judgment of the Privy Council.

Similar objection is taken to any observance of All Souls' Day or of the festival of Corpus Christi which implies the "Romish" doctrine concerning purgatory or transubstantiation.

But while it is quite true that the number of churches in which these extremes are practised is small, it is important to remember that private oratories,, communities, and sisterhoods, which last commonly follow forms of devotion and ritual which cannot externally be distinguished from those prevailing in the Catholic Church were not in any way touched by these investigations of the commissioners. It is in such strongholds that the ritualistic spirit is nurtured and propagated, and there is as yet no sign that the feeling which animated this revival of the religious life is less earnest than of yore.

Again everything seems to point to the conclusion that if extreme practices have not spread more widely this is due less to any distaste for such practices in themselves than to a shrinking from the unpleasantness engendered by open conflict with ecclesiastical authority. Where comparative impunity has been secured, as for example by the ambiguity of the Ornaments Rubric, a notable and increasing proportion of the clergy have advanced to the very limits of what was likely to be tolerated in the way of ritualistic development. It has been stated by Archbishop Davidson that before 1850 the use of vestments in a public church was known hardly anywhere. In 1901 carefully compiled statistics showed that Eucharistic vestments of some kind (other than the stole authorized by long tradition) were used in no less than 1526 churches of the provinces of York and Canterbury, that is about twelve per cent of the whole; and the number has increased since. A slighter but not altogether contemptible indication of the drift of opinion when unchecked by authority is to be found in the familiar "Roman collar". Less than fifty years ago, at the time of the "Roman aggression" it was regarded in England as the distinctive feature of the dress of a Catholic priest, an article which by its very name manifested its proper usage. Not long afterwards it was gradually adopted by certain High Church clergymen of an extreme type. At the present day it is the rule rather than the exception among English ecclesiastics of all shades of opinion, not excepting even the Nonconformists.

With regard to the present position and principles of the Ritualists we shall probably do well with Monsignor R. H. Benson (Non-Catholic Denominations, pp. 29-58) to recognize a distinction between two separate schools of thought, the moderate and the extreme. On the one hand all the members of this party seem to agree in recognizing the need of some more immediate court of appeal to settle disputed questions of dogma and ritual than can be afforded by the "Primitive Church" which the early Tractarians were content to invoke in their difficulties. On the other hand while both sections of the Ritualists are in search of a "Living Voice" to guide them, or at any rate of some substitute for that Living Voice, they have come to supply the need in two quite different ways. To the moderate Ritualists it has seemed sufficient to look back to the Book of Common Prayer. This, it is urged, was drawn up in full view of the situation created by "Roman abuses", and though it was not intended to be a complete and final guide in every detail of doctrine and discipline, the fact that it was originally issued to men already trained in Catholic principles, justifies us in supplying deficiencies by setting a Catholic interpretation upon all doubtful points and omissions. The Ritualist of this school, who of course firmly believes in the continuity of his Church with the Church of England before the Reformation, thinks it his duty to "behave and teach as a Marian priest, conforming under Elizabeth, would have behaved and taught when the Prayer Book was first put into his hands: he must supply the lacunœ and carry out the imperfect directions in as 'Catholic' a manner as possible" (Benson, op. cit., p. 32). Thus interpreted, the Prayer Book supplies a standard by which the rulings of bishops and judicial committees may be measured, and, if necessary, set aside; for the bishops themselves are no less bound by the Prayer Book than are the rest of the clergy, and no command of a bishop need be obeyed if it transgress the directions of this higher written authority. The objections to which this solution of the difficulty is open must be sufficiently obvious. Clearly the text of this written authority itself needs interpretation and it must seem to the unprejudiced mind that upon contested points the interpretation of the bishops and other officials of the Establishment is not only better authorized than that of the individual Ritualist, but that in almost every case the interpretation of the latter in view of the Articles, canons, homilies, and other official utterances is strained and unnatural. Moreover there is the undeniable fact of desuetude. To appeal to such an ordinance as the "Ornaments Rubric" as evidently binding, after it has been in practice neglected by all orders of the Church for nearly three hundred years, is contrary to all ecclesiastical as well as civil presumptions in matters of external observance.

The extreme party among the Ritualists, though they undoubtedly go beyond their more moderate brethren in their sympathy with Catholic practices and also in a very definitely formulated wish for "Reunion" (see UNION OF CHRISTENDOM), do not greatly differ from them in matters of doctrine. Many adopt such devotions as the rosary and benediction, some imitate Catholic practice so far as to recite the Canon of the Mass in Latin, a few profess even to hold the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff and to receive (of course with exception of the necessity of external communion with Rome) all doctrines defined and taught by him. But the more fundamental difference which divides the Ritualists into two classes is probably to be found in their varying conceptions of the authority to which they profess allegiance. Giving up the appeal to the Prayer Book as a final rule, the extreme party find a substitute for the Living Voice in the consensus of the Churches which now make up Catholic Christendom — that is practically speaking in the agreement of Canterbury, Rome, and Moscow — if Moscow may be taken as the representative of a number of eastern communions which do not in doctrinal matters differ greatly from one another. Where these bodies are agreed either explicitly or by silence, there, according to the theory of this advanced school, is the revealed faith of Christendom; where these bodies differ among themselves, there we have matters of private opinion which do not necessarily command the assent of the individual.

It is difficult perhaps for anyone who has not been brought up in a High Church atmosphere to understand how such a principle can be applied, and how Ritualists can profess to distinguish between beliefs which are de fide and those which are merely speculative. To the outsider it would seem that the Chinch of Canterbury has quite clearly rejected such doctrines as the Real Presence, the invocation of saints, and the sacrificial character of the Eucharist. But the Ritualist has all his life been taught to interpret the Thirty-Nine Articles in a "Catholic" sense. When the Articles say that transubstantiation is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, he is satisfied to believe that some misconception of transubstantiation was condemned, not the doctrine as defined a little later by the Council of Trent. When the Articles speak of "the sacrifices of Masses — for the quick and the dead" as "blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits", he understands that this repudiation was only directed against certain popular "Romish errors" about the multiplication of the effects of such Masses, not against the idea of a propitiatory sacrifice in itself. Again the statement that "the Romish doctrine concerning . . . Invocation of Saints is a fond thing vainly invented", for him amounts to no more than a rejection of certain abuses of extreme romanizers who went perilously near to idolatry. In this way the Church of England is exonerated from the apparent repudiation of these Catholic beliefs, and the presumption stands that she accepts all Catholic doctrine which she does not explicitly reject. Hence as Rome and Moscow and Canterbury (in the manner just explained) profess the three beliefs above specified, such beliefs are to be regarded as part of the revealed faith of Christendom. On the other hand such points as papal infallibility, indulgences, and the procession of the Holy Ghost, which are admittedly rejected by one or more of the three great branches of the Catholic Church, have not the authority of the Living Voice behind them. They may be true, but it cannot be shown that they form part of the Revelation, the acceptance of which is obligatory upon all good Christians.

With this fundamental view are connected many other of the strange anomalies in the modern Ritualist position. To begin with, those who so think, feel bound to no particular reverence for the Church of their baptism or for the bishops that represent her. By her negative attitude to so many points of Catholic doctrine she has paltered with the truth, She has by God's Providence retained the bare essentials of Catholicity and preserved the canonical succession of her bishops. Hence English Catholics are bound to be in communion with her and to receive the sacraments from her ministers, but they are free to criticize and up to a certain point to disobey. On the other hand the Ritualist believes that each Anglican bishop possesses jurisdiction, and that this jurisdiction particularly in the matter of confessions, is conferred upon every clergyman in virtue of his ordination. Further the same jurisdiction inherent in the canonically appointed bishop of the diocese requires that English Catholics should be in communion with him, and renders it gravely sinful for them to hear Mass in the churches of the "Italian Mission" — so the Ritualist is prone to designate the Churches professing obedience to Rome. This participation in alien services is a schismatical act in England, while on the other hand on the Continent, an "English Catholic" is bound to respect the jurisdiction of the local ordinary by hearing Mass according to the Roman Rite, and it becomes an equally schismatical act to attend the services of any English Church.

The weak points in this theory of the extreme Ritualist party do not need insisting upon. Apart from the difficulty of reconciling this view of the supposed "Catholic" teaching of the Established Church with the hard facts of history and with the wording of the Articles, apart also from the circumstance that nothing was ever heard of any such theory until about twenty-five years ago, there is a logical contradiction about the whole assumption which it seems impossible to evade. The most fundamental doctrine of all in this system (for all the other beliefs depend upon it) is precisely the principle that the Living Voice is constituted by the consensus of the Churches, but this is itself a doctrine which Rome and Moscow explicitly reject and which the Church of England at best professes only negatively and imperfectly. Therefore by the very test which the Ritualists themselves invoke, this principle falls to the round or at any rate becomes a matter of opinion which binds no man in conscience.

The real strength of Ritualism and the secret of the steady advance, which even in its extreme forms it still continues to make, lies in its sacramental doctrine and in the true devotion and self-sacrifice which in so many cases follow as a consequence from this more spiritual teaching. The revival of the celibate and ascetic ideal, more particularly in the communities of men and women living under religious vows and consecrated to prayer and works of charity, tends strongly in the same direction. It is the Ritualist clergy who more than any other body in the English Church have thrown themselves heart and soul into the effort to spiritualize the lives of the poor in the slums and to introduce a higher standard into the missionary work among the heathen. Whatever there may be of affectation and artificiality in the logical position of the Ritualists, the entire sincerity, the real self-denial, and the apostolic spirit of a large proportion of both the clergy and laity belonging to this party form the greatest asset of which Anglicanism now disposes. (For those aspects of Ritualism which touch upon Anglican Orders and Reunion, see ANGLICAN ORDERS and UNION OF CHRISTENDOM.)

For a concise Catholic view of Ritualism at the present day, more particularly in its relations to the other parties in the Church of England, see BENSON, Non-Catholic Denominations (London, 1910). An excellent historical sketch of the movement may be found in THUREAU-DANGIN, La renaissance catholique en Angleterre au XIX ^e siècle (Paris, 1901-8), especially in the third volume. The most important Anglican account is probably WARRE-CORNISH, History of the English Church in the Nineteenth Century (London, 1910), especially Part II; a good summary is also provided by HOLLAND in the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (New York, 1910), s. v. Ritualism.
The best materials for the history of the movement may be found in the Blue Books issued by the various royal commissions more especially the Report and the four accompanying volumes of minutes of evidence printed for the royal commission on ecclesiastical discipline in 1906. The letters and other documents published in such complete biographies as those of Pusey, Bishop S. Wilberforce, Archbishop Tait, Bishop Wilkinson, Archbishop Benson, Lord Shaftesbury, Charles Lowder, and others, are also very useful. See also SPENCER JONES, England and the Holy See London, 1902); MALLOCK, Doctrine and Doctrinal Disruption (London, 1908); MACCOLL, The Royal Commission and the Ornaments Rubric (London, 1906); MOYES, Aspects of Anglicanism (London, 1906); DOLLING, Ten Years in a Portsmouth Slum (London, 1898); MACCOLL, Lawlessness, Sacerdotalism and Ritualism (London, 1875); ROSCOE, The Bishop of Lincoln's Case (London, 1891); SANDAY, The Catholic Movement and the Archbishop's Decision (London, 1899); TOMILSON, Historical Grounds of the Lambeth Judgment (London, 1891), and in general The Reunion Magazine and the now extinct Church Review.

HERBERT THURSTON.

Luke Rivington

Born in London, May, 1838; died in London, 30 May, 1899; fourth son of Francis Rivington, a well-known London publisher. He was educated at Highgate Grammar School and Magdalen College, Oxford. After his ordination as an Anglican clergyman in 1862, he became curate of St. Clement's, Oxford, leaving there in 1867 for All Saint's, Margaret Street, London, where he attracted attention as a preacher. Failing in his efforts to found a religious community at Stoke, Staffordshire, he joined the Cowley Fathers and became superior of their house in Bombay. Becoming unsettled in his religious convictions he visited Rome, where in 1888 he was received into the Church. His ordination to the priesthood took place on 21 Sept., 1889. He returned to England and settled in Bayswater, not undertaking any parochial work, but devoting himself to preaching, hearing confessions, and writing controversial works. The chief of these were "Authority; or a plain reason for joint the Church of Rome" (1888); "Dust" a letter to the Rev. C. Gore on his book "Roman Catholic Claims" (1888); "Dependence; or the insecurity of the Anglican Position" (1889) "The Primitive Church and the See of Peter" (1894); "Anglican Fallacies; or Lord Halifax on Reunion" (1895); "Rome and England or Ecclesiastical Continuity" (1897); "The Roman Primacy A.D. 430-51" (1899) which was practically a new edition of "The Primitive Church and the See of Peter". He also wrote several pamphlets and brought out a new edition of Bishop Milner's "End of Religious Controversy". This was for the Catholic Truth Society of which he was long a member of the committee, and a prominent figure at the annual conferences so successfully organized by the society. His pamphlets include "Primitive and Roman" (1894) a reply to the notice of his book "The Primitive Church" in the "Church Quarterly Review"; "The Conversion of Cardinal Newman" (1896) and "Tekel" (1897) in which he criticized the reply of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to Pope Leo XIII after the condemnation of Anglican Orders. In 1897 the pope conferred on him an honorary doctorate in divinity. During his latter years he lived near St. James church, Spanish Place, devoting himself to his literary work and the instruction of inquirers in the Catholic Faith.

The Tablet (3 and 10 June, 1899); Catholic Book Notes (15 June, 1899); GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Cath.; Annual Register (London, 1899).

EDWIN BURTON

José Mercado Rizal

Filipino hero, physician, poet, novelist, and sculptor; b. at Calamba, Province of La Laguna, Luzon, 19 June, 1861; d. at Manila, 30 December, 1896. On his father's side he was descended from Lam-co, who came from China to settle in the Philippines in the latter part of the seventeenth century. His mother was of Filipino-Chinese-Spanish origin. Rizal studied at the Jesuit College of the Ateneo, Manila, where he received the degree of Bachelor of Arts with highest honours before he had completed his sixteenth year. He continued his studies in Manila for four years and then proceeded to Spain, where he devoted himself to philosophy, literature, and medicine, with ophthalmology as a specialty. In Madrid he became a Freemason, and thus became associated with men like Zorilla, Sagasta, Castelar, and Balaguer, prominent in Spanish politics. Here and in France he began to imbibe the political ideas, which later cost him his life. In Germany he was enrolled as a law student in the University of Heidelburg and became acquainted with Virchow and Blumentritt. In Berlin was published his novel "Noli me tangere" (1886) characterized, perhaps too extravagantly, by W.D. Howells as "a great novel" written by one "born with a gift so far beyond that of any or all of the authors of our roaring literary successes." Several editions of the work were published in Manila and Spain. There is a French translation ("Bibliothèque sociologique", num 25, Paris, 1899), and two abbreviated English translations of little value: "An Eagle's Flight" (New York, 1900) and "Friars and Filipinos" (New York, 1902). The book satirizes the friars in the Philippines as well as the Filipinos. Rizal's animosity to the friars was largely of domestic origin. The friars were the landlords of a large hacienda occupied by his father; there was a vexatious litigation, and a few years later, by Weyler's order, soldiers destroyed the buildings on the land, and various members of the family were exiled to other parts of the Islands.

Rizal returned to the Philippines in 1887. After a stay of about six months he set out again for Europe, passing through Japan and the United States. In London he prepared his annotated edition of Morga's "Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas" which he completed in Paris (1890). In Belgium he published (Ghent, 1891; Manila, 1900) "El Filibusterismo", a sequel to "Noli me tangere". Its animus may be judged from its dedication to three Filipino priests who were executed for complicity in the Cavite outbreak of 1872. In 1891 he arrived in Hong Kong, where he practised medicine. The following year he came to Manila, but five days before his arrival a case was filed against him for "anti-religious and anti-patriotic propaganda". On 7 July the governor-general ordered Rizal's deportation to Mindanao. The reasons given were the finding in his baggage of leaflets, "satirizing the friars and tending to de-catholicize and so de-nationalize the people"; and the "publication of 'El Filibusterismo' dedicated to the memory of three traitors_condemned and executed by competent authority_and whom he hails as martyrs". Rizal spent four years in peaceful exile in Dapitan, Mindanao, when he volunteered his services to the governor to go to Cuba as a surgeon in the Spanish Army. The offer was accepted. When he arrived in Spain, he was arrested and brought back to Manila, where he was charged with founding unlawful associations and promoting rebellion, and sentenced to be shot.

Rizal had given up the practice of his religion long years before. But now he gladly welcomed the ministrations of the Jesuit Fathers, his former professors, and he wrote a retraction of his errors and of Masonry in particular. On the morning of his execution he assisted at two Masses with great fervour, received Holy Communion and was married to an Irish half-caste girl from Hong-King with whom he had cohabited in Dapitan. Almost the last words he spoke were to the Jesuit who accompanied him: "My great pride, Father, has brought me here." 30 December, the day of his execution, has been made a national holiday by the American Government and $50,000 appropriated for a monument to his memory; a new province, adjacent to Manila, is called Rizal; the two centavo postage stamp and two peso bill_the denominations in most common use_bear his picture. Whether he was unjustly executed or not, is disputed; his plea in his own defense is undoubtedly a strong one (cf. Retata). The year of his death was a year of great uprising in the Islands and feeling ran high. Whatever may be said about his sentence, its fulfillment was a political mistake. Rizal, it is said, did not favour separation from Spain, nor the expulsion of the friars. Nor did he wish to accomplish his ends_reforms in the Government_by revolutionary methods, but by the education of his countrymen and their formation to habits of industry.

Besides the works mentioned above, Rizal wrote a number of poems and essays in Spanish of literacy merit, some translations and short papers in German, French, English, and in his native dialect, Tagalog. A complete list of his writings is given in Retana, "Vida y escritos del Dr. Rizal" (Madrid, 1907).

CRAIG, The Story of José Rizal (Manila, 1909); El Dr. Rizal y la obra in La Juventad (Barcelona, Jan., Feb., 1897); PI, La muerte cristiana del Dr. Rizal (Manila, 1910); CRAIG, Los errores de Retana (Manila, 1910.)

PHILIP M. FINEGAN

Andrea della Robbia

Nephew, pupil, assistant, and sharer of Luca's secrets, b. at Florence, 1431; d. 1528. It is often difficult to distinguish between his works and Luca's. His, undoubtedly, are the medallions of infants for the Foundling Hospital, Florence, and the noble Annunciation over the inner entrance; the Meeting of S. Francis and S. Dominic in the loggia of S. Paolo; the charming Madonna of the Architects, the Virgin adoring the Divine Child in the Crib and other pieces in the Bargello; the fine St. Francis at Assisi; the Madonna della Quercia at Viterbo; the high altar (marble) of S. Maria delle Grazie at Arezzo; the rich and variegated decorations of the vaulted ceiling, porch of Pistoia Cathedral, and many other works.

Andrea had several sons, of whom Giovanni Girolamo, Luca the Younger, and Ambrogio are the best known. Giovanni executed the famous reliefs for the Ospendale del Ceppo, Pistoia; and Girolamo worked much in France, where he died. The Della Robbia school gradually lost power and inspiration, the later works being often overcrowded with figures and full of conflicting colour.

See bibl. Of ROBBIA, LUCA DI SIMONE DELLA.

M.L. HANDLEY

Lucia di Simone Robbia

Sculptor, b. at Florence, 1400; d. 1481. He is believed to have studied design with a goldsmith, and then to have worked in marble and bronze under Ghiberti. He was early invited to execute sculptures for the Cathedral of S. Maria del Fiore and the Campanile. The latter_representing Philosophy, Arithmetic, Grammar, Orpheus, and Tubalcain (1437)Ƌ are still somewhat Gothic in character. For the organ-gallery of the cathedral he made the famous panels of the Cantorie, groups of boys singing and playing upon musical instruments (1431-8), now in the Museo del Duomo. For the north sacristy he made a bronze door; figures of angels bearing candles and a fine glazed earthenware relief of Christ rising from the tomb over the entrance are also his execution. Above the entrance to the southern sacristy he made the Ascension almost entirely in his new ware. The medium was not unknown, but by dint of experimenting he brought his material to great perfection. He colours are brilliant, fresh, and beautiful in quality, the blue especially being quite inimitable. The stanniferous glaze, or enamel, contained various minerals and was Luca's own secret; in the firing, it became exceedingly hard, durable, and bright. Luca's design is generally an architectural setting with a very few figures, or half figures, and rich borders of fruits and flowers. He excels in simplicity and loveliness of composition. His madonnas have great charm, dignity, and grace. In the earlier productions colour is used only for the background, for the stems and leaves of lilies, and the eyes; an occasional touch of gold is added in coronal or lettering. Later, Luca used colour more freely. The Della Robbia earthenwares are so fresh and beautiful and so decorative that even in Luca's time there were immediately in great request. They are seen at their best in Florence. A few of the principal ones are: the crucifix at S. Miniato and the ceiling of the chapel in which it is found; the medallions of the vault (centre, the Holy Ghost; corners, the Virtues) in the chapel of Cardinal Jacopo of Portugal, also at S. Miniato; the decorations of the Pazzi chapel at Sta. Croce; the armorial bearings of the Arti at Or San Michele; the Madonna of the Apple, and a number of equally fine reliefs. Of his works outside Florence may be mentioned: the Madonna at Urbino; the tabernacle at Impruneta, the vault angels of S. Giobbe, Venice (sometimes said to be by the school only); medallions of Justice and Temperance, Museum of Cluny, Paris; arms of Réné d'Anjou, London, South Kensington Museum, and other works in Naples, Sicily, and elsewhere. The admirable and much disputed group of the Visitation at S. Giovanni Fuorcivitas, Pistoia, is attributed both to Luca and Andrea.

BARBET DE JOUY, Les Della Robbia (Paris, 1855); MÜNTZ, Hist. de;'Art pendant la Renaissance (Paris, 1895); REYMOND, Les Della Robbia (Florence, 1897); CRUTWELL, Luca and Andrea Della Robbia (London, 1902).

M.L. HANDLEY

St. Robert

Founder of the Abbey of Chaise-Dieu in Auvergne, b. at Aurilac, Auvergne, about 1000; d. in Auvergne, 1067. On his father's side he belonged to the family of the Counts of Aurilac, who had given birth to St. Géraud. He studied at Brioude near the basilica of St-Julien, in a school open to the nobility of Auvergne by the canons of that city. Having entered their community, and being ordained priest, Robert distinguished himself by his piety, charity, apostolic zeal, eloquent discourses, and the gift of miracles. For about forty years he remained at Cluny in order to live under the rule of his compatriot saint, Abbé Odilo. Brought back by force to Brioude, he started anew for Rome in order to consult the pope on his project. Benedict IX encouraged him to retire with two companions to the wooded plateau south-east of Auvergne. Here he built a hermitage under the name of Chaise-Dieu (Casa Dei). The renown of his virtues having brought him numerous disciples, he was obliged to build a monastery, which he placed under the rule of Saint Benedict (1050). Leo IX erected the Abbey of Chaise-Dieu, which became one of the most flourishing in Christendom. At the death of Robert it numbered 300 monks and had sent multitudes all though the centre of France. Robert also founded a community of women at Lavadieu near Brioude. Through the elevation of Pierre Roger, monk of Chaise-Dieu, to the sovereign pontificate, under the name of Clement VI, the abbey reached the height of its glory. The body of Saint Robert, preserved therein, was burned by the Huguenots during the religious wars. His work was destroyed by the French Revolution, but there remain for the admiration of tourists, the vast church, cloister, tomb of Clement VI, and Clementine Tower. The feast-day of St. Robert is 24 April.

A. FOURNET

Robert of Arbrissel

Itinerant preacher, founder of Fontevrault, b. c. 1047 at Arbrissel (now Arbressec) near Rhétiers, Brittany; d. at Orsan, probably 1117. Robert studied in Paris during the pontificate of Gregory VII, perhaps under Anselm of Laon and later displayed considerable theological knowledge. The date and place of his ordination are unknown. In 1089 he was recalled to his native Diocese of Rennes by Bishop Sylvester de la Guerche, who desired to reform his flock. As archpriest, Robert devoted himself to the suppression of simony, lay investiture, clerical concubinage, irregular marriages, and to the healing of feuds. This reforming zeal aroused such enmity that upon Sylvester's death in 1093, Robert was compelled to leave the diocese. He went to Angers and there commenced ascetic practices which he continued throughout his life. In 1095 he became a hermit in the forest of Craon (s.w. of Laval), living a life of severest penance in the company of Bernard, afterwards founder of the Congregation of Tiron, Vitalis, founder of Savigny, and others of considerable note. His piety, eloquence, and strong personality attracted many followers, for whom in 1096 he founded the monastery of Canons Regular of La Roé, becoming himself the first abbot. In the same year Urban II summoned him to Angers and appointed him a "preacher (seminiverbus, cf. Acts 17, 18) second only to himself with orders to travel everywhere in the performance of this duty" (Vita Baldrici).

There is no evidence that Robert assisted Urban to preach the Crusade, for his theme was the abandonment of the world and especially poverty. Living in the utmost destitution, he addressed himself to the poor and would have his followers known only as the "poor of Christ", while the ideal he put forward was "In nakedness to follow Christ naked upon the Cross". His eloquence, heightened by his strikingly ascetic appearance, drew crowds everywhere. Those who desired to embrace the monastic state under his leadership he sent to La Roé, but the Canons objected to the number and diversity of the postulants, and between 1097 and 1100 Robert formally resigned his abbacy, and founded Fontevrault (q.v.). His disciples were of every age and condition, including even lepers and converted prostitutes. Robert continued his missionary journeys over the whole of Western France till the end of his life, but little is known of this period. At the Council of Poitiers, Nov., 1100, he supported the papal legates in excommunicating Philip of France on account of his lawless union with Bertrade de Montfort; in 1110 he attended the Council of Nantes. Knowledge of his approaching death caused him to take steps to ensure the permanence of his foundation at Fontevrault. He imposed a vow of stability on his monks and summoned a Chapter (September, 1116) to settle the form of government. From Hautebruyère a priory founded by the penitent Bertrade, he went to Orsan, another priory of Fontevrault, where he died. The "Vita Andreæ" gives a detailed account of his last year of life.

Robert was never canonized. The accusation made against him by Geoffrey of Vendôme of extreme indiscretion in his choice of exceptional ascetic practices (see P.L., CLVII, 182) was the source of much controversy during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Other evidence of eccentric actions on Robert's part and scandals among his mixed followers may have helped to give rise to these rumors. The Fontevrists did everything in their power to discredit the attacks on their founder. The accusatory letters of Marbodius of Rennes and Geoffrey of Vendôme were without sufficient cause declared to be forgeries and the MS. Letter of Peter of Saumur was made away with, probably at the instigation of Jeanne Baptiste de Bourbon, Abbess of Fontevrault. This natural daughter of Henry IV applied to Innocent X for the beatification of Robert, her request being supported by Louis XIV and Henrietta of England. Both this attempt and one made about the middle of the nineteenth century failed, but Robert is usually given the title of "Blessed". The original recension of the Rule of Fontevrault no longer exists; the only surviving writing of Robert is his letter of exhortation to Ermengarde of Brittany (ed. Petigny in "Bib. de l'école des Chartes", 1854, V, iii).

Acta SS., Feb., III, 593 sqq., contains two ancient lives by BALDRIC of Dol and the monk ANDREW; PETIGNY, Robert d'Arbissel et Geoffroi de Vendôme in Bib. de l' école des Chartes; WALTER, Ersten Wanderprediger Frankreichs, I (Leipzig, 1903), a modern scientific book; IDEM, Excurs, II (1906); BOEHMER in Theologische Literaturzeitung, XXIX, col. 330, 396, a hostile review.

RAYMUND WEBSTER

Robert of Courçon

(DE CURSONE, DE CURSIM, CURSUS, ETC.).

Cardinal, born at Kedleston, England; died at Damietta, 1218. After having studied at Oxford, Paris, and Rome, he became in 1211 Chancellor of the University of Paris; in 1212 he was made Cardinal of St. Stephen on the Cedilla Hill; in 1213 he was appointed legate a latere to preach the crusade, and in 1215 was placed at the head of a commission to inquire into the errors prevalent at the University of Paris. He took an active part in the campaign against heresy in France, and accompanied the army of the Crusaders into Egypt as legate of Honorius III. He died during the siege of Damietta. He is the author of several works, including a "Summa: devoted to questions of canon law and ethics and dealing at length with the question of usury. His interference in the affairs of the University of Paris, in the midst of the confusion arising from the introduction of the Arabian translations of Aristotle, resulted in the proscription (1215) of the metaphysical as well as the physical treatises of the Stagyrita, together with the summaries thereof (Summæ de esidem). At the same time, his rescript (Denifle, "Chartul. Univ. Paris", I, 78) renews the condemnation of the Pantheists, David of Dinant, and Amaury of Bene, but permits the use, as texts, of Aristotle's "Ethics" and logical treatises. The rescript also contains several enactments relating to academic discipline.

DENIFLE, Chartul. Univ. Paris, I (Paris, 1889), 72, 78; DE WULF, Hist. of Medieval Phil., tr. COFFEY (New York, 1909), 252.

WILLIAM TURNER

Robert of Geneva

Antipope under the name of Clement VII, b. at Geneva, 1342; d. at Avignon, 16 Sept., 1394. He was the son of Count Amadeus III. Appointed prothonotary Apostolic in 1359, he became Bishop of Thérouanne in 1361, Archbishop of Cambrai in 1368, and cardinal 30 May, 1371. As papal legate in Upper Italy (1376-78), in order to put down a rebellion in the Pontifical States, he is dais to have authorized the massacre of 4000 persons at Cesena, and was consequently called "the executioner of Cesena". Elected to the papacy at Fondi, 20 Sept. 1378, by the French cardinals in opposition to Urban VI, he was the first antipope of the Great Schism. France, Scotland, Castile, Aragon, Navarre, Portugal, Savoy, and some minor German states, Denmark, and Norway acknowledged his authority. Unable to maintain himself in Italy, he took up his residence at Avignon, where he became dependent on the French Court. He created excellent cardinals, but donated the larger part of the Pontifical States to Louis II of Anjou, resorted to simony and extortion to meet the financial needs of his court, and seems never to have sincerely desired the termination of the Schism.

BALUZE, Vitæ Paparum Avenionensium, I (Paris, 1693, 486 sqq.; SALEMBIER, The Great Schism of the West, (tr. New York, 1907), passim.

N.A. TURNER

Robert of Jumièges

Archbishop of Canterbury (1051-2). Robert Champart was a Norman monk of St. Ouen at Rouen and was prior of that house in 1037 he was elected Abbot of Jumièges. As abbot he began to build the fine Norman abbey-church, and at this time he was able to be of service to St. Edward the Confessor, then an exile. When Edward returned to England as king in 1043 Robert accompanied him and was made Bishop of London in 1044. In this capacity he became the head of the Norman party in opposition to the Saxon party under Godwin, and exerted supreme influence over the king. In 1051 Robert was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury and went to Rome for his pall, but the appointment was very unpopular among the English clergy who resented the intrusion of a foreigner into the metropolitan see. For a time he was successful in opposing Godwin even to the extent of instigating his exile, but when Godwin returned in 1052 Robert fled to Rome and was outlawed by the Wirenagemot. The pope reinstated him in his see, but he could not regain possession of it, and William of Normandy made his continued exclusion one of his pretexts for invading England. The last years of his life were spent at Jumièges, but the precise date of his death has not been ascertained, though Robert de Torigni states it as 26 May, 1055. The valuable liturgical MS. Of the "Missal of Robert of Jumièges", now at Rouen, was given by him, when Bishop of London to the abbey at Jumièges.

Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, ed. THORPE, r.s., (London, 1861); Vita Eadwardi in LUARD, Lives of Edward the Confessor, R. S. (London, 1858); HOOK, Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury (London, 1865-75); HUNT in Dict. Nat. Biog.; SEARLE, Anglo-Saxon Bishops, Nobles, and Kings (Cambridge, 1899); Obituary of the Abbey of Jumièges in Receuil de Historiens, XXIII (Rouen, 1872), 419.

EDWIN BURTON

Robert of Luzarches

(LUS).

Born at Luzarches near Pontoise towards the end of the twelfth century; is said to have been summoned to Paris by Philip Augustus who employed him in beautifying the city, and to have had a share in the work on Notre Dame. The real fame of this master is, however, connected with the cathedral of Notre Dame in Amiens. The old cathedral was destroyed by fire in 1218 and Bishop Evrard de Fouilloy had it rebuilt in Gothic style. An inscription made in 1288 in the "labyrinth" of the floor (now removed) testified that the building had begun in 1220, and names "Robert, called of Luzarches", as the architect, and as his successors, Thomas de Cormont and the latter's son. The work was completed in later centuries. Viollet-le-Duc sees a fact of great significance in the employment of the layman, Robert; but it is not accurate that in Romanesque times the architects were always bishops, priests, or monks; or, on the other hand, that since the Gothic period the Church relinquished the direction of church-building so entirely as is now believed. Robert was not long employed on the cathedral. Under the successor of Bishop Evrard, who apparently died in 1222, Cormont appears as the architect. Before 1240 Bishop Bernard put a choir window in the provisionally completed cathedral. An intended alteration of the original plan was not used in the finished building, so that the whole remains a splendid moment to Robert. In his day it was already called the "Gothic Parthenon". Gracefully built and better lighted than several of the large churches of France, there is yet, especially about the façade, a majestic severity. It is more spacious than Notre Dame in Paris and considerably larger than the cathedral of Reims. The former is effective through its quiet simplicity, which amounts to austerity; the latter is less rich in the modelling of choir, windows, and triforium. But Robert's creation became a standard far and near, through France and beyond, on account of the successful manner in which weight and strength are counterbalanced and of the consistently Gothic style. The design presents a middle aisle and two side aisles, though the choir has five aisles and the transept has the width of seven aisles. The choir is flanked by seven chapels; that in the centre (the Lady chapel) projecting beyond the others in French style. The majestic and harmonious interior is surpassed in beauty by few cathedrals. The nave is about 470 ft. in length, 164 ft. in breadth (213 ft. in the transept), and 141 ft. in height. A poet writes aptly, "Fabrica nil demi patitur nec susinet addi" (It is not possible to add anything to or to take anything from it).

G. GIETMANN

Robert of Melun

(DE MELDUNO; MELIDENSIS; MEIDUNUS).

An English philosopher and theologian, b. in England abut 1100; d. at Hereford, 1167. He gets his surname from Melun, near Paris, where after having studied under Hugh of St. Victor and probably Abelard, he taught philosophy and theology. Among his pupils were John of Salisbury and Thomas à Beckett. Through the influence of the latter he was made Bishop of Hereford in 1163. Judging from the tributes paid him by John of Salisbury in the "Metalogicus" (P.L. CXCIX), Robert must have enjoyed great renown as a teacher. On the question of Universals, which agitated the schools in those days, he opposed the nominalism of Roscelin and seemed to favour a doctrine of moderate realism. His principal work, "Summa Theologiæ" or "Summa Sententiarum" is still in MS,. Except portions which have been published by Du Boulay in his "Historia Univ. Paris", ii, 585 sqq. He also wrote "Queæstiones de Epistolis Pauli", both of which are kept in the Bibliothèque Nationale. Those who have examined the "Summa" pronounce it to be of great value in tracing the history of scholastic doctrines.

Materials for the History of Thomas Beckett in Rer. Britt, SS. contains valuable data; DE WULF, Hist. of Medieval Phil., tr. COFFEY (New York, 1909), 210; HAURÉAU, Hist. de la phil. Scol. (Paris, 1872), 490 sqq.

G. GIETMANN

St. Robert of Molesme

Born about the year 1029, at Champagne, France, of noble parents who bore the names of Thierry and Ermengarde; d. at Molesme, 17 April, 1111. When fifteen years of age, he commenced his novitiate in the Abbey of Montier-la-Celle, or St. Pierre-la-Celle, situated near Troyes, of which he became later prior. In 1068 he succeeded Hunaut II as Abbot of St. Michael de Tonnerre, in the Diocese of Langres. About this time a band of seven anchorites who lived in the forest of Collan, in the same diocese, sought to have Robert for their chief, but the monks, despite their constant resistance to his authority, insisted on keeping their abbot who enjoyed so great a reputation, and was the ornament of their house. Their intrigues determined Robert to resign his charge in 1071, and seek refuge in the monastery of Montier-la-Celle. The same year he was placed over the priory of St. Ayoul de Provins, which depended on Montier-la-Celle. Meantime two of the hermits of Collan went to Rome and besought Gregory VII to give them the prior of Provins for their superior. The pope granted their request, and in 1074 Robert initiated the hermits of Collan in the monastic life. As the location at Collan was found unsuitable, Robert founded a monastery at Molesme in the valley of Langres at the close of 1075. To Molesme as a guest came the distinguished canon and doctor (écolâtre) of Reims, Bruno, who, in 1082, placed himself under the direction of Robert, before founding the celebrated order of the Chartreux. At this time the primitive discipline was still in its full vigour, and the religious lived by the labour of their hands. Soon, however, the monastery became wealthy through a number of donations, and with wealth, despite the vigilance of the abbot, came laxity of discipline. Robert endeavoured to restore the primitive strictness, but the monks showed so much resistance that he abdicated, and left the care of his community to his prior, Alberic, who retired in 1093. In the following year he returned with Robert to Molesme. On 29 Nov., 1095, Urban II confirmed the institute of Molesme. In 1098 Robert, still unable to reform his rebellious monks, obtained from Hugues, Archbishop of Lyons and Legate of the Holy See, authority to found a new order on new lines. Twenty-one religious left Molesme and set out joyfully for a desert called Citeaux in the Diocese of Chalons, and the Abbey of Citeaux (q.v.) was founded 21 March, 1098.

Left to themselves, the monks of Molesme appealed to the pope, and Robert was restored to Molesme, which thereafter became an ardent centre of monastic life. Robert died 17 April, 1111, and was buried with great pomp in the church of the abbey. Pope Honorius III by Letters Apostolic in 1222 authorized his veneration in the church of Molesme, and soon after the veneration of St. Robert was extended to the whole Church by a pontifical Decree. The feast was fixed at first on 17 April, but later it was transferred to 29 April. The Abbey of Molesme existed up to the French Revolution. The remains of the holy founder are preserved in the parish church.

Vita S. Roberti, Abbatis Molismensis, auctore monacho molismensi sub Adone, abb. saec. XII; Exordium Cisterciensis Cenobii; CUIGNARD, Les monuments primitifs de la Regle Cistercienne (Dijon, 1878); WILLIAM OF MALMESBURY, Bk. I, De rebus gestis Anglorum, P.L., CLXXIX; LAURENT, Cart. de Molesme, Bk. I (Paris, 1907).

F.M. GILDAS

St. Robert of Newminster

Born in the district of Craven, Yorkshire, probably at the village of Gargrave; died 7 June, 1159. He studied at the University of Paris, where he is said to have composed a commentary on the Psalms; became parish priest at Gargrave, and later a Benedictine at Whitby, from where, with the abbot's permission, he joined the founders of the Cistercian monastery of Fountains. About 1138 he headed the first colony sent out from Fountains and established the Abbey of Newminster near the castle of Ralph de Merlay, at Morpeth in Northumberland. During his abbacy three colonies of monks were sent out; monasteries were founded: Pipewell (1143), Roche (1147) and Sawley (1148). Capgrave's life tells that an accusation of misconduct was brought against him by his own monks and that he went abroad (1147-48), to defend himself before St. Bernard, but doubt has been cast upon the truth of his story, which may have arisen from a desire of this story, which may have arisen from a desire to associate the English saint personally with the greatest of the Cistercians. His tomb in the church of Newminster became an object of pilgrimage; his feast is kept on 7 June.

RAYMUND WEBSTER

Robert Pullus

(PULLEN, PULLAN, PULLY.)

Cardinal, English philosopher and theologian, of the twelfth century, b. in England about 1080; d. 1147-50. He seems to have studied in Paris in the first decades of the twelfth century. In 1153 he began to teach at Oxford, being among the first of the celebrated teachers in the schools which were afterwards organized into the University of Oxford. After the death of Henry II he returned to Paris; thence he went to Rome, where he was appointed cardinal and Chancellor of the Apostolic See. His influence was always on the side of orthodoxy and against the encroachments of the rationalistic tendency represented by Abelard. This we know from the biography of St. Bernard written by William of St. Thierry, and from his letters. Robert wrote a compendium of theology, entitled "Sententiarum Theologicarum Libri Octo", which, for a time, held its place in the school of Western Europe as the official text book in theology. It was, however, supplanted by the "Libri Sententiarum" of Peter the Lombard, compared with whom Robert seems to have been more inclined to strict interpretation of ecclesiastical tradition than to yield to the growing demands of the dialectical method in theology and philosophy. The Lombard, however, finally gained recognition and decided the fate of scholastic theology in the thirteenth century. Robert's "Summa" was first published by the Benedictine Dom Mathoud (Paris, 1655). It is reprinted in Migne (P.L., CLXXXVI, 639 sqq.).

HAUREAU, Hist. de la phil. scol., I (Paris, 1872), 483 sqq.

WILLIAM TURNER

St. John Roberts

First Prior of St. Gregory's, Douai (now Downside Abbey), b. 1575-6; martyred 10 December, 1610. He was the son of John and Anna Roberts of Trawsfynydd, Merionethshire, N. Wales. He matriculated at St. John's College, Oxford, in February, 1595-6, but left after two years without taking a degree and entered as a law student at one of the Inns of Court. In 1598 he travelled on the continent and in Paris, through the influence of a Catholic fellow- countryman, was converted. By the advice of John Cecil, an English priest who afterwards became a Government spy, he decided to enter the English College at Valladolid, where he was admitted 18 October, 1598. The following year, however, he left the college for the Abbey of St. Benedict, Valladolid; whence, after some months, he was sent to make his novitiate in the great Abbey of St. Martin at Compostella where he made his profession towards the end of 1600. His studies completed he was ordained, and set out for England 26 December, 1602. Although observed by a Government spy, Roberts and his companions succeeded in entering the country in April, 1603; but, his arrival being known, he was arrested and banished on 13 May following. He reached Douai on 24 May and soon managed to return to England where he laboured zealously among the plague-stricken people in London. In 1604, while embarking for Spain with four postulants, he was again arrested, but not being recognized as a priest was soon released and banished, but returned again at once. On 5 November, 1605, while Justice Grange was searching the house of Mrs. Percy, first wife of Thomas Percy, who was involved in the Gunpowder Plot, he found Roberts there and arrested him. Though acquitted of any complicity in the plot itself, Roberts was imprisoned in the Gatehouse at Westminster for seven months and then exiled anew in July, 1606.

This time he was absent for some fourteen months, nearly all of which he spent at Douai where he founded a house for the English Benedictine monks who had entered various Spanish monasteries. This was the beginning of the monastery of St. Gregory at Douai which still exists as Downside Abbey, near Bath, England. In October, 1607, Roberts returned to England, was again arrested in December and placed in the Gatehouse, from which he contrived to escape after some months. He now lived for about a year in London and was again taken some time before May, 1609, in which month he was taken to Newgate and would have been executed but for the intercession of de la Broderie, the French ambassador, whose petition reduced the sentence to banishment. Roberts again visited Spain and Douai, but returned to England within a year, knowing that his death was certain if he were again captured. This event took place on 2 December, 1610; the pursuivants arriving just as he was concluding Mass, took him to Newgate in his vestments. On 5 December he was tried and found guilty under the Act forbidding priests to minister in England, and on 10 December was hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn. The body of Roberts was recovered and taken to St. Gregory's, Douai, but disappeared during the French Revolution. Two fingers are still preserved at Downside and Erdington Abbeys respectively and a few minor relics exist. At Erdington also is a unique contemporary engraving of the martyrdom which has been reproduced in the "Downside Review" (XXIV, 286). The introduction of the cause of beatification was approved by Leo XIII in his Decree of 4 December, 1886.

[ Note: In 1970, John Roberts was canonized by Pope Paul VI as one of the Forty Martyrs of England and Wales, whose joint feastday is kept on 25 October.]

The earlier accounts given by CHALLONER, DOD (DODD), PLOWDEN, and FOLEY are misleading, as they confound John Roberts the Benedictine with an earlier priest of the same name. This has been shown conclusively by CAMM, whose work is the best on the subject. YEPES, Coronica general de la Orden de San Benito, IV (Valladolid, 1613), folios 58-63; POLLEN, Acts of English Martyrs (London, 1891), 143-70; CAMM, A Benedictine Martyr in England, Being the Life . . . of Dom John Roberts, O.S.B. (London, 1897); IDEM, The Martyrdom of V. John Roberts in Downside Review, XXIV, 286; BISHOP, The Beginning of Douai Convent and The First Prior of St. Gregory's in Downside Review, XVI, 21; XXV, 52; FULLERTON, Life of Luisa de Carvajal (London, 1873).

G. ROGER HUDLESTON

James Burton Robertson

Historian, b. in London 15 Nov., 1800; d. at Dublin 14 Feb., 1877, son of Thomas Robertson, a landed proprietor in Grenada, West Indies, where he spent his boyhood. In 1809 his mother brought him to England, and placed him at St. Edmund's College, Old Hall (1810), where he remained nine years. In 1819 he began his legal studies, and in 1825 was called to the bar, but did not practise. For a time he studied philosophy and theology in France under the influence of his friends Lamennais and Gerbet. In 1835 he published his translation of Frederick Schlegel's "Philosophy of History", which passed through many editions. From 1837 to 1854 he lived in Germany of Belgium. During this time he translated Möhler. This work considerably influenced some of the Oxford Tractarians. In 1855 Dr. Newman nominated Robertson as professor of geography and modern history in the Catholic University of Ireland. In this capacity he published two series of lectures (1859 and 1864), as well as "Lectures on Edmund Burke" (1869), and a translation of Dr. Hergenröther's "Anti Janus" (1870) to which he prefixed a history of Gallicanism. He also wrote a poem, "The Prophet Enoch" (1859), and contributed several articles to the "Dublin Review". His services to literature obtained for him a pension from the Government in 1869, and the degree of Doctor of Philosophy from Pius IX (1875). He is buried in Glasnevin cemetary.

Tablet (24 Feb., 1877); GILLOW in Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath.; The Edmundian, II, no. 8 (1895).

EDWIN BURTON

Ven. Christopher Robinson

Born at Woodside, near Westward, Cumberland, date unknown; executed at Carlisle, 19 Aug., 1598. He was admitted to the English College at Reims in 1589, and was ordained priest and sent on the mission in 1592. Two years later he was a witness of the condemnation and execution of the venerable martyr John Boste (q.v.) at Durham, and wrote a very graphic account of this, which has been printed from a seventeenth-century transcript in the first volume of the "Catholic Record Society's Publications" (London, 1905), pp. 85-92. His labours seem to have been mainly in Cumberland and Westmoreland; but nothing is known about them. Eventually he was arrested and imprisoned at Carlisle, where Bishop Robinson, who may have been a relative, did his best to persuade him to save his life by conforming, under 27 Eliz., c. 2, for being a priest and coming into the realm, suffered the last penalty with such cheerful constancy that his death was the occasion of many conversions.

JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT

William Callyhan Robinson

Jurist and educator, b. 26 July, 1834, at Norwich, Conn.; d. 6 Nov., 1911, at Washington, D.C. After preparatory studies at Norwich Academy, Williston Seminary, and Wesleyan University, he entered Dartmouth College from which he was graduated in 1854. He then entered the Theological Seminary of the Protestant Episcopal Church, was graduated in 1857, and ordained to the Episcopalian Ministry, in which he served first at Pittston, Pa. (1857-8), and then at Scranton, Pa. (1859-62). He was received into the Catholic Church in 1863, was admitted to the Bar in 1864, and was lecturer and professor in law at Yale University (1869-95). For two years (1869-71) he was judge of the City Court and later (1874-6) judge of the Court of Common Pleas at New Haven, Conn. In 1874 also he served as member of the Legislature. From Dartmouth College he received (1879) the degree LL.D., and from Yale University the degree M.A. (1881). He married 2 July, 1857, Anna Elizabeth Haviland and, 31 March, 1891, Ultima Marie Smith. His thorough knowledge of law made him eminent as a teacher and enabled him to render important service to the Church. In 1895 he was appointed professor in the Catholic University of America, where he organized the School of Social Sciences and remained as Dean of the School of Law until his death. Besides articles contributed to various periodicals, he wrote: "Life of E. B. Kelly" (1855); "Notes of Elementary Law" (1876); "Elementary Law" (Boston, 1876); "Clavis Rerum" (1883); "Law of Patents" (3 vols., Boston, 1890); "Forensic Oratory" (Boston, 1893); "Elements of American Jurisprudence" (Boston, 1900).

Catholic University Bulletin (Dec., 1911); Catholic Educational Review (Dec., 1911).

E.A. PACE

Juan Tomás de Rocaberti

Theologian, b. of a noble family at Perelada, in Catalina, c. 1624; d. at Madrid 13 June, 1699. Educated at Gerona he entered the Dominican convent there, receiving the habit in 1640. His success in theological studies at the convent of Valencia secured for him the chair of theology in the university. In 1666he was chosen provincial of Aragon, and in 1670 the General Chapter elected him general of the order. He became endeared to all who came in contact with him. No one, perhaps, held him in greater esteem than Clement X. The celebrated Dominican Contenson dedicated to him his "Theologia mentis el cordis". He obtained the canonization of Sts. Louis Bertrand and Rose of Lima, the solemn beatification of Pius V, and the annual celebration in the order of the feast of Bl. Albert the Great and others. In 1676 he was appointed by Charles II first Archbishop of Valencia and then governor of that province. In 1695 he was made inquisitor-general of Spain.

Rocaberti is best known as an active apologist of the papacy against Gallicans and Protestants. His first work in the sense was "De Romani poniticis auctoritate" (3 vols., Valentia, 1691-94). His most important work is the "Bibliotheca Maxima Pontificia" (21 vols., Rome, 1697-00). In this monumental work the author collected and published in alphabetical order, and in their entirety, all the important works dealing with the primacy of the Holy See from an orthodox point of view, beginning with Abraham Bzovius and ending with Zacharias Boverius. An excellent summary is given in Hurter's "Nomenclator".

QUETIF-ECHARD, Script. ord. Prad., II (Paris, 1721), 630,827; TOURON, Hist. des hom. Ill. De l'ordre Dom., V (Paris, 1748), 714-26; HURTER, Nomenclator, II: Année Dominicaine, XIII, 785.

H.J. SCHROEDER

Rocamadour

Communal chief town of the canton of Gramat, district of Gourdon, Department of Lot, in the Diocese of Cahors and the ancient province of Quercy. This village by the wonderful beauty of its situation merits the attention of artists and excites the curiosity of archæologists; but its reputation is due especially to its celebrated sanctuary of the Blessed Virgin which for centuries has attracted pilgrims from every country, among them kings, bishops, and nobles.

A curious legend purported to explain the origin of this pilgrimage has given rise to controversies between critical and traditional schools, especially in recent times. According to the latter, Rocamadour is indebted for its name to the founder of the ancient sanctuary, St. Amadour, who was none other than Zacheus of the Gospel, husband of St. Veronica, who wiped the Saviour's face on the way to Calvary. Driven forth from Palestine by persecution, Amadour and Veronica embarked in a frail skiff and, guided by an angel, landed on the coast of Aquitaine, where thy met Bishop St. Martial, another disciple of Christ who was preaching the Gospel in the south-west of Gaul. After journeying to Rome, where he witnessed the martydoms of Sts. Peter and Paul, Amadour, having returned to France, on the death of his spouse, withdrew to a wild spot in Quercy where he built a chapel in honour of the Blessed Virgin, near which he died a little later. This marvellous account, like most other similar legends, unfortunately does not make its first appearance till long after the age in which the chief actors are deemed to have lived. The name of Amadour occurs in no document previous to the compilation of his Acts, which on careful examination and on an application of the rules of the cursus to the text cannot be judged older than the twelfth century. It is now well established that St. martial, Amadour's contemporary in the legend, lived in the third not the first century, and Rome has never included him among the members of the Apostolic College. The mention, therefore, of St. martial in the Acts of St. Amadour would alone suffice, even if other proof were wanting, to prove them a forgery. The untrustworthiness of the legend has led some recent authors to suggest that Amadour was an unknown hermit or possible St. Amator, Bishop of Auxerre, but this is mere hypothesis, without any historical basis. Although the origin of the sanctuary of Rocamadour, lost in antiquity, is thus first set down along with fabulous traditions which cannot bear the light of sound criticism, yet it is undoubted that this spot, hallowed by the prayers of innumerable multitudes of pilgrims, is worthy of our veneration. After the religious manifestations of the Middle Ages, Rocamadour, as a result of war and revolution, had become almost deserted. Recently, owing to the zeal and activity of the bishops of Cahors, it seems to have revived and pilgrims are beginning to crown there again.

DE GISSEY, Hist. et miracles de N. D. de Roc-Amadour au pays de Quercy (Tulle, 1666); CAILLAU, Hist. crit. Et relig. De N .D. de Rod-Amadour (Paris, 1834); IDEM, Le Jour de Marie ou le guide du pèlerin de Roc-Amadour (Paris, 1836); SERVOIS, Notice et extraits du recueil des miracles de Roc-Amadour (Paris, 1856); LIEUTAUD, La Vida de S. Amadour, texte provençal du XIV's. (Cahors, 1876); BOURRIÈRES, Saint Amadour et Sainte Véronique, disciples de Notre Seigneur et apôtres de Gauels (Paris, 1895); ENARD, Lettre pastorale sur l'hist de Roc-Amadour. . . (Cahors, 1899); RUPIN, Roc-Amadour etude hist. et archéol. (Paris, 1904), an excellent work containing the definitive history of Roc-Amadour; ALBE, Les miracles de N. D. de Rod-Amadour au XIIx s., texte et traduction des manusrits de la Bibiothèque nationale (Paris, 1907), corroborating the work of Rupin.

LÉON CLUGNET

Angelo Rocca

Founder of the Angelica Library at Rome, b. at Rocca, now Arecevia, near Ancone, 1545; d. at Rome, 8 April, 1620. He was received at the age of seven into the Augustinian monastery at Camerino (hence also called Camers, Camerinus), studied at Perugia, Rome, Venice, and in 1577 graduated as doctor in theology from Padua. He became secretary to the superior-general of the Augustinians in 1579, was placed at the head of the Vatican printing-office in 1585, and entrusted with the superintendence of the projected editions of the Bible and the writings of the Fathers. In 1595 he was appointed sacristan in the papal chapel, and in 1605 became titular Bishop of Tagaste in Numidia. The public library of the Augustinians at Rome, formally established 23 October, 1614, perpetuated his name. It is mainly to his efforts that we owe the edition of the Vulgate published during the pontificate of Clement VIII. He also edited the works of Egidio Colonna (Venice, 1581), of Augustinus Triumphus (Rome, 1582), and wrote: "Bibliothecæ theologicæ et scripturalis epitome" (Rome, 1594); "De Sacrosancto Christi corpore romanis pontificibus iter conficientibus præferendo commentarius" (Rome, 1599); "De canonizatione sanctorum commentarius" (Rome, 1601), "De campanis" (Rome, 1612). An incomplete collection of his works was published in 1719 and 1745 at Rome: "Thesaurus pontificiarum sacrarumque antiquitatum necnon rituum praxium et cæremoniarium".

OSSINGER, Bibl. August (Ingolstadt, 1768), 754-64; CHALMERS, Gen. Biol. Dict., s. v.

N.A. WEBER

St. Roch

Born at Montpellier towards 1295; died 1327. His father was governor of that city. At his birth St. Roch is said to have been found miraculously marked on the breast with a red cross. Deprived of his parents when about twenty years old, he distributed his fortune among the poor, handed over to his uncle the government of Montpellier, and in the disguise of a mendicant pilgrim, set out for Italy, but stopped at Aquapendente, which was stricken by the plague, and devoted himself to the plague-stricken, curing them with the sign of the cross. He next visited Cesena and other neighbouring cities and then Rome. Everywhere the terrible scourge disappeared before his miraculous power. He visited Mantua, Modena, Parma, and other cities with the same results. At Piacenza, he himself was stricken with the plague. He withdrew to a hut in the neighbouring forest, where his wants were supplied by a gentleman named Gothard, who by a miracle learned the place of his retreat. After his recovery Roch returned to France. Arriving at Montpellier and refusing to disclose his identity, he was taken for a spy in the disguise of a pilgrim, and cast into prison by order of the governor, -- his own uncle, some writers say, -- where five years later he died. The miraculous cross on his breast as well as a document found in his possession now served for his identification. He was accordingly given a public funeral, and numerous miracles attested his sanctity.

In 1414, during the Council of Constance, the plague having broken out in that city, the Fathers of the Council ordered public prayers and processions in honour of the saint, and immediately the plague ceased. His relics, according to Wadding, were carried furtively to Venice in 1485, where they are still venerated. It is commonly held that he belonged to the Third Order of St. Francis; but it cannot be proved. Wadding leaves it an open question. Urban VIII approved the ecclesiastical office to be recited on his feast (16 August). Paul III instituted a confraternity, under the invocation of the saint, to have charge of the church and hospital erected during the pontificate of Alexander VI. The confraternity increased so rapidly that Paul IV raised it to an archconfraternity, with powers to aggregate similar confraternities of St. Roch. It was given a cardinal-protector, and a prelate of high rank was to be its immediate superior (see Reg. et Const. Societatis S. Rochi). Various favours have been bestowed on it by Pius IV (C. Regimini, 7 March, 1561), by Gregory XIII (C. dated 5 January, 1577), by Gregory XIV (C. Paternar. pont., 7 March, 1591), and by other pontiffs. It still flourishes.

WADDING, Annales Min. (Rome, 1731), VII, 70; IX, 251; Acta SS. (Venice, 1752), 16 August; Gallia Christiana, VI ad an. 1328; ANDRE, Hist. de S. Roch (Carpentras, 1854); CHAVANNE, S. Roch Hist. complete, etc. (Lyons, 1876); COFFINIERES, S. Roch, etudes histor. sur Montpellier au XIVe siecle (Montpellier, 1855); BEVIGNANI, Vita del Taumaturgo S. Rocco (Rome, 1878); Vita del glorioso S. Rocco, figlio di Giovanni principe di Agatopoli, ora detta Montpellieri, con la storica relazione del suo corpo (Venice, 1751); BUTLER, Lives of the Saints, 16 August; LEON, Lives of the Saints of the Three Orders of S. Francis (Taunton, England, 1886); PIAZZA, Opere pie di Roma (Rome, 1679).

GREGORY CLEARY

Jean-Baptiste-Donatien de Vimeur, Count de Rochambeau

Marshal, b. at Vendôme, France, 1 July, 1725; d. at Thoré, 10 May, 1807. At the age of sixteen he entered the army and in 1745 became an aid to Louis Philippe, Duke of Orleans, subsequently commanding a regiment. He served with distinction in several important battles, notably those of Minorca, Crevelt, and Minden, and was wounded at the battle of Lafeldt. When the French monarch resolved to despatch a military force to aid the American colonies in the Revolutionary War, Rochambeau was created a lieutenant-general and placed in command of a body of troops which numbered some 6000 men. It was the smallness of this force that made Rochambeau at first averse to taking part in the American War, but his sympathy with the colonial cause compelled him eventually to accept the command, and he arrived at Newport, Rhode Island July, 1780, and joined the American army under Washington, on the Hudson a few miles above the city of New York. Rochambeau performed the double duties of a diplomat and general in an alien army with rare distinction amidst somewhat trying circumstances, not the least of which being a somewhat unaccountable coolness between Washington and himself, which, fortunately, was of but passing import (see the correspondence and diary of Count Axel Fersen). After the first meeting with the American general he marched with his force to the Virginia peninsula and rendered heroic assistance at Yorktown in the capture of the English forces under Lord Cornwallis, which concluded the hostilities. When Cornwallis surrendered, 19 Oct., 1781, Rochambeau was presented with one of the captured cannon. After the surrender he embarked for France amid ardent protestations of gratitude and admiration from the officers and men of the American army. In 1783 he received the decoration of Saint-Esprit and obtained the baton of a marshal of France in 1791. Early in 1792 he was placed in command of the army of the North, and conducted a force against the Austrians, but resigned the same year and narrowly escaped the guillotine when the Jacobin revolutionary power had obtained supreme control in Paris. When the fury of the revolution had spent itself, Rochambeau was reinstated in the regard of his countrymen. He was granted a pension by Napoleon Bonaparte in 1804, and was decorated with the Cross of Grand Officer of the Legion of Honour. The last years of the distinguished military leader's life were passed in the dictation of his memoirs, which appeared in two volumes in Paris in 1809, and which throw many personal and brilliant sidelights on the events of two of the most historically impressive revolutions, and the exceptional men therein concerned.

WRIGHT, Memoirs of Marshal Count de Rochambeau Relative to the War or Independence (1838); SOULÉ, Histoire des troubles de l'Amerique anglaise(Paris, 1787); standard histories of the United States may also be consulted.

JARVIS KEILEY

Ancient See of Rochester

(ROFFA; ROFFENSIS).

The oldest and smallest of all the suffragan sees of Canterbury, was founded by St. Augustine, Apostle of England, who in 604 consecrated St. Justus as its first bishop. It consisted roughly of the western part of Kent, separated from the rest of the county by the Medway, though the diocesan boundaries did not follow the river very closely. The cathedral, founded by King Ethelbert and dedicated to St. Andrew from whose monastery at Rome St. Augustine and St. Justus had come, was served by a college of secular priests and endowed with land near the city called Priestfield. It suffered much from the Mercians (676) and the Danes, but the city retained its importance, and after the Norman Conquest a new cathedral was begun by the Norman bishop Gundulf. This energetic prelate replaced the secular chaplains by Benedictine monks, translated the relics of St. Paulinus to a silver shrine which became a place of pilgrimage, obtained several royal grants of land, and proved an untiring benefactor to his cathedral city. Gundulf had built the nave and western front before his death; the western transept was added between 1179 and 1200, and the eastern transept during the reign of Henry III. The cathedral is small, being only 306 feet long, but its nave is the oldest in England and it has a fine Norman crypt. Besides the shrine of St. Paulinus, the cathedral contained the relics of St. Ithamar, the first Saxon to be consecrated to the episcopate, and St. William of Perth, who was held in popular veneration. In 1130 the cathedral was consecrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury assisted by thirteen bishops in the presence of Henry I, but the occasion was marred by a great fire which nearly destroyed the whole city and damaged the new cathedral. After the burial of St. William of Perth in 1201 the offerings at his tomb were so great, that by their means the choir was rebuilt and the central tower was added (1343), thus completing the cathedral. From the foundation of the see the arthbishops of Canterbury had enjoyed the privilege of nominating the bishop, but Archbishop Theobald transferred the right to the Benedictine monks of the cathedral who exercised it for the first time in 1148.

The following is the list of bishops with the date of their accession; but the succession from Tatnoth (844) to Siward (1058) is obscure, and may be modified by fresh research:

The canonical line was restored by the appointment in 1554 of Maurice Griffith, the last Catholic bishop of Rochester, who died in 1558. The diocese was so small, consisting merely of part of Kent, that it needed only one archdeacon (Rochester) to supervise the 97 parishes. It was also the poorest diocese in England. The cathedral was dedicated to St. Andrew the Apostle. The arms of the see were argent, on a saltire gules an Escalop shell, or.

SHRUBSOLE AND DENNE, History and Antiquities of Rochester (London, 1772); Wharton, Anglia Sacra (London, 1691) pt. i, includes annals by DE HADENHAM (604-1307) and DE DENE (1314-50); PEARMAN, Rochester: Diocesan History (London, 1897); PALMER, Rochester: The Cathedral and See (London, 1897); HOPE, Architectural History of Cathedral in Kent Arch*logical Society, XXIII, XXIV (1898- 1900); ERNULPHUS, Textus Roffensis, ed. HEARNE (London, 1720), reprinted in P. L. CLXIII; PEGGE, Account of Textus Roffensis (London, 1784) in NICHOLS, Bib. Topog. Brit., (London, 1790); J. Thorpe, Registrum Roffense (London, 1769); J. THORPE, JR., Custumale Roffense (London, 1988); WINKLE, Cathedral Churches of England and Wales (London, 1860); FAIRBANKS, Cathedrals of England and Wales (London, 1907); GODWIN, De pr*sulibus Angli* (London, 1743); GAMS, Series Episcoporum (Ratisbon, 1873); SEARLE, Anglo-Saxon Bishops, Kings and Nobles (Cambridge, 1899).

EDWIN BURTON

Diocese of Rochester

This diocese, on its establishment by separation from the See of Buffalo, 24 January, 1868, comprised the counties of Monroe, Livingston, Wayne, Ontario, Seneca, Cayuga, Yates, and Tompkins in the state of New York. In 1896, after the death of Bishop Ryan of Buffalo, the boundary line of the two dioceses was somewhat changed, the counties of Steuben, Schuyler, Chemung, and Tioga being detached from the See of Buffalo and added to that of Rochester.

Bishops

(1) Rev. Bernard J. McQuaid, who became a pioneer and leader in Catholic education and the founder of a model seminary, was consecrated bishop of Rochester in St. Patrick's Cathedral, New York City, on 12 July, 1868. Four days later he took possession of his small and poor diocese, containing only sixty churches administered by thirty-eight priests, seven of whom were Redemptorist Fathers. When he died, 18 Jan., 1909, after forty years spent in a laborious episcopate, his diocese was richly furnished with churches, schools, seminaries, charitable institutions, answering the manifold needs of the Catholic population, then estimated at 121,000.

(2) Rev. Thomas F. Hickey was consecrated in St. Patrick's Cathedral, Rochester, 24 May, 1905, having been appointed coadjutor to Bishop McQuaid.

Churches

The steady growth of the Catholic population in the Diocese of Rochester, due mainly to immigration of Irish, German, French, Polish, Italian, Lithuanian and Ruthenian Catholics, taxed the resources at the disposal of Bishop McQuaid, who was anxious throughout his entire episcopate to supply the people with churches and priests of their own nationality and language, whenever they were willing and able to support them. The parishes were not allowed to become unwieldy, but were increased in number to meet the needs and conveniences of the faithful. The problem of spiritual ministration to Catholics dwelling at watering- places in the diocese in the summer found a good solution in the erection of neat summer chapels.

Catholic Education

The common schools in the Diocese of Rochester at the time of its creation professed to be non-sectarian. Bishop McQuaid felt that they were very dangerous to the Catholic child which really finds its church in the school. He sought a remedy in a vigorous agitation for the rights of Catholic parents, contributing to the support of the public school system by their taxes, to receive public money for the maintenance of schools, in which their children could be educated with that "amount and description of religious instruction" which conscience tells them is good, expedient, necessary. The failure of the State to remedy the injustice was met with the firm command of the bishop which was put into execution as soon as possible throughout the diocese: "Build schoolhouses then for the religious education of your children as the best protest against a system of education from which religion has been excluded by law." At Rochester in 1868, there were 2056 children in the parochial schools of the five German churches, and 441 children in the schools attached to the Churches of St. Patrick and St. Mary. Both of these had a select or pay school and a free, parish, or poor school, admitting invidious distinctions very distasteful to the new bishop.

Outside of Rochester schools were attached to a few churches of the diocese, but with a very small attendance. These were the humble beginnings of the admirable parochial school system, which embraces today practically all the Catholic children of the school age in the diocese. Not all the Catholic schools were brought to their present high degree of efficiency at once; it took many years and persistent effort to accomplish this work. The brothers gradually yielded their places to the sisters, who now teach all the children in the Catholic schools, both boys and girls. Bishop McQuaid spared no pains in developing good teachers in his own order of the Sisters of St. Joseph, for whom a normal training school was established. Occasional "teachers' institutes" organized for the benefit of these sisterhoods in Rochester prepared the way for the annual conference held by the parochial teachers in the episcopal city since 1904, at which the various orders meet to discuss educational problems and to perfect in every possible way the parochial school system.

As early as 1855 the Ladies of the Sacred Heart transferred their convent in Buffalo to Rochester as a more central point for their academy. About the same time the Sisters of St. Joseph in Canandaigua opened St. Mary's academy for young ladies, now Nazareth Academy attached to the new motherhouse of the order in Rochester. Advanced courses were also introduced in 1903 into the Cathedral school under the direction of Bishop Hickey, who, in 1906, converted the old Cathedral Hall into a high school, classical and commercial, open to both girls and boys.

Ecclesiastical

(a) Preparatory.--Believing that it was hard for a boy to become a worthy priest without first leading the normal life of the family in the world, Bishop McQuaid planned his preparatory ecclesiastical seminary as a free day-school and not a boarding-school, the students living at home under the care of their parents, or in a boarding house approved by the superiors. Within two years after the erection of the diocese, this plan was realized. On his return from the Vatican Council in 1870, St. Andrew's Preparatory Seminary was opened in a small building to the rear of the episcopal residence. It has already given nearly 175 priests to the diocese of Rochester. The rule has been made to adopt no one in this diocese who has ot spent at least two years in St. Andrew's Seminary. Through the generosity of Mgr. H. De Regge and some others, Bishop McQuaid was enabled to erect a new building in 1880 and to enlarge it in 1889; and in 1904 the younger priests of the diocese furnished him with funds to erect a fire-proof structure with fitting accommodations for the work of the school.

(b) Theological.--For many years the ecclesiastical students of the Diocese of Rochester were sent mainly to the provincial seminary at Troy or to Rome and Innsbruck in Europe for their theological education. In 1879 Bishop McQuaid put aside a small legacy bequeathed him as a nucleus of a fund for the erection of suitable buildings for a diocesan seminary. Although the fund grew slowly, the bishop would not lay the first stone until nearly all the money needed for the work was in hand, nor would he open the seminary for students until the buildings were completed and paid for, and at least four professorships endowed. In April, 1887, he was able to purchase a site on the bank of the Genesee River gorge, only three miles from the cathedral. Four years later he began the erection of the buildings. In two years they were completed, and in September, 1893, the seminary was opened with 39 students. Applications for admission soon came from various parts of the United States and Canada. Four years after its establishment, it became evident that more room was necessary. A fund for an additional building was begun and in 1900, the Hall of Philosophy and Science was erected with accommodations for class-rooms, library, and living rooms. In the following year Bishop McQuaid received a recognition for these labours from Leo XIII in a Brief granting to himself and his successors the power of conferring degrees in Philosophy and Theology. The Hall of Theology was begun in 1907 and solemnly dedicated 20 August, 1908. The priests of the diocese founded the ninth endowed professorship in honour of their bishop's jubilee. An infirmary for sick students was in process of construction when Bishop McQuaid died.

Charities

Though Catholic education was the primary concern of Bishop McQuaid in his diocese, ample provision for its charities was not lacking.

(1) As early as 1845 the R.C.A. Society of Rochester, already in existence some years, was incorporated, having for its object the support of the orphan girls in St. Patrick's Female Orphan Asylum at Rochester and the support of the orphan boys sent to the Boys' Asylum, either at Lancaster, New York, or at Lime Stone Hill near Buffalo. In 1864 St. Mary's Boys' Orphan Asylum was also established in Rochester under the care of the Sisters of St. Joseph, to whom also the Girls' Orphan Asylum was confided in 1870 on the resignation of the Sisters of Charity hitherto in charge. When the Auburn Orphan Asylum, incorporated in 1853, was transferred to Rochester in 1910, all this work was then centralized in the episcopal city. Here also special provision had been made for the German Catholic orphans since 1866, when St. Joseph's Orphan Asylum was erected and placed under the care of the Sisters of Notre-Dame.

(2) In 1873 a short-lived attempt was made to supplement the work of St. Mary's Orphan Asylum by giving the boys of suitable age an opportunity of acquiring a practical knowledge of farming or of a useful trade. A similar institution for girls flourished under Mother Hieronymo for some twenty years under the name of The Home of Industry which then was changed into a home for the aged. The location did not prove desirable for such an institution, and $65,000 having been raised by a bazaar, Bishop McQuaid was enabled to erect St. Anne's Home for the Aged, admitting men as well as women.

(3) The spiritual needs of another class of the destitute, the Catholic inmates of public eleemosynary and penal institution in the diocese, appealed strongly to Bishop McQuaid, who at once became their champion in the endeavour to have their religious rights respected according to the guarantee of the Constitution of the State of New York. His agitation in this noble cause was crowned with success, and the State supports today chaplains at the State Industrial School, Industry, at the State Reformatory, Elmira, at the Craig Colony (state hospital for epileptics), Sonyea, at the Soldiers' and Sailors' Home, Bath, while the county maintains a chaplain in Rochester for its public institutions of this kind.

(4) The Catholic sick have one of the largest and best equipped hospitals in Rochester at their disposal in St. Mary's Hospital, established by the Sisters of Charity under Mother Hieronymo in 1857. The Sisters of Mercy have charge of St. James Hospital in Hornell, and of late years the Sisters of St. Joseph have also opened a hospital in Elmira.

Statistics

Priests, 163 (6 Redemptorists); churches with resident priests, 94; missions with churches, 36; chapels, 18; parishes with parochial schools, 54 with 20,189 pupils; academies for young ladies, 2 with 470 pupils (Nazareth, 352; Sacred Heart, 118); theological seminary for secular clergy, 1 with 234 students (73 for the Diocese of Rochester); preparatory seminary, 1 with 80 students; orphan asylums, 3 with 438 orphans (St. Patrick's, Girls', 119; St. Mary's Boys', 204; St. Joseph's, 115); Home for the Aged, 1 with 145 inmates (men, 25); hospitals, 3 with 3115 inmates during year (St. Mary's, Rochester, 2216; St. Joseph's, Elmira, 463; St. James, Hornell, 436); Catholics, 142,263.

Conc. Balt. Plen. acta et decreta; Acta S. Sedis, III; Leonis XIII Acta xvi, xxi; Catholic Directory, (1866-1911); McQuaid: Diaries (fragmentary); IDEM, Pastorals in Annual Coll. for Eccl. students (1871-1911); IDEM, Pastoral (Jubilee) (1875); IDEM, Pastoral (Visitation) (1878); IDEM, Our American Seminaries in Am. Eccl. Rev. (May, 1897), reprint in SMITH, The Training of a Priest, pp. xxi-xxxix; IDEM, The Training of a Seminary Professor in SMITH, op. cit., pp. 237-35; IDEM, Christian Free Schools (1892), a reprint of lectures; IDEM, Religion in Schools in North Am. Rev (April, 1881); IDEM, Religious Teaching in Schools in Forum (Dec., 1889); Reports of Conferences held by parochial teachers (1904-10).

FREDERICK J. ZWIERLEIN

Rochet

An over-tunic usually made of fine white linen (cambric; fine cotton material is also allowed), and reaching to the knees. While bearing a general resemblance to the surplice, it is distinguished from that vestment by the shape of the sleeves; in the surplice these are at least fairly wide, while in the rochet they are always tight-fitting. The rochet is decorated with lace or embroidered borders--broader at the hem and narrower on the sleeves. To make the vestment entirely of tulle or lace is inconvenient, as is the inordinate use of plaits; in both cases, the vestment becomes too effeminate. The rochet is not a vestment pertaining to all clerics, like the surplice; it is distinctive of prelates, and may be worn by other ecclesiastics only when (as, e.g., in the case of cathedral chapters) the usus rochetti has been granted them by a special papal indult. That the rochet possesses no liturgical character is clear both from the Decree of Urban VII prefixed to the Roman Missal, and from an express decision of the Congregation of Rites (10 Jan., 1852), which declares that, in the administration of the sacraments, the rochet may not be used as a vestis sacra; in the administration of the sacraments, as well as at the conferring of the tonsure and the minor orders, use should be made of the surplice (cf. the decision of 31 May, 1817; 17 Sept., 1722; 16 April, 1831). However, as the rochet may be used by the properly privileged persons as choir-dress, it may be included among the liturgical vestments in the broad sense, like the biretta or the cappa magna. Prelates who do not belong to a religious order, should wear the rochet over the soutane during Mass in so far as this is convenient.

The origin of the rochet may be traced from the clerical (non- liturgical) alba or camisia, that is, the clerical linen tunic of everyday life. It was thus not originally distinctive of the higher ecclesiastics alone. This camisia appears first in Rome as a privileged vestment; that this was the case in the Christian capital as early as the ninth century is established by the St. Gall catalogue of vestments. Outside of Rome the rochet remained to a great extent a vestment common to all clerics until the fourteenth century (and even longer); according to various German synodal statutes of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries (Trier, Passau, Cambrai, etc.), it was worn even by sacristans. The Fourth Lateran Council prescribed its use for bishops who did not belong to a religious order, both in the church and on all public appearances. The name rochet (from the medieval roccus) was scarcely in use before the thirteenth century. It is first met outside of Rome, where, until the fifteenth century, the vestment was called camisia, alba romana, or succa (subta). These names gradually yielded to rochet in Rome also. Originally, the rochet reached, like the liturgical alb, to the feet, and, even in the fifteenth century still reached to the shins. It was not reduced to its present length until the seventeenth century.

BRAUN, Die liturg. Gewandung im Occident u. Orient (Freiburg, 1907), 125 sqq.; BOCK, Gesch. der liturg Gewänder, II (Bonn, 1866), 329 sqq.; ROHAULT DE BLEURY, La Messe, VII (Paris, 1888).

JOSEPH BRAUN

Désiré Raoul Rochette

Usually known as Raoul-Rochette, a French archæologist, b. at St. Amand (Cher), 9 March, 1789; d. in Paris, 3 June, 1854. His father was a physician. He made his classical studies the lyceum of Bourges, and then took up post-graduate work in the Ecole Normale Supérieure in Paris. In 1810, he obtained a chair of grammar in the lyceum Louis-le-Grand, and in the same year, married the daughter of the celebrated sculptor Houdon. Three years later, he was awarded a prize by the Institute for his "Mémoire sur les Colonies Grecques". In 1815, he became lecturer at the Ecole Normale and succeeded Guizot in the chair of modern history at the Sorbonne. It has been often said that he owed his rapid advancement only to favoritism, because of his devotion to the ruling power; this is not entirely true. He was a real scholar whose deep knowledge of archæology was admired even by his political enemies. He was elected to the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles-Lettres in 1816, and two years later, made a keeper of medals and antiques. His appointment to the position of censor (1820) aroused the hostility of his students, who prevented him from delivering his lectures and caused the course to be suspended. In 1824 he was transferred to the chair of archæology. He entered the Academy of Fine Arts in 1838, and was made it perpetual secretary in 1839. Besides his memoirs for the Institute and numerous contributions to the "Journal de Savants, he wrote many books, the chief of which are: "Histoire critique de;'etablissement des colonies grecques" (Paris, 1815); "Antiquités grecques du Bosphore Cimmérien" (Paris, 1822); "Lettres sur le Suisse" (Paris, 1826); "Mémoires inédits d'antiquité figurée grecque, étrusque et Romaine" (Paris, 1828); "Pompéi" (Paris, 1828); "Cours d'archéologie" (Paris, 1828); "Peintures antiques inédites" (Paris, 1836).

LOUIS N. DELAMARRE

Daniel Rock

Antiquarian and ecclesiologist, b. at Liverpool, 31 August, 1799; d. at Kensington, London, 28 November, 1871. He was educated at St. Edmund's College, Old Hall, where he studied from April, 1813, to Dec., 1818. There he came under the influence of the Rev. Louis Havard from whom he acquired his first interest in liturgy, and was the intimate companion of the future historian, Mark A. Tierney. He was then chosen as one of the first students sent to reopen the English College at Rome, where he remained till he took the degree of D.D. in 1825. He had been ordained priest, 13 March, 1824. On his return to London he becomes assistant priest at St. Mary's, Moorfields, till 1827, when he was appointed domestic chaplain to John, Earl of Shrewsbury, with whom he had contracted a friendship based on similarity of tastes while at Rome. He accordingly resided at Alton Towers, Staffordshire, till 1840, with the exception of two years during which Lord Shrewsbury's generosity enabled him to stay at Rome collecting materials for his great work, "Hierurgia or the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass", which was published in 1833. He had previously published two short works: "Transubstantiation vindicated from the strictures of the Rev. Maurice Jones" (1830), and "The Liturgy of the Mass and Common Vespers for Sundays" (1832).

In 1840 he became chaplain to Sir Robert Throckmorton of Buckland in Berkshire, and while there wrote his greatest book, "The Church of Our Fathers", in which he studies the Sarum Rite and other medieval liturgical observances. This work, which has profoundly influenced liturgical study in England and which caused his recognition as the leading authority on the subject, was published in 1849 (vols. I and II) and 1853-4 (vol. III). After 1840 Dr. Rock was a prominent member of the "Adelphi", an association of London priests who were working together for the restoration of the hierarchy. When this object was achieved, he was elected one of the first canons of Southwark (1852). Shortly after, he ceased parochial work, and having resided successfully at Newick, Surrey (1854-64), he went to live near the South Kensington Museum in which he took the keenest interest and to which he proved of much service. His "Introduction to the Catalogue of Textile Fabrics" in that Museum has been separately reprinted (1876) and is of great authority. He also contributed frequent articles to the Archæological Journal, the Dublin Review, and other periodicals. For many years before his death he held the honourable position of President of the Old Brotherhood of the English Secular Clergy. There is an oil painting of him at St. Edmund's College, Old Hall.

GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s. v.; SUTTON in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v. incorrectly dating his departure for Rome 1813 instead of 1818; KELLY, Life of Daniel Rock, D.D., prefixed to the modern Anglican ed. The Church of Our Fathers, ed. HART AND FRERE (London, 1903), with portrait. The Edmundian, II (1895), no. 8.

EDWIN BURTON

Diocese of Rockford

(ROCKFORDIENSIS).

Created 23 September, 1908, comprises Jo Daviess, Stephenson, Winnebago, Boone, McHenry, Carrol, Ogle, DeKalb, Kane, Whiteside, Lee, and Kendall Counties in the north-western part of the State of Illinois. The diocese has an area of 6867 sq. miles, and a Catholic population of 50,000, mostly Irish and Germans or their descendants. The total population of the twelve counties that form the diocese, according to the last census, in 414,872. The entire territory of the Diocese of Rockford was a part of the Archdiocese of Chicago until 23 September, 1908. The city of Rockford has a population of 48,000; it is a manufacturing centre. The Right Reverend Peter James Muldoon, formerly Auxiliary Bishop of Chicago, was appointed the first Bishop of Rockford, and took possession of his see, 15 December, 1908. There are in the diocese (1911), 99 secular priests, 18 missions with attendance of 3850, 5 hospitals, 1 maternity home, 1 home for aged, and Mt. St. Mary's Academy for Girls (St. Charles) with an attendance of 84.

Offic. Catholic Directory

J.J. FLANAGAN

Rockhampton

Diocese in Queensland, Australia. In 1862 Father Duhig visited the infant settlement on the banks of the Fitzroy River and celebrated the first Mass there. Father Scully came from Brisbane to attend to the spiritual needs of the little congregation and in 1863 Dean Murlay was appointed first resident pastor of Rockhampton, his parish extending as far north as Cooktown and south to Maryborough. He built the first Catholic church in Rockhampton, a wooden edifice still standing, and for many years was the only priest to look after the Catholics scattered over the vast territory. A foundation of the Sisters of Mercy from All-Hallows Convent, Brisbane, was established in 1873, and Sister Mary de Sales Gorry, the first Queensland-born nun, was appointed Superioress. Rockhampton remained part of the Diocese of Brisbane until 1882. In 1876 the Holy See erected the northern portion of the colony into a pro-vicariate, and in 1882 made Rockhampton a see with a territory of some 350,000 square miles. Right Rev. Dr. Cani, a native of the papal states, who had had a distinguished scholastic career at Rome, and former pro-vicar Apostolic of North Queensland, was appointed first bishop of the new diocese. Bishop Cani, who was then administering the diocese of Brisbane, was consecrated by Archbishop Vaughan in St. Mary's Cathedral, Sydney, 21 May, 1882, and was installed in his temporary cathedral at Rockhampton on 11 June following.

In the new diocese there were about 10,000 Catholics, 6 or 7 priests, 8 Catholic schools, and 1 orphanage. Bishop Cani added to the small number of priests, purchased sites for new churches, and acquired 3000 acres of fertile land near Rockhampton for a central orphanage which he had built and placed under the care of the Sisters of Mercy. His great work was the erection of St. Joseph's Cathedral, a magnificent stone edifice which he did not live to see dedicated. After a strenuous episcopate of sixteen years Dr. Cani died, 3 March, 1898. His great virtues were recognized even by those outside the Church. Humility and simplicity of life, love of the poor and orphans were his special characteristics. He was succeeded in Rockhampton by Right Rev. Dr. Higgins, a native of Co. Meath, Ireland, and now Bishop of Ballarat. Dr. Higgins studied in Maynooth, was subsequently president of the Diocesan seminary at Navan, and in 1888 was chosen auxiliary bishop to the Cardinal Archbishop of Sydney with the title of titular bishop of Antifelle. He had zealously laboured in the Archdiocese of Sydney for over ten years, when appointed to Rockhampton. He traversed his new diocese from end to end, gauged its wants, attracted priests to his aid, placed students for the mission in various ecclesiastical colleges, introduced new religious teaching orders, built and dedicated churches, convents, and schools in several centres, bringing the blessings of religion and Christian education to the children of the backblocks.

On 15 October, 1899, the beautiful new cathedral was dedicated by the Cardinal Archbishop of Sydney assisted by several other distinguished Australian prelates in the presence of a great concourse of people. The remains of Dr. Cani were transferred thither. Dr. Higgins visited Rome and Ireland in 1904, and returned with renewed energy to carry on his great work. On the death of Dr. Moore, Bishop of Ballarat, Victoria, he was translated to that important See, where he has ever since laboured with characteristic zeal and devotedness. The present Bishop of Rockhampton is Right Rev. Dr. James Duhig, born at Broadford, Co. Limerick, Ireland, 1870. Dr. Duhig emigrated from Ireland with his family at the age of thirteen, studied with the Christian Brothers at Brisbane and at the Irish College, Rome, was ordained priest, 19 Sept., 1896, and, returning to Queensland in the following year, was appointed to a curacy in the parish of Ipswich. In 1905 he was appointed administrator of St. Stephen's Cathedral, Brisbane, and received the briefs of his appointment to the See of Rockhampton. At present (1911) there are in the Diocese of Rockhampton: about 28,000 Catholics; 19 missions or districts; 30 priests (4 of whom belong to the Marist congregation, who have 1 house in the diocese); 12 Christian Brothers; 150 nuns; and 26 Catholic schools, attended by about 5000 children.

J. DUHIG

Rococo Style

This style received its name in the nineteenth century from French émigrés, who used the word to designate in whimsical fashion the old shellwork style (style rocaille), then regarded as Old Frankish, as opposed to the succeeding more simple styles. Essentially, it is in the same kind of art and decoration as flourished in France during the regency following Louis XIV's death, and remained in fashion for about forty years (1715-50). It might be termed the climax or degeneration of the Baroque, which, coupled with French grace, began towards the end of the reign of Louis XIV to convert grotesques into curves, lines, and bands (Jean Bérain, 1638-1711). As its effect was less pronounced on architectural construction than elsewhere, it is not so much a real style as a new kind of decoration, which culminates in the resolution of architectural forms of the interiors (pilasters and architraves) by arbitrary ornamentation after the fashion of an unregulated, enervated Baroque, while also influencing the arrangement of space, the construction of the façades, the portals, the forms of the doors and windows. The Rococo style was readily received in Germany, where it was still further perverted into the arbitrary, unsymmetrical, and unnatural, and remained in favour until 1770 (or even longer); it found no welcome in England. In Italy a tendency towards the Rococo style is evidenced by the Borrominik Guarini, and others. The French themselves speak only of the Style Régence and Louis XV, which, however, is by no means confined to this one tendency.

To a race grown effeminate to the Baroque forms seemed too coarse and heavy, the lines too straight and stiff, and whole impression to weighty and forced. The small and the light, sweeps and flourishes, caught the public taste; in the interiors the architectonic had to yield to the picturesque, the curious, an the whimsical. There develops a style for elegant parlours, dainty sitting-rooms and boudoirs, drawing-rooms and libraries, in which walls, ceiling, furniture, and works of metal and porcelain present one ensemble of sportive, fantastic, and sculptured forms. The horizontal lines are almost completely superseded by curves and interruptions, the vertical varied at least by knots; everywhere shell-like curves appear to a cusp; the natural construction of the walls is concealed behind thick stucco-framework; on the ceiling perhaps a glimpse of Olympus enchants the view--all executed in a beautiful white or in bright colour tones. All the simple laws and rules being set aside in favour of free and enchanting imaginativeness, the fancy received all the greater incentive to activity, and the senses were the more keenly requisitioned. Everything vigorous is banned, every suggestion of earnestness; nothing disturbs the shallow repose of distinguished banality; the sportively graceful and light appears side by side with the elegant and the ingenious. The sculptor Bouchardon represented Cupid engaged in carving his darts of love from the club of Hercules; this serves as an excellent symbol of the Rococo style--the demigod is transformed into the soft child, the bone-shattering club becomes the heart-scathing arrows, just as marble is so freely replaced by stucco. Effeminacy, softness, and caprice attitudinize before us. In this connection, the French sculptors, Robert le Lorrain, Michel Clodion, and Pigalle may be mentioned in passing. For small plastic figures of gypsum, clay, biscuit, porcelain (Sèvres, Meissen), the gay Rococo is not unsuitable; in wood, iron, and royal metal, it has created some valuable works. However, confessionals, pulpits, altars, and even façades lead ever more into the territory of the architectonic, which does not easily combine with the curves of Rococo, the light and the petty, with forms whose whence and wherefore baffle inquiry. Even as mere decoration on the walls of the interiors the new forms could maintain their ground only for a few decades. In France the sway of the Rococo practically ceases with Oppenord (d. 1742) and Meissonier (d. 1750). Inaugurated in some rooms in the Palace of Versailles, it unfolds its magnificence in several Parisian buildings (especially the Hôtel Soubise). In Germany French and German artists (Cuvilliés, Neumann, Knobelesdorff, etc.) effected the dignified equipment of the Amalienburg near Munich, and the castles of Wurzburg, Potsdam, Charlottenburg, Brühl, Bruchsal, Schönbrunn, etc. In France the style remained somewhat more reserved, since the ornaments were mostly of wood, or, after the fashion of wood-carving, less robust and naturalistic and less exuberant in the mixture of natural with artificial forms of all kinds (e.g. plant motives, stalactitic representations, grotesques, masks, implements of various professions, badges, paintings, precious stones). As elements of the beautiful France retained, to a greater extent than Germany, the unity of the whole scheme of decoration and the symmetry of its parts.

This style needs not only decorators, goldsmiths, and other technicians, but also painters. The French painters of this period reflect most truly the moral depression dating from the time of Louis XIV, even the most deliberated among them confining themselves to social portraits of high society and depicting " gallant festivals", with their informal frivolous, theatrically or modishly garbed society. The "beautiful sensuality" is effected by masterly technique, especially in the colouring, and to a great extent by quite immoral licenses or mythological nudities as in loose or indelicate romances. As for Watteau (1682-1721), the very titles of his works--e.g. Conversation, Breakfast in the Open Air, Rural Pleasures, Italian or French Comedians, Embarkment for the Island of Cythera--indicate the spirit and tendency of his art. Add thereto the figures in fashionable costume slim in head, throat, and feet, in unaffected pose, represented amid enchanting, rural scenery, painted in the finest colours, and we have a picture of the high society of the period which beheld Louis XV and the Pompadour. François Boucher (1703-770) is the most celebrated painter of ripe Rococo.

For the church Rococo may be, generally speaking, compared with worldly church music. It lacks of simplicity, earnestness, and repose is evident, while its obtrusive artificiality, unnaturalness, and triviality have a distracting effect. Its softness and prettiness likewise do not become the house of God. However, shorn of its most grievous outgrowths, it may have been less distracting during its proper epoch, since it then harmonized with the spirit of the age. A development of Baroque, it will be found a congruous decoration for baroque churches. In general it makes a vast difference whether the style is used with moderation in the finer and more ingenious form of the French masters, or is carried to extremes with the consistency of the German. The French artists seem ever to have regarded the beauty of the whole composition as the chief object, while the German laid most stress on the bold vigour of the lines; thus, the lack of symmetry was never so exaggerated in the works of the former. In the church Rococo may at times have the charm of prettiness and may please by its ingenious technic, provided the objects be small and subordinate a credence table with cruets and plate, a vase, a choir desk, lamps, key and lock, railings or balustrade, do not too boldly challenge the eye, and fulfil (sic) all the requirements of mere beauty of form. Rococo is indeed really empty, solely a pleasing play of the fancy. In the sacristy (for presses etc.) and ante chambers it is m ore suitable than in the church itself--at least so far as its employment in conspicuous places is concerned.

The Rococo style accords very ill with the solemn office of the monstrance, the tabernacle, and the altar, and even of the pulpit. The naturalism of certain Belgian pulpits, in spite or perhaps on account of their artistic character, has the same effect as have outspoken Rococo creations. The purpose of the confessional and the baptistery would also seem to demand more earnest forms. In the case of the larger objects, the sculpture of Rococo forms either seems pretty, or, if this prettiness be avoided, resembles Baroque. The phantasies of this style agree ill with the lofty and broad walls of the church. However, everything must be decided according to the object and circumstances; the stalls in the cathedral of Mainz elicit not only our approval but also our admiration, while the celebrated privilege d altar of Vierzehnheiligen repels us both by its forms and its plastic decoration. Thee are certain Rococo chalices (like that at the monastery of Einsiedeln which are, as one might say, decked out in choice festive array; there are others, which are more or less misshapen owing to their bulging curves or figures. Chandeliers and lamps may also be disfigured by obtrusive shellwork or want of all symmetry, or may amid great decorativeness be kept within reasonable limits. The material and technic are also of consequence in Rococo. Woven materials, wood-carvings, and works in plaster of Paris are evidently less obtrusive than works in other materials, when they employ the sportive Rococo. Iron (especially in railings) and bronze lose their coldness and hardness, when animated by the Rococo style; in the case of the latter, gilding may be used with advantage. Gilding and painting belong to the regular means through which this style, under certain circumstances, enchants the eye and fancy. All things considered, we may say of the Rococo style--as has not unreasonably been said of the Baroque and of the Renaissance--that it is very apt to introduce a worldly spirit into the church, even if we overlook the figural accessories, which are frequently in no way conducive to sentiments of devotion, and are incompatible with the sobriety and greatness of the architecture and with the seriousness of sacred functions.

Ornaments Louis XV et du style Rocaille, reproduits d'apres les originaux (Paris, 1890); Recueil des oeuvres de G. M. Oppenord (Paris, 1888); Recueil des oeuvres de J. A. Meissonier (Paris, 1888); Gurlitt, Das Barock- u. Roko ko-Architektur; Jessen, Das Ornament des Rokoko (Leipzig, 1894).

G. GIETMANN

Rodez

(RUTHENAE)

The Diocese of Rodez was united to the Diocese of Cahors by the Concordat of 1802, and again became an episcopal see by the Concordat of 1817 and Bull of 1822, having jurisdiction over: (1) the ancient Diocese of Rodez with the exception of the deanery of Saint Antonin, incorporated with the Diocese of Montauban; (2) the ancient Diocese of Vabres; (3) a few scattered communes of the Diocese of Cahors. The Diocese of Rodez corresponds exactly to the Department of Aveyron (formerly Rouergue). It was suffragan of Bourges until 1676, then of Albi, and has again been suffragan of Aibi since 1822. Modern tradition attributes to St. Martial the foundation of the church of Rodez and the sanctuary of the Blessed Virgin at Ceignac, for according to Cardinal Bourret, the church of Rodez honoured St. Martial as early as the sixth century (see Limoges). There were bishops of Rodez before 675, as Sidonius Apollinaris mentions that the Goths left it at that date without bishops. Amantius, who ruled about the end of the fifth century, is the first bishop mentioned. Among others are: S. Quintianua who assisted at the Councils of Agde (508) and Orléans (511), afterwards Bishop of Clermont; 8. Dalmatius (524-80); S. Gausbert (tenth century), probably a Bishop of Cahors; Jean de Cardaillac (1371-9); Patriarch of Alexandria, who fought against English rule; Blessed Francis d'Estaing (1501-29), ambassador of Louis XII to Juluis II; Louis Avelly (1664-6) who wrote the life of St. Vincent of Paul; Joseph Bourret (1871-96), made Cardinal in 1893. The Benedictine Abbey of Vabres, founded in 862 by Raymond I, Count of Toulouse, was raised to episcopal rank in 1317, and its diocesan territory was taken from the southeastern portion of the Diocese of Rodez. Some scholars hold that within the limits of the modern Diocese of Rodez there existed in Merovingian times the See of Arisitum which, according to Mgr Duchesne, was in the neighbourhood of Alais.

During the Middle Ages the Bishop of Rodez held temporal dominion over that portion of the town known as the Cité while in the eleventh century the Bourg became the County of Rodez. The cathedral of Rodez (thirteenth and fourteenth centuries) is a beautiful Gothic building, famous for its belfry (1510-26) and unique rood-beam. It was spared during the Revolution for dedication to Marat. The town of Milhau adopted Calvinism in 1534, and in 1573 and 1620 was the scene of two large assemblies of Protestant deputies. In 1629 Milhau and Saint-Afrique, another Protestant stronghold, were taken and dismantled by Louis XIII. In 1628 a pest at Villefranche carried off 8000 inhabitants within six months; Father Ambroise, a Franciscan, and the chief of police Jean de Pomayrol saved the lives of many little children by causing them to bo suckled by goats. The Cistercian Abbeys of Silbanès, Beaulieu, Loc-Dieu, Bonneval, and Bonnecombe were model-farms during the Middle Ages. Attacked by brigands in the Rouergue country on his way to Santiago di Compostella, Adalard, Viscount of Flanders, erected in 1031 a monastery known as the Domerie d'Aubrac, a special order of priests, knights, lay brothers, ladies, and lay sisters for the care and protection of travellers. At Milhau, Rodez, Nazac, and Bozouls, hospitals, styled "Commanderies", of this order of Aubrac adopted the rule of St. Augustine in 1162.

The Diocese of Rodez is famous also through the Abbey of Conques and the cult of Sainte Foy. Some Christians, flying from the Saracens about 730, sought a refuge in the "Val Rocheux" of the Dourdou and built an oratory there. In 790 the hermit Dadon made this his abode and aided by Louis the Pious, then King of Aquitaine, founded an abbey, which Louis named Conques. In 838 Pepin, King of Aquitaine, gave the monastery of Figeac to Conques. Between 877 and 883 the monks carried off the body of the youthful martyr Ste-Foy from the monastery of Sainte Foy to Conques, where it became the object of a great pilgrimage. Abbot Odolric built the abbey church between 1030 and 1060; on the stonework over the doorway is carved the most artistic representation in France of the Last Judgment. Abbot Begon (1099-1118) enriched Conques with a superb reliquary of beaten gold and cloisonne's enamels of a kind extremely rare in France. Pascal II gave him permission for the name of Ste-Foy to be inserted in the Canon of the Mass after the names of the Roman virgins. At this time Conques, with Agen and Schelestadt in Alsace, was the centre of the cult of Ste. Foy which soon spread to England, Spain, and America where many towns bear the name of Santa Fe^. The statute of Ste-Foy seated, which dated from the tenth century, was originally a small wooden one covered with gold leaf. In time, gems, enamels, and precious stones were added in such quantities that it is a living treatise on the history of the goldsmiths art in France between the eleventh and sixteenth centuries. It was known during the Middle Ages as "Majesté de Sainte Foy". The shrine enclosing the relics of the Saint, which in 1590 was hidden in the masonry connecting the pillars of the choir, was found in 1875, repaired, transferred to the cathedral of Rodez for a novena, and brought back to Conques, a distance of 25 miles, on the shoulders of the clergy.

Among Saints specially honoured in the Diocese of Rodez and Vabres are: S. Antoninus of Pamiers, Apostle of the Rouergue (date uncertain); S. Gratus and S. Ansutus, martyrs (fourth century); S. Naamatius, deacon and confessor (end of fifth century); Ste. Tarsicia, grand-daughter of Clothaire I and of Ste-Radegunda, who retired to the Rouergue to lead an ascetic life (sixth century); S. Africanus, wrongly styled Bishop of Comminges, who died in the Rouergue (sixth century); S. Hilarianus, martyred by the Saracens in the time of Charlemagne (eighth and ninth century); S. George, a monk in the Diocese of Vabres, afterwards Bishop of Lodève (877); 8. Guasbert, founder and first abbot of the monastery of Montsalvy in the modern Diocese of St. Flour (eleventh century). Among natives of the diocese are: Cardinal Bernard of Milhau, Abbot of St. Victor's at Marseilles in 1063, and legate of Gregory VII; Theodatus de Gozon (d. 1353) and John of La Valetta (1494-1568), grand masters of the order of St. John of Jerusalem; the former is famous for his victory over the dragon of Rhodes, the latter for his heroic defence of Malta; Frassinous (1765-1841), preacher and minister of worship under the Restoration; Bonald (1754-1840) and Laromiguière (1736-1837), philosophers; Affre (1793-1848), born at St. Rome de Tarn and slain at the Barricades as Archbishop of Paris. The chief shrines of the diocese are: Notre Dame de Ceignac, an ancient shrine rebuilt and enlarged in 1455, which over 15,000 pilgrims visit annually; Notre Dame du Saint Voile at Coupiac, another ancient shrine; Notre Dame des Treize Pierres at Villefranche, a pilgrimage dating from 1509.

Before the application of the Associations' Law in 1901, there were in the Diocese of Rodez, Capuchins, Jesuits, Trappists, Pères Blancs, Premonstratensians, Fathers of Picpus, Sulpicians, Clerics of St. Victor, and many congregations of teaching brothers. This diocese furnishes more missionaries than any other in France. Of the numerous congregations for women which had their origin there, the principal are: affiliations of the Sisters of St. Francis of Sales, known as the Union, teaching orders founded in 1672, 1698, 1739, 1790, with mother-houses at St-Geniez, d'Olt, Bozouls, Lavernhe, Auzits; the Sisters of St. Joseph, founded in 1682 for teaching and district nursing, with mother-house at Marcillac, and other sisters of the same name, united in 1822, 1824, 1856, with mother-houses at Milhau, Villecomtal, Salles-la-Source; the Sisters of the Holy Family, a teaching and nursing order, founded in 1816 by Emilie de Rodat, with mother-house at Villefranche and many convents throughout the diocese; the Minim Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Mary founded in 1844 by Mile. Chauchard, with mother-house at Crújouls, for the care of the sick and children of the working classes; wo branches of Dominican Sisters, teaching orders, founded in 1843 and 1849 with mother-houses at Gramond and Bor-et-Bar; the Sisters of the Union of Ste-Foy, teaching and nursing nuns, founded in 1682 with mother-house at Rodez. At the close of the nineteenth century the religious congregations of the diocese had charge of 75 nurseries; 1 institute for the deaf and dumb; 3 orphanages for boys; 13 orphanages for girls; 2 houses of rescue; 2 houses of mercy; 1 economic bakery; 83 houses of religious women devoted to the care of the sick in their own homes; 3 hospitals. At the end of 1909 the diocese had a population of 377,299, 51 parishes, 617 auxiliary parishes, 287 curacies, and 1200 priests.

Gallia Christiana, Nova (1715), I, 195-234; Instrumenta, 49-55, 203; DUCHESNE, Pastes Episcopaux, II, 39-41; SICARD, Ruthena Christiana, ed. MAISONABE in Mémoires de la société des lettres, sciences et arts de V Avyron, XIV (Rodez, 1893), 331-447; BOURRET, Documents sur les origines chrétiennes de Rouergue. Saint Martial (Rodez, 1902); SERVIÈRES, Les Saints du Rouergue (Rodez, 1872); IDEM, Histoire de l'Eglise du Rouergue (Rodez, 1875); BOUILLET AND SERVIÈRES, Sainte Foy merge et martyre (Rodez, 1900); GRIMALDI, Les Benefices du. Diocese de Rodez avant la Revolution de 1789 (Rodez, 1906); DE MARLAVAGNE, Histoire de la cathedrals de Rodez (Rodez, 1876); BOCSQUET, Tableau chronologique et biograph. des cardinaux, archevéques et évêques originaires du Rouergue (Rodez, 1850); CALMET, L'abbaye de Vabres et son erection en évêché in Ann. de St. Louis des Français (1898).

GEORGES GOYAU

Alexandre Rodrigues Ferreira

A Brazilian natural scientist and explorer, b. at Bahia in 1756; d. at Lisbon in 1815. He was sent to Portugal for his training, and there studied at the University of Coimbra. After taking his degrees, he taught natural history subjects for a time at his Alma Mater, until in 1778 he was called to Lisbon to work in the Museo da Ajuda. He devoted his time for the next five years to cataloguing the various specimens contained in the museum, and to the writing of learned monographs and reports. As a result of his efforts he was elected a Corresponding Member of the Academy of Sciences at Lisbon. The Portuguese Government empowered him to engineer a journey of exploration for scientific purposes in the interior of his native land. He entered upon this expedition in 1783 and spent nine years in it. First examining the Island of Marajo, since important for the production of rubber, he crossed to the mainland, and followed the course of the Amazon and its tributaries, studying the natives, their languages and customs, and the fauna and flora of a vast region. On account of the energy and skill with which he conducted his investigations he became known as the Brazilian Humboldt. From 1793 until his death he was in Lisbon, acting as Director of the Gabinete de Historia Natural and of the Jardim Botanico. Most of the records of his Brazilian explorations seem to have passed from view.

J.D.M. FORD

Alonso Rodriguez

Born at Valladolid, Spain, 1526; died at Seville 21 February, 1616. When twenty years of age he entered the Society of Jesus, and after completing his studies taught moral theology for twelve years at the College of Monterey, and subsequently filled the posts of master of novices for twelve more years, of rector for seventeen years, and of spiritual father at Cordova for eleven years. As master of novices he had under his charge Francis Suarez, the celebrated theologian. Alonso's characteristics in these offices were care, diligence, and charity. He was a religious of great piety and candour, hating all pride and ostentation. It was said of him by those who were personally acquainted with him, that his character and virtues were accurately depicted in "The Practice of Christian and Religious Perfection", published at Seville, 1609. This work is based on the material which he colected for his spiritual exhortations tohis brethren, and published at the request of his superiors. Although the book thus written was primarily intended for the use of his religious brethren, yet he destined it also for the profit and edification of other religious and of laymen in the world. Of set purpose it avoids the loftier flights of mysticism and all abstruse speculation. It is a book of practical instructions on all the virtues which go to make up the perfect Christian life, whether lived in the cloister or in the world. It became popular at once, and it is much used to-day by all classes of Christians as it was when it first became known. More than twenty-five edtions of the original Spanish have been issued, besides extracts and abridgements. Moe than sixty editions have appeared in French in seven different translations, twenty in Italian, at least ten in German, and eight in Latin. An English translation from the French by Fr. Antony Hoskins, S.J., was printed at St. Omer in 1612. The best known English translation, often reprinted, is that which first appeared in London, 1697, from the French of Abbe Regnier des Marais. P.O. Shea issued in New York an edition adapted to general use in 1878. The book has been translated into nearly all the European languages and into many of those of the East. No other work of the author was published. Gilmary Shea left a translation of the work which has never been published.

CORDARA, Historiae Societatis Jesu: Pars Sexta, I (Rome, 1750); DE GUILHERMY, Menologe de la C. de J., Assistance d'Espagne, I (Paris, 1902), 321; a short life is prefixed to the English translation of The Practice of Christian and Religious Perfection (Dublin, 1861); SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. de la C. de J., VI (Paris, 1895).

T. SLATER

Joao Rodriguez

(GIRAM, GIRAO, GIRON, ROIZ).

Missionary and author, b. at Alcochete in the Diocese of Lisbon in 1558; d. in Japan in 1633. He entered the Society of Jesus on 16 December, 1576, and in 1583 began his missionary labours in Japan. His work was facilitated by his winning the esteem of the Emperor Taicosama. He studied the Japanese language ardently, and is particularly known for his efforts to make it accessible to the Western nations. His Japanese grammar ranks among the important linguistic productions of the Jesuit missionaries. Published at Nagasaki in 1604 under the title "Arte da lingoa de Japam", it appeared in 1624 in an abridged form at Macao: "Arte breve da lingoa japoa"; from the manuscript of this abridgement preserved in the National Library in Paris, the Asiatic Society prepared a French edition of the work: "Elements de la grammaire japonaise par le P. Rodriguez" (Paris, 1825). Rodriguez compiled also a Japanese-Portuguese dictionary (Nagasaki, 1603), later adapted to the French by Pagès (Paris, 1862).

RÉMUSAT, in Nouv. Melanges asiat., I (Paris, 1829), 354-57; GANSEN, in Buchberger=1Cs Handlexikon, s. v.

N.A. WEBER

Bartholomew Roe

(VENERABLE ALBAN).

English Benedictine martyr, b. in Suffolk, 1583; executed at Tyburn, 21 Jan., 1641. Educated in Suffolk and at Cambridge; he became converted through a visit to a Catholic prisoner at St. Albans which unsettled his religious views. He was admitted as a convictor into the English College at Douai, entered the English Benedictine monastery at Dieulward where he was professed in 1612, and, after ordination, went to the mission in 1615. From 1618 to 1623 he was imprisoned in the New Prison, Maiden Lane, whence he was banished and went to the English Benedictine house at Douai but returned to England after four months. He was again arrested in 1625, and was imprisoned for two months at St. Albans, then in the Fleet whence he was frequently liberated on parole, and finally in Newgate. He was condemned a few days before his execution under the statute 27 Eliz. e. 2, for being a priest. With him suffered Thomas Greene, aged eighty, who on the mission had taken the name of Reynolds. He was probably descended from the Greenes of Great Milton, Oxfordshire, and the Reynoldses of Old Stratford, Warwickshire, and was ordained deacon at Reims in 1590, and priest at Seville. He had lived under sentence of death for fourteen years, and was executed without fresh trial. They were drawn on the same hurdle, where they heard each other's confessions, and were hanged simultaneously on the same gibbet amidst great demonstrations of popular sympathy.

GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., III, 36; V, 437; CHALLONER, Missionary Priests, II, nos. 166, 167; POLLEN, Acts of the English Martyrs (London, 1891), 339-43.

JOHN B. WAINWRIGHT

Roermond

(RUBAEMUNDENSIS).

Diocese in Holland; suffragan of Utrecht. It includes the Province of Limburg, and in 1909 had 332,201 inhabitants, among whom were 325,000 Catholics. The diocese has a cathedral chapter with 9 canons, 14 deaneries, 173 parishes, 197 churches with resident priests, an ecclesiastical seminary at Roermond, a preparatory seminary for boys at Rolduc, about 70 Catholic primary schools, 2 Catholic preparatory gymnasia, 1 training college for male teachers, 24 schools for philosophical, theological, and classical studies, 35 higher schools for girls, about 60 charitable institutions, 45 houses of religious (men) with about 2400 members, and 130 convents with 3900 sisters. Among the orders and congregations of men in the diocese are: Jesuits, the Society of the Divine Word of Steyl, Brothers of the Immaculate Conception, Redemptorists, Marists, Reformed Cistercians, Dominicans, Benedictines, Oblates of Mary Immaculate, Brothers of Mercy, Poor Brothers of St. Francis, Conventuals, Calced Carmelites, Missionaries of Africa, Priests of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, Brothers of the Seven Sorrows of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Brothers of St. Francis, Brothers of St. Joseph, the Society of Mary, the Congregation of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, the Congregation of the Divine Spirit, and the Congregation of Missions. Among the female orders and congregations are: Benedictines, Brigittines, Ursulines, Sisters of St. Charles Borromeo, Sisters of Tilburg, Sisters of the Child Jesus, Sisters of St. Francis, Sisters of the Divine Providence, Sisters of Mercy etc.

The Diocese of Roermond was established in 1559, during the reign of Philip II, when after long and difficult negotiations with the papacy the dioceses of the Netherlands were reorganized. By these negotiations all jurisdiction of foreign bishops, e.g. that of the Archbishop of Cologne, came to an end. In this way the Diocese of Roermond, the boundaries of which were settled in 1561, became a suffragan of Mechlin. The reorganization of the dioceses, however, met with violent opposition, partly from bishops to whose territories the new dioceses had formerly belonged, partly from a number of abbots whose abbeys were incorporated in the new bishoprics. Much difficulty was also caused by the rapid growth of Calvinism in the Netherlands. In Roermond the first bishop, Lindanus, who was consecrated in 1563, could not enter upon his duties until 1569; notwithstanding his zeal and charitableness he was obliged to retire on account of the revolutionary movement; he died Bishop of Ghent. The episcopal see remained vacant until 1591; at later periods also, on account of the political turmoils, the see was repeatedly vacant. In 1801 the diocese was suppressed; the last bishop, Johann Baptist Baron van Velde de Melroy, died in 1824.

When in 1839 the Duchy of Limburg became once more a part of the Netherlands, Gregory XVI separated (2 June, 1840) that part of Limburg which had been incorporated in the Diocese of Louvain in 1802, and added to this territory several new parishes which had formerly belonged to the Diocese of Aachen, and formed thus the Vicariate Apostolic of Roermond, over which the parish priest of Roermond, Johann August Paredis, was placed as vicar Apostolic and titular Bishop of Hirene. In 1841 a seminary for priests was established in the former Carthusian monastery of Roermond, where the celebrated Dionysius the Carthusian had been a monk. Upon the re-establishment of the Dutch hierarchy in 1853 the Vicariate-Apostolic of Roermond was raised to a bishopric and made a suffragan of Utrecht. The first bishop of the new diocese was Paredis. In 1858 a cathedral chapter was formed; in 1867 a synod was held, the first since 1654; in 1876 the administration of the church property was transferred, by civil law, to the bishop. During the Kulturkampf in Germany a number of ecclesiastical dignitaries driven out of Prussia found a hospitable welcome and opportunities for further usefulness in the Diocese of Roermond; among these churchmen were Melchers of Cologne, Brinkmann of Munster, and Martin of Paderborn. Bishop Paredis was succeeded by Franziskus Boreman (1886-1900), on whose death the present bishop, Joseph Hubertus Drehmann, was appointed.

Gallia Christiana, V, 371 sqq.: Neerlandia catholica seu provinciae Utrajectensis historia et conditio (Utrecht, 1888), 263-335; ALBERS, Geschiedenis van het herstel der hierarchie in de Nederlanden (Nymwegen, 1893-4); MEERDINCK, Roermond in de Middeleeuwen; Onze Pius Almanak. Jaarboek voor de Katholiken van Nederland (Alkmaar, 1910), 338 sqq.

JOSEPH LINS

Rogation Days

Days of prayer, and formerly also of fasting, instituted by the Church to appease God's anger at man's transgressions, to ask protection in calamities, and to obtain a good and bountiful harvest, known in England as "Gang Days" and "Cross Week", and in Germany as Bittage, Bittwoche, Kreuzwoche. The Rogation Days were highly esteemed in England and King Alfred's laws considered a theft committed on these days equal to one committed on Sunday or a higher Church Holy Day. Their celebration continued even to the thirteenth year of Elizabeth, 1571, when one of the ministers of the Established Church inveighed against the Rogation processions, or Gang Days, of Cross Week. The ceremonial may be found in the Council of Clovesho (Thorpe, Ancient Laws, I, 64; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, III, 564).

The Rogation Days are the 25th of April, called Major, and the three days before the feast of the Ascension, called Minor. The Major Rogation, which has no connexion with the feast of St. Mark (fixed for this date much later) seems to be of very early date and to have been introduced to counteract the ancient Robigalia, on which the heathens held processions and supplications to their gods. St. Gregory the Great (d. 604) regulated the already existing custom. The Minor Rogations were introduced by St. Mamertus, Bishop of Vienne, and were afterwards ordered by the Fifth Council of Orleans, which was held in 511, and then approved by Leo III (795-816). This is asserted by St. Gregory of Tours in "Hist. Franc.", II, 34, by St. Avitus of Vienne in his "Hom. de Rogat." (P.L., LVIII, 563), by Ado of Vienne (P. L., CXXIII, 102), and by the Roman Martyrology. Sassi, in "Archiepiscopi Mediolanenses", ascribes their introduction at an earlier date to St. Lazarus. This is also held by the Bollandist Henschen in "Acta SS.", II, Feb., 522. The liturgical celebration now consists in the procession and the Rogation Mass. For 25 April the Roman Missal gives the rubric: "If the feast of St. Mark is transferred, the procession is not transferred. In the rare case of 25 April being Easter Sunday [1886, 1943], the procession is held not on Sunday but on the Tuesday following".

The order to be observed in the procession of the Major and Minor Rogation is given in the Roman Ritual, title X, ch. iv. After the antiphon "Exurge Domine", the Litany of the Saints is chanted and each verse and response is said twice. After the verse "Sancta Maria" the procession begins to move. If necessary, the litany may be repeated, or some of the Penitential or Gradual Psalms added. For the Minor Rogations the "Ceremoniale Episcoporum", book II, ch. xxxii, notes: "Eadem serventur sed aliquid remissius". If the procession is held, the Rogation Mass is obligatory, and no notice is taken of whatever feast may occur, unless only one Mass is said, for then a commemoration is made of the feast. An exception is made in favour of the patron or titular of the church, of whom the Mass is said with a commemoration of the Rogation. The colour used in the procession and Mass is violet. The Roman Breviary gives the instruction: "All persons bound to recite the Office, and who are not present at the procession, are bound to recite the Litany, nor can it be anticipated".

ROCK, The Church of Our Fathers, III (London, 1904), 181; DUCHESNE, Chr. Worship (tr. London, 1904), 288; BINTERIM, Denkwurdigkeiten; AMBERGER, Pastoraltheologie, II, 834; VAN DER STEPPEN, Sacra Liturgia, IV, 405; NILLES, Kalendarium Manuale (Innsbruck, 1897).

FRANCIS MERSHMAN

Roger, Bishop of Worcester

Died at Tours, 9 August, 1179. A younger son of Robert, Earl of Gloucester, he was educated with the future king, Henry II, afterwards ordained priest, and consecrated Bishop of Worcester by St. Thomas of Canterbury, 23 Aug., 1163. He adhered loyally to St. Thomas, and though one of the bishops sent to the pope to carry the king's appeal against the archbishop, he took no active part in the embassy, nor did he join the appeal made by the bishops against the archbishop in 1166, thus arousing the enmity of the king. When St. Thomas desired Roger to join him in his exile, Roger went without leave (1167), Henry having refused him permission. He boldly reproached the king when they met at Falaise in 1170, and a reconciliation followed. After the martyrdom of St. Thomas, England was threatened with an interdict, but Roger interceded with the pope and was thereafter highly esteemed in England and at Rome. Alexander III, who frequently employed him as delegate in ecclesiastical causes, spoke of him and Bartholomew, Bishop of Exeter, as "the two great lights of the English Church".

Materials for the History of Archbishop Becket in R. S. (London, 1875-85); GERVASE OF CANTERBUBY, Hist. Works in R. S. (London, 1879-80); DE DICETO, Opera Hist. in R. S. (London, 1876); P. L., CXCIX 365, gives one of his letters to Alexander III; GILES, Life and Letters of Becket (London, 1846); HOPE, Life of St. Thomas d Becket (London, 1868); MORRIS, Life of St. Thomas Becket (London, 1885); NORGATE in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v.

EDWIN BURTON

Roger Bacon

Philosopher, surnamed Doctor Mirabilis, b. at Ilchester, Somersetshire, about 1214; d. at Oxford, perhaps 11 June, 1294. His wealthy parents sided with Henry III against the rebellious barons, but lost nearly all their property. It has been presumed that Robert Bacon, O.P., was Roger's brother; more probably he was his uncle. Roger made his higher studies at Oxford and Paris, and was later professor at Oxford (Franciscan school). He was greatly influenced by his Oxonian masters and friends Richard Fitzacre and Edmund Rich, but especially by Robert Grosseteste and Adam Marsh, both professors at the Franciscan school, and at Paris by the Franciscan Petrus Peregrinus de Maricourt (see Schlund in "Archiv. Francisc. Histor.", IV, 1911, pp. 436 sqq.) They created in him a predilection for positive sciences, languages, and physics; and to the last-mentioned he owed his entrance about 1240 (1251? 1257?) into the Franciscans, either at Oxford or Paris. He continued his learned work; illness, however, compelled him to give it up for two years. When he was able to recommence his studies, his superiors imposed other duties on him, and forbade him to publish any work out of the order without special permission from the higher superiors "under pain of losing the book and of fasting several days with only bread and water."

This prohibition has induced modern writers to pass severe judgment upon Roger's superiors being jealous of Roger's abilities; even serious scholars say they can hardly understand how Bacon conceived the idea of joining the Franciscan Order. Such critics forget that when Bacon entered the order the Franciscans numbered many men of ability in no way inferior to the most famous scholars of other religious orders (see Felder, "Gesch. der wissenschaftlichen Studien im Franziskanerorden bis um die Mitte des 13. Jahrhunderts", Freiburg, 1904). The prohibition enjoined on Bacon was a general one, which extended to the whole order; its promulgation was not even directed against him, but rather against Gerard of Borgo San Donnino, as Salimbene says expressly (see "Chronica Fr. Salimbene Parmensis" in "Mon. Germ. Hist." SS.", XXII, 462, ed. Holder-Egger). Gerard had published in 1254 without permission his heretical work, "Introductorius in Evangelium æternum"; thereupon the General Chapter of Narbonne in 1260 promulgated the above-mentioned decree, identical with the "constitutio gravis in contrarium" Bacon speaks of, as the text shows (see the constitution published by Ehrle, S.J., "Die ältesten Redactionen der Generalconstitutionen des Franziskanerordens" in "Archiv für Literatur- und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters", VI, 110; St. Bonaventure, "Opera Omnia", Quaracchi, VIII, 456).

We need not wonder then that Roger's immediate superiors put the prohibition into execution, especially as Bacon was not always very correct in doctrine; and although on the one hand it is wrong to consider him as a necromancer and astrologer, an enemy of scholastic philosophy, an author full of heresies and suspected views, still we cannot deny that some of his expressions are imprudent and inaccurate. The judgments he passes on other scholars of his day are sometimes too hard, so it is not surprising that his friends were few. The above-mentioned prohibition was rescinded in Roger's favour unexpectedly in 1266. Some years before, while still at Oxford, he had made the acquaintance of Cardinal Guy le Gros de Foulques, whom Urban IV had sent to England to settle the disputes between Henry III and the barons; others believe that the cardinal met Roger at Paris, in 1257 or 1258 (see "Archiv. Francisc. Histor.", IV, 442). After a conference about some current abuses, especially about ecclesiastical studies, the cardinal asked Roger to present his idea in writing. Roger delayed in doing this; when the Cardinal became Clement IV and reiterated his desire, Bacon excused himself because the prohibition of his superiors stood in the way. Then the pope in a letter from Viterbo (22 June, 1266) commanded him to send his work immediately, notwithstanding the prohibition of superiors or any general constitution whatsoever, but to keep the commission a secret (see letter published by Martene-Durand, "Thesaurus novus anecdotorum", II, Paris, 1717, 358, Clement IV, epp. n. 317 a; Wadding, "Annales", ad an. 1266, n. 14, II, 294; IV, 265; Sbaralea, "Bullarium Franciscanum", III, 89 n. 8f, 22 June, 1266).

We may suppose that the pope, as Bacon says, from the first had wished the matter kept secret; otherwise we can hardly understand why Bacon did not get permission of his superiors; for the prohibition of Narbonne was not absolute; it only forbade him to publish works outside the order "unless they were examined thoroughly by the minister general or by the provincial together with his definitors in the provincial chapter". The removal of the prohibitive constitution did not at once remove all the obstacles; the secrecy of the matter rather produced new embarrassments, as Bacon frankly declares. The first impediment was the contrary will of his superiors: "as your Holiness", he writes to the pope, "did not write to them to excuse me, and I could not make known to them Your secret, because You had commanded me to keep the matter a secret, they did not let me alone but charged me with other labours; but it was impossible for me to obey because of Your commandment". Another difficulty was the lack of money necessary to obtain parchment and to pay copyists. As the superiors knew nothing of his commission, Bacon had to devise means to obtain money. Accordingly, he ingenuously reminded the pope of this oversight, "As a monk", he says, "I for myself have no money and cannot have; therefore I cannot borrow, not having wherewith to return; my parents who before were rich, now in the troubles of war have run into poverty; others, who were able refused to spend money; so deeply embarrassed, I urged my friends and poor people to expend all they had, to sell and to pawn their goods, and I could not help promising them to write to You and induce Your Holiness to fully reimburse the sum spent by them (60 pounds)" ("Opus Tertium", III, p. 16).

Finally, Bacon was able to execute the pope's desire; in the beginning of 1267 he sent by his pupil John of Paris (London?) the "Opus Majus", where he puts together in general lines all his leading ideas and proposals; the same friend was instructed to present to the pope a burning-mirror and several drawings of Bacon appertaining to physics, and to give all explanations required by His Holiness. The same year (1267) he finished his "Opus Minus", a recapitulation of the main thoughts of the "Opus Majus", to facilitate the pope's reading or to submit to him an epitome of the first work if it should be lost. With the same object, and because in the first two works some ideas were but hastily treated, he was induced to compose a third work, the "Opus Tertium"; in this, sent to the pope before his death (1268), he treats in a still more extensive manner the whole material he had spoken of in his preceding works. Unfortunately his friend Clement IV died too soon, without having been able to put into practice the counsels given by Bacon. About the rest of Roger's life we are not well informed. The "Chronica XXIV Generalium Ordinis Minorum" says that "the Minister General Jerome of Ascoli [afterwards Pope Nicholas IV] on the advice of many brethren condemned and rejected the doctrine of the English brother Roger Bacon, Doctor of Divinity, which contains many suspect innovations, by reason of which Roger was imprisoned" (see the "Chronica" printed in "Analecta Franciscana", III, 360). The assertion of modern writers, that Bacon was imprisoned fourteen or fifteen years, although he had proved his orthodoxy by the work "De nullitate magiæ", has no foundation in ancient sources.

Some authors connect the fact of imprisonment related in the "Chronica" with the proscription of 219 theses by Stephen Tempier, Bishop of Paris, which took place 7 March, 1277 (Denifle, "Chartularium Universitatis Pariensis", I, 543, 560). Indeed it was not very difficult to find some "suspect innovation" in Bacon's writings, especially with regard to the physical sciences. As F. Mandonnet, O.P., proves, one of his incriminated books or pamphlets was his "Speculum Astronomiæ", written in 1277, hitherto falsely ascribed to Blessed Albert the Great [Opera Omnia, ed. Vives, Paris, X, 629 sq.; cf. Mandonnet, "Roger Bacon et le Speculum Astronomiæ (1277) in "Revue Néo-Scolastique", XVII, Louvain, 1910, 313-35]. Such and other questions are not yet ripe for judgment; but it is to be hoped that the newly awakened interest in Baconian studies and investigations will clear up more and more what is still obscure in Roger's life.

The writings attributed to Bacon by some authors amount to about eighty; many (e.g. "Epistola de magnete", composed by Petrus Peregrinus de Maricourt) are spurious, while many are only treatises republished separately under new titles. Other writings or parts of writings certainly composed by him were put in circulation under the name of other scholars, and his claim to their authorship can be established only from internal reasons of style and doctrine. Other treatises still lie in the dust of the great European libraries, especially of England, France, and Italy. Much remains to be done before we can expect an edition of the "Opera Omnia" of Roger Bacon. For the present the following statements may suffice. Before Bacon entered the order he had written many essays and treatises on the subjects he taught in the school, for his pupils only, or for friends who had requested him to do so, as he confesses in his letter of dedication of the "Opus Majus" sent to the pope: "Multa in alio statu conscripseram propter juvenum rudimenta" (the letter was discovered in the Vatican Library by Abbot Gasquet, O.S.B., and first published by him in the "English Historical Review", 1897, under the title "An unpublished fragment of a work by Roger Bacon", 494 sq.; for the words above cited, see p. 500). To this period seem to belong some commentaries on the writings of Aristotle and perhaps the little treatise "De mirabili potestate artis et naturæ et de nullitate magiæ" (Paris, 1542; Oxford, 1604; London, 1859). The same work was printed under the title "Epistola de secretis operibus artis et naturæ" (Hamburg, 1608, 1618). After joining the order, or more exactly from about the years 1256-57, he did not compose works of any great importance or extent, but only occasional essays requested by friends, as he says in the above-mentioned letter, "now about this science, now about another one", and only more transitorio (see "Eng. Hist. Rev.", 1897, 500). In the earlier part of his life he probably composed also "De termino pascali" (see letter of Clement IV in "Bull. Franc.", III, 89); for it is cited in another work, "Computus naturalium", assigned to 1263 by Charles ("Roger Bacon. Sa vie, etc.", Paris, 1861, p. 78; cf. pp. 334 sqq.).

The most important of all his writings are the "Opus Majus", the "Opus Minus", and the "Tertium". The "Opus Majus" deals in seven parts with (1) the obstacles to real wisdom and truth, viz. errors and their sources; (2) the relation between theology and philosophy, taken in its widest sense as comprising all sciences not strictly philosophical: here he proves that all sciences are founded on the sacred sciences, especially on Holy Scripture; (3) the necessity of studying zealously the Biblical languages, as without them it is impossible to bring out the treasure hidden in Holy Writ; (4) mathematics and their relation and application to the sacred sciences, particularly Holy Scripture; here he seizes an opportunity to speak of Biblical geography and of astronomy (if these parts really belong to the "Opus Majus"); (5) optics or perspective; (6) the experimental sciences; (7) moral philosophy or ethics. The "Opus Majus" was first edited by Samuel Jebb, London, 1733, afterwards at Venice, 1750, by the Franciscan Fathers. As both editions were incomplete, it was edited recently by J. H. Bridges, Oxford, 1900 (The 'Opus Majus' of Roger Bacon, edited with introduction and analytical table," in 2 vols.); the first three parts of it were republished the same year by this author in a supplementary volume, containing a more correct and revised text. It is to be regretted that this edition is not so critical and accurate as it might have been. As already noted, Bacon's letter of dedication to the pope was found and published first by Dom Gasquet; indeed the dedication and introduction is wanting in the hitherto extant editions of the "Opus Majus", whereas the "Opus Minus" and "Opus Tertium" are accompanied with a preface by Bacon (see "Acta Ord. Min.", Quaracchi, 1898, where the letter is reprinted).

Of the "Opus Minus", the relation of which to the "Opus Majus" has been mentioned, much has been lost. Originally it had nine parts, one of which must have been a treatise on alchemy, both speculative and practical; there was another entitled "The seven sins in the study of theology". All fragments hitherto found have been published by J. S. Brewer, "Fr. R. Bacon opp. quædam hactenus inedita", vol. I (the only one) containing: (1) "Opus Tertium"; (2) "Opus Minus"; (3) "Compendium Philos." The appendix adds "De secretis artis et naturæ operibus et de nullitate magiæ", London, 1859 (Rerum Britann. med. æv. Script.). The aim of the "Opus Tertium" is clearly pointed out by Bacon himself: "As these reasons [profoundness of truth and its difficulty] have induced me to compose the Second Writing as a complement facilitating the understanding of the First Work, so on account of them I have written this Third Work to give understanding and completeness to both works; for many things are here added for the sake of wisdom which are not found in the other writings ("Opus Tertium", I, ed. Brewer, 6). Consequently this work must be considered, in the author's own opinion, as the most perfect of all the compositions sent to the pope; therefore it is a real misfortune that half of it is lost. The parts we possess contain many autobiographical items. All parts known in 1859 were published by Brewer (see above). One fragment dealing with natural sciences and moral philosophy has been edited for the first time by Duhem ("Un fragment inédit de l'Opus Tertium de Roger Bacon précédé d'une étude sur ce fragment", Quaracchi, 1909); another (Quarta pars communium naturalis philos.) by Höver (Commer's "Jahrb. für Philos. u. speculative Theol.", XXV, 1911, pp. 277-320). Bacon often speaks of his "Scriptum principale". Was this a work quite different from the others we know? In many texts the expression only means the "Opus Majus", as becomes evident by its antithesis to the "Opus Minus" and "Opus Tertium". But there are some other sentences where the expression seems to denote a work quite different from the three just mentioned, viz. one which Bacon had the intention of writing and for which these works as well as his proeambula were only the preparation.

If we may conclude from some of his expressions we can reconstruct the plan of this grand encyclopædia: it was conceived as comprising four volumes, the first of which was to deal with grammar (of the several languages he speaks of) and logic; the second with mathematics (arithmetic and geometry), astronomy, and music; the third with natural sciences, perspective, astrology, the laws of gravity, alchemy, agriculture, medicine, and the experimental sciences; the fourth with metaphysics and moral philosophy (see Delorme in "Dict. de Theol.", s. v. Bacon, Roger; Brewer, pp. 1 sq.; Charles, 370 sq., and particularly Bridges, I, xliii sq.). It is even possible that some treatises, the connection of which with the three works ("Opus Majus", "Opus Minus", "Opus Tertium") or others is not evident, were parts of the "Scriptum principale"; see Bridges, II, 405 sq., to which is added "Tractatus Fr. Rogeri Bacon de multiplicatione specierum", which seems to have belonged originally to a work of greater extent. Here may be mentioned some writings hitherto unknown, now for the first time published by Robert Steele: "Opera hactenus inedita Rogeri Baconi. Fasc. I: Metaphysica Fratris Rogeri ordinis fratrum minorum. De viciis contractis in studio theologiæ, omnia quæ supersunt nunc primum edidit R. St.", London, 1905; Fasc. II: Liber primus communium naturalium Fratris Rogeri, partes I et II", Oxford, 1909. Another writing of Bacon, "Compendium studii philosophiæ", was composed during the pontificate of Gregory X who succeeded Clement IV (1271-76), as Bacon speaks of this last-named pope as the "predecessor istius Papæ" (chap. iii). It has been published, as far as it is extant, by Brewer in the above-mentioned work. He repeats there the ideas already touched upon in his former works, as for instance the causes of human ignorance, necessity of learning foreign languages, especially Hebrew, Arabic, and Greek; as a specimen are given the elements of Greek grammar.

About the same time (1277) Bacon wrote the fatal "Speculum Astronomiæ" mentioned above. And two years before his death he composed his "compendium studii theologiæ" (in our days published for the first time in "British Society of Franciscan Studies", III, Aberdeen, 1911), where he set forth as in a last scientific confession of faith the ideas and principles which had animated him during his long life; he had nothing to revoke, nothing to change. Other works and pamphlets cannot be attributed with certainty to any definite period of his life. To this category belong the "Epistola de laude Scripturarum", published in part by Henry Wharton in the appendix (auctarium) of "Jacobi Usserii Armachani Historia Dogmatica de Scripturis et sacris vernaculis" (London, 1689), 420 sq. In addition there is both a Greek and a Hebrew grammar, the last of which is known only in some fragments: "The Greek grammar of Roger Bacon and a fragment of his Hebrew Grammar, edited from the MSS., with an introduction and notes", Cambridge, 1902. Some specimens of the Greek Grammar, as preserved in a MS. of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, had been published two years before by J. L. Heiberg in "Byzantinische Zeitschrift", IX, 1900, 479-91. The above-mentioned edition of the two grammars cannot be considered very critical (see the severe criticism by Heiberg, ibid., XII, 1903, 343-47). Here we may add Bacon's "Speculum Alchemiæ", Nuremberg, 1614 (Libellus do alchimia cui titulus : Spec. Alchem.); it was translated into French by Jacques Girard de Tournus, under the title "Miroir d'alquimie", Lyons, 1557. Some treatises dealing with chemistry were printed in 1620 together in one volume containing: (1) "Breve Breviarium de dono Dei"; (2) "Verbum abbreviatum de Leone viridi"; (3) "Secretum secretorum naturæ de laude lapidis philosophorum"; (4) "Tractatus trium verborum"; (5) "Alchimia major". But it is possible that some of these and several other treatises attributed to Bacon are parts of works already mentioned, as are essays "De situ orbis", "De regionibus mundi", "De situ Palæstinæ", "De locis sacris", "Descriptiones locorum mundi", "Summa grammaticalis" (see Golubovich, "Biblioteca bio-bibliografica della Terra Santa e dell'Oriente Francescano", Quaracchi, 1906, I, 268 sq.).

If we now examine Bacon's scientific systems and leading principles, his aims and his hobby, so to say, we find that the burden not only of the writings sent to the pope, but also of all his writings was: ecclesiastical study must be reformed. All his ideas and principles must be considered in the light of this thesis. He openly exposes the "sins" of his time in the study of theology, which are seven, as he had proved, in the "Opus Majus". Though this part has been lost, we can reconstruct his arrangement with the aid of the "Opus Minus" and "Opus Tertium". The first sin is the preponderance of (speculative) philosophy. Theology is a Divine science, hence it must be based on Divine principles and treat questions touching Divinity, and not exhaust itself in philosophical cavils and distinctions. The second sin is ignorance of the sciences most suitable and necessary to theologians; they study only Latin grammar, logic, natural philosophy (very superficially!) and a part of metaphysics: four sciences very unimportant, scientiæ viles. Other sciences more necessary, foreign (Oriental) languages, mathematics, alchemy, chemistry, physics, experimental sciences, and moral philosophy, they neglect. A third sin is the defective knowledge of even the four sciences which they cultivate: their ideas are full of errors and misconceptions, because they have no means to get at the real understanding of the authors from whom they draw all their knowledge, since their writings abound in Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic expressions. Even the greatest and most highly-esteemed theologians show in their works to what an extent the evil has spread.

Another sin is the preference for the "Liber Sententiarum" and the disregard of other theological matters, especially Holy Scriptures; he complains: "The one who explains the 'Book of the Sentences' is honoured by all, whereas the lector of Holy Scripture is neglected; for to the expounder of the Sentences there is granted a commodious hour for lecturing at his own will, and if he belongs to an order, a companion and a special room; whilst the lector of Holy Scripture is denied all this and must beg the hour for his lecture to be given at the pleasure of the expounder of the Sentences. Elsewhere the lector of the Sentences holds disputations and is called master, whereas the lector of the [Biblical] test is not allowed to dispute" ("Opus Minus", ed. Brewer, 328 sq.). Such a method, he continues, is inexplicable and very injurious to the Sacred Text which contains the word of God, and the exposition of which would offer many occasions to speak about matters now treated in the several "Summæ Sententiarum". Still more disastrous is the fifth sin: the text of Holy Writ is horribly corrupted, especially in the "exemplar Parisiense", that is to say the Biblical text used at the University of Paris and spread by its students over the whole world. Confusion has been increased by many scholars or religious orders, who in their endeavours to correct the Sacred Text, in default of a sound method, have in reality only augmented the divergences; as every one presumes to change anything "he does not understand, a thing he would not dare to do with the books of the classical poets", the world is full of "correctors or rather corruptors". The worst of all sins is the consequence of the foregoing: the falsity or doubtfulness of the literal sense (sensus litteralis) and consequently of the spiritual meaning (sensus spiritualis); for when the literal sense is wrong, the spiritual sense cannot be right, since it is necessarily based upon the literal sense. The reasons of this false exposition are the corruption of the sacred text and ignorance of the Biblical languages. For how can they get the real meaning of Holy Writ without this knowledge, as the Latin versions are full of Greek and Hebrew idioms?

The seventh sin is the radically false method of preaching: instead of breaking to the faithful the Bread of Life by expounding the commandments of God and inculcating their duties, the preachers content themselves with divisions of the arbor Porphyriana, with the jingle of words and quibbles. They are even ignorant of the rules of eloquence, and often prelates who during their course of study were not instructed in preaching, when obliged to speak in church, beg the copy-books of the younger men, which are full of bombast and ridiculous divisions, serving only to "stimulate the hearers to all curiosity of mind, but do not elevate the affection towards good" ("Opus Tertium", Brewer, 309 sq.). Exceptions are very few, as for instance Friar Bertholdus Alemannus (Ratisbon) who alone has more effect than all the friars of both orders combined (Friars Minor and Preachers). Eloquence ought to be accompanied by science, and science by eloquence; for "science without eloquence is like a sharp sword in the hands of a paralytic, whilst eloquence without science is a sharp sword in the hands of a furious man" ("Sapientia sine eloquentia est quasi gladius acutus in manu paralytici, sicut eloquentia expers sapientiæ est quasi gladius acutus in manu furiosi"; "Opus Tertium, I, Brewer, 4). But far from being an idle fault-finder who only demolished without being able to build up, Bacon makes proposals extremely fit and efficacious, the only failure of which was that they were never put into general practice, by reason of the premature death of the pope. Bacon himself and his pupils, such as John of Paris, whom he praises highly, William of Mara, Gerard Huy, and others are a striking argument that his proposals were no Utopian fancies: they showed in their own persons what in their idea a theologian should be. First of all, if one wishes to get wisdom, he must take care not to fall into the four errors which usually prevent even learned men from attaining the summit of wisdom, viz. "the example of weak and unreliable authority, continuance of custom, regard to the opinion of the unlearned, and concealing one's own ignorance, together with the exhibition of apparent wisdom" ("Fragilis et indignæ autoritatis exemplum, consuetudinis diuturnitas, vulgi sensus imperiti, et propriæ ignorantiæ occultatio cum ostentatione sapientiæ apparentis"; "Opus Majus", I, Bridges, 1, 2).

Thus having eliminated "the four general causes of all human ignorance", one must be convinced that all science has its source in revelation both oral and written. Holy Scripture especially is an inexhaustible fountain of truth from which all human philosophers, even the heathen, drew their knowledge, immediately or mediately; therefore no science, whether profane or sacred, can be true if contrary to Holy Writ (see "English Hist. Rev.", 1897, 508 sq.; "Opus Tertium", XXIV, Brewer, 87 sq.). This conviction having taken root, we must consider the means of attaining wisdom. Among those which lead to the summit are to be mentioned in the first place the languages, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic. Latin does not suffice, as there are many useful works written in other languages and not yet translated, or badly translated, into Latin. Even in the best versions of scientific works, as for instance of Greek and Arabic philosophers, or of the Scriptures, as also in the Liturgy, there are still some foreign expressions retained purposely or by necessity, it being impossible to express in Latin all nuances of foreign texts. It would be very interesting to review all the other reasons adduced by Bacon proving the advantage or even necessity of foreign languages for ecclesiastical, social, and political purposes, or to follow his investigations into the physiological conditions of language or into what might have been the original one spoken by man. He distinguishes three degrees of linguistic knowledge; theologians are not obliged to reach the second degree, which would enable them to translate a foreign text into their own language, or the third one which is still more difficult of attainment and which would enable them to speak this language as their own. Nevertheless the difficulties of reaching even the highest degree are not as insurmountable as is commonly supposed; it depends only on the method followed by the master, and as there are very few scholars who follow a sound method, it is not to be wondered at that perfect knowledge of foreign languages is so rarely found among theologians (see "Opus Tertium", XX, Brewer, 64 sq.; "Compendium Studii phil.", VI, Brewer, 433 sq.). On this point, and in general of Roger's attitude towards Biblical studies, see the present author's article "De Fr. Roger Bacon ejusque sententia de rebus biblicis" in "Archivum Franciscanum Historicum", III, Quaracchi, 1910, 3-22; 185-213.

Besides the languages there are other means, e.g., mathematics, optics, the experimental sciences, and moral philosophy, the study of which is absolutely necessary for every priest, as Bacon shows at length. He takes special pains in applying these sciences to Holy Scripture and the dogmas of faith. These are pages so wonderful and evincing by their train of thought and the drawings inserted here and there such a knowledge of the subject matter, that we can easily understand modern scholars saying that Bacon was born out of due time, or, with regard to the asserted imprisonment, that he belonged to that class of men who were crushed by the wheel of their time as they endeavoured to set it going more quickly. It is in these treatises (and other works of the same kind) that Bacon speaks of the reflection of light, mirages, and burning- mirrors, of the diameters of the celestial bodies and their distances from one another, of their conjunction and eclipses; that he explains the laws of ebb and flow, proves the Julian calendar to be wrong; he explains the composition and effects of gunpowder, discusses and affirms the possibility of steam- vessels and aerostats, of microscopes and telescopes, and some other inventions made many centuries later. Subsequent ages have done him more justice in recognizing his merits in the field of natural science. John Dee, for instance, who addressed (1582) a memorial on the reformation of the calendar to Queen Elizabeth, speaking of those who had advocated this change, says: "None hath done it more earnestly, neither with better reason and skill, than hath a subject of this British Sceptre Royal done, named as some think David Dee of Radik, but otherwise and most commonly (upon his name altered at the alteration of state into friarly profession) called Roger Bacon: who at large wrote thereof divers treatises and discourses to Pope Clement the Fifth [sic ] about the year of our Lord, 1267. To whom he wrote and sent also great volumes exquisitely compiled of all sciences and singularities, philosophical and mathematical, as they might be available to the state of Christ his Catholic Church". Dee then remarks that Paul of Middleburg, in "Paulina de recta Paschæ celebratione", had made great use of Bacon's work: "His great volume is more than half thereof written (though not acknowledged) by such order and method generally and particularly as our Roger Bacon laid out for the handling of the matter" (cited by Bridges, "Opus Majus", I, p. xxxiv).

Longer time was needed before Bacon's merits in the field of theological and philosophical sciences were acknowledged. Nowadays it is impossible to speak or write about the methods and course of lectures in ecclesiastical schools of the Middle Ages, or on the efforts of revision and correction of the Latin Bible made before the Council of Trent, or on the study of Oriental languages urged by some scholars before the Council of Vienne, without referring to the efforts made by Bacon. In our own day, more thoroughly than at the Council of Trent, measures are taken in accordance with Bacon's demand that the further corruption of the Latin text of Holy Scripture should be prevented by the pope's authority, and that the most scientific method should be applied to the restoration of St. Jerome's version of the Vulgate. Much may be accomplished even now by applying Bacon's principles, viz.: (1) unity of action under authority; (2) a thorough consultation of the most ancient manuscripts; (3) the study of Hebrew and Greek to help where the best Latin manuscripts left room for doubt; (4) a thorough knowledge of Latin grammar and construction; (5) great care in distinguishing between St. Jerome's readings and those of the more ancient version (see "Opus Tertium", XXV, Brewer, 93 sq.; Gasquet, "English Biblical Criticism in the Thirteenth Century" in "The Dublin Review", CXX, 1898, 15). But there are still some prejudices among learned men, especially with regard to Bacon's orthodoxy and his attitude towards Scholastic philosophy. It is true that he speaks in terms not very flattering of the Scholastics, and even of their leaders. His style is not the ordinary Scholastic style proceeding by inductions and syllogisms in the strictest form; he speaks and writes fluently, clearly expressing his thoughts as a modern scholar treating the same subject might write. But no one who studies his works can deny that Bacon was thoroughly trained in Scholastic philosophy. Like the other Scholastics, he esteems Aristotle highly, while blaming the defective Latin versions of his works and some of his views on natural philosophy. Bacon is familiar with the subjects under discussion, and it may be of interest to note that in many cases he agrees with Duns Scotus against other Scholastics, particularly regarding matter and form and the intellectus agens which he proves not to be distinct substantially from the intellectus possibilis ("Opus Majus", II, V; "Opus Tertium", XXIII).

It would be difficult to find any other scholar who shows such a profound knowledge of the Arabic philosophers as Bacon does. Here appears the aim of his philosophical works, to make Christian philosophy acquainted with the Arabic philosophers. He is an enemy only of the extravagances of Scholasticism, the subtleties and fruitless quarrels, to the neglect of matters much more useful or necessary and the exaltation of philosophy over theology. Far from being hostile to true philosophy, he bestows a lavish praise on it. None could delineate more clearly and convincingly than he, what ought to be the relation between theology and philosophy, what profit they yield and what services they render to each other, how true philosophy is the best apology of Christian faith (see especially "Opus Majus", II and VII; "Compend. studii philos."). Bacon is sometimes not very correct in his expressions; there may even be some ideas that are dangerous or open to suspicion (e.g. his conviction that a real influence upon the human mind and liberty and on human fate is exerted by the celestial bodies etc.). But there is no real error in matters of faith, and Bacon repeatedly asks the reader not to confound his physics with divination, his chemistry with alchemy, his astronomy with astrology; and certainly he submitted with all willingness his writings to the judgment of the Church. It is moving to note the reverence he displayed for the pope. Likewise he shows always the highest veneration towards the Fathers of the Church; and whilst his criticism often becomes violent when he blames the most eminent of his contemporaries, he never speaks or writes any word of disregard of the Fathers or ancient Doctors of the Church, even when not approving their opinion; he esteemed them highly and had acquired such a knowledge of their writings that he was no way surpassed by any of his great rivals. Bacon was a faithful scholar of open character who frankly uttered what he thought, who was not afraid to blame whatsoever and whomsoever he believed to deserve censure, a scholar who was in advance of his age by centuries. His iron will surmounted all difficulties and enabled him to acquire a knowledge so far surpassing the average science of his age, that he must be reckoned among the most eminent scholars of all times.

Of the vast Baconian bibliography we can mention only the most important books and articles in so far as we have made use of them. Besides those already cited we must mention: BALÆUS, Script. illustr. maiorus Brytann. Catalogus (Basle, 1577); Anecdota Oxon. Index Britannicæ SS. quos . . . collegit Joan. Balæus, ed. POOLE AND BATESON (OXFORD, 1902----); WOOD, Hist. et antiq. Univers. Oxon., I (Oxford, 1674); IDEM, Athenæ Oxon. (London, 1721), new ed. by BLISS (4 vols., London, 1813-20); WHARTON, Anglia sacra (London, 1691); HODY, De Bibliorum text. original., versionibus græc. et latina Vulgata, III (Oxford, 1705); LELANDUS, Comment. de Scriptor. Brittanicis, ed. HALL (Oxford, 1709); OUDIN, Comment. de Script. Ecclesiæ antiq., I (Frankfort, 1722), II-III (Leipzig, 1722); WADDING-FONSECA, Annales Ord. Min., IV-V; WADDING, Scriptores O. M. (Rome, 1650, 1806, 1906); TANNER, Bibl. Britann.-Hibern. (London, 1748); SBARALEA, Supplement. ad SS. O. M. (Rome, 1806); BERGER, De l'hist. de la Vulgate en France (Paris, 1887); IDEM, Quam notitiam linguæ hebr. habuerunt christiani med. ævi (Paris, 1893); cf. the criticism of this book by SOURY in Bibl. de l'Ecole des Chartes, LIV (1893), 733-38; DENIFLE, Die Handschr. der Bibel-Corrector. des 13. Jahrh. in Archiv f. Lit.- u. Kirchengesch. des Mittelalters, IV, 263 sqq.; 471 sqq.; DÖRING, Die beiden Bacon in Archiv f. Gesch. d. Philos., XVII, (1904), 3 sqq.; FERET, Les emprisonnements de R. Bacon in Revue des quest. histor., L (1891), 119-42; IDEM, La faculté de théol. de Paris (4 vols., Paris, 1894-96); FLÜGEL, R. Bacons Stellung in d. Gesch. d. Philologie in Philos. Studien, XIX (1902), 164 sqq.; HEITZ, Essai histor. sur les rapports entre la philos. et la foi, de Bérenger de Tours à St. Thomas (Paris, 1909), 117 sqq.; HIRSCH, Early English Hebraists: R. Bacon and his Predecessors in The Jewish Quarterly Review (Oct., 1890), reprinted in IDEM, A Book of Essays (London, 1905), 1-72; Hist. de la France, XX (Paris, 1842), 227 sqq.; HOFFMANS, La synthèse doctrinale de R. B. in Archiv f.Gesch. d. Philos. (Berne, 1907); IDEM, L'intuition mystique de la science in Revue Néo-Scholastuque (1909), 370 sqq. (cf. 1906, 371 sqq.; 1908, 474 sqq.; 1909, 33 sqq.); JARRETT, A Thirteenth-Century Revision Committee of the Bible in Irish Theological Quarterly, IV (Maynooth, 1910), 56 sqq.; JOURDAIN, Discussion de quelques points de la biogr. de R. B. in Comptes rendus Acad. Inscr. et Belles-Lettres, I (1873), 309 sqq.; KREMBS, R. B.'s Optik in Natur u. Offenbarung (1900); LANGEN, R. Bacon in Histor. Zeitschr., LI (1883), 434-50; MARTIN, La Vulgate latine au XIIIe siècle d'après R. B. (Paris, 1888); Mon. Germ. Hist.: SS., XXVIII, 569 sqq.; NARBEY, Le moine R. B. et le mouvement scientifque au XIIIe siècle in Revue des quest. histor., XXXV (1894), 115 sqq.; PARROT, R. B., sa personne, son génie, etc. (Paris, 1894); PESCH, De inspiratione S. Scripturæ (Freiburg, 1906), 163 sq.; PICAVET, Les éditions de R. B. in Journal des Savants (1905), 362-69; IDEM, Deux directions de la théol. et de l'exégèse au XIIIe siècle. Thomas et Bacon in Revue de l'hist. des religions (1905), 172, or printed separately (Paris, 1905); POHL, Das Verhältnis der Philos. zur Theol. bei R. B. (Neustrelitz, 1893); SAISSET, R. B., sa vie et son oeuvre in Revue des deux mondes, XXXIV, (1861), 361-91; IDEM, Précurseurs et disciples de Descartes (Paris, 1862); SALEMBIER, Une page inédite de l'hist. de la Vulgate (Amiens, 1890); SCHNEIDER, R. B., eine Monographie als Beitrag zur Gesch der Philos. des 13. Jahr. aus den Quellen (Augsburg, 1873); SIEBERT, R. B., sein Leben u. seine Philos. (Marburg, 1861); STARHAHN, Das opus maius des R. B. nach seinem Inhalt u. seiner Bebeutung f. d. Wissenschaft betrachtet in Kirchl. Monatsschr., XII (1893), 276-86; STRUNZ, Gesch. der Naturwissenschaften im Mittelalter (Stuttgart, 1910), 93-99; UBALD, Franciscan England in the Past in Franciscan Annals, XXXIII (1908), 369-71; XXXIV, (1909), 11-14; VALDARNINI, Esperienza e ragionamento in R. B. (Rome, 1896); VERCELLONE, Dissertazioni accademiche di vario argumento (Rome, 1864); VOGL, Die Physik R. B.'s (Erlangen, 1906); WERNER, Kosmologie u. allgem. Naturlehre R. B.'s Psychol., Erkenntniss- u. Wissenschaftslehre des R. B. in Sitzungsber. der k. k. Akad. d. W., XCIII (Vienna), 467-576; XCIV, 489-612; WITHEFORD, Bacon as an Interpreter of Holy Scripture inExpositor (1897), 349-60; WULF, (DE), Hist. de la philos. médiévale (2nd ed., Louvain, 1905), 419-27.

THEOPHILUS WITZEL

Ven. Roger Cadwallador

English martyr, b. at Stretton Sugwas, near Hereford, in 1568; executed at Leominster, 27 Aug., 1610. He was ordained subdeacon at Reims, 21 Sept., 1591, and deacon the following February, and in Aug., 1592, was sent to the English College at Valladolid, where he was ordained priest. Returning to England in 1594, he laboured in Herefordshire with good success especially among the poor for about sixteen years. Search was made for him in June, 1605, but it was not till Easter, 1610, that he was arrested at the house of Mrs. Winefride Scroope, widow, within eight miles of Hereford. He was then brought before the Bishop, Dr. Robert Bennet, who committed him to Hereford gaol where he was loaded with irons night and day. On being transferred to Leominster gaol he was obliged to walk all the way in shackles, though a boy was permitted to go by his side and bear up by a string the weight of some iron links which were wired to the shackles. On his arrival, he was treated with the greatest inhumanity by his gaoler. He was condemned, merely for being a priest, some months before he suffered. A very full account of his sufferings in prison and of his martyrdom is given by Challoner. He hung very long, suffering great pain, owing to the unskilfulness of the hangman, and was eventually cut down and butchered alive. Pits praises his great knowledge of Greek, from which he translated Theodoret's "Philotheus, or the lives of the Father of the Syrian deserts"; but it does not appear when or where this translation was published.

JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT

Roger of Hoveden

Chronicler, was probably a native of Hoveden, or, as it is now called, Howden, in Yorkshire. From the fact that his chronicle ends rather abruptly in 1201 it is inferred that he must have died or been stricken with some mortal disease in that year. He was certainly a man of importance in his day. He was a king's clerk (clericus regis) in the time of Henry II, and seems to have been attached to the court as early as 1173, while he was also despatched on confidential missions, as for example to the chiefs of Galloway in 1174. In 1189 he served as an itinerant justice in the north, but he probably retired from public life after the death of Henry II, and it has been suggested that he became parish priest of his native village, Howden, devoting the rest of his life to the compilation of his chronicle. Like most other historical writings of that date the earlier portion of his work is little more than a transcript of some one narrative to which he had more convenient access or which he considered specially worthy of confidence. His authority from 732 down to 1154 was an abstract, still extant in manuscript, "Historia Saxonum vel Anglorum post obituary Bedae". From 1154 to 1192 he uses his authorities much more freely, basing his narrative upon the well-known "Gesta Henrici", commonly attributed to Benedict of Peterborough. But from 1192 to 1201 his work is all his own, and of the highest value. Hoveden had a great appreciation of the importance of documentary evidence, and we should be very ill informed regarding the political history of the last quarter of the twelfth century if it were not for the state papers, etc., which Hoveden inserts and of which, no doubt, his earlier connection with the chancery and its officials enabled him to obtain copies.

As a chronicler, he was impartial and accurate. His profoundly religious character made him somewhat credulous, but there is no reason, as even his editor, Bishop Stubbs, admits, to regard him on that account as an untrustworthy authority.

The one reliable edition of Hoveden is that prepared by STUBBS for the Rolls Series in four vols., 1868-71. A full account of Hoveden and his works is, given in the preface to these vols.

HERBERT THURSTON

Roger of Wendover

Benedictine monk, date of birth unknown; d. 1236, the first of the great chroniclers of St. Albans Abbey. He seems to have been a native of Wendover in Buckinghamshire and must have enjoyed some little consideration among his brethren as he was appointed prior of the cell of Belvoir, but from this office he was deposed and retired to St. Albans, where he probably wrote his chronicle, known as the "Flores Historiarum", extending from the Creation to 1235. From the year 1202 it is an original and valuable authority, but the whole material has been worked over and in a sense re-edited with editions by Matthew Paris (q.v.) in his "Chronica Majora". Wendover is less prejudiced than Paris, but he is also less picturesque, and whereas Paris in his generalizations and inferences as to the causes of events anticipates the scope of the modern historian, Wendover is content to discharge the functions of a simple chronicler. The "Flores Historiarum" was edited for the English Historical Society in 1841 by H. O. Coxe in five volumes, beginning with the year 447, when Wendover for the first time turns directly to the history of Britain. But in 1886-1889 the more valuable part of the work (from 1154 to 1235) was re-edited by H. G. Hewlett as part of the Rolls Series in three volumes.

HUNT in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v. WENDOVER; LUARD, prefaces to the earlier volumes of MATTHEW PARIS, Chronica Majora in the Rolls Series; HARDY, Catalogue of Materials of Brit. Hist., III (London, 1871), and the prefaces to the editions of Flores Historiarum.

HERBERT THURSTON

Peter Roh

Born at Conthey (Gunthis) in the canton of Valais (French Switzerland), 14 August, 1811; d. at Bonn, 17 May, 1872. Up to his thirteenth year he spoke only French, so that he had to learn German from a German priest in the vicinity before he was able to begin his gymnasial studies in the boarding-school kept by the Jesuits at Brig in Switzerland. Later he became a day-pupil at the gymnasium kept by the Jesuits at Sittin. While here he resolved to enter the Society of Jesus (1829); strange to say the external means of bringing him to this decision was the reading of Pascal's pamphlet "Monita Secreta". He taught the lower gymnasial classes at the lyceum at Fribourg. During these years of study Roh showed two characteristic qualities: the talent of imparting knowledge in a clear and convincing manner, and an unusual gift for oratory. These abilities determined his future work to be that of a teacher and a preacher. He was first (1842-5) professor of dogmatics at Fribourg, then at the academy at Lucerne which had just been given to the Jesuits. At the same time he preached and aided as opportunity occurred in missions. These labors were interrupted by the breaking out of the war of the Swiss Sonderbund, during which he was military chaplain; but after its unfortunate end he was obliged to flee into Piedmont, from there to Linz and Gries, finally finding a safe refuge at Rappoltsweiler in Alsace as tutor in the family of his countryman and friend Siegwart-Müller, also expatriated. Here he stayed until 1849. A professorship of dogmatics at Louvain only lasted a year. When the missions for the common people were opened in Germany in 1850 his real labors began; as he said himself, "Praise God, I now come into my element." Both friend and foe acknowledge that the success of these missions was largely due to Roh, and his powerful and homely eloquence received the highest praise. He was an extemporaneous speaker; the writing of sermons and addresses was, as he himself confessed, "simply impossible" to him; yet, thoroughly trained in philosophy and theology, he could also write when necessary, as several articles from him in the "Stimmen aus Maria-Laach" prove. His pamphlet "Das alte Lied: der Zweck heiligt die Mittel, im Texte verbessert und auf neue Melodie gesetzt" has preserved a certain reputation until the present day, as Father Roh declared he would give a thousand gulden to the person who could show to the faculty of law of Bonn or Heidelberg a book written by a Jesuit which taught the principle that the end justifies the means. The prize is still unclaimed. Some of his sermons have also been preserved; they were printed against his will from stenographic notes. Father Roh's greatest strength lay in his power of speech and "he was the most powerful and effective preacher of the German tongue that the Jesuits have had in this century".

KNABENBAUER, Erinnerungen an P. Peter Roh S. J., reprint of the biography in Stimmen aus Maria-Laach (1872).

N. SCHEID

Rohault de Fleury

A family of French architects and archaeologists of the nineteenth century, of which the most distinguished member was Charles Rohault de Fleury, b. in Paris 23 July, 1801; d. there 11 August, 1875. After a scientific course pursued at the Ecole Polytechnique at Paris, he studied sculpture, but abandoned this study for architecture in 1825. He designed several public and private buildings which adorn one of the most artistic sections of the present Paris and was the author of the first edition of the "Manuel des lois du batiment" published by the Central Society of Architects (Paris, 1862). The last years of his life he devoted to religious archaeology and published the important results of his studies in the following magnificently illustrated works: "Les instruments de la Passion", Paris, 1870 (see CROSS, IV, 531); "L'évangile, études iconographiques et archéologiques", Tours, 1874; "La Sainte Vièrge", Paris, 1878; "Un Tabernacle chrétien du Ve siècle", Arras, 1880; "La Messe, études archéologiques sur ses monuments", Paris, 1883-98. Some of these works were published after his death by his son George (1835-1905) who was himself a prominent archaeological writer. The latter's works treat of Italian art-monuments: "Monuments de Pise au moyen âge", Paris, 1866; "La Toscane au moyen âge, lettres sur l'architecture civile et militaire en 1400", Paris 1874; "Le Latran au moyen âge", Paris 1877.

Oeuvres de Charles Rohault de Fleury, architecte (Paris, 1884).

N.A. WEBER

Réné François Rohrbacher

Ecclesiastical historian, b. at Langatte (Langd) in the present Diocese of Metz, 27 September, 1789; d. in Paris, 17 January, 1856. He studied for several months at Sarrebourg and Phalsebourg (Pfalzburg) and at the age of seventeen had completed his Classical studies. He taught for three years at the college of Phalsebourg; entered in 1810 the ecclesiastical seminary at Nancy, and was ordained priest in 1812. Appointed assistant priest at Insming, he was transferred after six months to Lunéville. A mission which he preached in 1821 at Flavigny led to the organization of a diocesan mission band. Several years later he became a member of the Congregation of St. Peter founded by Félicité and Jean de La Mennais, and from 1827 to 1835 directed the philosophical and theological studies of young ecclesiastics who wished to become the assistants of the two brothers in their religious undertakings. When Felicite de La Mennais refused to submit to the condemnation pronounced against him by Rome, Rohrbacher separated from him and became professor of Church history at the ecclesiastical seminary of Nancy. Later he retired to Paris where he spent the last years of his life. His principal work is his monumental "Histoire Universelle de l'Église Catholique" (Nancy, 1842-49; 2nd ed., Paris, 1849-53). Several other editions were subsequently published and continuations added by Chantrel and Guillaume. Written from an apologetic point of view, the work contributed enormously to the extirpation of Gallicanism in the Church of France. Though at times uncritical and devoid of literary grace, it is of considerable usefulness to the student of history. It was translated into German and partially recast by Hülskamp, Rump, and numerous other writers. (For the other works of Rohrbacher, see Hurter, "Nomenclator Lit.", III [Innsbruck, 1895], 1069-71.)

ROHRBACHER, Hist. Univ. de l'Eglise Cath., ed. by GUILLAUME XII, (Paris, 1885), 122-33; MCCAFFREY, Hist. of the Cath. Ch. in the XIX Century, II (Dublin, 1909), I, 60, II, 448, 475.

N.A. WEBER

Francisco de Rojas y Zorrilla

Spanish dramatic poet, b. at Toledo, 4 Oct., 1607; d. 1680. Authentic information regarding the events of his life is rather fragmentary, but he probably studied at the Universities of Toledo and Salamanca, and for a time followed a military career. When only twenty-five he was well known as a poet, for he is highly spoken of in Montalban's "Para todos" (1632), a fact which shows that he enjoyed popularity, when Lope de Vega, Tirso de Molina, and Calderon were in the height of their fame. The announcement published in 1638 of the assassination of Francisco de Rojas did not refer to the poet, for the first and second parts of his comedies, published by himself at Madrid, bear the dates of 1640 and 1645 respectively. A third part was promised but it never appeared. He was given the mantle of the Order of Santiago in 1644. The writings of Rojas consist of plays and autos sacramentales written alone and in collaboration with Calderon, Coello, Velez, Montalbán, and others. No complete edition of his plays is available, but Mesonero gives a very good selection with biographical notes. Among the best of them are "Del Rey abajo ninguno", "Entre bobos anda el juego", "Donde hay agravio no hay celos", and "Casarse por vengarse", the last of which is claimed to have been the basis of Le Sage's novel, "Gil Blas de Santillane".

TICKNOR, History of Spanish Literature (Boston, 1866); MESONERO, Biblioteca de Autores Espanoles, LIV (Madrid, 1866).

VENTURA FUENTES

John Gage Rokewode

Born 13 Sept., 1786; died at Claughton Hall, Lancashire, 14 Oct., 1842. He was the fourth son of Sir Thomas Gage of Hengrave, and took the name Rokewode in 1838 when he succeeded to the Rokewode estates. He was educated at Stonyhurst, and having studied law under Charles Butler he was called to the bar, but never practiced, preferring to devote himself to antiquarian pursuits. He was elected a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries in 1818, and was director from 1829 till 1842. He also became a fellow of the Royal Society. In 1822 he published "The History and Antiquities of Hengrave in Suffolk" and in 1838 " The History and Antiquities of Suffolk ". His edition of Jocelin de Brakelond's chronicle published by the Camden Society in 1840 furnished Carlyle with much of his materials for "Past and Present" (1843). Many papers by him appeared in "Archaeologia", many of these being republished as separate pamphlets, including the description of the Benedictionals of St. Æthelwold and of Robert of Jumieges; he also printed the genealogy of the Rokewode family with charters relating thereto in "Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica", II. He contributed to the "Orthodox Journal" and the "Catholic Gentleman's Magazine". Many of his MSS. were sold after his death with his valuable library. The Society of Antiquaries possess a bust of him by R.C. Lucas. He died suddenly while out shooting.

Orthodox Journal, XV, 276; COOPER in Dict. Nat. Biog. GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Caths.

EDWIN BURTON

Rolduc

(RODA DUCIS, also Roda, Closterroda or Hertogenrade).

Located in S. E. Limburg, Netherlands. It became an Augustinian abbey in 1104 under Ven. Ailbertus, a priest, son of Ammoricus, a nobleman of Antoing, Flanders. Ailbertus is said to have been guided by a vision towards this chosen spot, which was in the domain of Count Adelbert of Saffenberch, who, before Bishop Othert of Liège, turned over the property destined for abbey and church in 1108. Ailbertus was the first abbot (1104-11). Later he went to France where he founded the Abbey of Clairfontaine. Desiring once more to see Rolduc, he died on the way, at Sechtem, near Bonn, 19 Sep., 1122 (Acta SS.). Thirty-eight abbots succeeded Ailbertus, the last one being Peter Joseph Chaineux (1779-1800). The abbey acquired many possessions in the Netherlands, and became the last resting-place of the Dukes of Limburg. It possesses the famous "Catalogue Librorum", made A.D. 1230, containing one hundred and forty theological and eighty-six philosophical and classical works. The beautiful crypt, built by Ailbertus, was blessed 13 Dec., 1106, and in 1108 the church was dedicated to the Blessed Virgin and St Gabriel. In 1122 Pope Calixtus II confirmed by a Bull, preserved in the archives of Rolduc, the donation of the property. The church, completed in 1209, was then solemnly dedicated by Philip, Bishop of Ratzeburg. Dr. R. Corten completed the restoration of the churoh in 1893, and transferred the relics of Ven. Ailbertus into a richly sculptured sarcophagus in the crypt, 1897. The church possesses a particle of the Holy Cross, five inches long, reputed to be authentic and miraculous (Archives of Rolduc, by Abbot Mathias Amezaga); also the body of St. Daphne, virgin and martyr, brought over from the Catacombs of Praetextatus in 1847. Rolduc became the seminary of Liège in 1831, under Right Rev. Cornelius Van Bommel, and the little seminary of Roermond, and academy in 1841. The present institution has an attendance of 420 pupils.

HEYENDAL, Annales Rodenses usque ad annum 1700; Diarium rerum memorabilium abbatiae Rodensis in the archives of Aix-la-Chapelle; Acta SS.; HABETS, Geschiedenis van het Bisdom Roermond, III (1875-92); ERNST, Histoire du Limbourg, (Liège, 1837-52); DARIS, Notice Historique sur les eglises du diocese de Liège, XV (Liège, 1894); NEUJEAN, Notice historique sur l'abbaye de Rolduc (Aix-la-Chapelle, 1868); HELYOT, Histoire des ordres monastiques, religieux et militaires, II (Paris, 1714-19); CUYPERS, Revue de l'art chretien (1892); LENNARTZ, Die Augustiner Abtei Klosterrath; KERSTEN, Journal Historique et Litteraire, XIV (Liège); CORTEN, Rolduc in Woord en Beeld (Utrecht, 1902).

THEOPHILE STENMANS

Hermann Rolfus

Catholic educationist, b. at Freiburg, 24 May, 1821; d. at Buhl, near Offenburg, 27 October, 1896. After attending the gymnasium at Freiburg, he studied theology and philology at the university there from 1840 to 1843, and was ordained priest on 31 August, 1844. After he had served for brief periods at various places, he was appointed curate at Thiengen in 1851, curate-in-charge at Reiselfingen in 1855, parish priest at the last named place in 1861, parish priest at Reuthe near Freiburg in 1867 at Sasbach in 1875, and at Buhl in 1892. In 1867 the theological faculty at Freiburg gave him the degree of Doctor of Theology. Rolfus did much for practical Catholic pedagogics, especially in southern Germany, by the work which he edited in conjunction with Adolf Pfister, "Real-Encyclopädie des Erziehungsund Unterrichtswesens nach katholischen Principien" (4 vols., Mainz, 1863-1866; 2nd. ed. 1872-74). A fifth volume ("Ergänzungsband", 1884) was issued by Rolfus alone; a new edition is in course of preparation. Another influential publication was the "Suddeutsches katholisches Schulwochenblatt", which he edited, also jointly with Pfister, from 1861 to 1867. Of his other literary works, the following may be mentioned: "Der Grund des katholischen Glaubens" (Mainz, 1862); "Leitfaden der allgemeinen Weltgeschichte" (Freiburg, 1870; 4th ed., 1896); "Die Galubens- und Sittenlehre der katholischen Kirche" (Einsiedeln, 1875; frequently re-edited), jointly with F. J. Brändle; "Kirchengeschichtliches in chronologischer Reihenfolge von der Zeit des letzten Vaticanischen Concils bis auf unsere Tage" (2 vols., Mainz, 1877-82; 3rd vol. by Sickinger, 1882); "Geschichte des Reiches Gottes auf Erden" (Freiburg, 1878-80; 3rd. ed., 1894-95); "Katholischer Hauskatechismus" (Emsiedeln, 1891-92). In addition to the works mentioned, he also wrote a large number of pedagogic, political, apologetic, and polemical brochures, ascetic treatises, and works for the young.

KELLER, Festschrift zum funfzigjahrigen Priesterjubilaum, des hochw. Herrn. Pfarrers u. Geistl. Rats Dr. Hermann Rolfus (Freiburg, im Br., 1894), with prortrait; KNECHT in Badische Biographien, V (Heidelberg, 1906), 670 sq.

FRIEDRICH LAUCHERT

Richard Rolle de Hampole

Solitary and writer, b. at Thornton, Yorkshire, about 1300; d. at Hampole, 29 Sept., 1349. The date 1290, sometimes assigned for his birth-year, is too early, as in a work written after 1326 he alludes to himself as "juvenculus" and "puer", words applicable to a man of under thirty, but not to one over that age. He showed such promise as a school-boy, while living with his father William Rolle, that Thomas de Neville, Archdeacon of Durham, undertook to defray the cost of his education at Oxford. At the age of nineteen he left the university to devote himself to a life of perfection, not desiring to enter any religious order, but with the intention of becoming a hermit. At first he dwelt in a wood near his home, but fearing his family would put him under restraint, he fled from Thornton and wandered about till he was recognized by John de Dalton, who had been his fellow student at Oxford, and who now provided him with a cell and the necessaries for a hermit's life. At Dalton he made great progress in the spiritual life as described by himself in his treatise "De incendio amoris". He spent from three to four years in the purgative and illuminative way and then attained contemplation, passing through three phases which he describes as calor, canor, dulcor. They appeared successively, but once attained they remained with him continually, though he did not feel them all alike or all at the same time. Sometimes the calor prevailed; sometimes the canor, but the dulcor accompanied both. The condition was such, he says, "that I did not think anything like it or anything so holy could be received in this life". After this he wandered from place to place, at one time visiting the anchoress, Dame Margaret Kyrkby, at Anderby, and obtaining from God her cure. Finally he settled at Hampole near the Cistercian nunnery, and there he spent the rest of his life. After his death his tomb was celebrated for miracles, and preparations for his canonization, including the composition of a mass and office in his honour, were made; but the cause was never prosecuted. His writings were extremely popular throughout the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, and very many MSS. copies of his works are still extant in English libraries. His writings show he was much influenced by the teaching of St. Edmund of Canterbury in the "Speculum Ecclesiae". The Lollards, realizing the power of his influence, tampered with his writings, interpolating passages favouring their errors. To defeat this trickery, the nuns at Hampole kept genuine copies of his works at their house. His chief works are "De emendatione vitae" and "De incendio amoris", both written in Latin, of which English versions by Ricahrd Misyn (1434- 5) have been published by the Early English Text Society, 1896; "Contemplacyons of the drede and love of God" and "Remedy against Temptacyons", both printed by Wynkyn de Worde in 1506; and "The Pricke of Conscience", a poem printed for the Philological Society in 1863. This was his most popular work and MSS. of it are very common. They have been collated by Andreae (Berlin, 1888) and Bulbring (Transactions of Philological Society, 1889-1890). Ten prose treatises found in the Thornton MS. in Lincoln Cathedral Library were published by the Early English Text Society, 1866. "The Form of Perfect Living", "Meditations on the Passion", and many shorter pieces were edited by Horstman (London, 1896). Rolle translated many parts of Scripture into English but only his version of the Psalms has been printed. His English paraphrase of the Psalms and canticles was published in 1884 (Clarendon Press, Oxford). This work of translation is noteworthy in face of the persistent though discredited Protestant tradition ascribing all the credit of translating the Scriptures into English to Wyclif. Latin versions of Rolle's works are very numerous. They were collected into one edition (Paris, 1618) and again reprinted in the "Bibliotheca Patrum Maxima" (Lyons, 1677). Modernized English versions of the Meditations on the Passion have been published by Mgr. Benson in "A Book of the Love of Jesus" (London, 1905) and by the present writer (C. T. S. London, 1906).

Breviarium Eccl. Eboracensis. The lessons in the Officium de S. Ricardo, II, are the chief authority for the events of his life. PERRY, Introduction to Rolle's English Prose Treatises (London, 1866); VON ULLMAN, Studien zu Richard Rolle de Hampole in englische Studien (Heilbronn, 1877), VII; VON KRIBEL, Hampole-Studien, ibidem, VIII; ADLER, Ueber die Richard Rolle de Hampole zugeschriebene Paraphrase der sieben Busspsalmen (1885); MIDDENDORFF, Studien uber Richard Rolle (Magdeburg, 1888); HORSTMAN, Richard Rolle of Hampole and his followers (London, 1896); HARVEY, Introduction to the Fire of Love, E.E.T.S. (London, 1896); BENSON, Short Life of Richard Rolle in A Book of the Love of Jesus (London, 1905); INGE, Studies of English Mystics (London, 1906); HODGSON, The Form of Perfect Living (London, 1910).

EDWIN BURTON

Charles Rollin

Born in Paris, 1661; died there, 1741. The son of a cutler, intended to follow his father's trade, he was remarkable for the piety with which he served Mass and which secured for him a collegiate scholarship. He studied theology and received the tonsure, but not Holy Orders. He was assistant professor, and then professor of rhetoric at the Collège de Plessis; of Latin eloquence at the Collège Royal (1688), and at the age of thirty-three was appointed rector of the university. In 1696 he became principal of the Collège Beauvais, from which post he was dismissed in 1722 because of his opposition to the Bull "Unigenitus". He was a member of the Academy of Inscriptions from 1701. His works were written during his retirement. He was nearly sixty when he began the "Traité des Etudes", sixty-seven when he undertook his "Histoire Ancienne", seventy-seven when he became engaged on his "Histoire Romaine", which death prevented him from finishing. The "Traité des Etudes" (in 12°, 1726-31) explains the method of teaching and studying belles-lettres; it contains ideas which seem hackneyed, but which then were fairly new, e.g. the necessity of studying national history and of making use of school-books written in the vernacular. The "Histoire Ancienne" (1730-38) consists of twelve volumes in 12°. The "Histoire Romaine", of which he was able to finish only five volumes out of the nine composing the work, displays facility, interest, enthusiasm, but lack of a critical spirit. Rollin was a talented writer, though according to his own statement he was sixty years old when he decided to write in French. He was upright and serene, a pious and sincere Christian, whom it is deplorable to find concerned in the ridiculous scenes at the cemetery of St. Médard near the tomb of the deacon Paris. Without the annoyances due to his Jansenism, his pure conscience, sweet gaiety, vigorous health, and the esteem he enjoyed should have made him one of the most fortunate men of his times.

TROGNON, Eloge (Paris, 1818); GUENEAU DE MUSSY, Traite des Etudes de Rollin (Paris, 1805); SAINTE-BEUVE, Causeries du lundi, VI (Paris, 1851-62).

GEORGES BERTRIN

Rolls Series

A collection of historical materials of which the general scope is indicated by its official title, "The Chronicles and Memorials of Great Britain and Ireland during the Middle Ages". The publication of the series was undertaken by the British Government in accordance with a scheme submitted in 1857 by the Master of the Rolls (the official Custodian of the Records of the Court of Chancery and of the other Courts), then Sir John Romilly. A previous undertaking of the same kind, the "Monumenta Histories Britannica", had come to grief after the publication of the first volume (1036 folio pages, London, 1848) owing partly to the death of the principal editor, Henry Petrie, partly to its cumbrous form and other causes. Strong representations were, however, made by a very earnest worker in the field of historical research, Rev. Joseph Stevenson (q.v.), and the scheme of 1857 was the direct outcome of this appeal. In the new Series "preference was to be given in the first instance to such materials as were most scarce and valuable", each chronicle was to be edited as if the editor were engaged upon an editio princeps, a brief account was to be provided in a suitable preface of the life and times of the author as well as a description of the manuscripts employed, and the volumes were to be issued in a convenient octavo form. In accordance with this scheme 255 volumes, representing 99 separate works, have now been published. With the exception of the series of legal records known as the "Year Books" of Edward I and Edward III, the further issue of these materials has for some time past been suspended. Almost all the great medieval English chronicles have in turn been included, for it was found that most of the existing editions published by the scholars of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were unsatisfactory. It would be impossible here to give a catalogue of the materials edited in the course of this great undertaking. It must be sufficient to mention the magnificent edition of the "Chronica Majora" of Matthew Paris by Luard; the Hoveden, Benedict of Peterborough, Ralph de Diceto, Walter of Coventry, and others, all edited by Bishop Stubbs; the works of Giraldus Cambrensis by Brewer, and the "Materials for the History of St. Thomas Becket" by Canon Robertson. But the scope of the Series is by no means limited to the ordinary English Chroniclers. Legal records and tractates, such as the "Year Books", the "Black Book of the Admiralty", and Bracton's great work "De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliaeö; materials of a more or less legendary character relating to Ireland and Scotland, such as Whitley Stokes's edition of "the Tripartite Life of St. Patrick", or the Icelandic Sagas edited by Vigfusson and Dasent; rhymed chronicles like those of Robert of Gloucester and Robert of Brunne in English, and that of Pierre de Langtoft in French; even quasi-philosophical works like those of Friar Roger Bacon and Alexander Neckam, together with folklore materials like the three volumes of "Leechdoms, Worteunning and Starcraft" of Anglo-Saxon times, have all been included in the Series. It need hardly be said that hagiographical documents, dealing for example with the lives of St. Dunstan, St. Edward the Confessor, St. Hugh of Lincoln, St. Thomas, as well as St. Wilfrid and other northern saints, occupy a prominent place in the collection. The vast bulk of the texts thus edited are in Latin, and these are printed without translation. Those in old French, Anglo-Saxon, Irish, Gaelic, Welsh, old Norse, etc. always have a translation annexed.

The progress of the Rolls Series may best be traced in the Annual Reports of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records, but a general account is also given in Gross, The Sources and Literature of English History (New York, 1900); Potthast, Bibliotheca Historieca (Berlin, 1896).

HERBERT THURSTON

Thomas Rolph

Surgeon, b. 1800; d. at Portsmouth, 17 Feb., 1858. He was a younger son of Dr. Thomas Rolph and Frances his wife, and brother of John Rolph, the Canadian insurgent. Having qualified as a surgeon, he began to practice in Crutchedfriars, where he came into conflict with the Anglican rector of St. Olave, Hart Street, on the subject of tithes, a dispute which led him to petition the House of Commons on the subject and to publish two pamphlets: "Address to the Citizens of London" and "Letter addressed to the Rev. H.B. Owen, D.D." (1827). He also took a prominent part in Catholic affairs. In 1832 he went to the West Indies, the United States, and Canada, where his brother John had become chairman of committee in the Upper Canada House of Assembly. For a time Thomas Rolph settled in Canada, acting as Government emigration agent, but he returned to England in 1839 and published a series of works on emigration: "Comparative advantages between the United States and Canada for British Settlers" (1842); "Emigrants' Manual" (1843); "Emigration and Colonization" (1844). In his earlier life he had published two pamphlets on the proceedings of the Religious Tract society, and one against phrenology. He was also a constant contributor to the "Truthteller", a Catholic magazine published by William Eusebius Andrews. He spent his last years at Portsmouth where he died of apoplexy.

Allibone, Critical Dict. of Eng. Lit. (Philadelphia, 1869-71); Gillow, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s.v.

EDWIN BURTON

Roman Catechism

This catechism differs from other summaries of Christian doctrine for the instruction of the people in two points: it is primarily intended for priests having care of souls (ad parochos), and it enjoys an authority equalled by no other catechism. The need of a popular authoritative manual arose from a lack of systematic knowledge among pre-Reformation clergy and the concomitant neglect of religious instruction among the faithful.

The Reformers had not been slow in taking advantage of the situation; their popular tracts and catechisms were flooding every country and leading thousands of souls away from the Church. The Fathers of Trent, therefore, "wishing to apply a salutary remedy to this great and pernicious evil, and thinking that the definition of the principal Catholic doctrines was not enough for the purpose, resolved also to publish a formulary and method for teaching the rudiments of the faith, to be used by all legitimate pastors and teachers" (Cat. praef., vii). This resolution was taken in the eighteenth session (26 February, 1562) on the suggestion of St. Charles Borromeo; who was then giving full scope to his zeal for the reformation of the clergy. Pius IV entrusted the composition of the Catechism to four distinguished theologians: Archbishops Leonardo Marino of Lanciano and Muzio Calini of Zara, Egidio Foscarini, Bishop of Modena, and Francisco Fureiro, a Portuguese Dominican. Three cardinals were appointed to supervise the work. St. Charles Borromeo superintended the redaction of the original Italian text, which, thanks to his exertions, was finished in 1564. Cardinal William Sirletus then gave it the final touches, and the famous Humanists, Julius Pogianus and Paulus Manutius, translated it into classical Latin. It was then published in Latin and Italian as "Catechismus ex decreto Concilii Tridentini ad parochos Pii V jussu editus, Romae, 1566" (in-folio). Translations into the vernacular of every nation were ordered by the Council (Sess. XXIV, "De Ref.", c. vii).

The Council intended the projected Catechism to be the Church's official manual of popular instruction. The seventh canon, "De Reformatione", of Sess. XXIV, runs: "That the faithful may approach the Sacraments with greater reverence and devotion, the Holy Synod charges all the bishops about to administer them to explain their operation and use in a way adapted to the understanding of the people; to see, moreover, that their parish priests observe the same rule piously and prudently, making use for their explanations, where necessary and convenient, of the vernacular tongue; and conforming to the form to be prescribed by the Holy Synod in its instructions (catechesis) for the several Sacraments: the bishops shall have these instructions carefully translated into the vulgar tongue and explained by all parish priests to their flocks . . .". In the mind of the Church the Catechism, though primarily written for the parish priests, was also intended to give a fixed and stable scheme of instruction to the faithful, especially with regard to the means of grace, so much neglected at the time. To attain this object the work closely follows the dogmatic definitions of the council. It is divided in four parts:

I. The Apostles' Creed;
II. The Sacraments;
III. The Decalogue;
IV. Prayer, especially The Lord's Prayer.

It deals with the papal primacy and with Limbo (q.v.), points which were not discussed or defined at Trent; on the other hand, it is silent on the doctrine of Indulgences (q. v.), which is set forth in the "Decretum de indulgentiis", Sess. XXV. The bishops urged in every way the use of the new Catechism; they enjoined its frequent reading, so that all its contents would be committed to memory; they exhorted the priests to discuss parts of it at their meetings, and insisted upon its being used for instructing the people.

To some editions of the Roman Catechism is prefixed a "Praxis Catechismi", i.e. a division of its contents into sermons for every Sunday of the year adapted to the Gospel of the day. There is no better sermonary. The people like to hear the voice of the Church speaking with no uncertain sound; the many Biblical texts and illustrations go straight to their hearts, and, best of all, they remember these simple sermons better than they do the oratory of famous pulpit orators. The Catechism has not of course the authority of conciliary definitions or other primary symbols of faith; for, although decreed by the Council, it was only published a year after the Fathers had dispersed, and it consequently lacks a formal conciliary approbation. During the heated controversies de auxiliis gratiae between the Thomists and Molinists, the Jesuits refused to accept the authority of the Catechism as decisive. Yet it possesses high authority as an exposition of Catholic doctrine. It was composed by order of a council, issued and approved by the pope; its use has been prescribed by numerous synods throughout the whole Church; Leo XIlI, in a letter to the French bishops (8 Sept., 1899), recommended the study of the Roman Catechism to all seminarians, and the reigning pontiff, Pius X, has signified his desire that preachers should expound it to the faithful.

The earliest editions of the Roman Catechism are: "Romae apud Paulum Manutium", 1566; "Venetiis, apud Dominicum de Farrisö, 1567; "Coloniae", 1567 (by Henricus Aquensis); "Parisuis, in aedibus. Jac. Kerver", 1568; "Venetiis, apud Aldum", 1575; Ingolstadt, 1577 (Sartorius). In 1596 appeared at Antwerp "Cat. Romanus . . . quaestionibus distinctus, brevibusque exhortatiunculis studio Andreae Fabricii, Leodiensis". (This editor, A. Le Fevre, died in 1581. He probably made this division of the Roman Catechism into questions and answers in 1570). George Eder, in 1569, arranged the Catechism for the use of schools. He distributed the main doctrines into sections and subsections, and added perspicuous tables of contents. This useful work bears the title: "Methodus Catechismi Catholici". The first known English translation is by Jeremy Donovan, a professor at Maynooth, published by Richard Coyne, Capel Street, Dublin, and by Keating & Brown, London, and printed for the translator by W. Folds & Son, Great Shand Street, 1829. An American edition appeared in the same year. Donovan's translation was reprinted at Rome by the Propaganda Press, in two volumes (1839); it is dedicated to Cardinal Fransoni, and signed: "Jeremias Donovan, sacerdos hibernus, cubicularius Gregorii XVI, P. M." There is another English translation by R.A. Buckley (London, 1852), which is more elegant than Donovan's and claims to be more correct but is spoiled by the doctrinal notes of the Anglican translator. The first German translation, by Paul Hoffaeus, is dated Dillingen, 1568.

J. WILHELM

Roman Catholic

A qualification of the name Catholic commonly used in English-speaking countries by those unwilling to recognize the claims of the One True Church. Out of condescension for these dissidents, the members of that Church are wont in official documents to be styled "Roman Catholics" as if the term Catholic represented a genus of which those who owned allegiance to the pope formed a particular species. It is in fact a prevalent conception among Anglicans to regard the whole Catholic Church as made up of three principal branches, the Roman Catholic, the Anglo-Catholic and the Greek Catholic. As the erroneousness of this point of view has been sufficiently explained in the articles CHURCH and CATHOLIC, it is only needful here to consider the history of the composite term with which we are now concerned.

In the "Oxford English Dictionary", the highest existing authority upon questions of English philology, the following explanation is given under the heading "Roman Catholic". "The use of this composite term in place of the simple Roman, Romanist, or Romish; which had acquired an invidious sense, appears to have arisen in the early years of the seventeenth century. For conciliatory reasons it was employed in the negotiations connected with the Spanish Match (1618-1624) and appears in formal documents relating to this printed by Rushworth (I, 85-89). After that date it was generally adopted as a non-controversial term and has long been the recognized legal and official designation, though in ordinary use Catholic alone is very frequently employed" (New Oxford Dict., VIII, 766). Of the illustrative quotations which follow, the earliest in date is one of 1605 from the "Europae Speculum" of Edwin Sandys: "Some Roman Catholiques will not say grace when a Protestant is present"; while a passage from Day's "Festivals" of 1615, contrasts "Roman Catholiques" with "good, true Catholiques indeed".

Although the account thus given in the Oxford Dictionary is in substance correct, it cannot be considered satisfactory. To begin with the word is distinctly older than is here suggested. When about the year 1580 certain English Catholics, under stress of grievous persecution, defended the lawfulness of attending Protestant services to escape the fines imposed on recusants, the Jesuit Father Persons published, under the pseudonym of Howlet, a clear exposition of the "Reasons why Catholiques refuse to goe to Church". This was answered in 1801 by a writer of Puritan sympathies, Percival Wiburn, who in his "Checke or Reproofe of M. Howlet" uses the term "Roman Catholic" repeatedly. For example he speaks of "you Romane Catholickes that sue for tolleration" (p. 140) and of the "parlous dilemma or streight which you Romane Catholickes are brought into" (p. 44). Again Robert Crowley, another Anglican controversialist, in his book called "A Deliberat Answere", printed in 1588, though adopting by preference the forms "Romish Catholike" or "Popish Catholike", also writes of those "who wander with the Romane Catholiques in the uncertayne hypathes of Popish devises" (p. 86). A study of these and other early examples in their context shows plainly enough that the qualification "Romish Catholic" or "Roman Catholic" was introduced by Protestant divines who highly resented the Roman claim to any monopoly of the term Catholic. In Germany, Luther had omitted the word Catholic from the Creed, but this was not the case in England. Even men of such Calvinistic leanings as Philpot (he was burned under Mary in 1555), and John Foxe the martyrologist, not to speak of churchmen like Newel and Fulke, insisted on the right of the Reformers to call themselves Catholics and professed to regard their own as the only true Catholic Church. Thus Philpot represents himself as answering his Catholic examiner: "I am, master doctor, of the unfeigned Catholic Church and will live and die therein, and if you can prove your Church to be the True Catholic Church, I will be one of the same" (Philpot, "Works", Parker Soc., p. 132). It would be easy to quote many similar passages. The term "Romish Catholic" or "Roman Catholic" undoubtedly originated with the Protestant divines who shared this feeling and who were unwilling to concede the name Catholic to their opponents without qualification. Indeed the writer Crowley, just mentioned, does not hesitate throughout a long tract to use the term "Protestant Catholics" the name which he applies to his antagonists. Thus he says "We Protestant Catholiques are not departed from the true Catholique religion" (p. 33) and he refers more than once to "Our Protestant Catholique Church," (p. 74)

On the other hand the evidence seems to show that the Catholics of the reign of Elizabeth and James I were by no means willing to admit any other designation for themselves than the unqualified name Catholic. Father Southwell's "Humble Supplication to her Majesty" (1591), though criticized by some as over-adulatory in tone, always uses the simple word. What is more surprising, the same may be said of various addresses to the Crown drafted under the inspiration of the "Appellant" clergy, who were suspected by their opponents of subservience to the government and of minimizing in matters of dogma. This feature is very conspicuous, to take a single example, in "the Protestation of allegiance" drawn up by thirteen missioners, 31 Jan., 1603, in which they renounce all thought of "restoring the Catholic religion by the sword", profess their willingness "to persuade all Catholics to do the same" and conclude by declaring themselves ready on the one hand "to spend their blood in the defence of her Majesty" but on the other "rather to lose their lives than infringe the lawful authority of Christ's Catholic Church" (Tierney-Dodd, III, p. cxc). We find similar language used in Ireland in the negotiations carried on by Tyrone in behalf of his Catholic countrymen. Certain apparent exceptions to this uniformity of practice can be readily explained. To begin with we do find that Catholics not unfrequently use the inverted form of the name "Roman Catholic" and speak of the "Catholic Roman faith" or religion. An early example is to be found in a little controversial tract of 1575 called "a Notable Discourse" where we read for example that the heretics of old "preached that the Pope was Antichriste, shewing themselves verye eloquent in detracting and rayling against the Catholique Romane Church" (p. 64). But this was simply a translation of the phraseology common both in Latin and in the Romance languages "Ecclesia Catholica Romana," or in French "l'Eglise catholique romaine". It was felt that this inverted form contained no hint of the Protestant contention that the old religion was a spurious variety of true Catholicism or at best the Roman species of a wider genus. Again, when we find Father Persons (e.g. in his "Three Conversions," III, 408) using the term "Roman Catholic", the context shows that he is only adopting the name for the moment as conveniently embodying the contention of his adversaries.

Once more in a very striking passage in the examination of one James Clayton in 1591 (see Cal. State Papers, Dom. Eliz., add., vol. XXXII, p. 322) we read that the deponent "was persuaded to conforme himself to the Romaine Catholique faith." But there is nothing to show that these were the actual words of the recusant himself, or that, if they were, they were not simply dictated by a desire to conciliate his examiners. The "Oxford Dictionary" is probably right in assigning the recognition of "Roman Catholic" as the official style of the adherents of the Papacy in England to the negotiations for the Spanish Match (1618-24). In the various treaties etc., drafted in connection with this proposal, the religion of the Spanish princess is almost always spoken of as "Roman Catholic". Indeed in some few instances the word Catholic alone is used. This feature does not seem to occur in any of the negotiations of earlier date which touched upon religion, e.g. those connected with the proposed d'Alencon marriage in Elizabeth's reign, while in Acts of Parliament, proclamations, etc., before the Spanish match, Catholics are simply described as Papists or Recusants, and their religion as popish, Romanish, or Romanist. Indeed long after this period, the use of the term Roman Catholic continued to be a mark of condescension, and language of much more uncomplimentary character was usually preferred. It was perhaps to encourage a friendlier attitude in the authorities that Catholics themselves henceforth began to adopt the qualified term in all official relations with the government. Thus the "Humble Remonstrance, Acknowledgment, Protestation and Petition of the Roman Catholic Clergy of Ireland" in 1661, began "We, your Majesty's faithful subjects the Roman Catholick clergy of Ireland". The same Practice seems to have obtained in Maryland; see or example the Consultation entitled "Objections answered touching Maryland", drafted by Father R Blount, S.J., in 1632 (B. Johnston, "Foundation of Maryland, etc., 1883, 29), and wills proved 22 Sep., 1630, and 19 Dec., 1659, etc., (in Baldwin, "Maryland Cat. of Wills", 19 vols., vol. i. Naturally the wish to conciliate hostile opinion only grew greater as Catholic Emancipation became a question of practical politics, and by that time it would appear that many Catholics themselves used the qualified form not only when addressing the outside public but in their domestic discussions. A short-lived association, organized in 1794 with the fullest approval of the vicars Apostolic, to counteract the unorthodox tendencies of the Cisalpine Club, was officially known as the "Roman Catholic Meeting" (Ward, "Dawn of Cath,. Revival in England", II, 65). So, too, a meeting of the Irish bishops under the presidency of Dr. Troy at Dublin in 1821 passed resolutions approving of an Emancipation Bill then before a Parliament, in which they uniformly referred to members of their own communion as "Roman Catholics". Further, such a representative Catholic as Charles Butler in his "Historical Memoirs" (see e.g. vol. IV, 1821, pp. 185, 199, 225, etc.,) frequently uses the term "roman-catholic" [sic] and seems to find this expression as natural as the unqualified form.

With the strong Catholic revival in the middle of the nineteenth century and the support derived from the uncompromising zeal of many earnest converts, such for example as Faber and Manning, an inflexible adherence to the name Catholic without qualification once more became the order of the day. The government, however, would not modify the official designation or suffer it to be set aside in addresses presented to the Sovereign on public occasions. In two particular instances during the archiepiscopate of Cardinal Vaughan this point was raised and became the subject of correspondence between the cardinal and the Home Secretary. In 1897 at the Diamond Jubilee of the accession of Queen Victoria, and again in 1901 when Edward VII succeeded to the throne, the Catholic episcopate desired to present addresses, but on each occasion it was intimated to the cardinal that the only permissible style would be "the Roman Catholic Archbishop and Bishops in England". Even the form "the Cardinal Archbishop and Bishops of the Catholic and Roman Church in England" was not approved. On the first occasion no address was presented, but in 1901 the requirements of the Home Secretary as to the use of the name "Roman Catholics" were complied with, though the cardinal reserved to himself the right of explaining subsequently on some public occasion the sense in which he used the words (see Snead-Cox, "Life of Cardinal Vaughan", II, 231-41). Accordingly, at the Newcastle Conference of the Catholic Truth Society (Aug., 1901) the cardinal explained clearly to his audience that "the term Roman Catholic has two meanings; a meaning that we repudiate and a meaning that we accept." The repudiated sense was that dear to many Protestants, according to which the term Catholic was a genus which resolved itself into the species Roman Catholic, Anglo-Catholic, Greek Catholic, etc. But, as the cardinal insisted, "with us the prefix Roman is not restrictive to a species, or a section, but simply declaratory of Catholic." The prefix in this sense draws attention to the unity of the Church, and "insists that the central point of Catholicity is Roman, the Roman See of St. Peter."

It is noteworthy that the representative Anglican divine, Bishop Andrewes, in his "Tortura Torti" (1609) ridicules the phrase Ecclesia Catholica Romana as a contradiction in terms. "What," he asks, "is the object of adding 'Roman'? The only purpose that such an adjunct can serve is to distinguish your Catholic Church from another Catholic Church which is not Roman" (p. 368). It is this very common line of argument which imposes upon Catholics the necessity of making no compromise in the matter of their own name. The loyal adherents of the Holy See did not begin in the sixteenth century to call themselves "Catholics" for controversial purposes. It is the traditional name handed down to us continuously from the time of St. Augustine. We use this name ourselves and ask those outside the Church to use it, without reference to its signification simply because it is our customary name, just as we talk of the Russian Church as "the Orthodox Church", not because we recognize its orthodoxy but because its members so style themselves, or again just as we speak of "the Reformation" because it is the term established by custom, though we are far from owning that it was a reformation in either faith or morals. The dog-in-the manger policy of so many Anglicans who cannot take the name of Catholics for themselves, because popular usage has never sanctioned it as such, but who on the other hand will not concede it to the members of the Church of Rome, was conspicuously brought out in the course of a correspondence on this subject in the London "Saturday Review" (Dec., 1908 to March, 1909) arising out of a review of some of the earlier volumes of THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA.

The historical facts summarized in this article are given in an extended form in a paper contributed by the present writer to The Month (Sept. 1911). See also "The Tablet" (14 Sept., 1901), 402, and Snead-Cox, Life of Cardinal Vaughan, cited above.

HERBERT THURSTON

Roman Catholic Relief Bill

IN ENGLAND

With the accession of Queen Elizabeth (1558) commenced the series of legislative enactments, commonly known as the Penal Laws, under which the profession and practice of the Catholic religion were subjected to severe penalties and disabilities. By laws passed in the reign of Elizabeth herself, any English subject receiving Holy Orders of the Church of Rome and coming to England was guilty of high treason, and any one who aided or sheltered him was guilty of capital felony. It was likewise made treason to be reconciled to the Church of Rome, and to procure others to be reconciled. Papists were totally disabled from giving their children any education in their own religion. Should they educate them at home under a schoolmaster who did not attend the parish church, and was not licenced by the bishop of the diocese, the parents were liable to forfeit ten pounds a month, and the schoolmaster himself forty shillings a day. Should the children be sent to Catholic seminaries beyond the seas, their parents were liable to forfeit one hundred pounds, and the children themselves were disabled from inheriting, purchasing, or enjoying any species of property. Saying Mass was punished by a forfeiture of 200 marks; hearing it by one of 100 marks. The statutes of recusancy punished nonconformity with the Established Church by a fine of twenty pounds per lunar month during which the parish church was not attended, there being thirteen of such months in the year. Such non-attendances constituted recusancy in the proper sense of the term, and originally affected all, whether Catholics, or others, who did not conform. In 1593 by 35 Eliz. c. 2, the consequences of such non-conformity were limited to Popish recusants. A Papist, convicted of absenting himself from church, became a Popish recusant convict, and besides the monthly fine of twenty pounds, was disabled from holding any office or employment, from keeping arms in his house, from maintaining actions or suits at law or in equity, from being an executor or a guardian, from presenting to an advowson, from practising the law or physic, and from holding office civil or military. He was likewise subject to the penalties attaching to excommunication, was not permitted to travel five miles from his house without licence, under pain of forfeiting all his goods, and might not come to Court under a penalty of one hundred pounds. Other provisions extended similar penalties to married women. Popish recusants convict were, within three months of conviction, either to submit and renounce their papistry, or, if required by four justices, to abjure the realm. If they did not depart, or returned without licence, they were guilty of a capital felony. At the outset of Elizabeth's reign, an oath of supremacy containing a denial of the pope's spiritual jurisdiction, which therefore could not be taken by Catholics, was imposed on all officials, civil and ecclesiastical. The "Oath of allegiance and obedience" enacted under James I, in 1605, in consequence of the excitement of the Gunpowder Plot, confirmed the same. By the Corporation Act of 1661, no one could legally be elected to any municipal office unless he had within the year received the Sacrament according to the rite of the Church of England, and likewise, taken the Oath of Supremacy. The first provision excluded all non-conformists; the second Catholics only. The Test Act (1672) imposed on all officers, civil and military, a "Declaration against Transubstantiation", whereby Catholics were debarred from such employment. In 1677 it was enacted that all members of either House of Parliament should, before taking their seats, make a "Declaration against Popery", denouncing Transubstantiation, the Mass and the invocation of saints, as idolatrous.

With the Resolution of 1688 came a new crop of penal laws, less atrocious in character than those of previous times, but on that very account more likely to be enforced, and so to become effective, the sanguinary penalties of the sixteenth century, having in great measure defeated their own end, and being now generally left on the statute book in terrorem. In 1689 (1 William and Mary, i, c. 9) a shorter form of the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy was substituted, the clause aimed against Catholics being carefully retained. It was likewise ordered that all Papists and reputed Papists should be "amoved" ten miles from the cities of London and Westminster. In 1700 (11 and 12 William III, c. 4.) a reward of one hundred pounds was promised to anyone who should give information leading to the conviction of a Popish priest or bishop, who was made punishable by imprisonment for life. Moreover, any Papist who within six months of attaining the age of eighteen failed to take the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy and subscribe to the Declaration against Popery, was disabled in respect to himself (but not of his heirs or posterity) from acquiring or holding land, and until he submitted, his next of kin who was a Protestant might enjoy his lands, without being obliged to account for the profits. The recusant was also incapable of purchasing, and all trusts on his behalf were void. In 1714 (George I, c. 13) a new element was introduced, namely Constructive Recusancy. The Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy might be tendered to any suspected person by any two Justices of the Peace, and persons refusing it were to be adjudged Popish recusants convict and to forfeit, and be proceeded against accordingly. Thus the refusal of the Oath was placed on the same footing as a legal conviction, and the person so convicted was rendered liable to all penalties under those statutes. At the same time an obligation was imposed on Catholics requiring them to register their names and estates, and to enroll their deeds and wills.

These penal laws remained on the statute book unmitigated till late in the eighteenth century, and although there was less and less disposition to put them in force, there was ever the danger, which upon occasion grew more acute. In 1767 a priest named Malony was tried at Croydon for his priesthood, and condemned to perpetual imprisonment, which, at the end of two or three years, was commuted, "by the mercy of the Government" to banishment. In 1768 the Reverend James Webb was tried in the Court of King's Bench for saying Mass but was acquitted, the Chief Justice, Lord Mansfield, ruling that there was no evidence sufficient to convict. In 1769 and on other occasions, seemingly as late as 1771, Dr. James Talbot, coadjutor to Bishop Challoner, was tried for his life at the Old Bailey, on the charge of his priesthood and of saying Mass, but was acquitted on similar grounds. Such instances were not solitary. In 1870, Mr. Charles Butler found that one firm of lawyers had defended more than twenty priests under prosecutions of this nature. In 1778 a Catholic committee was formed to promote the cause of relief for their co-religionists, and though several times elected afresh, continued to exist until 1791, with a short interval after the Gordon Riots. It was always uniformly aristocratic in composition, and until 1787 included no representation of the hierarchy and then but three co-opted members. In the same year, 1778, was passed the first Act for Catholic Relief (18 George III c. 60). By this, an oath was imposed, which besides a declaration of loyalty to the reigning sovereign, contained an abjuration of the Pretender, and of certain doctrines attributed to Catholics, as that excommunicated princes may lawfully be murdered, that no faith should be kept with heretics, and that the pope has temporal as well as spiritual jurisdiction in this realm. Those taking this oath were exempted from some of the most galling provisions of the Act of William III passed in 1700. The section as to taking and prosecuting priests were repealed, as also the penalty of perpetual imprisonment for keeping a school. Catholics were also enabled to inherit and purchase land, nor was a Protestant heir any longer empowered to enter and enjoy the estate of his Catholic kinsman. The passing of this act was the occasion of the Gordon Riots(1780) in which the violence of the mob was especially directed against Lord Mansfield who had balked various prosecutions under the statutes now repealed.

In 1791 there followed another Act (31 George III, c. 32) far more extensive and far-reaching. By it there was again an oath to be taken, in character much like that of 1778, but including an engagement to support the Protestant Succession under the Act of Settlement (12 and 13 William III). No Catholic taking the oath was henceforward to be prosecuted for being a Papist, or for being educated in the Popish religion, or for hearing Mass or saying it, or for being a priest or deacon or for entering into, or belonging to, any ecclesiastical order or community in the Church of Rome, or for assisting at, or performing any Catholic rites or ceremonies. Catholics were no longer to be summoned to take the Oath of Supremacy, or to be removed from London; the legislation of George I, requiring them to register their estates and wills, was absolutely repealed; while the professions of counsellor and barrister at law, attorney, solicitor, and notary were opened to them. It was however provided that all their assemblies for religious worship should be certified at Quarter Sessions; that no person should officiate at such assembly until his name had been recorded by the Clerk of the Peace: that no such place of assembly should be locked or barred during the meeting; and that the building in which it was held, should not have a steeple or bell. The Relief Act of 1791 undoubtedly marked a great step in the removal of Catholic grievances, but the English statesmen felt, along with the Catholic body, that much more was required. Pitt and his rival, Fox, were alike pledged to a full measure of Catholic Emancipation, but they were both thwarted by the obstinacy of King George III, who insisted that to agree to any such measure would be a violation of his coronation oath. There were also at this period considerable dissensions within the Catholic ranks. These concerned first the question of Veto on the appointment of bishops in Ireland, which it was proposed to confer on the English Government, and belongs chiefly to the history of Emancipation in that country. There was another cause of dissension, more properly English, which was connected with the adjuration of the supposed Catholic doctrines contained in the oath imposed upon those who wished to participate in the benefits conferred by the Act of 1791, as previously by that of 1778. The lay members of the Catholic committee who had framed this disclaimer were accused by the vicars Apostolic, who then administered the Church in England, of tampering with matters of ecclesiastical discipline; and although the bishops had their way in the matter of the oath, the feud survived, and was proclaimed to the world by the formation in 1792 of the Cisalpine Club (q. v.), the members whereof were pledged "to resist any ecclesiastical interference which may militate against the freedom of English Catholics".

Such internal dissension, no doubt, did much to retard the course of Emancipation. Its final triumph was due more than aught else to the pressure which the Catholic body in Ireland was able to put upon the Government, for it was acknowledged by the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel themselves, who carried the Bill, that their action was due to the necessity of pacifying Ireland which had found so powerful a leader in Daniel O'Connell (q. v.), and of thus averting the danger of a civil war. It would take too much space to go into details regarding the provisions of the Act of Emancipation. Its general effect was to open public life to Catholics taking the prescribed oath, to enable them to sit in Parliament, to vote at elections (as previously they could not in England or Scotland, though they could in Ireland) to fill all offices of State with a few exceptions, viz.: A Catholic cannot succeed to the throne, and a sovereign becoming a Catholic or marrying one, thereby forfeits the crown, and a Catholic cannot hold the office of Regent. It is uncertain whether the English Chancellorship and the Irish Viceroyalty are barred to Catholics or not. Like the previous Relief Acts, that of 1829 still retained the "Roman Catholic Oath", to be imposed upon those who desire to enjoy its benefits. it likewise added something in the way of penal legislation by a clause prohibiting religious orders of men to receive new members, and subjecting those who should disobey to banishment as misdemeanants. This prohibition is still upon the statute book, and within the present century an attempt has been made to give it effect. Finally, in 1871 (34 and 35 Victoria, c. 48) the invidious Roman Catholic Oath was abolished, as also the still more objectionable declaration against Transubstantiation.

IN IRELAND

When Elizabeth became Queen of England, her Irish deputy was ordered "to set up the worship of God in Ireland as it is in England". The Irish Parliament soon enacted that all candidates for office should take the Oath of Supremacy; and by the Act of Uniformity the Protestant liturgy was prescribed in all churches. For a time, however, these Acts were but mildly enforced. But when the pope excommunicated the queen, and the Spanish king made war on her, and both in attempting to dethrone here found that the Irish Catholics were ready to be instruments and allies, the latter, regarded as rebels and traitors by the English sovereign and her ministers, were persecuted and hunted down. Their chiefs were outlawed, their churches laid in ruins, their clergy driven to exile or death. The expectations of a harassed people and an outlawed creed -- that better times had come with the advent of the Stuarts -- were falsified by the repeated proclamations against priests, by the Plantation of Ulster, and, later, by the attempted confiscations of Strafford. Charles II had special reasons for being grateful to large masses of Irish, who fought his battles at home and supported him abroad; yet at the Restoration he left them to their fate, and confirmed the gigantic scheme of confiscation which had been carried out by Cromwell. He was not indeed much attached to any religion, and disliked religious persecution; and more than once during his reign he tried to interpose between the Catholics and the Acts of Uniformity and Supremacy. But the militant and aggressive Protestantism of the English Parliament would have no Catholic in any office, civil or military, and none in the corporations; and Charles was too politic to strain unduly the allegiance of these intolerant legislators. Had James II been equally politic he would have gradually allayed Protestant prejudice; and perhaps there would have been no long-drawn-out penal code, and no wearisome struggle for emancipation. But he insisted on Catholic predominance and soon picked a quarrel with his Protestant subjects which resulted in the loss of his crown.

The war which followed in Ireland was terminated by the Treaty of Limerick, and had its terms been kept, the position of the Catholics would have been at least tolerable. Granted such privileges as they had enjoyed in the reign of Charles II, with an Oath of Allegiance substituted for the Oath of Supremacy, and with a promise of a further relaxation of the penal enactments in force, they could practice their religion without hindrance, sit in Parliament and vote for its members, engage in trade and in the learned professions, and fill all civil and military offices; and they were protected in the possession of the lands they held. William III, whose name has been made a rallying-cry for bigotry, was in favour of these, and even more generous terms. But the forces of intolerance on both sides of the Channel were too strong. A small minority of Protestants in Ireland, pampered by privileges and possessing confiscated lands, thought that their only chance of security was to trample upon the Catholic majority surrounding them. Sustained and encouraged by England, in defiance of the solemn obligations of public faith, they tore the Treaty of Limerick into tatters, refused to ratify its concessions, and elaborated a penal code which every fair-minded Englishman now blushes to recall. For more than a quarter of a century the work of outlawry and proscription was continued by an exclusively Protestant Parliament at Dublin; and when the work was completed the position of the vast majority of Irishmen was that of slaves. An Irish Judge declared in 1760 that the law did not recognize the existence of an Irish Catholic, and, assuredly the penal code had placed him effectually beyond its pale. It branded Catholics with proscription and inferiority, struck at every form of Catholic activity, and checked every symptom of Catholic enterprise. It excluded them from Parliament, from the corporations, from the learned professions, from civil and military offices, from being executors, or administrators, or guardians of property, from holding land under lease, or from owning a horse worth 5. They were deprived of arms and of the franchise, denied education at home and punished if they sought it abroad, forbidden to observe Catholic Holy Days, to make pilgrimages, or to continue to use the old monasteries as the burial places of their dead. For the clergy there was no mercy, nothing but prison, exile, or death.

After the Catholics had vainly protested against the Bill "To Prevent the Further Growth of Popery" of 1704, their protests ceased. The more energetic of them went abroad; those at home were torpid and inert, the peasantry steeped in poverty and ignorance, the clergy and gentry sunk in servitude and all of them afraid even to complain of their condition lest the anger of their tyrants might be provoked. At last the tide turned. The Irish Parliament became less bigoted, and after 1750 or thereabouts no more penal laws were passed. Indeed the work of crushing and debasing the Catholics had been so well done that they were paupers and slaves, and to crush them still further would give the Protestants no additional security. Some Catholics had made money in trade and lent it to needy Protestant landlords and these and their friends in Parliament would naturally favour toleration; the fact that the Catholics had so long been peaceable, and had given no support to the Pretenders showed that they no longer clung to the Stuarts; and this greatly strengthened their position both in England and Ireland. The growth of a strong sentiment of nationality among Irish Protestants also helped their cause. Claiming powers which it did not possess, the British Parliament asserted and exercised the right to legislate for Ireland, treated the Irish Parliament with disdain, and in the interests of English manufacturers imposed ruinous commercial restrictions on Irish trade, Dissatisfied with their English friends, the Irish Protestants turned to their own Catholic countrymen, and the more Catholics and Protestants came together, the better for the cause of religious toleration. This turn of affairs inspired the Catholics with hope and courage, and three of them, Dr. Curry, a Dublin physician, Mr. Wyse of Waterford, and Mr. Charles O'Connor, formed, in 1759, a Catholic Association, which was to meet at Dublin, correspond with representative Catholics in the country, and watch over Catholic interests. But such was the spiritless condition of the Catholics that the gentry and clergy held aloof, and the new association was chiefly manned by Dublin merchants. Under its auspices a loyal address was presented to the viceroy, and another to George III on his accession to the throne, and the Catholics rejoiced that both addresses were graciously received.

These friendlier dispositions, however, were slow to develop into legislative enactments, and not until 1771 did the first instalment of emancipation come. By the Act of that year Catholics were allowed to reclaim and hold under lease for sixty-one years fifty acres of bog but it should not be within a mile of any city or market town. Three years later an oath of allegiance was substituted for that of supremacy. A further concession was granted in 1778 when Catholics were allowed to hold leases of land for 999 years, and might inherit land in the same way as Protestants, the preamble of the Act declaring that the law was passed to reward Catholics for their long-continued peaceable behaviour, and for the purpose of allowing them to enjoy "the blessings of our free constitution". Distrust of them, however, continued, and though they subscribed money to equip the volunteers, they would not be admitted within the ranks. Nor was the Irish Parliament of 1782 willing to do more than to repeal the law compelling bishops to quit the kingdom, and the law binding those who had assisted at Mass to give the celebrant's name. Further, Catholics were no longer prohibited from owning a horse worth 5, and Catholic schools might be opened with the consent of the Protestant bishop of the diocese. These small concessions were not supplemented by others for ten years.

Dissensions and jealousies were largely responsible for this slow progress. Between the Catholic landed sentry and the Catholic merchants there was little in common except their religion. The timidity and submission to authority of the former, and the bolder and freer spirit of the latter were difficult to blend, and in 1763 the Catholic Association fell to pieces. After ten years of inactivity a Catholic committee was formed partly out of the debris of the defunct association. Its chairman was the Earl of Kenmare, and again it was sought to have all Catholics act together. But Kenmare was not the man to reconcile divergent views and methods, to form a homogeneous party out of discordant elements, and then with such a party to adopt a vigorous policy. His manner was cold his tone one of patronage and superiority; he disliked agitation as savouring of vulgarity and sedition, and preferred to seek redress by submissive petitions, slavish protestations of loyalty, and secret intrigue; and when an overwhelming majority of the Catholic Committee favoured manlier measures, he and sixty-eight others who sympathized with him seceded from its ranks. This was in 1791. The committee then chose for its leader John Keogh, a Dublin merchant of great ability, strong manly, fearless, prudent but firm, a man who favoured bolder measures and a decisive tone. Instead of begging for small concessions he demanded the repeal of the whole penal code, a demand considered so extravagant that it had few friends in Parliament. When that assembly was made independent it had not been reformed; and Grattan had foolishly allowed the volunteers to lay aside their swords before the battle of reform had been won.

Unrepresentative and corrupt, Parliament continued to be dominated by pensioners and placemen, and under the influence of Fitzgibbon and Foster, two Irishmen and two bigots, it refused to advance further on the path of concession. Even Charlemont and flood would not join emancipation with parliamentary reform, and while willing to safeguard Catholic liberty and property would give Catholics no political power. But this attitude of intolerance and exclusion could not be indefinitely maintained. The French Revolution was in progress, and a young and powerful republic had arisen preaching the rights of man, the iniquity of class distinctions and religious persecution, and proclaiming its readiness to aid all nations who were oppressed and desired to be free. These attractive doctrines rapidly seized on men's minds, and Ireland did not escape the contagion. The Ulster Presbyterians celebrated with enthusiasm the fall of the Bastille, and in 1791 founded the Society of United Irishmen, having as the two chief planks in its programme Parliamentary reform and Catholic Emancipation. The Catholics and Dissenters, so long divided by religious antagonism, were coming together, and if they made a united demand for equal rights for all Irishmen, without distinction of creed, the ascendency of the Episcopalian Protestants, who were but a tenth of the population, must necessarily disappear. Yet the selfish and corrupt junta who ruled the Parliament, and ruled Ireland, would not yield an inch of ground, and only under the strongest pressure from England was an act passed in 1792 admitting Catholics to the Bar, legalizing marriages between Catholics and Protestants, and allowing Catholic schools to be set up without the necessity of obtaining the permission of a Protestant bishop.

Such grudging concessions irritated rather than appeased in the existing temper of the Catholic body. To consider their position and take measures for the future the Catholic Committee had delegates appointed by the different parishes in Ireland, and in December, 1792, a Catholic convention commenced its sittings in Dublin. By the Protestant bigots it was derisively called the Back Lane Parliament, and every effort was made to discredit its proceedings and identify it with sedition. Fitzgibbon excited the fears of the Protestant landlords by declaring that the repeal of the penal code would involve the repeal of the Act of Settlement, and invalidate the titles by which they held their lands. The Catholic convention, however, went on unheeding, and turning with contempt from the Dublin Parliament sent delegates with a petition to London. The relations between Catholics and Dissenters were then so friendly that Keogh became a United Irishman, and a Protestant barrister named Theobald Wolfe Tone, the ablest of the United Irishmen, became secretary to the Catholic Committee. And when the Catholic delegates on their way to London passed through Belfast, their carriage was drawn through the streets by Presbyterians amid thunders of applause. Had the Prime Minister, Pitt, advised the king to receive the Catholics coldly, he would certainly have earned the goodwill of a small clique in Ireland, to whom their own interests were everything and the interests of England little. But he would have intensified disaffection among nine-tenths of the Irish people and this at a time when the French had beheaded their king, hurled back the Prussian attack at Valmy, conquered Belgium, and, maddened with enthusiasm for liberty and with hatred of monarchy, were about to declare war on England. The king graciously received the Catholics, and Pitt and Dundas, the Home Secretary, warned the Irish junta that the time for concessions had come, and that if rebellion broke out in Ireland, Protestant ascendency would not be supported by British arms. And then these Protestants, whom Fitzgibbon and the viceroy painted as ready to die rather than yield quietly, gave way; and in 1793 a bill was passed giving the Catholics the parliamentary and municipal franchise, and admitting them to the university and to office. They were still excluded from Parliament and from the higher offices, and from being king's counsel, but in all other respects they were placed on a level with Protestants. In the Commons Foster spoke and voted against the Bill. In the Lords, though not opposing it, Fitzgibbon spoiled the effect of the concession by a bitter speech, and by having an Act passed declaring the Catholic convention illegal, and prohibiting all such conventions, Catholic or otherwise, in the future.

Relief from so many disabilities left the Catholics almost free. Few of them were affected by exclusion from the higher offices, fewer still by exclusion from the inner Bar; and Liberal Protestants would always be found ready to voice Catholic interests in Parliament if they owed their seats to Catholic votes. Besides, in the better temper of the times, it was certain that these last relics of the penal code would soon disappear. Meantime what was needed was a sympathetic and impartial administration of the law. But with Fitzgibbon the guiding spirit of Irish government this was impossible. The grandson of a Catholic peasant, he hated Catholics and seized upon every occasion to cover them and their religion with insults. Autocratic and overbearing, he commanded rather than persuaded, and since he became attorney-general in 1783, his influence in Irish government was immense. His action on the regency question in 1789 procured him the special favour of the king and of Pitt, and he became a peer and Lord Chancellor. It was one of the anomalies of the Irish constitution that a change of measures did not involve a change of men, and hence the viceroy and the chief secretary, who had opposed all concessions to Catholics, were retained in office, and Fitzgibbon was still left as if to prevent further concessions and to nullify what had been done.

For a brief period, however, it seemed as if men as well as measures were to be changed. At the end of 1794 a section of the English Whigs joined Pitt's administration. The Duke of Portland became Home Secretary, with Irish affairs in his department, and Earl Fitzwilliam became Lord Lieutenant. He came to Ireland early in 1795. His sympathy with the Catholics was well known; he was the friend of Grattan and the Ponsonbys the champions of Emancipation, and in coming to Ireland he believed he had the full sanction of Pitt to popularize Irish Government and finally settle the Catholic question. At once he dismissed Cooke, the Under Secretary, a determined foe of concession and reform and also John Beresford who, with his relatives filled so many offices that he was called the "King" of Ireland. Fitzgibbon and Foster he seldom consulted. Further, when Grattan at the opening of Parliament introduced an Emancipation Bill, Fitzwilliam determined to support it. Of all that he did or intended to do he informed the English Ministry, and got no word of protest in reply, and then when the hopes of the Catholics ran high, Pitt turned back and Fitzwilliam was recalled. Why he was thus repudiated, after being allowed to go so far, has never been satisfactorily explained. It may be because Pitt changed his mind, and meditating a union wished to leave the Catholic question open. It may be because of the dismissal of Beresford who had powerful friends. It may be that Fitzwiiliam, misunderstanding Pitt, went further than he wished him to go; and it seems evident that he managed the question badly and irritated interests he ought to have appeased. Lastly, it is certain that Fitzgibbon poisoned the king's mind by pointing out that to admit Catholics to Parliament would be to violate his coronation oath.

However the change be explained, it was certainly complete. The new viceroy was instructed to conciliate the Catholic clergy by establishing a seminary for the education of Irish priests, and he established Maynooth College. But all further concessions to Catholics and every attempt to reform Parliament he was firmly to oppose. He was to encourage the enemies of the people and frown upon their friends, and he was to rekindle the dying fires of sectarian hate. And all this he did. Beresford and Cooke were restored to office, Foster favoured more than ever, Fitzgibbon made Earl of Clare, Grattan and Ponsonby regarded with suspicion, and the corrupt majority in Parliament petted and caressed. The religious factions of the "Defenders" and the "Peep o' Day Boys" in Ulster became embittered with a change of names. The Defenders became United Irishmen, and these, despairing of Parliament, became republicans and revolutionists, and after Fitzwilliam's recall were largely recruited by Catholics. Their opponents became identified with the Orange society recently formed in Ulster, with William of Orange as its patron saint, and intolerance of Catholicism as the chief article in its creed. These rival societies spread to the other provinces, and while every outrage done by Catholics was punished by Government, those done by Orangemen were condoned. In rapid succession Parliament passed an Arms Act, an Insurrection Act, an Indemnity Act, and a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, and these placed the Catholics beyond the protection of law. An undisciplined soldiery recruited from the Orangemen were let loose among them; destruction of Catholic property, free quarters, flogging, picketing, half-hanging, outrages on women followed, until at last Catholic patience was exhausted. Grattan and his friends, vainly protesting, withdrew from Parliament, and Clare and Foster had then a free hand. They were joined by Viscount Castlereagh, and under their management the rebellion of 1798 broke out with all its attendant horrors.

When it was suppressed Pitt's policy of a legislative union gradually unfolded itself, and Foster and Clare, who had so long acted together, had reached the parting of the ways. The latter, with Castlereagh, was ready to go on and support the proposed union; but Foster drew back, and in the union debates his voice and influence were the most potent on the opposition side. His defection was considered a serious blow by Pitt, who vainly offered him offices and honours. Others followed the lead of Foster, incorruptible amidst corruption; Grattan and his friends returned to Parliament; and the opposition became so formidable that Castlereagh was defeated in 1799, and had to postpone the question of a union to the following year. During this interval, with the aid of Cornwallis who succeeded Camden as viceroy in 1798, he left nothing undone to ensure success, and threats and terrors, bribery and corruption were freely employed. Cornwallis was strongly in favour of emancipation as part of the union arrangement, and Castlereagh was not averse; and Pitt would probably have agreed with them had not Clare visited him in England and poisoned his mind. That bitter anti-Catholic boasted of his success; and when Pitt in 1799 brought forward his union resolutions in the British Parliament, he would only promise that at some future time something might be done for the Catholics, dependent, however on their good conduct, and on the temper of the times.

But something more than this was required. The anti-Unionists were making overtures to the Catholics, knowing that the county members elected by Catholic votes could be decisively influenced by Catholic voters. In these circumstances Castlereagh was authorized to assure the leading Irish Catholics that Pitt and his colleagues only waited for a favourable opportunity to bring forward emancipation, but that this should remain a secret lest Protestant prejudice be excited and Protestant support lost. These assurances obtained Catholic support for the union. Not all of the Catholics, however, favoured it, and many of them opposed it to the last. Many more would have been on the same side had they not been repelled by the bigotry of Foster, who stubbornly refused to advocate emancipation, and in doing so failed to make the fight against the union a national struggle. As for the uneducated Catholics, they did not understand political questions, and viewed the union contest with indifference. The gentry had no sympathy with a Parliament from which they were excluded, nor the clergy for one which encouraged the atrocities of the recent rebellion. Gratitude for the establishment of Maynooth College inclined some of the bishops to support the Government; and Pitt's assurances that concessions would come in the United Parliament inclined them still more. From the first, indeed, Dr. Moylan, Bishop of Cork, was a Unionist, as was Dr. Troy, Archbishop of Dublin. In 1798 the latter favoured a union provided there was no clause against future emancipation, and, early in the following year, he induced nine of his brother bishops to concede to the Government a veto on episcopal appointments in return for a provision for the clergy. The bent of his mind was to support authority, even when authority and tyranny were identified, and through the terrible weeks of the rebellion his friendly relations with Dublin Castle were unbroken. He was foremost in every negotiation between the Government and the Catholics, and he and some of his colleagues went so far in advocating the union, that Grattan angrily described them as a "band of prostituted men engaged in the service of Government". This language is unduly severe, for they were clearly not actuated by mercenary motives; but they certainly advanced the cause of the union.

Remembering this, and the assurances given by Castlereagh, they looked for an early measure of emancipation, and when in 1801 the United Parliament first opened its doors, their hopes ran high. The omission of all reference to emancipation in the King's Speech disappointed them; but when Pitt resigned and was succeeded by Addington, an aggressive anti-Catholic, they saw that they had been shamefully betrayed. In Parliament Pitt explained that he and his colleagues wished to supplement the Act of Union by concessions to the Catholics, and that, having encountered insurmountable obstacles they resigned, feeling that they could no longer hold office consistently with their duty and their honour. Cornwallis, on his own behalf and on behalf of the retiring ministers, assured the Irish Catholic leaders, and in language which was free from every shade of ambiguity, that the blame rested with George III, whose stubborn bigotry nothing could overcome. He promised that Pitt would do everything to establish the Catholic cause in public favour, and would never again take office unless emancipation were conceded; and he advised the Catholics to be patient and loyal, knowing that with Pitt working on their behalf the triumph of their cause was near. Cornwallis noted with satisfaction that this advice was well received by Dr. Troy and his friends. But those who knew Pitt better had no faith in his sincerity, and their estimate of him was proved to be correct, when he again became Prime Minister in 1804, no longer the friend of the Catholics but their opponent.

The fact was that he had played them false throughout. He knew that the king was violently opposed to them; that he had assented to the Union in the hope that it would "shut the door to any further measures with respect to the Roman Catholics" that he believed that to assent to such measures would be a violation of his coronation oath. Had Pitt been sincere he would have endeavoured to change the king's views, and failing to persuade he would have resigned office, and opposed his successor. And if he had acted thus the king must have yielded, for no government to which the great minister was opposed could have lived. Pitt's real reason for resigning in 1801 was, that the nation wanted peace, and he was too proud to make terms with Napoleon. He supported Addington's measures; nor did he lift a finger on behalf of the Catholics; and when the Treaty of Amiens was broken and the great struggle with France was being renewed, he brushed Addington aside with disdain. In 1801 the king had one of his fits of insanity, and when he recovered complained that Pitt's agitation of the Catholic question was the chief cause of his illness; in consequence of which, when Pitt returned to power, in 1804, he bound himself never again to agitate the question during the lifetime of the king.

In the meantime, one bitter enemy of the Catholics disappeared, in 1802, with the death of Lord Clare. Hating Ireland and Catholicism to the last, he strove in the British House of Lords to arouse anti-Irish prejudice by representing Ireland as filled with disaffection and hatred of England; he defended all the Government atrocities of 1798, and advocated for Ireland perpetual martial law. Once he had declared that he would have the Irish as tame as cats; and a Dublin mob retorted by groaning and hooting before his house as he lay dying, by creating disorder at his funeral, and at the graveside they poured a shower of dead cats upon his coffin. Pitt himself died in 1806, after having opposed the Catholic claims in the preceding year. A brief period of hope supervened when the "Ministry of all the Talents" took office; but hope was soon dissipated by the death of Fox, and by the dismissal of Grenville and his colleagues. They had brought into Parliament a bill assimilating the English law to the Irish by allowing Catholics in England to get commissions in the army. But the king not only insisted on having the measure dropped, but also that ministers should pledge themselves against all such concessions in the future; and when they indignantly refused he dismissed them. The Duke of Portland then became premier, with Mr. Perceval leader in the Commons; and the ministry going to the country in 1807 on a No Popery cry, were returned with an enormous majority.

Grattan was then in Parliament. He had entered it in 1805 with reluctance, partly at the request of Lord Fitzwilliam, chiefly in the hope of being able to serve the Catholics. He supported the petition presented by Fox; he presented Catholic petitions himself in 1808 and 1810; and he supported Parnell's motion for a commutation of tithes; but each time he was defeated, and it was plain that the Catholic cause was not advancing. The Catholic Committee, broken up by the rebellion, had been revived in 1805. But its members were few, its meetings irregularly held, its spirit one of diffidence and fear, its activity confined to preparing petitions to Parliament. Nor were its leaders the stamp of men to conduct a popular movement to success. Keogh was old, and age and the memory of the events he had passed through chilled his enthusiasm for active work. Lord Fingall was suave and conciliatory, and not without courage, but was unable to grapple with great difficulties and powerful opponents. Lords Gormanston and Trimbleston were out of touch with the people; Lord French, Mr. Hussey, and Mr. Clinch were men of little ability; Mr. Scully was a clever lawyer who had written a book on the penal laws; and Dr. Dromgoole was a lawyer with a taste for theology and Church history, a Catholic bigot ill-suited to soften Protestant prejudice or win Protestant support. As for Dr. Troy, he was still the courtly ecclesiastic, and neither Pitt's treachery nor the contempt with which the Catholics were treated could weaken his attachment to Dublin Castle. He still favoured the Veto, but an event which occurred in 1808 showed that he was no longer supported by his brethren of the episcopacy. An English bishop, Dr. Milner, who had sometimes acted as English agent for the Irish bishops, thought it right to declare to Grattan in their name that they were willing to concede the Veto; and Lord Fingall took a similar liberty with the Catholic Committee. The former, as having exceeded his powers, was promptly repudiated by the Irish bishops, the latter by the Catholic Committee, and this repudiation of the Veto was hailed with enthusiasm throughout Ireland.

By this time it was clear that the old method of presenting loyal petitions was out of date, that the time had come for more vigourous action, for a united nation to demand its rights. For this a leader was required, and he was found in the person of Daniel O'Connell. Called to the Bar in 1800 he had already acquired a lucrative practice, and had given valuable assistance in the work of the Catholic Committee. Having seen the horrors of the French Revolution and those of 1798, he abhorred revolution and rebellion, and believed that Catholic grievances might be redressed by peaceful agitation, unstained either by violence or crime. And nature itself seemed to have destined him for an agitator. Capable of extreme endurance, mental and physical, he had great courage, great resource, great perseverance, a readiness in debate, an eloquence of speech, and a power of invective rarely combined in a single man. He spoke with a voice of singular volume and sweetness, and under the influence of his words his audience were sad or gay, vengeful or forgiving, determined or depressed; and when he cowed the Orange lawyer, or ridiculed the chief secretary or viceroy, the exultation of the Catholics knew no bounds. From 1810 his position was that of leader, and the fight for emancipation was the fight made by O'Connell. It was an uphill fight. Anxious to attract the Catholic masses, and at the same time not to infringe on the Convention Act, he had drawn up the constitution of the Catholic Committee in 1809 with great care; but it went down before a viceregal proclamation, and the same fate befell its successor, the Catholic Board. The fact was that the viceroys of the time were advised by the Orangemen, and governed by coercion acts. O'Connell's difficulties were increased by the continued agitation of the Veto. In opposing it he was aided by the bishops and the clergy; but Dr. Troy and Lord Fingall, aided by the English Catholics, procured a rescript from Rome in their favour. It was sent by Quarantotti, Prefect of the Propaganda, in 1814, while Pius VII was a prisoner of Napoleon. When the pope returned to Rome he disavowed it, though not at once; and the agitation of the question for years weakened all Catholic efforts for emancipation. In 1813, Grattan, supported by Canning and Castlereagh, passed through its second reading a Catholic Relief Bill, which however was lost in Committee. Nothing daunted, he continued his efforts. To allay the groundless fears of unreasoning bigotry he conceded the Veto, and yet each year the motion he brought forward was rejected. When he died in 1820 another great Irishman, Plunket, took the matter in hand, and in 1821 succeeded in passing a Bill through the House of Commons. Even the concession of the Veto could not buy off the hostility of the House of Lords, who threw out the bill; and it seemed as if emancipation would never come.

The visit of George IV to Ireland in 1821 brought a brief period of hope. The king had once been the declared friend of the Catholics, and if he had opposed them since he became regent, in 1810, it might be because he disliked opposing his father's views while his father lived. The Catholics by public resolution in 1812 blamed the witchery of his mistress, and the regent was known to be very wroth with what came to be called "The Witchery Resolution". But the Catholics in a forgiving mood felt sure that their resolution was forgotten; that the king was returning to his first and more enlightened opinions; and that his visit meant friendship and concession. Thus disposed, they welcomed him with enthusiasm. The king before leaving Ireland expressed his gratitude to his subjects, and counselled the different classes to cultivate moderation and forbearance. But he had no rebuke for Orange insolence and no message of hope for the Catholics, and to the end of his reign continued to oppose their claims. Depression settled down heavily on the whole Catholic body. Agitation ceased, outrages commenced coercion followed and continued; and in 1823, while the Catholics were apathetic and dispirited and the Orangemen more than usually aggressive, O'Connell founded the Catholic Association. His chief assistant was a young barrister named Sheil. They were old friends, but had quarrelled about the Veto, and now composed their quarrels and became friends again. To evade the Convention Act the new association, specially formed to obtain emancipation "by legal and constitutional means", was merely a club, its members paying a subscription, its meetings open to the Press. At first its progress was slow and not infrequently it was difficult to get a sufficient number together to form a quorum. But it gradually made headway. Dr. Doyle, Bishop of Kildare, joined it at an early stage, as did Dr. Murray Coadjutor Archbishop of Dublin, and many hundreds of the clergy. Subsidiary clubs arose throughout the country, the members paying a penny a month, the "Catholic Rent". They met under the presidency of the priests, and discussed all public questions, transmitted the rent to the central association, and received in return advice and assistance. The Government became so alarmed at the strength of an organization which had 30,000 collectors and hundreds of thousands of members, that it was suppressed in 1825. At the same time a Catholic Relief Bill passed the House of Commons, but was thrown out in the Lords, and all that Ireland got from Parliament was the act suppressing the Association, or the Algerine Act, as it was often called.

It was easily evaded. Its provisions did not affect any religious society, nor any formed for purposes of charity, science, agriculture, or commerce; and for these purposes the Catholic Association, changing its name into the New Catholic Association and remodelling its constitution, continued its work. It was to build churches, obtain cemeteries, defend Catholic interests, take a census of the different religions, and for these the "New Catholic Rent" was subscribed, and meetings were held in Dublin, where Catholic grievances were discussed. Aggregate meetings nominally independent of the association, but really organized by it, were also held in different parishes, and larger assemblies took the form of county and provincial meetings. Attended by the local gentry, by the priests, by friendly Protestants sometimes by O'Connell and Shell, the boldness and eloquence of speech used gave courage to the Catholics and struck terror into their foes. Nor was this all. The Relief Act of 1793 had conferred the franchise on the forty-shilling freeholders, and landlords, to increase their own political influence, had largely created such freeholds. These freeholders living in constant poverty, frequently in arrears of rent, always dependent on the forbearance of their landlords, had hitherto been driven to the polls like cattle to vote for their landlords nominee. A new spirit appeared at the General Election of 1826. Relying on these freeholders, the Catholic Association nominated Mr. Stewart against Lord Beresford for Waterford. The threats employed by a powerful family were met on the other side by appeals to religion, to conscience, to the sacredness of the voter's oath; the priests craved of the voters to strike a blow for country and creed; and O'Connell reminded them that a Beresford had caused the recall of Lord Fitzwilliam, that another flogged Catholics to death in 1798, and that wherever the enemies of Ireland were gathered together a Beresford was in their midst. The contest was soon decided by the return of the Catholic nominee; and Monaghan, Louth, and Westmeath followed the lead of Waterford.

The next year Canning became premier. His consistent advocacy of the Catholic claims brought him the enmity of the king and exclusion from office for many years. When he joined Lord Liverpool's government in 1823, he insisted that emancipation should be an open question in the Cabinet, and on the Catholic Relief Bill of 1825 the strange spectacle was seen of Peel, the home secretary, voting on one side while Canning, the foreign secretary, was on the opposite side. As premier the latter was powerless in consequence of the hostility of the king, but had he lived he might probably have forced the king's hand. He died, however, in August, 1827, and by his death the Catholics lost one of their stoutest champions. His successor, Goderich, held office only for a few months, and then, early in 1828 the Duke of Wellington became premier, with Peel as his leader in the House of Commons. These two were declared enemies of reform and emancipation, and instead of being willing to concede they would have wished to put down the Catholic Association by force. But such an undertaking was one from which even the strongest Government might have recoiled. The forty-shilling freeholders, effectually protected by the "New Rent" which was specially levied for their benefit, laughed at the threats of the landlords; the Catholic forces organized into parish and county Liberal Clubs, and in correspondence with the Catholic Association at Dublin as head club, sought out and published every local grievance; Catholic churchwardens in each parish collected subscriptions and sent the money to Dublin, getting in return advice in all their difficulties and legal assistance whenever it was necessary.

So disciplined were the Catholic masses that 800,000 of them petitioned Parliament for the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, which were repealed in 1828; and the same year in 1500 parishes throughout Ireland meetings were held on the same day to petition for emancipation, and a million and a half Catholic signatures were obtained. Foreign writers came to Ireland to see for themselves and published in foreign papers and reviews what they saw, and in France, Germany, and Italy England was held up to public odium because of her treatment of Ireland. Across the Atlantic the Irish element was already strong, and all over America meetings were held to demand justice for Ireland. At these meetings money was subscribed liberally and sent to Ireland to swell the coffers of the Catholic Association, and language of menace and defiance was used towards England. Yet Wellington and Peel were still unyielding, and in the session of 1828 the latter opposed Sir Francis Burdett's motion in favour of emancipation, and Wellington helped to defeat it in the Lords. The Catholic Association answered these unfriendly acts by a resolution to oppose all Government candidates; and when Mr. Vesey Fitz Gerald, on being promoted to the Cabinet, sought re-election for Clare, a Catholic Association candidate was nominated against him. As no Catholic could sit in Parliament if elected, it was at first resolved to nominate Major Macnamara, a popular Protestant landlord of Clare; but after some hesitation he declined the contest. Then was remembered what John Keogh had once said: "John Bull thinks that to grant emancipation would rekindle the fires of Smithfield. But he is jealous of a subject's constitutional privileges, and if a Catholic M.P. be debarred from taking his seat on account of objectionable oaths he will have such oaths modified so that the constituency shall not be put outside the constitution." In all this there was wisdom, and O'Connell himself determined to stand for Parliament and issued his address to the electors of Clare.

The historic contest opened in July. Dr. Doyle sent O'Connell a letter of recommendation praying that the God of truth and justice might prosper him; Father Tom Maguire, a noted polemic, came all the way from Leitrim to lend his aid; Jack Lawless came from Ulster; O'Gorman, Mahon, and Steele from Clare itself worked with a will; the eloquent Sheil came from Dublin; above all the priests of Clare strained every nerve; and with the aid of all these O'Connell had a noted triumph. The gentry and the larger freeholders were all with Fitz Gerald; the forty-shilling freeholders were with O'Connell, and influenced by the priests bade defiance to their landlords; and the enthusiasm displayed was not more remarkable than the discipline and self-restraint. During the six days of the polling, 30,000 from all parts of Clare bivouacked in the streets of Ennis, and yet there was no disorder, no riot, no violence, no drunkenness, nothing to call for the interference of soldiers or police. Even the blindest could see that a crisis had come. The Orangemen became restive and aggressive. In compliment to the reigning family they formed clubs, modelled on the Liberal clubs of the Catholics, and in language of menace proclaimed their determination to resist the Catholic claims even by force. The Catholics were equally defiant, and all the efforts of O'Connell on the one side and of the Lord Lieutenant, the Marquess of Anglesey, on the other, were scarcely sufficient to prevent Catholics and Orangemen from coming to blows. Anglesey privately warned the prime minister that even the soldiers were not to be relied on, and were cheering for O'Connell; and Dr. Curtis, an old friend of the Duke of Wellington, implored of him to yield. His reply was that if the Catholics ceased to agitate, and if a period of quiet supervened, something might be done; and when Anglesey advised the Catholics to continue their agitation he was instantly removed from office. Excitement grew, party passions were further inflamed, men's minds were constantly agitated by hopes and fears; and as the gloomy days of winter passed and a new year was ushered in, the conviction was general that peace could not be maintained, and that there must be concession or civil war.

At last Wellington and Peel surrendered. The former worked upon the fears of the king and compelled him to yield; the latter managed the House of Commons with consummate ability, and in March a Catholic Relief Bill was introduced, and in the following month passed into law. Under its provisions Catholics were admitted to Parliament and to the corporations; but they were still excluded from some of the higher offices, civil and military, such as those of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Commander-in-chief of the Army, and Lord Chancellor both in England and Ireland; priests were forbidden to wear vestments outside their churches, and bishops to assume the titles of their dioceses; Jesuits were to leave the kingdom, and other religious orders were to be rendered incapable of receiving charitable bequests. Further, the franchise being raised to ten pounds, the forty-shilling freeholders were disfranchised; and the Act not being retrospective O'Connell on coming to take his seat was tendered the old oath, which he refused and then had to seek re-election for Clare. These concessions to bigotry -- they were said to be made especially to placate the king -- helped to spoil the healing effect of the measure. The provisions regarding priests and bishops were indeed of little value, and were either evaded or despised; but the disfranchisement of the forty-shilling freeholders was a grievous wrong; and the denial of his seat to O'Connell was a personal insult, and was felt to be an insult to all Ireland.

IN ENGLAND: BUTLER, Historical Account of the Laws Respecting the Roman Catholics, and of the Laws passed for their Relief, etc. (London, 1795); IDEM, Historical memoirs of the English, Irish and Scottish Catholics from the Reformation to the resent time, 4 volumes (1812-1821); AMHERST, History of Catholic Emancipation (London, 1885); LILLY AND WALTER, A Manual of the Law especially affecting Catholics (London, 1893); BLÖTZER, Die Katholiken emanzipation in Grossbritannien u. Irland (Freiburg, 1905); DAIN, Catholic Emancipation in Cambridge Modern History, X; c. 19.
IN IRELAND: Journals of the Irish House of Commons; Irish Parliamentary Debates (1781-97); Annual Register (1800-29); LECKY, History of Ireland in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1897); MITCHEL, History of Ireland (Glasgow, 1869); D'ALTON, History of Ireland (London, 1910); PLOWDEN, History of Ireland, 1800-1810 (Dublin, 1811); Castlereagh Correspondence (London. 1848); Cornwallis Correspondence (London, 1859); INGRAM, History of the Legislative Union (London. 1887);MACNEILL, How the Union was carried (London, 1887); Grattan's Memoirs (London 1839); Grattan's Speeches (London, 1822); STANHOPE, Life of Pitt (London, 1861); Plunket's Speeches (Dublin); WYSE, History of the Catholic Association (London, 1829); WALPOLE, History of England (London, 1879); Greville's Memoirs (London, 1904); FITZPATRICK, Correspondence of O'Connell (London, 1888); O'Connell's Speeches, ed. O'CONNELL (Dublin); SHEIL, Speeches (Dublin); MACDONAGH, Life of O'Connell (London, 1903); DUNLOP, Daniel O'Connell (London and New York, 1900); SHAW LEFEVRE, Peel and 'Connell (London, 1887); LECKY, Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland (London, 1903); Colchester's Diary (London, 1861); PELLEW, Life of Lord Sidmouth (London, 1847); Canning's Correspondence, ed. STAPLETON (London, 1887); Creevey Papers (London, 1903); Peel's Memoirs (London, 1856).

JOHN GERARD & E.A. D'ALTON

Roman Colleges

This article treats of the various colleges in Rome which have been founded under ecclesiastical auspices and are under ecclesiastical direction, with the exception of those that are treated separately under their respective titles throughout the Catholic Encyclopedia. The word "college" is used here to designate institutions established and maintained in Rome for the education of ecclesiastics; it is equivalent to "seminary". While the word seminario is applied occasionally, e.g. the Seminario Romano (S. Apollinare), the majority of these institutions, and especially those which have a national character, are known as "colleges". The training of priests in general is described in the article SEMINARY; here it suffices to note that the Roman colleges, in addition to the obvious advantages for study which Rome offers, also serve in a certain measure to keep up in the various countries of the world that spirit of loyal attachment to the Holy See which is the basis of unity. With this end in view the popes have encouraged the founding of colleges in which young men of the same nationality might reside and at the same time profit by the opportunities which the city affords. So too it is significant that within the last half century several colleges have developed as offshoots of the Propaganda (Urban College) in which the students from various countries were received until each nationality became numerous enough to form the nucleus of a distinct institution. The colleges thus established are halls of residence in which the students follow the usual seminary exercises of piety, study in private, and review the subjects treated in class. In some colleges there are special courses of instruction (languages, music, archaeology etc.). but the regular courses in philosophy and theology are given in a few large central institutions, such as the Propaganda, the Gregorian University, the Roman Seminary, and the Minerva, i.e. the school of the Dominicans. The Roman colleges are thus grouped in several clusters, each of which included a centre for purposes of instruction and a number of affiliated institutions. Each college has at its head a rector designated by the episcopate of the country to which the college belongs and appointed by the pope. He is assisted by a vice-rector and a spiritual director. Discipline is maintained by means of the camerata system in which the students are divided into groups each in charge of a prefect who is responsible for the observance of rule. Each camerata occupies its own section of the college building, has its own quarters for recreation, and goes its own way about the city on the daily walk prescribed by the regulations. Meals and chapel exercises are in common for all students of the college. While indoors, the student wears the cassock with a broad cincture; outside the college, the low-crowned three-cornered clerical hat and a cloak or soprana are added.

The scholastic year begins in the first week of November and ends about the middle of July. In most of the courses the lecture system is followed and at stated times formal disputations are held in accordance with scholastic methods. The course of studies, whether leading to a degree or not, is prescribed and it extends, generally speaking, through six years, two of which are devoted to philosophy and four to theology. To philosophy in the stricter sense are added courses in mathematics, languages, and natural sciences. Theology includes, besides dogmatic and moral theology, courses in liturgy, archaeology, Church history, canon law and Scripture. An oral examination is held in the middle of the year and a written examination (concursus) at the close. The usual degrees (baccalaureate, licentiate, and doctorate) are conferred in philosophy, theology, and canon law; since 1909 degrees in Sacred Scripture are conferred upon students who fulfill the requirements of the Biblical Institute. Each college spends the summer vacation at its villegiatura or country house located outside the city and generally in or near one of the numerous towns on the slopes of the neighbouring hills. Student life in the "villa" is quite similar to the routine of the academic year in regard to discipline and religious exercises; but a larger allowance is made for recreation and for occasional trips through the surrounding country. And while each student has more time for reading along lines of his own choice, he is required to give some portion of each day to the subjects explained in the classroom during the year. What has been said outlines fairly will the work of the Roman colleges. In matters of detail some variations will be found, and these are due chiefly to natural characteristics or to the special purpose for which the college was established.

ALMO COLLEGIO CAPRANICENSE (CAPRANICA)

This is the oldest Roman college, founded in 1417 by Cardinal Domenico Capranica in his own palace for 31 young clerics, who received an education suitable for the formation of good priests. Capranica himself drew up their rules and presented the college with his own library, the more valuable portion of which was later transferred to the Vatican. The cardinal's brother, Angelo, erected opposite his own palace a suitable house for the students. When the Constable de Bourbon laid siege to Rome in 1527 the Capranica students were among the few defenders of the Porta di S. Spirito, and all of them with their rector fell at the breach. The rector according to the university custom of those days was elected by the students and was always one of themselves. Alexander VII decided that the rector should be appointed by the protectors of the college. After the Revolution the college was re-established in 1807; the number of free students was reduced to 13, but paying students were admitted. Those entering must have completed their seventeenth year; they attend the lectures at the Gregorian University. The college counts among its graduates many cardinals and bishops; not a few of the students have passed into the diplomatic service. The country seat is a villa at Monte Mario.

SEMINARIO ROMANO

Hardly had the Council of Trent in its 23rd session decreed the establishment of diocesan seminaries, when Pius IV decided to set a good example, and on 1 Feb 1565, the seminary was solemnly opened with 60 students. The rules were drawn up by P. Lainez, General of the Society of Jesus, and to this order Pius IV entrusted the management of the college. Up to 1773 the students attended the lectures in the Collage Romano; the residence was changed several times before 1608, when they settled in the Palazzo Borromeo in the Via del Seminario (now the Gregorian University). A country seat was erected for the students in a portion of the baths of Caravalla. Each year, at Pentecost, a student delivered a discourse on the Holy Ghost in the papal chapel. In 1773 the seminary was installed in the Collegio Romano of the Jesuits. After the changes in 1798 the number of the students, generally about 100, was reduced to 9. Pius VII restored the seminary which continued to occupy the Collegio Romano until 1824, when Leo XII gave back this building to the Jesuits and transferred the seminary to S. Apollinare, formerly occupied by the Collegio Germanico; the seminary, however, retained its own schools comprising a classical course, and a faculty of philosophy and theology, to which in 1856 a course of canon law was added. The direction of the seminary and, as a rule, the chairs were reserved to the secular clergy. After the departure of the Jesuits in 1848 the seminary again removed to the Collegio Romano. In the seminary there are 30 free places for students belonging to Rome; the remaining students, who may be from other dioceses, pay a small pension. The Collegio Cerasoli with four burses for students of the Diocese of Bergamo endowed by Cardinal Cerasoli, is connected with the seminary. The students take part in the ceremonies in the church of the Seminario Pio. Their cassock is violet. The seminary possesses an excellent library. At the present time, by order of Pius X, a new building for the seminary is in process of construction near the Lateran Basilica. The schools of the seminary are attended by students from other colleges and religious communities. Gregory XV, Clement IX, Innocent XIII, and Clement XII were educated in this seminary.

SEMINARIO PIO

Also situated in the Palazzo di S. Apollinare, this was founded in 1853 by Pius IX for the dioceses of the Pontifical States. Each diocese is entitled to send a student who has completed his humanities; Sinigaglia may send two; the number of pupils is limited to 62. All must spend nine years in the study of philosophy, theology, canon law, and literature; they are supported by the revenues of the seminary and are distinguished by their violet sash. The seminary has a villa outside the Porta Portese. The students bind themselves by oath to return to their dioceses on the completion of their studies.

SEMINARIO VATICANO

Founded in 1636 by Urban VIII for the convenience of the clerics serving in the Vatican Basilica (St. Peter's). Its government was entrusted to the Vatican Chapter which appointed the rector. Shortly afterward a course of grammar and somewhat later, courses of philosophy and theology were added. Paying students were also admitted. In 1730 the seminary was transferred from the Piazza Rusticucci to its present location behind the apse of St. Peter's. From 1797 till 1805 it remained closed; on its reopening only 6 free students could be received, but the number rose to 30 or 40. After the events of 1870 the seminary dwindled. Leo XIII endeavoured to restore it, re-establishing the former courses and granting it a country residence in the Sabine hills. In 1897 it was authorized to confer degrees. In 1905 Pius X suppressed the faculties of philosophy and theology, the students of the former subject going to S. Apollinare, and of the latter to the Gregorian. They wear a purple cassock with the pontifical coat-of-arms on the end of their sash.

SEMINARIO DEI SS. PIETRO E PAOLO

Established in 1867 by Pietro Avanzani, a secular priest, to prepare young secular priests for the foreign missions. Pius IX approved it in 1874 and had a college erected, but this was later pulled down and since then the seminary has changed its location several times; at present it is in the Armenian College. The students follow the courses at the Propaganda; at home they have lectures on foreign languages, including Chinese. They number 12. The college has a country residence at Montopoli in the Sabine hills. On finishing their studies the students go to the Vicariate Apostolic of Southern Shen-si or to Lower California.

SEMINARIO LOMBARDO DEI SS. AMBROGIO E CARLO

This college, founded in 1854 chiefly through the generosity of Cardinal Borromeo and Duke Scotti of Milan, was located in the palace of the confraternity of S. Carlo al Corso. Owing to the insufficiency of its revenues it remained closed from 1869 to 1878. Leo XIII allowed the other bishops of Upper Italy as well as of Modena, Parma, and Placenta to send their subjects who, numbering over 60, pay for their maintenance and follow the lectures at the Gregorian University; not a few of these students are already priests when the enter the seminary. They may be known by their black sashes with red borders. Since 1888 the seminary has had its own residence in the Prati di Castello.

COLLEGIO GERMANICO-UNGARICO

After the Collegio Capranica, the oldest college in Rome. The initiative towards its foundation was taken by Cardinal Giovanni Morone and St. Ignatius of Loyola, and by the energetic labour of the saint the plan was carried into effect. Julius III approved of the idea and promised his aid, but for a long time the college to struggle against financial difficulties. The first students were received in November 1552. The administration was confided to a committee of six cardinal protectors, who decided that the collegians should wear a red cassock, in consequence of which they have since been popularly known as the gamberi cotti (boiled lobsters). During the first year the higher courses were given in the college itself; but in the autumn of 1553 St. Ignatius succeeded in establishing the schools of philosophy and theology in the Collegio Romano of his Society. He also drew up the first rules for the college, which served as models for similar institutions. During the pontificate of Paul IV the financial conditions became such that the students had to be distributed among the various colleges of the Society in Italy. To place the institution on a firmer basis it was decided to admit paying boarders regardless their nationality, and without the obligation of embracing the ecclesiastical state; German clerics to the number of 20 or more were received free and formed a separate body. In a short time 200 boarding students, all belonging to the flower of European nobility, were received. This state of affairs lasted till 1573. Under Pius V, who had placed 20 of his nephews in the college, there was some idea of suppressing the camerata of the poveri tedeschi. Gregory XIII, however, may be considered the real founder of the college. He transferred the secular department to the Seminario Romano, and endowed the college with the Abbey of S. Saba all' Aventino and all its possessions, both on the Via Portuense and on the Lake of Bracciano; moreover he incorporated with it the Abbeys of Fonte Avellana in the Marches, S. Cristina, and Lodiveccio in Lombardy. The new rector P. Lauretano, drew up another set of regulations.

The college had already changed its location five times. In 1574 Gregory XIII assigned it the Palace of S. Apollinare and in 1575 gave it charge of the services in the adjoining church. The splendour and majesty of the functions as well as the music executed by the students under the Spaniard Ludovico da Vittoria and other celebrated masters (Stabile, Orgas, Carissimi, Pittoni, and others) constantly drew large crowds to the church. Too much attention indeed was given to music under P. Lauretano, so that regulations had to be made at various times to prevent the studies from suffering. The courses were still given in the Collegio Roman; but when Bellarmine terminated his lectures on controversy, a chair for this important branch of learning was established in the Collegio Germanico and somewhat later a chair of canon law. As a special mark of his favour, Gregory XIII ordered that each year on the Feast of All Saints a student of the college should deliver a panegyric in presence of the pope. Meanwhile in 1578 the Collegio Ungherese had been founded through the efforts of another Jesuit, P. Szántó who obtained for it the church and convent of S. Stefano Rotondo on the Caelian Hill, and of S. Stefanino behind the Basilica of St. Peter, the former belonging to the Hungarian Pauline monks, and the latter to the Hungarian pilgrims' hospice. In 1580 the union of the two colleges was decreed, a step which at first gave rise to difficulties. The students generally numbered about 100, sometimes, however, there were but 54, at other times as many as 150. During the seventeenth century several changes occurred, in particular the new form of oath exacted from all the students of foreign colleges. Mention must be made of the work of P. Galeno, the business manager who succeeded in consolidating the finances of the college so as to raise the revenue to 25,000 scudi per annum. A country residence was acquired at Parioli. In the eighteenth century the college became gradually more aristocratic. Benedict XIV performed the ceremony of laying the corner stone of the new church of S. Apollinare in 1742, on the completion of which a new Palace of S. Apollinare was erected. At the suppression of the Society (1773) the direction was entrusted to secular priests; lectures were delivered in the college itself, and the professors were Dominicans. Discipline and studies declined rapidly. Moreover, Joseph II sequestrated the property situated in Lombardy and forbade his subjects to attend the college. The buildings, however, were increased by the addition of the palace opposite to S. Agostino.

On the proclamation of the Roman Republic the property of the foreign national colleges was declared escheated to the Government and was sold for an absurdly small sum. On that occasion the library and the precious archives of sacred music were scattered. Pius VII restored whatever remained unsold and ordered the rest to be repurchased as far as possible. In the first years the revenues were employed to pay off the debts contracted in this repurchase. In 1824 the palace of S. Apollinare as well as the villa at Parioli was reunited to the Seminario Romano. The first students were received in 1818 and lived in the professed house of the Jesuits at the Gesu, and there the college remained till 1851. From that time the administration was entrusted to the general of the Jesuits, who appointed the rector and other fathers in charge of the college. In 1845 the estate of S. Pastore near Zagarolo was acquired. In 1851 the residence was transferred to the Palazzo Borromeo in the Via del Seminario where it remained till 1886. In 1873 when the Collegio Romano was taken away from the Jesuits, the Collegio Germanico found a home in the Gregorian University. In 1886 owing to the necessity of having more extensive quarters, the Collegio Germanico was transferred to the Hotel Costanzi in the Via S. Nicola da Tolentino. The college receives German students from the old German Empire and from Hungary; places are free, but there are some students who pay (cf. Steinhuber, "Geschichte des Collegium Germanicum-Hungaricum in Rom", Freiburg, 1896; Hettinger, "Aus Welt und Kirche," I, Freiburg, 1897).

COLLEGIO TEUTONICO DI S. MARIA DELL' ANIMA

In 1399 Theodoric of Niem founded a hospice for German pilgrims. A confraternity in aid of the suffering souls in purgatory was soon after formed, and in 1499 the first stone of the beautiful church was laid, near the Church of S. Maria della Pace. In 1859 this pia opera was reorganized; a college of chaplains to officiate in the church was established; the chaplains were to remain only two or at the most three years, and at the same time were to continue their studies. They devote themselves chiefly to canon law with a view to employing their knowledge in the service of their respective dioceses; and they receive living and tuition gratis. Other priests also are admitted who come to Rome at their own expense for the purpose of study. At present there are 8 chaplains and about 10 other priests residing there. The college continues to assist poor Germans who come to Rome, either to visit the holy places or in search of occupation.

COLLEGIO TEUTONICO DEL CAMPO SANTO

Established in 1876 to receive priests belonging to the German Empire or German provinces of Austria, who remain there for two or, at the most, three years pursuing their studies and officiating in the Church of S. Maria della Pieta near St. Peter's. The revenues of the Campo Santo and the chaplaincies that have been founded devote themselves to the study of Christian archeology or Church history; they publish a quarterly review, the "Römische Quartalschrift fur christliche archaeologie und Kirkengeschichte". The site of the Campo Santo dei Tedeschi goes back to the days of Charlemagne and was then called the Schola Francorum. In the course of time the German residents in Rome were buried in the church of the Schola, then called S. Salvatore in Turri. In 1454 a confraternity was established, and in addition the guilds of German bakers and cobblers had their quarters there. In 1876 owing to the altered conditions of modern times the institute was put to its present purpose (cf. de Waal, "Der Campo Santo der Deutschen zu Rom", Freiburg, 1897.)

COLLEGIO PONTIFICO GRECO (THE GREEK PONTIFICAL COLLEGE)

This is also a foundation of Gregory XIII, who established it to receive young Greeks belonging to any nation in which the Greek Rite was used, and consequently for Greek refugees in Italy as well as the Ruthenians and Malchites of Egypt and Syria. These young men had to study the sacred sciences, in order to spread later sacred and profane learning among their fellow-countrymen and facilitate the reunion of the schismatical Churches. The construction of the College and Church of S. Atanasio, joined by a bridge over the Via dei Greci, was begun at once. The same year (1577) the first students arrived, and until the completion of the college were housed elsewhere. Gregory XIII endowed the college. The direction was entrusted to five cardinal protectors; the rector was selected at first either from the secular clergy or from the regulars. Under Sixtus V, but for the energetic resistance of Cardinal di S. Severina, this promising college would have been suppressed. Gregory XIV on the suggestion of the learned Pietro Arendius, a former student of the college, entrusted the direction to the Jesuits (1591), who introduced a new method of government and a new disciplinary spirit. Within a short time the number of collegians rose to 56; some paying students were admitted as boarders. Studies were pursued in the college itself; some of the professors were Jesuits, some secular priests, and some laymen.

In 1602 when Cardinal Guistiniani became cardinal protector, so many changes were introduced that the Jesuits withdrew from the care of the college which was entrusted first to the Somaschians and then to the Dominicans; but in 1622, at the request of the students, the Jesuits returned. Urban VIII ordered all the alumni to bind themselves by oath to remain in the Greek Rite, and this applied to Latins who entered the college surreptitiously; the regulation, however, was frequently disregarded in the eighteenth century. After 1773 secular priests took charge. The college was closed during the Revolution and not reopened till 1849; in the meantime the Greeks were admitted to the College of the Propaganda. The direction was entrusted first to secular priests, then to the Resurrectionists (1886), and finally to the Jesuits (1889). In 1897 Leo XIII reorganized the college. Owing to the generosity of the Emperor of Austria and the Ruthenian episcopacy a college was provided especially for the Ruthenians, while the Rumanians were sent to the College of the Propaganda. The direction of the College of S. Atanasio was entrusted to the Benedictines, who adopted the Greek Rite. The students perform the sacred functions of their rite with the greatest possible splendor in the Church of S. Atanasio. Formerly the Latin Rite also was celebrated in the church, but Leo XIII reserved it entirely for the Greek Rite. The students are all maintained gratuitously out of the revenues of the college. They number about 30 to 35 and follow courses in the Propaganda, besides having lectures at home in Greek language and literature. They wear a blue cassock with a red sash, and an Oriental cloak with large sleeves (cf. De Meester, "Le Collège Pontifical Grec de Rome", Rome, 1910).

PONTIFICIO-RUTENO COLLEGIO (THE RUTHENIAN PONTIFICAL COLLEGE)

This was founded, as said above, in 1897, and the Church of SS. Sergio e Bacco was assigned to it. At first it was in charge of the Jesuits but some years later it was entrusted to the Ruthenian Basilian monks. There are about 20 students, who are supported partly by the Ruthenian bishops and partly by paying a small fee. They follow the lectures at the Propaganda, and wear a blue cassock and soprana (cloak) with a yellow sash.

COLLEGIO INGLESE (VENERABILE COLLEGIUM ANGLORUM)

See THE ENGLISH COLLEGE in Rome.

COLLEGIO BEDA

United to the English College and intended for converted Anglican clergymen wishing to prepare for the priesthood. It was founded in 1852 by Pius IX; and increased under Leo XIII. Cardinal Howard bequeathed to the two colleges his valuable library. The country seat of the two colleges is at Monte Porzio.

COLLEGIO SCOZZESE (THE SCOTS COLLEGE)

Established in 1600 by Clement VIII for the education of Scottish priests for the preservation of Catholicism in their Fatherland; it was assigned the revenues of the old Scots hospice, which were increased by the munificence of the pope and other benefactors. In 1634 the college was transferred to its present situation and in 1649 the Countess of Huntley constructed a church dedicated to Saint Andrew and Saint Margaret, Queen of Scotland. From 1615 till 1173 it was under the direction of the Jesuits. The students, numbering about 20, are supported partly by the revenues of the college and partly by the Scottish bishops and by their own money. They attend the Gregorian University and have a villa at Marino. They wear a purple cassock, with a crimson sash and black soprana.

COLLEGIO IRLANESE

See IRISH COLLEGE, IN ROME.

COLLEGIO URBANO DI PROPAGANDA (THE URBAN COLLEGE)

The foundation of this college is due to the zeal of P. Ghislieri, a Theatine, and to the generosity of Mgr. G. Batta Vives, a Spaniard, consultor of the Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda, then established by Gregory XV. Urban VIII approved of the plan of erecting a college for the evangelization of the East and enlarged the palace given by Mgr. Vives; and under Alexander VII the Church of the Three Magi was added. Vives established in addition six free scholarships; foundations were made by other pontiffs and prelates, especially by Innocent XII, Clement XII, and the brother of Urban VIII, Cardinal Antonio Barberini. The college depends on the Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda, which appoints the rector, who at first was a Theatine but for centuries has always been a secular prelate, who is the parish priest of all who live in the Palace of the Propaganda; there are also a vice-rector, a bursar, and an assistant. Alexander VII imposed on all the students an oath binding them to remain under the jurisdiction of the Propaganda, not to enter a religious order without special permission, and to return after ordination to the priesthood to their dioceses or provinces to engage in the sacred ministry, and to send each year if in Europe, or every second year otherwise, a report of their apostolic work. Students are recommended by the bishops subject to the Propaganda, and the governing body select the students according to the number of vacancies, the places always being free. In 1798 the college was closed; some of the students were received by the Lazarists at Montecitorio. This lasted till 1809 when all that remained of the college was suppressed. In 1814 some of the Propaganda students were again received by the Lazarists, and in 1817 the college was reopened. From 1836 till 1848 it was under the direction of the Jesuits. The number of students is about 120. From the foundation of the college there have been courses of classics, philosophy, and theology, in which academic degrees are granted. The classical course lasts four years; the course of philosophy, including physics, and chemistry, and the history of philosophy, two years; the course of theology, four years. On the feast of the Epiphany the schools hold a solemn academy in various languages. The college possesses a valuable library. In addition to the many ecclesiastical dignitaries among the past students there were four martyrs: the Belgian Jacques Foelech (1643); Pietro Cesy (1680, in Ethiopia); the Armenian Melchior Tasbas (1716, at Constantinople); Nicholas Boscovich (1731).

COLLEGIO DEI MARONITI (THE MARONITE COLLEGE)

This was founded by Gregory XIII, and had its first site near the Church of S. Maria della Ficoccia near the Piazza di Trevi. It was richly endowed by Sixtus V and Cardinal Antonio Caraffa, and also by other popes, and was entrusted to the Jesuits; the pupils attended the Gregorian University. During the Revolution of 1798 the College was suppressed, and the Maronites who wished to study at Rome went to the Collegio Urbano. In 1893 Mgr. Khayat, the Maronite Patriarch, obtained the restoration of the college from Leo XIII. The Holy See gave part of the funds, the remainder was collected in France, and in 1894 the new college was inaugurated. In 1904 it acquired its own residence, and is now under the charge of Maronite secular priests. The students numbered 8 at the beginning, there are now 19; the greatest number that can be received is 24.

COLLEGIO BELGA (THE BELGIAN COLLEGE)

Established in 1844 through the initiative of Mgr. Aerts, aided by the nuncio in Belgium, then Mgr. Pecci, and by the Belgian bishops. At first it was located in the home of Mgr. Aerts, rector of the Belgian national Church of S. Guiliano. In 1845 the ancient monastery of Gioacchino ed Anna at the Quattro Fontane was purchased. The Belgian episcopate supports the students and proposes the president. The students, 20 and more in number, attend the Gregorian; their dress is distinguished by two red stripes at the ends of the sash.

COLLEGIO DEGLI STATI UNITI DELL' AMERICA DEL NORD

See THE AMERICAN COLLEGE, IN ROME.

COLLEGIO POLACCO (THE POLISH COLLEGE)

In 1583, St. Philip Neri, and in about 1600, King John Casimir had begun the foundation of a college for Poles, but their institute was short-lived. In 1866 a college was finally opened due to the efforts of the Congregation of the Resurrection, which raised the first funds to which Princess Odelscalchi, Pius IX, and others contributed later. In 1878 the college was transferred to its present location, the former Maronite College, and the adjoining church was dedicated to St. John Cantius. The students, some of whom pay a small pension, number 30 and are distinguished by their green sashes; they attend the lectures in the Gregorian. The college is under the care of the Resurrectionists and possesses a villa at Albano.

COLLEGIO ILLIRICO (THE ILLYRIAN COLLEGE)

This was established in 1863 by Pius IX to prepare priests for Dalmatia, Croatia, Bosnia, and Slavonia, and was located in the Illyrian hospice near the Church of S. Girolamo degli Schiavoni; but after a few years no more students were received. In 1900, Leo XIII reorganized the Illyrian hospice and decided to form a college of priests of the above-mentioned provinces, who would attend to the services in the church and at the same time pursue ecclesiastical studies.

SEMINARIO FRANCESE (THE FRENCH SEMINARY)

The French bishops at the Council of La Rochelle (1853) petitioned Pius IX to approve of their plan of founding a French Seminary in Rome for the special purpose of training a body of priests strongly attached to the Holy See and prepared to counteract the influence of Gallican ideas. The seminary was opened the same year with 12 students under the direction of P. Lamurien of the Congregation of the Holy Ghost, which order still directs it, while the students attend the lectures at the Gregorian. The students are in part priests who wish to perfect their knowledge, and partly seminarists preparing for the priesthood. The seminary is located in the Via del Seminario; its first site was the old Irish college near the Trajan Forum. In 1856 Pius IX assigned to the seminary the Church of S. Chiara with the adjoining Poor Clare convent, founded in 1560 by St. Charles Borromeo on the ruins of the baths of Agrippa. The church was rebuilt on the plan of Notre-Dame-des-Victoires in Paris; in 1883 the monastery was entirely remodeled to suit its present purpose. Leo XIII declared it a pontifical seminary in 1902. The students pay a pension, though in some cases it is paid from the funds of their diocese; students not belonging to France are also admitted. The seminarists generally number between 100 and 120 (c.f. Escheat, "Le séminaire français de Rome", Rome, 1903.

COLLEGIO DEI CAPPELLANI DI S. LUIGI DEI FRANCESI

This is another French institution. The church dating from 1496 served as a parish for the French residents at Rome. In 1840 on the proposal of Cardinal Bonnechose the parish was suppressed and the revenue applied to create chaplaincies for young students, French priests, who wished to specialize at Rome in canon law, archeology, or ecclesiastical history. Until 1906 the chaplains published the "Annales de St. Louis des Francais", devoted specially to history. After the decease of Mgr Cadene, they undertook the continuation of the "Analecta Ecclesiastica" containing the Acts of the Holy See, as well as moral and canonical dissertations.

COLLEGIO BOEMO (THE BOHEMIAN COLLEGE)

Established in 1884 partly with the revenues of the ancient Bohemian hospice founded by Emperor Charles IV, and with contributions of Leo XIII and the Bohemian bishops. The site was transferred several times, but in 1888 the old monastery of S. Francesca Romana in the Via Sistina was purchased. The rector is always one of the professors in the Propaganda, which the students attend. They number from 24 to 28 and are distinguished by their black sashes with two yellow stripes at the extremities. They have a villa at Trevi in Umbria.

COLLEGIO ARMENO (THE ARMENIAN COLLEGE)

Gregory XIII in 1584 had decreed the erection of a college for the Armenians (Bull "Romana Ecclesia"), but the plan fell through. When the Collegio Urbano of the Propaganda was founded later there were always some places for students of this nation. Finally, in 1885, Gregory's proposal was carried into effect, thanks to the generosity of some wealthy Armenians and of Leo XIII. The college was granted the Church of S. Nicola da Tolentino in the street of that name. The president is an Armenian prelate; the students numbering from 20 to 25 attend the lectures at the Propaganda, and wear red sashes and large-sleeved Oriental cloaks.

COLLEGIO SPAGNUOLO (THE SPANISH COLLEGE)

Founded in 1892 through the initiative of Leo XIII and the generosity of the episcopacy, the royal family, and other benefactors in Spain. Installed at first in the national hospice of S. Maria in Monserrato, it was transferred later to the Palazzo Altemps near S. Apollinare. The students numbering 70 are for the most part supported by their bishops; they attend the Gregorian, and are distinguished by a pelerine and a sky-blue sash. The direction is entrusted to the pious Spanish Congregation of the Operarii Diocesani.

COLLEGIO CANADESE (THE CANADIAN COLLEGE)

Cardinal Howard took the first steps towards the erection of this institute. The Canadian Congregation of St. Sulpice undertook to defray the expenses. The building was soon erected (1887) in the Via delle Quattro Fontane, and in 1888 the first pupils were enrolled. Some of the students are priests and follow the lectures in the Propaganda, and those who have already completed their studies in Canada are privileged to receive a degree after two years in Rome. The Sulpicians are in charge of the college.

PONTIFICO COLLEGIO PORTOGHESE (THE PORTUGUESE PONTIFICAL COLLEGE)

Founded in 1901 by Leo XIII; its direction is entrusted to Italian secular priests, and the students attend the lectures at S. Apollinare.

COLLEGIO APOSTOLICO LEONIANO

Owes its origin to P. Valentini, a Lazarist, who, aided by a pious lady, received in a private house the students who could not otherwise gain admittance to the other colleges. This college and the revenue left by the lady were taken over later by the Holy See and a large building was erected in the Prati di Castello. The direction was committed to the Jesuits. The students, mainly of the southern provinces that have no special college at Rome, attend the lectures at the Gregorian University.

APPENDIX: "IN PRAECIPUIS"

The Apostolic Constitution "In præcipuis", 29 June, 1913, promulgates the new regulations concerning the training of the Roman and Italian clergy. In brief, there are to be two seminaries: a smaller, for "gymnasial" students, in the present Vatican Seminary; and a greater, for philosophers and theologians, in the new Lateran building. To the latter are transferred the Seminario SS. Ambrogio e Carlo, now to be part of the Roman Seminary; and the Seminario Pio, which retains the laws as to its scope and character. The faculties of philosophy and theology of the Roman Seminary are to be in the Lateran Seminary; the law department goes to the Collegio Leoniano, but remains a school of the Seminary. The Collegio Leoniano shall receive only priests duly authorized to pursue higher studies. The Academia Theologica of the Sapienza remains at S. Apollinare. All Italian clerical students must abide in the Lateran or the Vatican Seminaries, excepting those preparing for the heathen missions or who are eligible for the Collegio Capranica.

L'organisation et administration centrale de l'eglise (Paris, 1900), 600 sqq. DANIEL; BAUMGARTEN; DE WAAL, Rome, Le chef supreme; MORONI, Dizionario, XIII (Venice, 1842), LXIV (ibid., 1853).

U. BENIGNI

The Roman Congregations

Certain departments have been organized by the Holy See at various times to assist it in the transaction of those affairs which canonical discipline and the individual interests of the faithful bring to Rome. Of these the most important are, without doubt, the Roman Congregations (Sacræ Cardinalium Congregationes), as is evident from the mere consideration of the dignity of their membership, consisting, as it does, of cardinals who are officially the chief collaborators of the sovereign pontiff in the administration of the affairs of the Universal Church. Nevertheless it should be noted that cardinals have not always participated in the administration of ecclesiastical affairs in the same way. A research on the various usages that have obtained in this connexion would lead us too far from our present subject, but is taken up under CARDINAL; CONSISTORY, PAPAL.

The Roman Congregations originated in the necessity, felt from the beginning, of studying the questions submitted for pontifical decision, in order to sift the legal questions arising and to establish matters of fact duly. This work, at first entrusted to the papal chaplains, was afterwards divided between the p nitentiarii and the auditores, according as questions of the internal or the external forum (i. e., jurisdiction) were to be considered. Thereafter, cardinals in greater or less number were associated with them. Often, however, they were not merely entrusted with the preparation of the case, but were given authority to decide it. As, on the other hand, the increased numbers of cases to be passed upon occupied a great number of persons, while the proper administration of justice required that those persons should be of the most experienced, it appeared to be advisable, if not necessary, to divide this business into various and distinct groups. This division would evidently facilitate the selection of wise and experienced men in all branches of ecclesiastical affairs. Hence also a natural division into executive cases, assigned to the offices (officia), judicial cases, reserved to the tribunals, and administrative cases, committed to the Roman Congregations.

Sixtus V was the first to distribute this administrative business among different congregations of cardinals; and in his Constitution "Immensa" (22 Jan., 1588) he generalized the idea, already conceived and partly reduced to practice by some of his predecessors, of committing one or another case or a group of cases to the examination, or to the decision, of several cardinals. By a judicious division of administrative matters, he established that permanent organization of these departments of the Curia, which since then have rendered such great services to the Church. The congregations at first established by Sixtus V were officially designated as:

1. for Holy Inquisition;
2. for the Signature of Grace;
3. for the erection of churches and consistorial provisions;
4. for the abundance of supplies and prosperity of the Church's temporal dominions;
5. for sacred rites and ceremonies;
6. for equipping the fleet and maintaining it for the defence of the Church's dominions;
7. for an index of forbidden books;
8. for the execution and interpretation of the Council of Trent;
9. for relieving the ills of the States of the Church;
10. for the University of the Roman study (or school);
11. for regulations of religious orders;
12. for regulations of bishops and other prelates;
13. for taking care of roads, bridges, and waters;
14. for the Vatican printing-press;
15. for regulations of the affairs of the Church's temporal dominions.

From this it will be seen that, while the chief end of the Congregations of Cardinals was to assist the sovereign pontiff in the administration of the affairs of the Church, some of these congregations were created to assist in the administration of the temporal States of the Holy See. The number of these varied according to circumstances and the requirements of the moment; In the time of Cardinal De Luca there were about nineteen of them, as he himself tells us in his admirable work "Relatio Romanæ Curiæ forensis", without counting other congregations of a lower order, consisting of prelates, as were, for example, the "Congregatio baronum et montium" and the "Congregatio computorum".

Other congregations were added by different popes, until the present organization was established by Pius X in his Constitution "Sapienti consilio" of 29 June, 1908, according to which there are thirteen congregations, counting that of the Propaganda as only one. As, however, the last-named congregation is divided into two parts: Congregation of the Propaganda for Affairs of the Latin Rite, and Congregation of the Propaganda for Affairs of the Oriental Rites, it may well be considered as two congregations; so that the total number of the congregations is fourteen. Sixtus V granted ordinary jurisdiction to each of the congregations which he instituted within the limits of the cases assigned to it, reserving to himself and to his successors the presidency of some of the more important congregations, such as the Congregation of the Holy Inquisition and that of the Signature of Grace. As time went on, the congregations of cardinals, which at first dealt exclusively with administrative matters, came to pass upon the legal points of the cases submitted to them, until the congregations overshadowed the ecclesiastical tribunals and even the Roman Rota in fact almost took their places. In time the transaction of business was impeded by the cumulation of jurisdictions, different congregations exercising jurisdiction rendering decisions, and enacting laws in the same matters; Pius X resolved to define the competency of each congregation more precisely and to provide otherwise for the better exercise of its functions. It would not be possible to relate here all the changes effected in this connexion. The reader seeking detailed information may consult the commentaries that have already appeared on the Constitution "Sapienti consilio" (see General Bibliography at the end of this article). Mention will be made here of only the chief among those innovations which, besides the principal one of the demarcation of competency, are to be found in the following provisions.

All decisions of the sacred congregations require pontifical approval, unless special powers have been given previously by the pope. The officials of the congregations are divided into two classes: minor officers who are to be chosen by competitive examination and named by a letter of the cardinal prefect, and major officers, freely selected by the pope, and named by a note of the cardinal secretary of State. There is to be henceforth no cumulation of offices in the hands of one individual, not only to satisfy the requirements of distributive justice, but also because the tenure of several offices by the same person often results in detriment to the service. Wherefore, it is forbidden for an officer of one of the congregations to serve in any way as an agent, or as a procurator or advocate, in his own department or in any other ecclesiastical tribunal. The competency of the congresso in each congregation is determined. The congresso consists of the major officers under the presidency of the cardinal who presides over the congregation. It deals with the matters of less importance among those that are before the congregation, while those of greater moment must be referred to the full congregations of cardinals. It is also the business of the congresso to prepare for their discussion those matters that are to be considered by the full congregation. On the other hand, the congresso is charged with the execution of the orders of the full congregation that have received the approval of the pope. As examples of matters of greater importance which must be considered by the full congregation, the special rules (normæ peculiares) mention the solution of doubts or of questions that may arise in regard to the interpretation of ecclesiastical laws, the examination of important administrative controversies, and kindred matters. The normæ peculiares and the normæ communes, together with the Constitution "Sapienti consilio", constitute the entire code of the new organization of the Roman ecclesiastical departments.

I. CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE

As the Roman Inquisition (Romana Inquisitio) this congregation is of very ancient origin, dating from Innocent III (1194-1216), although some authorities attribute its establishment to Lucius III (1181-85). In the beginning of the thirteenth century Innocent III established at Rome an inquisitorial tribunal against the Albigenses and other innovators of the south of France. From its first title of Romana Inquisitio was derived the usage of calling this body Congregation of the Holy Roman Universal Inquisition. Sixtus V, in the Bull "Immensa", calls it Congregatio pro S. inquisitione and also Congregatio sanct inquisitionis hæreticæ pravitatis. Benedict XIV calls it Romanæ Universalis Inquisitionis Congregatio (Const. "Sollicita"). Later it had the official title Suprema Congregatio sanctæ romanæ et universalis inquisitionis. Pius X in his recent Constitution calls it, simply, Congregatio S. Officii. The qualification of Suprema was omitted, possibly to avoid the appearance of an inequality of dignity among the congregations, they being all of the same rank and dignity, since they are composed of cardinals. According to Leitner, the name Inquisition was suppressed in order to shield this congregation from the hatred inspired by that name. It retains, therefore, the title of Holy Office, so well suited to the most holy office to which it is assigned, namely, that of removing the faithful from the danger of deviation from the Faith through the influence of false doctrine. In 1251 Innocent IV gave the Dominicans charge of this tribunal. In view of the progress of the Reformation, Paul III, by the Bull "Licet ab initio", of 21 July, 1542, declared the Roman Inquisition to be the supreme tribunal for the whole world; and he assigned to it six cardinals. Simier (La curie romaine, cf. S. n. I) is of opinion that Paul III appointed the six cardinals of S. Clemente, S. Sisto, S. Balbina, S. Cecilia, S. Marcello, and S. Silvestro general inquisitors, with universal powers, not, however, to act collegialiter, as a tribunal, but individually and independently of one another. The Constitution "Licet ab initio" lends itself to that interpretation. But the Holy Office did not begin its existence as a congregation until 1558, in the reign of Paul IV. As time went on, the number of cardinals assigned to the Holy Office was increased, and the tribunal took a form like that of the other congregations. Formerly a cardinal used to be selected to preside over the Holy Office with the title of prefect; the first to be appointed to this charge was Cardinal Michele Ghislieri, afterwards Pius V. The prefecture of the congregation, however, has long been reserved by the pope to himself.

Like all the other congregations, the Holy Office has officials of the second order. The first of these is the assessor, one of the highest officers of the Curia; next comes the commissary, always a Dominican. Sometimes, as an exception, these two officials are invested with the episcopal character. Among the other officers who complete the personnel of the Holy Office are a vice-commissary, a first associate (socius), and a second associate, all Dominicans, also a sommista, a fiscal advocate, an advocatus reorum and some notaries.

It may appear strange that so many positions in this congregation are filled by Dominicans. The reason is to be found in the great solicitude of Pius V for the Holy Office, which solicitude led him to reserve all these functions for his fellow-Dominicans, especially those of the Province of Lombardy, to which he himself had belonged, and in whose members he reposed great confidence. It is to be observed that, whereas the assessor now takes precedence of the commissary, the contrary order obtained in former times, even in the days of Cardinal De Luca (Relatio curiæ forensis disc., 14, n. 6), for the commissary had the faculties of a true judge in ordinary, while the assessor was merely an assessor or consultor, as in other tribunals. According to Simier (La curie romaine, ch. i, n. I) this change occurred towards the middle of the seventeenth century. Besides the officers already mentioned, the Holy Office, like most other congregations, has a number of consultors, chosen from among the most esteemed and learned prelates and religious. Some are ex officio consultors by virtue of a right anciently granted; these are called natural consultors (consultori nati). They are the Master General of the Order of Preachers, the Master of the Sacred Palace (of the same order by a privilege granted by Pius V), and a religious of the Order of Friars Minor added by Sixtus V, himself a Friar Minor.

This congregation also has certain officers peculiar to itself, required by the nature of its attributes. They are the qualifiers (qualificatores), explained by the function of these officials, theologians whose duty it is to propose to the cardinals the particular note or censure by which objectionable propositions are to be condemned, since all such propositions do not affect the Faith in the same degree, and therefore are condemned by the Holy Office not in a general, but in a specific way, being termed heretical, erroneous, temerarious, false, injurious, calumnious, scandalous, or qualified by the ancient special phrase piarum aurium offensiv, "offensive to pious ears". Since the promulgation of the recent Constitution by the reigning pope, giving a new organization to the Curia, while all that has been referred to in regard to the internal status of this congregation has remained, a new division, to deal with indulgences, has been added to the Holy Office. For this division a congresso has also been established. Although no mention is made in the basic constitution of a congress (congresso) for the main part of this congregation, the Holy Office itself, the fact that it is said in the "Normæ peculiares" that the Holy Office shall retain its former methods of procedure insures to it a kind of congress analogous to that of the other congregations and consisting of the assessor, the commissary, the first associate, and a few other officers. Its duties are to examine the various cases, and to decide which of them must be submitted to the congregation of the consultors and which others may be disposed of without further proceedings, as is the case in matters of minor importance or of well-established precedent. The Decree often makes it clear that the case has been determined in this way, as when use is made of the formula: "D. N... Papa.. per facultates R. P. D. Assessori S. Off. impertitas..." The congresso of the new division consists of the cardinal, secretary, the assessor, the commissary, and the surrogate for indulgences.

The Congregation of the Holy Office defends Catholic teaching in matters of faith and morals: "Hæc S. Congregatio . . .doctrinam fidei et morum tutatur." Whence it follows, and is explicitly affirmed in the "Sapienti consilio", that the Holy Office deals with all matters which, directly or indirectly, concern faith and morals; it judges heresy, and the offences that lead to suspicion of heresy; it applies the canonical punishments incurred by heretics, schismatics, and the like. In this the Holy Office differs from all the other congregations, which are without judicial power, or, at least, may exercise it only at the request of the parties interested, while the Holy Office has both judicial and administrative power, since the legislator rightly believed that the congregation exclusively empowered to pass upon a doctrine, and qualify and condemn it as heretical, should also be the judge in heretical and kindred cases. From the fact that the purpose of this congregation is to defend the Faith, it follows that dispensation from the impediments of disparity of worship and of mixed religion (which by their nature imperil faith, and which, by Divine law itself is granted only upon guarantees given by the non-Catholic party) pertains to the Holy Office. The same is true of the Pauline privilege. And as the judicial causes connected with this privilege and with impediments of disparity of worship and mixed religion have a remote connexion with the Faith, it was declared that these causes belonged to the jurisdiction of the Holy Office (see decision of the Cong. of the Consistory, January, 1910). With regard, however, to the substantial form of the celebration of mixed marriages, the pope withdrew all authority from this congregation, wishing article 11 of the Decree "Ne temere" to remain in force.

The Holy Office formerly had a more ample jurisdiction, acquired by spontaneous development as time went on. Thus it dispensed from abstinence, from fasting, and from the observance of feasts (all of which now pertains to the Congregation of the Council); it dispensed from vows made in religious institutions, a function now exercised by the Congregation of Religious, and it dealt with the nomination of bishops, according to the Motu Proprio of Pius X (17 December, 1903), which business now belongs to the Congregation of the Consistory. In former times the Holy Office even dealt with causes of canonization, a matter which is now assigned to the Congregation of Rites. Grimaldi (op. cit. infra in general bibliography) gives as an example of such cases the Decree of the Holy Office in confirmation of the cult of the Blessed Colomba of Rieti, who died in the odour of sanctity at Perugia in 1507; and he adds: "Ce genre de causes est devenu ensuite l'apanage de la congrégation des Rites; mais si la vraie sainteté échappe actuellement à la juridiction de l'inquisition, ce tribunal a conservé le privilège de juger la fausse sainteté. Dans cet ordre d'idées nous trouvons les procès, qui se font en cour de Rome pour examiner les prophéties et révélations" (Causes of this kind afterwards became the province of the Congregation of Rites. But if true sanctity is no longer the jurisdiction of the Inquisition, that tribunal has kept the privilege of judging questions of spurious sanctity. Of this order are the processes carried on in the Roman Curia to examine prophesies and revelations). All persons are subject to the Holy Office except cardinals, who may be judged only by the pope.

Mention should be made of the strict secrecy which characterizes the proceedings of this congregationa most prudent measure indeed, for the protection of the good name of individuals in a congregation which must deal with most grievous offences against the Faith. Grimaldi (op. cit.) rightly says, speaking of the secrecy of the Holy Office: "Le saint-office ayant à s'occuper des délits commis non seulement contre la foi, mais encore d'autres qui ne relèvent que de très loin de l'intelligence, il s'ensuit qu'être cité à ce tribunal n'est pas une recommendation, et en sortir même par la porte d'un acquitement, ne sera jamais un titre de gloire. Aussi doit-on bénir ce mystère qui protège celui qui comparait devant ce tribunal, et dont le procès se déroule sans qu'aucune phase n'en ait transpiré dans le public" (As the Holy Office has to deal not only with offences against the Faith, but also with others which are very remotely connected with the intelligence, it follows that to be cited before this tribunal is no recommendation, and to leave it, even by the door of acquittal, will never be a title to glory. We should bless that mystery which protects him who appears before the tribunal and whose trial proceeds without any phase of it becoming public).

For the discussion of matters before the Holy Office there are three kinds of reunions, or, as they are called, congregations. The first is the so-called congregation of the consultors at which the consultors and the greater officials of the congregation are present under the presidency of the assessor. This meeting is held on Monday of each week in the Palace of the Holy Office behind the colonnade of St. Peter's. The most important matters are discussed at this meeting, and the views of the consultors are given for the enlightenment of the cardinals of the Holy Office, who, on the following Wednesday, consider the same matters and pass judgment upon them at the congregation of cardinals which used to be held at the residence of the general of the Dominicans near Santa Maria sopra Minerva, but since 1870 has been held at the Palace of the Holy Office. The third congregation is held in the presence of the pope, who approves or modifies the decisions rendered by the cardinals on the previous day. This third congregation, formerly held every Thursday, is now held only on occasion of the most exceptional cases. Instead of the congregation, the assessor refers the decisions of the cardinals to the Holy Father on Wednesday evenings, after which the pope gives the final decision. It was formerly customary, both at the congregation of cardinals and at that of Thursdays in the presence of the pope (coram Sanctissimo), for the consultors to wait in the antechamber in case they might be called upon by the cardinals or the Holy Father for explanations. This custom has been abolished.

As regards the doctrinal value of Decrees of the Holy Office it should be observed that canonists distinguish two kinds of approbation of an act of an inferior by a superior: first, approbation in common form (in forma communi), as it is sometimes called, which does not take from the act its nature and quality as an act of the inferior. Thus, for example, the decrees of a provincial council, although approved by the Congregation of the Council or by the Holy See, always remain provincial conciliar decrees. Secondly, specific approbation (in forma specifica), which takes from the act approved its character of an act of the inferior and makes it the act of the superior who approves it. This approbation is understood when, for example, the pope approves a Decree of the Holy Office ex certa scientia, motu proprio, or plenitudine suâ potestatis. Even when specifically approved by the pope, decrees of the Holy Office are not infallible. They call for a true assent, internal and sincere, but they do not impose an absolute assent, like the dogmatic definitions given by the pope as infallible teacher of the Faith. The reason is that, although an act of this congregation, when approved by the pope specifically, becomes an act of the sovereign pontiff, that act is not necessarily clothed with the infallible authority inherent in the Holy See, since the pope is free to make the act of an inferior his own without applying his pontifical prerogative to its performance. Similarly, when he acts of his own volition, he may teach ex cathedra or he may teach in a less decisive and solemn way. Examples of specific approbation of the Decrees of the Holy Office which yet lack the force of ex cathedra definitions are given by Choupin ("Valeur des décisions doctrinales et disciplinaires du Saint-Siège", Paris, 1907, ch. ix, sect. 9). The disciplinary Decrees of the Holy Office have the same force as those of the other congregations, that is, they are binding upon all the faithful if they be formally universal; and they are binding only upon the parties interested if they be merely personal, e. g., judicial sentences, which are law for the parties in the case. If, however, they be personal and at the same time equivalently universal, canonists are not fully agreed as to their force. For a discussion of this point see Choupin, op. cit., ch. iv, sect. 33, and the authors cited by him.

II. CONGREGATION OF THE CONSISTORY

This congregation was established by Sixtus V under the title of Congregation for the Erection of Churches and for Consistorial Provisions (pro erectione ecclesiarum et provisionibus consistorialibus). Its original organization was somewhat different from that of the modern congregations of cardinals. It was a mixed congregation composed of cardinals and of prelates, similar to the original Congregation of Propaganda (De Luca, op. cit., dis. 23). It had also a secretary who, as a rule, was not a prelate but an advocate (peritus togatus). As time went on it took the form of the other congregations, which consisted entirely of cardinals, to whom, in this congregation, two subaltern officers were added, one who filled the office of secretary and another who acted as surrogate (sostituto). These two prelates filled the same offices for the College of Cardinals. Originally, the cardinal dean was the prefect of this congregation, but later, the prefecture was reserved by the pope to himself. The recent Constitution of Pius X has in part changed the organization of this congregation. The prefecture is still retained by the sovereign pontiff, and the congregation is formed exclusively of cardinals, selected by the pope; the secretary, however, is no longer a prelate but a cardinal priest, who is appointed by the Holy Father himself and who, as will be seen, has become one of the most important officers of the Curia. To the cardinal in control of the congregation is attached a prelate who has the title of assessor, and who, at the present time also, is the secretary of the Sacred College. There is, likewise, a surrogate. These are major officials, and therefore, together with the cardinal secretary, form the congresso. This congregation has numerous inferior officers. At present, its personnel is completed by several consultors, as had been the case in former times, before that office was suppressed. These consultors, with the exception of two, are selected by the pope; the exceptions are the assessor of the Holy Office, and the secretary of the Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, who are ex-officio consultors of the Congregation of the Consistory.

The work of the congregation formerly was to prepare the matters to be proposed and examined in the Consistory, and to bestow such honours on ecclesiastics who sought them as it might seem fit to grant. The new constitution, however, has greatly extended the scope of the Congregation of the Consistory, to the degree that, although in that Constitution the latter is named second among the congregations, it might be considered the first in importance, on account of the great number of matters which have been assigned to it, and its great influence in the affairs of the Church from both the disciplinary and the administrative point of view. The Holy Office, however, retains its priority, whether by reason of ancient custom or because it deals with matters concerning the Faith. The great volume of the business which now falls to the Congregation of the Consistory and the great importance of the matters with which it has to deal have necessitated a division of the congregation into two very distinct parts, corresponding to two distinct classes of business. One section of the congregation has been formed for the purpose of preparing the business to be brought before the Consistory; to establish in places, not subject to Propaganda, new dioceses and collegiate as well as cathedral chapters; to elect bishops, Apostolic administrators, suffragans or assistants of other bishops; to prepare the processes in such cases and to examine the candidates in doctrine. As regards these processes, it may be observed that when the appointment is to be made in a place where the Holy See has a diplomatic representative, the preparation of the necessary documents is left to the office of the cardinal secretary of State, which is in a position more easily to obtain the necessary information and to collect the necessary documents. These documents and information are transmitted to the Congregation of the Consistory, which prepares the report, or official sheet, on the matter to be distributed among the cardinals. The other section of this congregation transacts all the business that relates to the government of dioceses not under Propaganda: within its scope is the supervision of bishops in regard to the fulfilment of their duties, the review of reports on the state of their Churches presented by bishops, announcements of apostolic visitations, the review of those previously made, and, with the approval of the sovereign pontiff, the prescription of necessary or opportune remedies; finally, the supervision of all that concerns the government, discipline, temporal administration, and studies in seminaries.

It is clear that the legislator intended to give to the Congregation of the Consistory complete authority in all that relates to a diocese as a juridical institution, including its establishment and its conservation; whence the power of electing bishops, of supervising them in the performance of their duties, and of controlling the seminaries so intimately connected with the future of the dioceses. For the same reason it would appear that the Congregation of the Consistory has authority in all that pertains to the creation of diocesan societies or committees, rural banks, and kindred establishments within a diocese. On the other hand, a very high function was given to this congregation in the new organization of the Curia, namely, the power of settling any doubts in relation to the competency of the other congregations, exception being made for the Holy Office, which is empowered to determine for itself all such doubts. Nevertheless, the Holy Office did not disdain to submit to the judgment of the Congregation of the Consistory a question that arose in regard to the competency of the former, after the promulgation of the Constitution "Sapienti consilio", It is the duty of the Congregation of the Consistory to send to bishops the invitations to assist at solemn canonizations or other solemn pontifical ceremonies, according to ancient custom.

Its proceedings are characterized by the same strict secrecy that marks the deliberations of the Holy Office. As to the division of business between the congresso and the full congregation of cardinals, the same arrangement obtains as in the other congregations, which is to leave to the congresso the matters of minor importance while matters of greater interest are considered in the full congregation. Among such matters are the nomination of bishops or of Apostolic administrators (except, in regard to the latter, in cases of urgency, in which the congresso acts alone), the creation of new dioceses, or the unification of existing ones, the erection of chapters, the drafting of general rules for the direction of seminaries, and other similar matters the enumeration of which would take us beyond the necessary limits of this article.

III. CONGREGATION OF THE SACRAMENTS

This congregation, which owes its existence to the recent Constitution "Sapienti consilio", exercises a great influence upon ecclesiastical discipline through the authority given to it in its establishment, to regulate all sacramental discipline. Its numerous and important duties were formerly divided among the other congregations and offices. As regards matrimony, for example, causes of matrimony ratified and not consummated were referred to the Congregation of the Council, dispensations for the external forum were granted by the Dataria or, in certain cases, the P nitentiaria; many matters relating to the Sacrament of the Eucharist belonged to the Congregation of Rites. Many other examples could be cited; now, however, all such matters pertain to the Congregation of the Sacraments, excepting the rights of the Holy Office, as said above, and the power of the Congregation of Rites to determine all that concerns the ceremonies to be observed in the administration of the sacraments. With so wide and important a field of activities, this congregation required a special organization. Accordingly, besides its cardinals, one of whom is its prefect, it has a secretary, who deals with all the matters referred to it, and who was later given three sub-secretaries -- a feature in which it differs from all other congregations. Each one of these sub-secretaries is the director of one of the following sections of the congregation.

A. The first section deals with all matrimonial dispensations, except those that imply disparity of religion, which pertain to the Holy Office. With regard to these dispensations it is important to note the distinction introduced by the Special Rules between impediments in the major degree and impediments in minor degree, and correspondingly between major and minor dispensations. Minor dispensations concern impediments of relationship or affinity of the third and the fourth degrees in the collateral line, whether of equal degrees, or of unequal degrees -- i. e., of the fourth degree with the third or of the third degree with the second. Minor dispensations are also given from impediments of affinity in the first degree, or in the second degree, whether simple or mixed -- i. e., of the first with the second degree -- when this impediment arises from illicit relations, or from spiritual kinship of whatever nature, or from impediments of public decorum, whether arising out of espousals or out of ratified marriage already dissolved by pontifical dispensation. Dispensations from these minor impediments are now granted ex rationalibus causis a S. Sede probatis, which means that none of the reasons formerly required, called canonical, are now necessary for obtaining the dispensations in question. Moreover, these dispensations are supposed to be given motu proprio and with certain knowledge, from which it follows that they are not vitiated by obreption or by subreption. The other impediments, and therefore the other dispensations are considered as of the major order, and the Special Rules show that the dispensations of this order more frequently granted are those relating to the impediment of consanguinity in the second collateral degree, or the mixed second or third degree with the first; those relating to affinity of the first or of the second equal collateral degree, or of the second or third with the first; finally, those relating to crime arising from adultery with a promise of future marriage.

B. The second section of the Congregation of the Sacraments also deals exclusively with matrimony, and exercises its functions in all matters concerning that sacrament, except dispensations from impediments. Of its competency, therefore, are the concessions of sanatio in radice, the legitimation of illegitimate children, dispensations from marriage ratified and not consummated, the solution of doubts concerning matrimonial law, and the hearing of causes concerning the validity of marriages. In regard to the latter, however, it is to be noted that, the new Constitution on the Curia having established a complete separation between those departments which exercise judicial power and those which are administrative, and, on the other hand, the very nature of matrimonial causes making it impossible to determine them administratively, this power granted to the Congregation of the Sacraments should be interpreted reasonably, in such a way as not to be at variance with the spirit of the new Constitution. It seems, therefore, that this faculty should be held to signify only that, in special cases, in which the sovereign pontiff, for special reasons, might consider it desirable to withdraw a matrimonial cause from the Rota, and submit it to the judgment of a congregation, the Congregation of the Sacraments should be considered the competent congregation under such circumstances. It must be admitted, further, that if a matrimonial cause be brought before this congregation, the congregation may, if it please, hastily review any matrimonial cause brought before it and reject it, if found futile, ab ipso limine. If, however, the cause be found admissible, the congregation should refer it to the Rota (unless there be a special commission of the pope to the contrary), seeing that the very nature of causes concerning the matrimonial bond, in which not private interests are at issue but the public welfare, demands that those causes be determined judicially, and not administratively.

None of this, however, applies to dispensation from a ratified, but not consummated, marriage, because the nature of such a case requires that it be determined administratively, since it relates to the concession of a grace. This does not do away with the necessity of establishing beyond doubt the non-consummation, or the existence of the requisite conditions for the dispensation, since these conditions constitute the proof that the sovereign pontiff has power, in the concrete case under consideration, to grant the dispensation validly and licitly, and therefore come within the domain of administrative power. On the other hand the congregation is always free to refer to the Rota the establishment of the fact of non-consummation.

C. The third section of this congregation deals with all matters concerning the other six sacraments than matrimony. It has authority in all matters touching the validity of ordinations, in all matters of discipline that concern these six sacraments and also the dispensations in such matters. In the Special Rules, as examples to illustrate the competency of this congregation, specification is made of some of the dispensations or graces reserved to it; these may be mentioned here for the guidance of those who may wish to apply to the Holy See. This section grants permission to preserve the Blessed Sacrament in churches or chapels which are not so authorized by common Law; to celebrate Mass in private chapels, exercising over them due supervision; to celebrate Mass before dawn, after midday, or in the open air; to celebrate Mass on Holy Thursday, or the three Masses of Christmas, at night, in private chapels; to wear a skull-cap or a wig either while celebrating Mass or in the exposition of the Blessed Sacrament; to blind and partially blind priests to celebrate the Votive Mass of the Blessed Virgin; to celebrate Mass aboard ship; to consecrate a bishop on a day other than those established by the Pontifical, or to confer Holy orders extra tempora, that is, on other days than those appointed by law; finally, to dispense the faithful -- even members of religious orders -- from the Eucharistic fast in cases of necessity.

The competency of this congregation is limited in relation both to persons and to places; its authority does not extend to places subject to Propaganda, or to members of religious orders, who for dispensations, relating even to the sacraments, must go to the Congregation of Religious (an exception being made in regard to the Eucharistic fast, as stated above). As to the sacrament of matrimony, however, the competency of the Congregation of the Sacraments is universal in relation to place; objectively, however, all that concerns the impediments of mixed religion or of disparity of worship and the Pauline privilege pertains exclusively to the Holy Office.

IV. CONGREGATION OF THE COUNCIL

When the Council of Trent had brought its gigantic work to an end, the Fathers were greatly concerned for the practical application of their disciplinary decrees. The council therefore made a strong appeal to the sovereign pontiff to make provision for this important end, as is shown by the last (the twenty-fifth) session of the council, entitled De recipiendis et observandis decretis. Pius IV, in his zeal for the execution of the Decrees of the Council of Trent, besides other measures taken by him to this end (see the Constitution "Benedictus Deus" of 26 January, 1563), by a Motu Proprio of 2 August, 1564, commissioned eight cardinals to supervise the execution of the Tridentine Decrees and gave them ample faculties to that end, providing however, that cases of doubt or of difficulty, as he had already decreed in the Constitution "Benedictus Deus", should be referred to him. In this Motu Proprio, Pius IV referred to the congregation of cardinals thus created as "Congregatio super exsecutione et observatione S. Concilii Tridentini". As time went on, and in view of the interpretation of frequent doubts, the congregation received from the successors of Pius IV the power also to interpret the Decrees of the Council of Trent, so that Sixtus V, in his Constitution "Immensa", already calls it "Congregatio pro exsecutione et interpretatione Concilii Tridentini", a title given to it before his time. Gregory XIV afterwards conferred upon it authority to reply to questions in the name of the pope.

The number of cardinals composing the Congregation of the Council was never restricted to eight, for to that number, which had been assigned by Pius IV, four more were soon added. The number was generally greater than the original eight, and always variable, depending upon circumstances and upon the wishes of the Holy Father. One of its cardinals has the office of prefect, it also has a secretary, and that office has always been filled by eminent men, some of them famous -- to take a few examples, Fagnano, Petra, and Prospero Lambertini, afterwards Benedict XIV. A sub-secretary and other minor officials complete the personnel of the Congregation of the Council. In its origin, and indeed until the new Constitution on the Curia, this congregation was without consultors, although a special congregation created by Pius IX for the revision of provincial councils had consultors from 1849, and these consultors in course of time were employed in the transaction of the business of the Congregation of the Council. The recent Constitution, which suppressed the special congregation for the synods, endowed the Congregation of the Council with consultors, to be selected by the pope, some of whom must be conversant with matters of administration.

The competency of this congregation, extending to the interpretation and to the execution of the Decrees of the Council of Trent, which relate to almost all the branches of canon law, was very great. When the Rota ceased to exercise judicial functions, matrimonial causes were referred to the Congregation of the Council. There were also added to this congregation a Commission of prelates, established by Benedict XIV, for the examination of the reports of bishops on the state of their dioceses (which was commonly called "the Little Council"), and the special congregation, mentioned above, created by Pius IX, for the revision of provincial councils. At present, the interpretation of the Decrees of the Council of Trent is no longer of the exclusive competency of the Congregation of the Council, but is shared by each congregation within the limits of its particular jurisdiction. On the other hand, the tribunals of the Curia may, upon occasion, interpret those Decrees judicially, in their application to concrete cases. The present competency of the Congregation of the Council, although differing a good deal from what it formerly was, is nevertheless extensive. In general this congregation has the supervision of discipline of the secular clergy and of the Christian people. From which it may be seen that, while this congregation has lost jurisdiction in many matters that formerly pertained to it -- the sacraments, the religious orders, matrimonial causes, and other matters -- it has almost absorbed the business of the former Congregation of Bishops and Regulars -- in so far as relates to bishops. It has charge of the observance of ecclesiastical precepts; consequently, fasting, abstinence, tithes, and the observance of feast days are within its jurisdiction, and to it recourse must be had for dispensations in those matters. Parish priests and canons, pious sodalities, pious unions, beneficent societies, stipends for Masses, rural banks, diocesan tributes, ecclesiastical benefices, and kindred interests are also under its jurisdiction. In brief, it exercises jurisdiction over diocesan activities In regard to both clergy and laity, as the Congregation of the Consistory exercises authority over the diocese in relation to its constitution, its conservation, and its development.

In this congregation, as in others, matters of greater importance are considered by the full congregation of the cardinals; among these matters are the interpretation of laws in doubtful cases, the granting of unusual dispensations, the revision of provincial councils, and the like. Matters of less moment are determined by the congresso, To give an idea of the methods of procedure, it may be said, for example, that in the revision of a provincial council, all the records of the council are referred to a consultor who is required to give a written opinion upon them. This report is printed, and is distributed to at least five other consultors, if not to all of the consultors, together with the records of the council. After the private preparation which each is bound to make, the chosen consultors, or the entire college of consultors, meet and, in as many sessions as the case may require, discuss all the Acts of the council. The written opinion above referred to, with a report of the discussion of the consultors and of the proposed corrections and modifications, is then submitted to the full congregation of the cardinals, who, in turn, examine all the records of the matter, order the corrections to be made, and approve the council.

V. CONGREGATION OF RELIGIOUS

Sixtus V first erected by a Brief of 17 May, 1586, and afterwards, by the Constitution "Immensa", confirmed, a congregation "super consultationibus regularium" distinct from the congregation "super consultationibus episcoporum et aliorum prælatorum" mentioned in the same Constitution. In 1601 these two congregations were already combined in the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, to which, in course of time, were united three other congregations whose functions were closely related. These three were: the Congregation on the State of Religious (super statu regularium), created by Innocent X on 15 August, 1652, for the reformation of regulars in Italy, and suppressed by lnnocent XII on 4 August, 1698; the Congregation on Regular Discipline (super disciplina regulari), instituted by Innocent XII on 18 July, 1695, for the reformation of regulars not only in Italy but throughout the whole world; the Congregation on the State of the Regular Orders (super statu regularium ordinum), created by Pius IX on 17 June, 1847. The last-named and the one on regular discipline were suppressed by Pius X, by the Motu Proprio of 26 May, 1906, which united these congregations with that of Bishops and Regulars. The new Constitution of Pius X abolishes the Congregation of Regulars and Bishops and transfers that part of its business which concerns bishops to the Congregation of the Council, and that part of it which concerns regulars to a congregation (oongregatio negotiis religiosorum sodalium præposita) created by the new Constitution, and which by common usage sanctioned by the legend on the official seal of the congregation, has received the name of Congregation of Religious.

This body has the usual organization of the Roman Congregations. It is formed of several cardinals, who are chosen by the pope, and one of whom is the prefect of the congregation; these cardinals are assisted by a secretary and a sub-secretary, who are the major officials of the congregation, and by several minor officials. In regard to the latter it is to be noted that, as the amount of its business necessitates a division of the congregation into three parts (as in the case of the Congregation of the Sacraments), the highest dignitaries among the minor officials are the three assistants who are placed over the three sections. One of these sections has to deal with matters relating to religious orders; another, with the business of religious congregations or associations of men, of whatever nature those associations may be; the third, with business relating to congregations of women. This congregation also has a college of consultors.

The Constitution of Pius X clearly defines the competency of this congregation, which is to pass judgment upon all matters relating to religious persons of either sex, whether bound by solemn or by simple vows, or to those persons who, although they be not religious in the canonical sense of the word, live as religious -- such as the oblates of certain communities of men or of women, who, without being bound by vows, live a common life under an approved rule. The third orders, consisting of seculars, are also under this congregation. It decides in litigations between members of religious orders, or between religious and bishops, and it is the competent tribunal in eases which have to be dealt with in the way of discipline (in via disciplinari) where a religious appears either as plaintiff or as defendant. Hence it is to be inferred, and indeed is expressly stated in the Constitution, that causes which have to be dealt with in the judicial way must be referred to the Rota, the rights of the Holy Office being always safeguarded. Finally, all common law dispensations to regulars pertain to this congregation, excepting dispensation from the Eucharistic fast, which, as said above, pertains to the Congregation of the Sacraments. The Congregation of Religious is alone competent to approve new religions institutes and their constitutions, as well as to modify institutes already approved, and these being matters of grave importance, the full congregation deals with them.

VI. CONGREGATION OF PROPAGANDA

This is the abbreviated title of the congregation officially known as Sacra Congregatio de propaganda fide, or christiano nomini propagando, the chief functions of which concern the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs in what are commonly known as "missionary countries". It had its origin in a commission of cardinals established under Gregory XIII (1572-85), which became a congregation properly so called under Gregory XV (1621-23). Before the Constitution "Sapienti consilio" (29 June, 1908) came into force, the Congregation of Propaganda had jurisdiction over several countries in which normal Catholic hierarchies of the Latin Rite were established, but the Constitution adopted, in general, the plan of leaving to Propaganda only those countries or districts (excepting for the Oriental rites mentioned below) where ecclesiastical authority is vested in vicars or prefects Apostolic. Thus, Great Britain, the United States, Canada, Holland, and the Duchy of Luxemburg were removed from the jurisdiction of Propaganda, although, as an exception to the general rule, Australia, where a normal hierarchy exists, was allowed to remain under that jurisdiction. Besides its territorial jurisdiction, however, the congregation is invested with a personal jurisdiction over the spiritual affairs of all Catholics, in any part of the world, who belong to any of the Oriental rites. (A full account of the history, scope, methods, and work of this congregation will be found in the separate article PROPAGANDA, SACRED CONGREGATION OF.)

VII. CONGREGATION OF THE INDEX

There has always been felt in the Church, especially since the invention of printing, the necessity of preventing the faithful from reading books that might ruin either faith or morals. As early as 1501 a Constitution of Alexander VI, addressed to the four ecclesiastical provinces of Germany, contains very wise prescriptions, later confirmed and extended to the whole world by Leo X in the Fifth Council of the Lateran (1515). In keeping with these laws, catalogues of the books prohibited were published by private enterprise, and sometimes with ecclesiastical authority, not, however, the supreme authority of the Church. Among these mention should be made of the three of Louvain, 1546 (approved by the emperor and published by the university), 1550, and 1558; that of Spain; that of Paris, published by the Sorbonne in 1542; that of Cologne, published by the university in 1549; that of Venice, published by Casa, the Apostolic nuncio, in 1549, and another, published in 1554 by the Inquisition; that of Florence, 1552, also published by the Inquisition; that of Milan, published in 1554 by the archbishop.

The custom of forming these indexes having been established (the catalogues being sometimes arranged alphabetically) there soon asserted itself the necessity for a general index under the supreme authority of the Church, and Paul IV commissioned the Holy Office to prepare such an index, which was accordingly published in 1557, and again, more accurately, in 1559. Later appeared the Tridentine Index, so called because its publication was ordered by the great council. It was approved and published by Pius IV in 1564. This index was often reprinted, always with new additions, and it is now followed, having been modified and corrected by Leo XIII who, in 1900, published it with his Constitution "Officiorum ac munerum", in which he abolished the old laws and established new ones for the condemnation and for the preliminary censure of books.

In 1571 Pius V created the Congregation for the Reform of the Index and for the Correction of Books (de reformando indice et corrigendis libris). In the following year Gregory XIV gave a better form to this congregation, which Sixtus V confirmed by his Constitution "Immensa", It retains its primitive organization to the present day, the Constitution of Pius X having introduced no notable alterations. Like all the other congregations it consists of a number of cardinals, one of whom is its prefect; the master of the Sacred Palace (a Dominican) is ex officio its assistant. Pius V, by a Motu Proprio of 1570, had already amply authorized that functionary to correct published books. Another Dominican is the secretary of the Congregation of the Index, which has a college of consultors whose office is to deliver written opinions on the books submitted to their judgment by the congregation. The Congregation of the Index censures and condemns books which it considers dangerous to faith or morals. Its jurisdiction is universal, extending to all Catholics. It can therefore grant permission for the reading of a book that has been condemned, or for the publication of corrected editions of books that have been proscribed. Its functions are naturally related to those of the Holy Office, of which it may with some reason be considered an appendix or auxiliary congregation. The Constitution of Pius X provides that, notwithstanding the strict secrecy to which the officers of both congregations are held, they may communicate to each other, upon occasion, those proceedings which relate to the prohibition of books, though they may communicate nothing else. One change made by Pius X in the functions of this congregation considerably widens the scope of its activities: the traditional rule was that the Index did not condemn any book which had not been denounced to it; now, on the contrary, the congregation is charged with the work of seeking out pernicious publications, and, after mature examination, condemning and proscribing them.

The procedure of the congregation was accurately determined by an instruction of Clement VIII and by a Constitution (9 July, 1753) of Benedict XIV. The consultor or consultors selected for the examination of a book to be judged, having made their written report, if it appears that the book should be condemned, a preparatory congregation is held, which consists of the Master of the Sacred Palace, the Secretary of the Index, and six consultors, versed in the matter of which the book treats and selected by the cardinal prefect. At this meeting, the passages of the publication of which complaint is made are diligently examined, and the question whether or not they contain errors is discussed. The secretary prepares an accurate report of the views of the preparatory congregation, and then refers it to the full congregation of the cardinals, at which the cause is carefully examined and final judgment is rendered. Benedict XIV required great consideration to be shown to any distinguished Catholic writer who enjoyed a good name. Not only did this pope prescribe that the work of such a writer should not be condemned without some formula calculated to mitigate the severity of the condemnation, such as donec corrigatur or donec expurqetur ("until it be corrected," "until it be expurgated"), but, he provided that the matter should first be referred to the author himself, and his attention called to the objectionable passages. If the author then refused to deal with the congregation, or rejected the corrections that were required, the decree of condemnation was to be published. If, however, the author prepared a new edition, the decree of condemnation was not to be published, unless a great number of the copies containing the errors had been circulated, in which case, of course, the public welfare would require the publication of the decree; but the pope provided that it should be made clear that only the first edition was comprised in the condemnation.

VIII. CONGREGATION OF RITES

This congregation was established by Sixtus V in his Constitution "Immensa", to which frequent reference has already been made. The organization of the Congregation of Rites does not differ from that of other Roman congregations, there being a certain number of cardinals, assisted by a secretary and a surrogate (sostituto), and also by an adequate number of minor officials. Besides these, the Congregation of Rites, in view of special functions to which reference will be made further on, has a great number of prelates, officials, and consultors. The order of precedence among the consultors is determined by length of service in their office. The prelate-officials sit in the following order: first, after the secretary of the congregation, is the sacristan to His Holiness, after whom comes one of the Apostolic prothonotaries permanently attached to this office, next is the dean of the Rota, with the two oldest auditors, after these the master of the Sacred Palace, the promotor of the Faith, and the assessor, or sub-promotor. Although there are no ex-officio consultors, that is, no consultors who by reason of theft office in the Curia are entitled to sit among the consultors of this congregation, there are, nevertheless, certain religious orders -- the Friars Minor, the Servites, the Barnabites, the Jesuits -- which have obtained from different popes the privilege of being represented by one member each in this college of consultors.

The Congregation of Rites has a double function. It is charged with the direction of the Liturgy of the Latin Church, and therefore, with the supervision of the performance of the rites prescribed by the Church for the celebration of the sacred mysteries and other ecclesiastical functions and offices, and also, with the granting of all privileges, personal or local, temporary or perpetual, which relate to the rites or ceremonies of the Church. It is manifest that the duties of this congregation are of the highest importance: they are concerned with the solemnity of the worship offered to God, the maintenance of the Faith, and the development of devotion and of Christian sentiment among the faithful. The same congregation has another Charge of no less importance: the decision of causes of beatification and canonization of servants of God, and of the veneration of their relics.

In the process of beatification and canonization the most important official is the promotor of the Faith, whose chief duty it is to diligently examine the local investigations carried out by the authority of the bishops, or, at Rome, of the pope, and to bring out in them all that may in any way cast doubt upon the heroic virtue of the servant of God whose cause is under consideration. It is on account of this duty, which implies a systematic opposition to the proofs of sanctity, that the official in question has come to be popularly called "the devil's advocate". It is easy to see, however, that this office conduces to the splendour of the Church and to the honour of the Faith; for to declare a servant of God to be a saint is to propose him as a model to the faithful, and one cannot fail to see how necessary it is that this be done only in the case of one truly heroic, of whose virtue in the heroic degree the pontiff has acquired the greatest moral certainty that human means can establish. It is true that the assistance of the Holy Ghost cannot fail the head of the Church of Jesus Christ in a matter of this kind; but the sovereign pontiff is not on that account exempt from the obligation of acting in the premises with all the circumspection that human prudence requires. And in this effort to attain human certainty the pope is greatly assisted by the promotor of the Faith, who, after a preliminary study of the cause, has to propose objections in regard to the validity of the proceedings and the credibility of the testimony as well as all the objections possibly to be found in the life of the servant of God whose cause is being examined, and in the miracles alleged to have been performed by God at the intercession of that servant. These objections are presented in the three congregations, or meetings, held to consider the question of virtue, and in the other three which are held to consider the question of the miracles. The promotor of the Faith is always selected from among the Consistorial advocates, and always has the assistance of a sub-advocate who takes his place, upon occasion, and who in every instance acts in the name of the promotor. The latter official formerly had the power to appoint, and to remove, his assistant. Besides these two chief officials, the congregation has a special notary for that part of its functions which concerns canonization.

The congregations, or meetings held to consider the question of virtue, like those at which the question of miracles is considered, are generally three in number. The first of them is called the ante-preparatory, and is attended by the prelate-officials and the consultors, under the presidency of the cardinal relator of the cause, who does not vote, but who, upon the votes of the others who are present, determines whether the case deserves to go beyond this hearing. The second meeting, called the preparatory, is attended by all the cardinals of the congregation, by the prelate-officials, and by the consultors. At this meeting the cardinals do not vote, but, after hearing the votes of the others present, determine whether the cause may be carried to a discussion before the pope, which is done only when there is moral certainty of a successful issue. This meeting is the most interesting of all; in it the cause not infrequently falls to the ground. Assuming, however, that the cardinals do not throw out the case definitively, it very often happens that another preparatory meeting called nova preparatoria is required, to elucidate some point relating to the virtue of the servant of God or to the miracles in question. Sometimes there is even a third meeting for the same purpose. The regular third meeting is called the general congregation. It is held under the presidency of the sovereign pontiff himself and is attended by all the cardinals who form the Congregation of Rites, the prelate-officials, and the consultors, all of whom vote -- the consultors and the prelate-officials first, and then, when the consultors have withdrawn, the cardinals. The pope decides definitively; as a rule, however, he does not pronounce his judgment at once, but takes time to deliberate and to implore Divine light upon the question. Besides the above meetings, others, called ordinary and special ordinary, are held for the purpose of examining the proceedings and the proof of the fame of sanctity which is necessary for the introduction of a cause of beatification. (See also BEATIFICATION AND CANONIZATION.)

Returning to the first duty of this congregation, which is the supervision and direction of the Liturgy, it may be said that the inspection, correction, and condemnation of liturgical books of whatever kind pertain to the Congregation of Rites (saving always the prerogatives of the Holy Office in matters of faith), as well as the approbation of new liturgical Offices and calendars, and especially the authoritative solution of all doubts which may arise on liturgical matters. Recourse must be had, therefore, to this congregation for all faculties, indulgences, and dispensations relating to liturgical functions. Thus, for example it is for the Congregation of Rites to grant the faculty to bless sacred vestments, the authorization to expose upon the altar the image of one who has been beatified, or to dedicate an altar to such a servant of God, the right to wear special insignia during choral offices, etc. In the performance of these functions, the Congregation of Rites is assisted by three commissions, established within its own body. The first of these is the Liturgical Commission, created for the revision of Decrees concerning rites. This work was begun and finished by Leo XIII, the congregation publishing an authentic edition of its Decrees (1898-1900). Although the work for which it was created has been done, this commission remains, and is now consulted on more important questions which may arise concerning the sacred rites. The second commission, also instituted by Leo XIII, in 1902, is the Historico-Liturgical Commission, which has the function of judging historical questions concerning the sacred rites. The third is the Commission on Sacred Music, created by Pius X, in 1904, the functions of which are connected with the Motu Proprio on sacred music of 1903 and with other acts of Pius X on the same subject. (See the letter of 8 December, 1903, to Cardinal Respighi, the Decree of 8 January, 1904, the Motu Proprio of the 25 April, 1904, on the Vatican edition of the liturgical books, and the other two Decrees of 11 and 14 August, 1905.)

IX. CONGREGATION OF CEREMONIES

It is not quite certain who created this congregation. Many attribute its establishment to Sixtus V, others to his immediate predecessor, Gregory XIII. Haine says that the latter opinion is proved to be correct by the records of the congregation itself. Supposing this to be the case, the error of certain authors is apparent, when they consider this congregation to be little more than a branch of the Congregation of Rites or to have derived its existence from the latter. It is, on the contrary, more ancient than the last-named congregation, and deals directly with the highest division of the Liturgy, considering the personages whom it concerns. For this congregation is charged with the direction of all the papal ceremonies, as well as of the ceremonial of cardinals, whether in the pontifical court (aula) or chapel (cappella pontificia), or elsewhere. It is reasonable that a special congregation should have under its care ceremonies so august and solemn, since it is of the highest importance that when the supreme head of the Church participates in ecclesiastical functions attended by the most illustrious dignitaries of the Church, all should be in keeping with that decorum which befits their exalted character. As in all courts there is a grand master of ceremonies, charged with the direction of the sovereign's acts on occasions of State, so it was necessary that at the pontifical Court there should be an authority to preside over such functions. This requirement is supplied by the Congregation of Ceremonies, which, besides the direction of liturgical functions, is charged with the direction of the pontifical court ceremonial for the reception of sovereigns or of ambassadors. It also communicates instructions to the legates of the Holy See for the maintenance of due decorum in transacting the affairs of their missions. This congregation also instructs the members of the Noble Guard and the ablegate who are sent to convey to new cardinals, living in Catholic states outside of Rome, the news of their promotion, together with the cardinal's hat and the red biretta. It instructs newly-promoted cardinals, too, on the etiquette to be followed conformably with their new dignity. Finally, it solves the questions of precedence which arise among cardinals or among ambassadors to the Holy See.

X. CONGREGATION OF EXTRAORDINARY ECCLESIASTICAL AFFAIRS

In former times, when questions of exceptional interest to the Church presented themselves, and circumstances required that they should in prudence be treated with secrecy, the popes were wont to establish special congregations of cardinals for the consideration of those matters. These congregations were called congregations of State. Pius VI, following this custom, on the occasion of the revolutionary conditions of France in 1793, established a congregation of this kind, which he called the Congregation for the Ecclesiastical Affairs of France (Congregatio super negotiis ecclesiasticis regni Galliarum), a title which Pius VII, in 1805, changed to Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs (Congregatio de negotiis ecclesiasticis extraordinariis). This congregation remained in existence until 1809, when the exile of Pius VII brought it to an end. In 1814, when Pius VII returned to Rome, the needs of the Church being still exceptional, the pope re-established this congregation under the title of Extraordinary Congregation for the Ecclesiastical Affairs of the Catholic World (Congregatio extraordinaria præposita negotiis ecclesiasticis orbis catholici). In 1827, however, the congregation reassumed its former name of Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, which it retains to the present time. At the head of this congregation is the secretary of State, who presides over it not as prefect, but in virtue of his office; and although it has a secretary and a sub-secretary, the congregation nevertheless has no secretary's office of its own, the first section of the office of the secretary of State serving the purpose. The scope of the powers of this congregation is not fixed. It was created for extraordinary affairs, and deals only with such matters as the sovereign pontiff, through his secretary of State, may submit to its study and judgment.

XI. CONGREGATION OF STUDIES

Sixtus V, by his Constitution "Immensa", established a special congregation for the Roman University (Congregatio pro universitate studii romani). This establishment of learning was founded by Boniface VIII in 1303; it was later known by the name of Sapienza, and in time became extinct. In 1824, Leo XII created a new congregation to preside over the studies not only of Rome, but of all the Pontifical States. After the events of 1870, this congregation remained intact, and acquired new importance. Consisting, like all the others, of an adequate number of cardinals, the Congregation of Studies has a secretary of its own, under whom are several officials, and a college of consultors. Pursuant to the provisions of the new Constitution of Pius X, the jurisdiction of this congregation is no longer limited to the Pontifical States, much less to Rome. On the contrary, the Congregation of Studies exercises its influence throughout the Catholic world; for it directs the studies of all the greater universities or faculties under the authority of the Church, not excepting those under religious orders or congregations. It grants the faculty of conferring academic degrees, which it may also confer itself, in which case they have the same value as those conferred by an ecclesiastical university. It authorizes the establishment of new universities as well as changes in the conditions of universities already established, the authorization in either case being given by means of a pontifical Brief. As in other congregations, all graver matters must be referred to the full congregation of cardinals, which therefore determines the establishment of new universities, the more important changes in universities already existing, and the graver questions which may present themselves for solution in such institutions, the general conduct of which it also directs. Matters of minor importance are determined by its congresso.

XII. CONGREGATION OF LORETO

From the time of Sixtus IV, the care of the famous sanctuary of Loreto has been reserved exclusively to the Holy See, the arrangement having been confirmed by many successive pontiffs and especially by Julius II and Paul V. Innocent XII, in 1698, established a congregation of cardinals to preside over the affairs of the Sanctuary of Loreto; and this congregation was not abolished by the recent Constitution of Pius X, which, on the contrary, provides that the Congregation of Loreto shall remain distinct from the others, although united to the Congregation of the Council. Until the time of Gregory XVI, the Congregation of Loreto which consists of a suitable number of cardinals, had the cardinal secretary of State for its prefect; now, however, this office is filled by the prefect of the Congregation of the Council; while the secretary of the latter congregation is also secretary of the Congregation of Loreto, an office formerly belonging to the sub-datary. The competency of this congregation, until the reign of Pius VII, was extensive, since it included jurisdiction not only over the Holy House of Loreto and its property, but also over civil and criminal matters connected with that sanctuary. This jurisdiction was restricted by Pius VII, but was again extended by Leo XII. The new Constitution of Pius X does not define the powers of the Congregation of Loreto; they are certainly much diminished, however, by the events of the last fifty years in Italy and now relate chiefly to the restorations of the basilica and supervision of the numerous pilgrimages to the shrine. The Congregation of the Council transacts the business of the Congregation of Loreto according to the rules of procedure in all other matters of its competency.

XIII CONGREGATION OF THE FABRIC OF ST. PETER'S

When the ancient Basilica of St. Peter was crumbling through age, Julius II conceived the grand project of building a new temple in the place of the old one, after the plans of Bramante; and on the Saturday next after Easter, 1506, he laid its foundation stone. He realized the enormous expense that must be entailed by the realization of his project, which was to be accomplished by the charity of the faithful, convinced of the glory that would accrue to Jesus Christ and to His Church through the completion of so majestic a work. If in the Old Testament, God had wished a most sumptuous temple to stand in Jerusalem, it was right that in the New Testament another, most majestic, temple should rise to the glory of His Christ, the Man God. And, to encourage the faithful to contribute to so holy a work, the popes were bountiful in the concession of privileges and of indulgences in favour of the generous contributors to the great work. Clement VII, in 1523, established a college of sixty members which was charged with providing for the building of the basilica. This college having been suppressed, Clement VIII replaced it with a special congregation which he named the Congregation of the Fabric of St. Peter's. From the time of Sixtus V, the cardinal archpriest of the basilica itself was the prefect of this congregation. Benedict XIV introduced considerable changes: he left to the congregation the constitution given it by Clement VIII, with its cardinal prefect, its numerous prelates and officials, such as the auditor and the treasurer of the Apostolic Camera, and others, but to this congregation he added a special one consisting of the cardinal prefect and three other cardinals, which was to have precedence in everything and to exercise and have the exclusive economical control of the basilica. The general congregation was to occupy itself thereafter only with contentious causes, since the Congregation of the Fabric still had jurisdiction in such cases, and in fact was the only competent tribunal for causes connected with the building. Pius IX, having abolished special tribunals, including that of the Fabric, saw that the general congregation was left without any province. He thereupon abolished the two congregations of Benedict XIV and established a single one, consisting not of three, but of more than three, cardinals, to which he confided the economical administration and the conservation of the basilica, adding to this charge that of the administration of many pious legacies and of Mass stipends, with authority to modify them according to circumstances. This congregation, therefore, was empowered to grant reductions of the obligations of Masses and permission to defer the celebration of these Masses for a longer time than that allowed by the rule; to allow the executors of pious legacies to make adjustments for past omissions, to delegate this power more or less extensively to bishops, and so forth.

Pius X, by his new Constitution, has restricted the competency of this congregation to the administration of the property, and to the maintenance of the basilica, a task by no means light, seeing that immense sums are expended upon it. Grimaldi (Les congrégations romaines, xxii) asserts that the expense amounts to 190,000 lire (nearly $38,000) each year, which is not surprising, when it is considered that the lay employees of the basilica and those of the second class, called San Pietrini, alone amount to nearly 300 in number. Under the authority of this congregation is also the Studio del mosaico established by Sixtus V, and famous throughout the world for the perfection of its work and for the exquisite beauty of its art.

I. A QUEMADA, Tract. de fisco inquisitionis (Toledo, 1564); LOCATI, Opus judiciale inquisitorum (Rome, 1572); VANDERANI, Enchiridion inquisitionis (Venice, 1575); EYMERICUS, Directorium inquisitorum (Rome, 1578); BERNARDUS DE COMO, Lucerna inquisitorum hæreticæ pravitatis (Rome, 1584); MENDEZ DE VASCONCELLOS, De sententiis inquisitionis (Rome, 1596); DE PARAMO, De origine et progressu sanctae inquisitionis et de delegata inquisitorum potestate (Madrid, 1598); IDEM, Pro defensione jurisdictionis sanctæ inquisitionis (Madrid, 1598); FARINACCI, Decisiones criminales de judiciis et tortura (Vicenza, 1607); GARCIA, Processus s. inquisitionis (Madrid, 1607); PEÑA, Inquirendorum hæreticorum lucerna (Milan, 1610); MASINI, Sacro arsenale, ovvero prattica dell' Officio della S. Inquisitione (Genoa, 1625); CARENA, Tract. de officio S. Inquisitionis et modo procedendi in causis fidei (Cremona, 1641); ALBERGHINI, Manuale qualificatorum S. Inquisitionis, in quo omnia, quâ ad illud tribunal ac hæresium censuram pertinent, brevi methodo adducuntur (Palermo, 1642); SALLELLES, De materiis tribunalium s. inquisitionis seu de regulis multiplicibus pro formando quovis eorum ministro, pr sertim consultore; pr missis XII prolegomenis de origine et progressu dictorum tribunalium (Rome, 1651); PEÑA-CARENA, Instructio seu praxis inquisitorum (Cremona, 1655); RODRIGUEZ, Allegationes fiscales, seu de confiscatione bonorum in officio sanctae inquisitionis (Lyons, 1663); BORDONI, Sacrum tribunal judicum in causis sanctæ fidei (Lyons, 1665); SAUSSAY, Aphorismi inquisitorum (Lyons, 1669); DEL BENE, De officio S. Inquisitionis (Rome, 1672); MACEDO, Schema S. Congregationis S. Officii romani cum elogiis cardinalium (Padua, 1676); DE LUCA, Il Cardinale pratico (Rome, 1680), xxv; ALBIZI, De inconstantia in fide (Amsterdam, 1683); NERI, De judice s. inquisitionis (Florence, 1685); MENGHINI, Regole del tribunale di S. Offizio (Ferrara, 1687); ALBIZI, De inconstantia in judiciis (Rome, 1698); MASINI, Sacro arsenale, ovvero pratica dell' offizio della s. inquisitione (Rome, 1730); DANIELI, Recentior praxis curia romanae, IV (Rome, 1759), tit. 28; DE LUCA, Relatio curia roman (Venice, 1759), dissert. 14; CAMACHO GUERRIERO DE ABOYM, De privilegiis familiarum officialiumque s. inquisitionis (Lisbon, 1859); SIMOR, De sacris congregationibus romanis et illarum auctoritate in Archiv. f. k. KR., XI (Mainz, 1864), 410-23; SIMOR, De s. Congreg. romanis s. officii et concilii in Archiv. f. k. KR., XV (1866), 133-40; CADÈNE, De secreto s. officii in Anal. eccl. (Rome), V, 498; CAUZONS, Hist. de l'inquisition en France: I. Les origines de l'inquisition (Paris, 1909); ANTONIUS CORDUBENSIS, Opus de indulgentiis (Alcalá, 1554); THEODORUS A SP. SANCTO, Tract. dogm. moralis de indulgentiis (Rome, 1743); FALISE, S. Congregationis indulgentiarum resolutiones authentica, pt. I (Louvain, 1862); PRINZIVALLI, Resolutiones seu decreta authentica S. Congregationis indulgentiis sacrisque reliquiis pr posita ab anno 1860 ad ann. 1861 accurate collecta (Rome, 1862); Decreta authentica S. Congregationis Indulgentiarum edita jussu et auctoritate Leonis XIII (Ratisbon, 1883); SCHNEIDER (ed.), Rescripta authentica S. Congr. Indulgentiarum, nec non summaria indulgentiarum (Ratisbon, 1885); MELATA, Manuale de indulgentiis (Rome, 1892); MOCCHEGIANI, Collectio indulgentiarum theologice, canonice ac historice digesta (Quaruacchi, 1897); LEPICIER, Le indulgenze, loro origine, natura e svolgimento. Opera tradotta dall' originale inglese del sac. Luigi Cappelli (Siena, 1897); GOTTLOB, Kreuzablass und Almosenablass (1905).

II. MARCELLI, De sacris c rem, sive ritib. eccl. S. R. E. (Rome, 1560); PALEOTTI, De Sacri consistorii consultationibus (Rome, 1592); GABRIELLI, Tract. de sacri consistorii consultationibus (Venice, 1594); COHELLIUS, Notitia cardinalatus . . . Congr. VII pro erectione ecclesiarum et provision. consistorial. (Rome, 1653); LUNADORO, Relazione della corte di Roma (Venice, 1664), cap. vi, Della congreg. concist.; PLETTENBERG, Notitia congregationum et tribunalium curia romana (Hildesheim 1593); DE MATTA, De consistorialibus causis (Naples, 1694); PLATUS, Tract. de cardinals dignitate et officio (Rome, 1746), cap. xxviii; App. un. de Consistorio et de S. R. E. cardin. Congreg. ac de aliis Pap magistrat.; DANIELI, Recentior praxis curi roman (Venice, 1759); DE LUCA, Rel. cur. rom. (Cologne, 1683), il cardinale pratico, cap. xxx della Congreg. Concist.

IV. Thesaurus resolutionum S. Congr. Concilii (ab anno 1718); COHELLIUS, op. Cit., Congr. VI super executione et interpretatione Sacri Concilii Tridentini; LUNADORO, op. cit., x, Della congregatione del concilio a della congregazione particolare sullo stato delle chiese, del secretario e di altri ministri di dette congregazioni; FAGNANUS, Comm. in quinque libros Decretalium, in cap. Quoniam de constitutionibus (Venice, 1674); DE LUCA, Il Cardinale pratico; cap. della congr. del Concilio di Trento; DANIELI, op. cit., s. v.; MÜHLBAUER, Thesaurus resolutionum S. Congr. Concilii usque ad annum 1871 (Munich, 1872-); ZAMBONI, Collectio declarationum, S. Congr. Card. Conc. Trid. interpretum (Rome, 1816); GAMBERINI, Resolutiones select S. Congr. Concilii, qu consentanee ad Trid. PP. decreta aliasque juris canonici sanctiones prodierunt in causis propositis per summaria precum, ann, 1823-1825 (1842); STREMLER, Traités des peines eccl. de l'appel et des Congrég. rom. (Paris, 1860); RICHTER-SCHULTE, Canones et decreta Concilii Tridentini (Leipzig, 1853); PALLOTTINI, Coll. omnium conclusionum et resolutionum qu in causis propositis apud S. Congreg. Cardinalium prodierunt ab anno 1564 ad annum 1860 (Rome, 1868-); LINGEN-REUSS, Caus select in S. Congr. Card. Conc. Trid. interpr. proposit per summaria precum ab anno 1823 usque ad annum 1869 (Ratisbon, 1871); PARAYRE, La s. congrégation du concile (1897); SÄGMÜLLER, Die Geschichte der Congr. Conc, Trid. vor d. Motuproprio "Alias nos" v. 2 aug., 1564, in Arch. f. k. KR., LXXX (1900); IDEM, Die visitatio liminum SS. Apostolorum bis Bonifaz VIII in Theol. Quartalschr., LXXXII (1900), 69 sqq.

V. COHELLIUS, op. cit., Congr. VIII pro consultationibus episcoporum et aliorum prelatorum; Congr. IX pro consultationibus regularium; LUNADORO, op. cit., cap. xi, Della congregazione dei vescovi e dei regolari, del segretario e di altri ministri di detta congregazione; cap. xiii, Della congregazione della disciplina regolare; DE LUCA, Rel. rom. curi for., disc. 16; IDEM, Il cardinale pratico, cap. xxvii, Della congregazione sopra i negozi dei vescovi e dei regolari dell' uno e dell' altro sesso; DANIELLI, op. cit., s. v.; BIZZARRI, Collectanea in usum secretari S. Congr. episcoporum et regularium (Rome, 1885); BASTIEN, Directoire canonique à l'usage des congrégations à v ux simples (Maredsous, 1904); BATTANDIER, Guide canonique pour les constitutions des instituts à v ux simples (2nd ed., Paris, 1905); ARNDT, Rechtsbestimmungen für Orden und Kongregationen (Paderborn, 1908).

VII. COHELLIUS, op. cit.; Congr. X pro indice librorum prohibitorum; GRETSER, De jure et more prohibendi expurgandi et abolendi libros hæreticos et noxios (Ingoldstadt, 1653); RAYNAUDUS, Erotemata de malis ac bonis libris deque justa aut injusta eorum confixione (Lyons, 1653); LUNADORO, op. cit., cap. ix, Della congregazione dell' indice e del segretario della medesima; DE LUCA, Rel. rom. Curiæ for., disc. 19; FRANCUS, Disquisitio academica de papistarum indicibus librorum prohibendorum et expurgandorum (Leipzig, 1684); ORTLOB, Diss, phil. de Ephesinorum libris curiosis combustis (Leipzig, 1708); BOEHMER, Dissert. jurid. de jure circa libros improbatæ lectionis (Magdeburg, 1726); SCHÖTTGEN, De indicibus librorum prohibit. et expurg. eorumque n vis (Dresden, 1733); RUELE, Saggio dell' istoria dell' indice romano (Rome, 1739); CATALANI, De secretario S. Congregationis Indicis (Rome, 1751); SCHENEIDT, Jus et obligatio prohibendi libros (Würzburg, 1768); FRITSCH, Dissertationes de censura librorum et propositionum in negotiis religionis (Breslau, 1775); ZACCARIA, Storia polemica della proibisione dei libri (Rome, 1777); PEIGNOT, Dictionnaire critique, littéraire et bibliographique des principaux livres condamnés au feu, supprimés ou censurés (Paris, 1806); MENDHAM, The Literary Policy of the Church of Rome exhibited in an Account of Her Damnatory Catalogues or Indices (London, 1826); ERNESTI, Ueber das recht bes. der Hierarchie auf Censur und Bücherverbote (1829); HEYMANS, De ecclesiastica librorum aliorumque scriptorum in Belgio prohibitione (Brussels, 1849); FESSLER, Das kirchliche Bücherverbot (Vienna, 1858); Die römische Indexcongregation und ihr Wirken (Munich, 1863); BALLÈS, La s. congrégation de l'index mieux connue et vengée (1866); SACHSE, Die Anfänge der Büchercensur in Deutschland (1870); ZIGLIARA, Il dimittatur e la spiegazione datane dalla s. congr. dell' indice ed il cardinal Zigliara (Rome, 1882); REUSCH, Der Index d. verbotenen Bücher (Bonn, 1883); POULAIN, L'index; son origine, son but et sa valeur (Dieppe, 1884); PETIT, L'index; son histoire, ses lois, sa force obligatoire (Paris, 1888); PÉRIES, Du droit de l'Eglise de prohiber les livres dangereux in Journal du droit canon. (1892); ARNDT, De libris prohibitis commentarii (Ratisbon, 1895); DILGSKRON, De revisione et approbatione librorum typis describendorum in Anal. eccl. (1891-97); HOLLWECK, Das kirchliche Bücherverbot (Mainz, 1897); PLANCHARD, L'Index in Rev. théol, franc. (March-june, 1897); DESJARDINS, La nouvelle constitution apostolique sur l'index in Etudes (March-May, 1897); PENNACCHI, In conts. ap. "Officiorum ac munerum" de prohibitione et censura librorum a Leone d. pr. PP. XIII latam brevis commentatio (Rome, 1898); PÉRIES, L'index, comment. de la constitution apostolique "Officiorum" (Paris, 1898); MOUREAU, La nouvelle législation de l'index (Lille, 1898); BOUDINHON, La nouvelle legislation de l'index (Paris, 1899); HILGERS, Zur kirch. Gesetsgebung über verbot. Bücher in Stimmen aus Maria Laach, I (1899), 258 sqq.; SCHNEIDER, Die neuen Büchergesetze der katholischen Kirche (Mainz, 1899); ARNDT, Die Vorschriften über das Verbot und die Censur der Bücher (Trier, 1900); HILGENREINER, D. kirchl. Vorzensur u. d. Particularrecht (Vienna, 1901); SCHNEIDER, D. neue Index in Arch. f. k. KR., LXXXI (1901), 291, 302; HILGENREINER, Der Index der vorbotenen Bücher in Th. prat. Qrtschr., pt. II (1901); SLEUTJES De prohibitione et censura librorum (Gulpen, 1903); HILGERS, Der Index der verbotenen Bücher in seiner neuen Fassung dargelegt und rechtlich-historisch gewürdigt (Freiburg i. Br., 1904); GENNARI, La costituzione "Officiorum" brevemente commentata (Rome, 1905); CIOLLI, Comm. breve della costituzione leonina riguardo ai libri proibiti (Rome, 1906); VERMEERSCH, De prohibitione et censura librorum dissertatio canonico-moralis (Rome, 1906); HILGERS, Die Bücherverbote in Pabstbriefen (Freiburg, 1907); ARENDT, De quibusdam dubiis qu occurrunt in doctrinali interpretatione leoninæ constitutionis de prohibitione librorum brevis disceptatio (Rome, 1907); HURLEY, Comment. on the Present Index Legislation (Dublin, 1908).

VIII. COHELLIUS, op. cit., Congr. V pro sacris ritibus et c remoniis; LUNADORO, op. Cit., cap. xiv, Della congregazione de' sagri riti, del promotore della fede e di altri personaggi di detta congregazione; DE LUCA, Rel. rom. curiæ for., disc, 18; DANIELI, op. cit., s. v.; BENEDICT XIV, De servorum Dei beatificatione et beatorum canonizatione (Rome, 1747-49); Acta canonizationis SS. Fidelis a Sigmaringa, Camilli de Lellis, Petri Regalati, Iosephi a Leonissa, et Catharinæ de Riciis una cum apostolicis litt. SS. D. N. Benedicti XIV et vaticana basilicae ornatus descriptione (Rome, 1749); BENEDICT XIV, Appendices ad quatuor libros de servorum Dei beatificatione et beatorum canonizatione (Rome, 1749); SS. D. N. Benedicti XIV P. O. M. acta et decreta in causis beatificationum et canonizationum aliisque ad sacrorum rituum materiam pertinentibus ad annum pontificatus sui decimum (Rome, 1751); DE AZEVEDO, SS. D. N. Benedicti PP. XIV doctrina de servorum Dei beatificatione et beatorum canonizatione in synopsim redacta (Naples, 1854); Decreta authentica Congr. Sacrorum Rituum ex actis ejusdem collecta, ejusque auctoritate promulgata (Rome, 1898-).

IX. LUNADORO, op. cit., cap. xiv, Della congregazione dei ceremoniale e dei maestri delle ceremonie.

XI. COHELLIUS, op. cit., Congregatio XIX pro universitate studii romani; CATERINI, Collectio legum et ordinationum de recta studiorum ratione iussu Emi. ac Rmi. Domini Cardinalis Aloysii Lambruschini SS. D. N. Gregorii XVI P. M. a Secretis Status, Sacra Congregationis studiis moderandis pr fecti (Rome, 1841); CAPALTI, Collectio legum et ordinationum de recta studiorum ratione ab anno 1842 usque ad annum 1852 jussu Card. Raphaelis Fornari pr fecti . . . continuata (Rome, 1852).

XIII. VESPIGNANI, Compendium privilegiorum rev, fabric S. Petri (Rome, 1674); CANCELLIERI, De secretariis basilica Vaticana veteris et nov (Rome, 1786); DE NICOLAIS, De Vaticana basilica S. Petri ac de ejusdem privilegiis (Rome, 1817). AUBERY, Histoire générale des cardinaux (Paris, 1642); COHELLIUS, Notitia cardinalatus in qua nedum de S. R. E. cardinalium origine dignitate pr eminentia et privilegiis sed de pr cipuis romana aulae officialibus pertractatur (Rome, 1653); LUNADORO, Relatione della corte di Roma (Venice, 1664); DE LUCA, Il cardinale pratico (Rome, 1680); PLETTENBERG, Notitia congregationum et tribunalium curia romanae (Hildesheim, 1693); DE LUCA, Relatio curia romana forensis eiusque tribunalium et congregationum (Venice, 1759); PLATUS, Tract, de cardinalis dignitate et officio (Rome, 1746), cap. xxviii, app.; BANGEN, Die römische Kurie, ihre gegenwärt. Zusammensetzung und ihr Geschäftsgang (MÜNSTER, 1854); HAINE, Synopsis S. R. E. Cardinalium Congregationum (Louvain, 1857); IDEM, De la cour romaine sous le pontificat de Pie IX (Louvain, 1859); PHILLIPS, Kirchenrecht, VI (Ratisbon, 1864); SIMOR, De sacr. congr. et illarum auctoritate in Arch. f. k. KR., XI (1864), 410 sqq.; GRIMALDI, Les conqrégations romaines (Siena, 1890), this work is on the Index; SÄGMÜLLER, Die Tätigkeit und Stellung der Kardinäle bis P. Bonifaz VIII (Freiburg, 1896); LEGA, Pr lect. in textum jur. can. de judiciis ecclesiasticis, II (Rome, 1896), 6 sqq.; IDEM, De origine et natura sacr. roman. congregationum in Anal. eccl., IV (1896), 45 sqq.; IDEM, De modo procedendi congregationibus romanis communi in Anal. eccl., IV, 277 sqq.; WERNZ, Jus decretalium, II (Rome, 1906), 619 sqq.; HILLING, Die römische Kurie (Paderborn, 1906); HOFMANN, Die Neuregelung der röm. Kurie durch Pius X in Zeitschr. f. k. Theol., XXXIII, 198 sqq.; PARAYRE, La nouvelle organisation du gouvernement central de l'Eglise (Lyons, 1908); FOURNERET, La réforme de la curie rom. in Le canoniste cont., 33, 16, 65; CHOUPIN in Etudes (1908), 308, 604; OJETTI, De romana curia (Rome, 1910); SIMIER, La curie romaine (Paris, 1909); CAPPELLO, De curia romana juxta reform. a Pio X sapient. inductam (Rome, 1911).

BENEDETTO OJETTI

Roman Curia

Strictly speaking, the ensemble of departments or ministries which assist the sovereign pontiff in the government of the Universal Church. These are the Roman Congregations, the tribunals, and the offices of Curia (Ufficii di Curia). The Congregations, being the highest and most extensive departments of the Pontifical Government, are treated elsewhere under ROMAN CONGREGATIONS. This article deals in particular with the tribunals and the offices of Curia (Ufficii di Curia), in addition to which something will be said of the commissions of cardinals and the pontifical family.

I. TRIBUNALS

According to the Constitution "Sapienti consilio" of Pius X, the tribunals of the Curia are three: the Sacred Penitentiaria, the Sacred Roman Rota, and the Apostolic Signatura.

A. The Sacred Penitentiaria

The origin of this tribunal cannot be assigned with any reasonable certainty. Some authors, like Cardinal De Luca (Relatio curisae rom. forensis, diss. xii), think that the office of penitentiary dates from the primitive Church; Lega (Prael. de judiciis eccl., II, 263, not.) refers it to the time of Pope Cornelius (204), who is said to have appointed penitentiaries pro lapsis. Penitentiaries are certainly more ancient in the East than in the West. The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) ordained the establishment of a penitentiary in each cathedral. The Roman Church, if not the first, was at least one of the first in the West to establish penitentiaries. According to some authorities, from the seventh century, that is from the pontificate of Benedict II, the penitentiary of the Roman Church was a cardinal priest; this was certainly the case before Gregory X (d. 1276). Gregory IX calls Cardinal Nicola de Romania "poenitentiarius felicis recordationis Honorii pap. praedecessoris". Prior to 1205 Giraldus Cambrensis mentions Giovanni di S. Paolo, of the title of St. Priscilla, as one who heard confessions in the place of the pope; he was probably a cardinal of that title.

The office of penitentiary assumed greater importance when the reservation of cases to the pope or the bishops began. At the end of the sixth century (592) St. Gregory the Great reserved to himself the excommunication with which he threatened Archbishop John of Larissa for unjustly deposing Adrian, Bishop of Thebes. The first universally recognized case of a general papal reservation of an offence is that of Innocent II, who, at the Council of Clermont (1130), reserved to himself in every case absolution from the crime of striking a cleric. This reservation was confirmed by him in the following year at the Council of Reims, where he also reserved to himself the absolution of incendiaries and their accomplices. Thenceforth reservations increased in number, and an office became necessary to answer those who, guilty of some offence, asked of the sovereign pontiff absolution from the censure incurred, and reserved to the Holy See, or, being unable to repair to Rome, asked to be absolved from some sin reserved to the pope by a priest of their own land, who would of course require a special delegation. In the time of Cardinal Bérenger Frédol, penitentiary from 1309 to 1323, the office of the Penitentiaria was in existence, with various subordinates and employees, under the direction of a cardinal penitentiary, whom Clement V called paenitentiarius major [c. ii. de elect, etc. (I. 3) in Clem.]. Under Alexander IV and Urban IV, Cardinal Hugo of St-Cher (or of San Caro) was called poenitentiarius summus, or sedis apostolicae paenilentiarius generalis. For the earlier history of this tribunal see the excellent work of P. Chouet, "La sacrée pénitencerie apostolique" (Lyons, 1908), in which may be found the details of its original constitution. The present article deals only with the recent constitution of this tribunal.

The Sacred Penitentiary consists in the first place of the cardinal chief penitentiary (paenitentiarius major) appointed by a Brief of the sovereign pontiff. Pius V, followed by Benedict XIV, decreed that this functionary should be chosen from among the cardinal priests, and must be a master in theology or doctor of canon law (magister in theologia seu decretorum doctor). He must transact the business of his office personally, or if prevented from so doing, he must provide a substitute in another cardinal qualified as above stated, and who takes the title of pro-chief penitentiary. During his term of office he acts in his own name, and not in that of the cardinal by whom he is delegated. To the cardinal chief penitentiary is assigned a regent of the Penitentiaria. This officer, like the others of whom we shall speak, is selected by the cardinal penitentiary and presented to the pope; and if approved by him is appointed by a letter of the cardinal himself. After the regent comes the theologian, whom it has long been usual to select from the Society of Jesus; then come the datary, the canonist, the corrector, the sealer (sigillatore), and some copyists, besides a secretary, a surrogate (sostituto), and an archivist. The signatura (Segnatura) of the Penitentiaria (its congress) is the meeting at which the most important cases are considered. It is formed of the cardinal penitentiary, the theologian, the datary, the corrector, the sealer (sigillatore), and the canonist, the secretary also taking part in it, but without a vote. The other members of the meeting are only consulted, the decision of the case being left entirely to the cardinal penitentiary, who, if in doubt as to the extent of his faculties, refers the matter to the Holy Father.

The minor penitentiaries of certain Roman churches and of the Holy House of Loreto must be mentioned as in some way related to the Sacred Penitentiaria. At Rome, they are attached to the three Basilicas of St. John Lateran, St. Peter, and St. Mary Major. At St. John Lateran the office is filled by the Friars Minor. At St. Peter's it was formerly filled by Jesuits, but, at the suppression of the Society by Clement XIV, their place was taken by Minor Conventuals, who still retain it; these are thirteen in number, but there are also at St. Peter's fourteen other "adjunct" penitentiaries -- Carmelites, Friars Minor, Augustinians, Servites. At St. Mary Major the penitentiaries are Dominicans. At Loreto the Jesuits served as penitentiaries until their suppression, when they were succeeded by the Minor Conventuals, who still hold the office. The minor penitentiaries may not be removed by their superiors, either from Rome or from Loreto, without the permission of the Holy See. They are authorized to hear the confessions of all the faithful, not excepting religious, who may come to the minor penitentiaries without the permission of their religious superiors. The faculties of these penitentiaries are very ample; and care is taken, as a rule, that there may be priests of different languages among them, to hear the confessions of pilgrims or other foreigners who do not speak Italian.

The cardinal penitentiary assists the pope at the hour of death, reciting the customary prayers for the dying, etc. It is he, also, who at the beginning of a jubilee, offers to the pope the golden hammer, to give the first three knocks at the Holy Door (Porta Santa) of St. Peter's, which door is opened only during the Holy Year, or year of the jubilee. After the pope, the cardinal penitentiary himself knocks twice with the hammer. It is also the office of the cardinal penitentiary, at the end of the jubilee year, when the Holy Door is to be closed, to present to the pope the trowel and the mortar, to begin the walling up of the door. In Holy Week, the cardinal penitentiary, surrounded by those officers who constitute the signatura, or congress of the Penitentiaria, sits four times -- Palm Sunday, Wednesday, Good Friday, and Holy Saturday -- in the penitential cathedra, or chair, set in each of the three above-mentioned Roman basilicas, and awaits for some time those who may wish to confess to him, striking lightly upon the head with his traditional rod (also used by the minor penitentiaries) those who may kneel before him with that intention, beginning with the officers of the Sacred Penitentiaria. On the part of the faithful this ceremony is public confession of having sinned against God, and a request for forgiveness by ecclesiastical authority of sins committed.

The Sacred Penitentiaria was always provided with great powers, formerly of internal jurisdiction only, but as time went on, of external jurisdiction also. Under the latter head its work so increased that the administration of this tribunal was greatly hampered. Several popes disapproved of this, especially Pius IV, who planned a reform both of its constitution and of its field of action, or competency. Death prevented him from carrying this into effect: it was realized by St. Pius V, who, in 1569, by his Constitution "In omnibus", reformed the organization of the Penitentiaria, while he modified its competency by his other Constitution "Ut bonus paterfamilias", both dated 18 May of that year. The competency of the Penitentiaria was confined to matters of internal jurisdiction. Little by little, the successors of Pius V increased the faculties of this tribunal; and, as many of these new concessions were made by word of mouth (vivae vocis oraculo), there arose new doubts to be solved; wherefore, to remove uncertainties Innocent XII, in 1682, formulated a new list of faculties for the Penitentiaria; but, the sovereign pontiff having delayed the solution of some doubts, and difficulties having arisen in regard to the interpretation of his Constitution, the desired end was not attained while, on the other hand, new faculties were granted to the Sacred Penitentiaria by succeeding popes. Consequently, Benedict XIV as constrained to define better the faculties of this tribunal, which that learned pontiff did by his famous Constitution, "Pastor bonus", of April, 1744, wherein he enumerated the faculties of the Sacred Penitentiaria more or less as they had been granted by Pius V, although broader in some respects. It is more remarkable that he granted some powers of external jurisdiction; hence until now the Penitentiaria has had, as an exceptional faculty, the power of dispensing destitute or needy persons from public matrimonial impediments.

The Constitution "Sapienti consilio" of Pius X has confined the competency of the Penitentiaria to its former scope, limiting it to internal jurisdiction. The power to dispense from matrimonial impediments in relation to external jurisdiction, for all classes of people, having been granted to the Congregation of the Sacraments, the tribunal of the Penitentiaria received jurisdiction in all internal matters, in relation to which it is empowered to grant graces of all kinds -- absolutions, dispensations, commutations, ratifications in matter of impediments, condonations. This tribunal also deals with questions of conscience submitted to the judgment of the Holy See. It should be observed here that the chief penitentiary's powers of internal jurisdiction, even before the recent Constitution, held during the vacancy of the Holy See, while his power of external jurisdiction, with a few exceptions, was suspended.

As to the procedure of the Penitentiaria, it follows the rules set down in the Constitution "In apostolicae" of Benedict XIV, in all that is not at variance with the new Constitution of Pius X. It transacts its business under the greatest secrecy, and gratuitously (omnino secreto et gratis). It is chiefly a tribunal of mercy, as Benedict XIV asserts in his Constitution "Pastor bonus"; wherefore it is appropriate that its seal should bear, as is the case, an image of the Virgin Mother with the Child in her arms. Recourse is had to the Penitentiaria by means of a letter (written by the party interested or by that party's confessor) exposing the case, without, however, naming the person concerned. The letter is addressed to the cardinal penitentiary, and may be written in any language. The name and address of the person to whom the answer is to be sent must be clearly given. The following may serve as an example of applications to be made to the Penitentiaria: "Your Eminence: Tizio and Caia [which must be fictitious names] wishing to be united in the bonds of holy matrimony ask Your Eminence for dispensation from the following impediments: (1) an impediment of the first degree in the direct line, that now is, and most probably will remain, concealed, originating in illicit relations between Tizio and the mother of Caia, after the latter's birth; (2) an impediment of crime, which is also concealed, originating in adultery between the petitioners while the first wife of Tizio still lived, with a mutual promise of marriage in case of the first wife's death. The reasons for this petition are . . . [here the facts are given]. The answer may be addressed as follows. . . ." Fictitious names may be given, with the request that the answer be sent to the General Delivery, or, if preferred, to the confessor of the interested party. The letter containing the petition should be addressed: "To His Eminence the Cardinal Chief Penitentiary, Palace of the Holy Office, Rome".

We give this example of petitions to the Sacred Penitentiary as the faithful are in frequent need of recourse to that tribunal. The grace that is sought and the reasons why it should be granted vary, of course, in different cases.

B. The Sacred Roman Rota

See SACRA ROMANA ROTA.

C. The Apostolic Signatura

In former times, there was only one Signatura, i.e. there were a few assistants who were commissioned by the sovereign pontiff to investigate the petitions addressed to the Holy See, and to report concerning them. These functionaries were called Referendarii apostolici. Vitale, in his "Comm. de iure signaturae justitiae", says that there is record of the referendaries as such in 1243. Innocent IV mentions them. As time went on, recourse to the Holy See becoming more and more frequent, whether to obtain graces or to submit cases to the decision of the pope, the number of the referendaries increased considerably. Alexander VI deemed it expedient to define their office better, which he did by creating a double Signatura -- the Signatura of Grace, and the Signatura of Justice -- to which the referendaries were severally assigned. As the office of referendary was a very honourable one, it came to be conferred frequently as a merely honorary title, so that the number of the referendaries was unduly increased; and Sixtus V was constrained, in 1586, to limit the referendaries of the Signatura of Justice to 100, and those of the Signatura of Grace to 70. Alexander VII combined the referendaries of both Signaturas into a college, with a dean. These were called "voting referendaries",' and actually exercised their office. The others remained as "supernumerary referendaries" (extra numerum). In 1834 Gregory XVI gave a new organization to the Signatura of Justice. On the other hand, the Signatura of Grace gradually disappeared: no mention is made of it after 1847 in the catalogues of the tribunals and officials of the Curia.

The Signatura of Grace, also called Signatura of the Holy Father (Signatura Sanctissimi), was held in the presence of the sovereign pontiff, and there were present at it some cardinals and many prelates, chief among the latter being the voters of this Signatura. At the invitation of the Holy Father, the voters voted upon the matters under consideration, but that vote was merely consultative. The Holy Father reserved to himself the decision in each case, announcing it then and there, or later, if he chose, through his "domestic auditor", as De Luca calls him, or "auditor of the Holy Father" (auditor sanctissimi), as he was called later. The Signatura of Justice was a genuine tribunal, presided over in the name of the pope by a cardinal prefect. The voters of this Signatura were present at it, and their vote was not consultative, but definitive. As a rule, the cardinal prefect voted only when his vote was necessary for a decision.

Pius X, in the Constitution by which he reorganized the Curia, abolished the two ancient Signaturas, and created a new one that has nothing in common with the other two. The Signatura now consists of six cardinals, appointed by the pope, one of whom is its prefect. It has a secretary, a notary, who must be a priest, some consultors, and a few subordinate officers. The present Signatura is a genuine tribunal which ordinarily has jurisdiction in four kinds of cases, namely:

• accusations of suspicions against an auditor of the Rota;
• accusations of violation of secrecy by an auditor of the Rota;
• appeals against a sentence of the Rota;

• petitions for the nullification of a decision of the Rota that has already become res judicata. As a temporary commission, the pope gave to the Signatura the mandate and the power to review the sentences passed by the Roman Congregations before the Constitution "Sapienti Consilio". This commission was given to the Signatura through an answer by the Consistorial Congregation on the subject of a doubt relating to a case of this kind. Of course the Holy Father may on special occasions give other commissions of this nature to the Apostolic Signatura.

  II. OFFICES OF CURIA

  These are five in number: The Apostolic Chancery; Apostolic Dataria; Apostolic Camera; Secretariate of State; Secretariate of Briefs.

  A. The Apostolic Chancery (Cancelleria Apostolica)

  This office takes its name from civil law and from the imperial chanceries, and is certainly of very ancient origin in its essence. The primacy of the Roman See made it necessary that the sovereign pontiff should have in his service officers to write and to transmit his answers to the numerous petitions for favours and to the numerous consultations addressed to him. This office, in course of time, underwent many transformations, to the most important of which only we shall refer. After Martin V had instituted a large number of offices in the Chancery, Sixtus V placed many of them in the class of vacabili, as they were then called. The origin of this institution was as follows: The pope was often compelled, in defence of Christendom, to wage war, to fit out expeditions, or at least to give financial assistance to the princes who waged such wars at his exhortation. But the pontifical treasury, on the other hand, was often without the means to defray even the expenses of the Pontifical States, and it became imperative to raise funds. Accordingly, the popes resorted to the expedient of selling several lucrative offices of the Curia, and, as a rule, to the highest bidder. It should be observed, however, that what was sold was not the office itself, but the receipts of the office, e.g., the taxes for the favours granted through the office in question. Some offices were sold with the right of succession by the heirs of the purchaser. This, however, could be done only in the case of an office of minor importance, in the exercise of which no special ability was required. Those offices which entailed grave responsibilities, and which could be filled only by pious and learned men, were sold on the condition that they should revert to the Curia at the death of the purchaser. An aleatory contract, therefore, was made, the uncertainty being, on the one side, the amount of the income of the office and, on the other, the length of life of the purchaser. The prices of the offices, especially of the more desirable ones, were considerable: Lorenzo Corsini, afterwards Clement XII, bought the office of regent of the Chancery for 30,000 Roman scudi -- a large fortune for those times. The hazard was not necessarily confined to the life of the purchaser; he was free to establish it upon the life of another person, provided the latter (called the intestatary) were expressly designated. The purchaser was also allowed to change the life hazard from one person to another, providing this were done forty days before the death of the last preceding intestatary.

  The offices of the Chancery which were transformed into vacabili by Sixtus V were those of the regent, of the twenty-five solicitors, of the twelve notaries, auditors of the causes of the Holy Palace, and others. Sixtus V assigned the proceeds of these sales to the vice-chancellor (see below) as part of the latter's emoluments; but this too liberal prescription in favour of the cardinal who presided over the Chancery was revoked by Innocent XI, who assigned the revenue in question to the Apostolic Camera. Alexander VIII restored these revenues to the vice-chancellor, who, at that time, was the pope's nephew, Pietro Ottoboni. Under Napoleon I the Government redeemed many of the vacabili, and but few remained. Pius VII, after his return to Rome, undertook a reform of the Chancery, and wisely reduced the number of the offices. But, as he himself granted to the vacabili the privilege that, by a legal fiction, time should be regarded as not having transpired (quod tempus et tempera non currant), and many proprietors of vacabili having obtained grants of what was called sopravivevza by which deceased intestataries were considered to be living, it came to pass that certain offices remained vacabili in name, but not in fact. Finally, Leo XIII (1901) suppressed all the vacabili offices, ordering his pro-datary to redeem them, when necessary, the datary's office being substituted for the proprietors.

  Since the Constitution of Pius X, the Chancery has been reduced to a forwarding office (Ufficio di Spedizione) with a small personnel; there are, besides the cardinal who presides over the Chancery, the regent, with the college of Apostolic prothonotaries, a notary, secretary and archivist, a protocolist, and four amanuenses. The presiding cardinal, prior to the recent Constitution, was called vice-chancellor. The authors who wrote on the Chancery gave many ingenious reasons why that dignitary should not have received the more obvious title of chancellor. Cardinal De Luca regarded these explanations as senseless (simplicitates et fabllae), and proposed an explanation of his own, without, however, insisting on its correctness. According to him, it was probable that the title of vice-chancellor arose in the same way as the title of pro-datary, the custom having been to call the head of the datary office (dataria) the datary (datario), if he were not a cardinal, and the pro-datary (pro datario), if he were a cardinal. The reason for this must be sought in the fact that the office of datary was really not that of a cardinal, but rather of minor dignity; wherefore it did not seem well to give the title of datary to a cardinal. The same custom still obtains in the case of a nuncio who is elevated to the cardinalate: he retains his position for a time, but with the title of pro-nuncio. This theory of De Luca's, if not altogether certain, is at least probable. The new Constitution, however, establishes that the head of the Chancery shall hereafter be called chancellor, a very reasonable provision, seeing that this office has been filled for centuries by cardinals. For the rest, the office in question was always regarded as one of the most honourable and most important of the Curia, as may be seen from Moroni's account of the funeral of Cardinal Alexander Farnese, vice-chancellor, and arch-priest of the Vatican Basilica. The authority of the vice-chancellor was increased when, under Alexander VIII in 1690, there was added to his office, in perpetuity, that of compiler (sommista).

  At present the chancellor retains little of his former influence and attributes. He acts as notary in the consistories and directs the office of the chancery. The greatest splendour of the chancellor was under Leo X, from whose successor, Clement VII, this functionary received as residence the Palazzo Riario, long known as the Cancelleria Apostolica, where he resides at the present day. His former residence was in the Palazzo Borgia, from which he moved to the Palazzo Sforza Cesarini, the latter palace being, on this account, known for a long time as the Cancelleria Vecchia. The removal of the vice-chancellor's residence and office to the majestic Palazzo Riario, in the Campo di Fiori, was due to the confiscation of the property of Cardinal Raffaele Riario for his share, with Cardinals Petrucci, Sacchi, Soderini, and Castellesi, in a conspiracy against the life of Leo X. Contiguous to the Cancelleria, in fact forming a part of it, is the Church of San Lorenzo in Damaso. When Clement VII assigned this palace as the perpetual residence of the vice-chancellor, he provided that the vice-chancellor should always have the title of that church; and, as it happens that the chancellors are not always of the same order in the Sacred College, being sometimes cardinal-deacons, sometimes cardinal-priests, and sometimes cardinal-bishops, this church does not follow the rule of the other cardinalitial churches, which have a fixed grade, being titular -- that is churches over which cardinals of the order of priests are placed -- or deaconries -- churches over which are placed cardinal-deacons. San Lorenzo, on the contrary, is a titular when the chancellor ia of the order of priests, and a deaconry when he is a cardinal-deacon. When, on the other hand, he is a sub-urbicarian bishop, the chancellor retains this church in commendam.

  The Regency, which is the next office in the order of precedence in the Chancery after the chancellorship, was created in 1377, when Gregory XI returned from France to his see. Cardinal Pierre de Monteruc, who was the chancellor at that time, refused to follow the pope from Avignon to Rome; and, as it was necessary that someone should direct the office of the Chancery, the pope, leaving the title of vice-chancellor to Montéruc, appointed the Archbishop of Ban, Bartolommeo Prignano, regent of this important office. At the death of Gregory XI, in 1378, Prignano was elected pope, and he appointed a successor to himself in the office of regent of the Chancery, which was thereafter maintained, even when the vice-chancellor re-established his residence at Rome.

  There is not space here to refer in detail to the other offices of the Chancery, and the subject is the less important, since the greater number of those offices have now disappeared for good.

  At present the Chancery is charged only with the expedition of Bulls for consistorial benefices, the establishment of new dioceses and new chapters, and other more important affairs of the Church. (For the various forms of Apostolic Letters, see BULLS AND BRIEFS.) One fact concerning the expedition of Bulls should be mentioned. Formerly, there were four different ways of issuing these documents, namely, by way of the Curia (per viam curios), by way of the Chancery (per cancellarium), secretly (per viam secretam), and by way of the Apostolic Camera (per viam cameras). The reason for this is that, while some Bulls were taxed, there was no taxation on others, and it was necessary to determine upon what Bulls the proprietors of the vacabili offices had a right to receive taxes. Bulls, therefore, which concerned the government of the Catholic world, being exempt from all taxation, were said to be issued by way of the Curia. Those Bulls of which the expedition was by way of the Chancery were the common Bulls, which, after being reviewed by the abbreviators of the greater presidency (see ABBREVIATORS), were signed by them and by the proprietors of the vacabili, the latter of whom received the established taxes. The Bulls said to be issued secretly were those in favour of some privileged persons -- as the palatine prelates, the auditors of the Rota, and the relatives of cardinals. They were signed by the vice-chancellor, and they, too, were exempt from taxation. Finally, the Bulls of which the expedition was said to be by way of the Camera were those that concerned the Apostolic Camera. Since the style and the rules of the Chancery could not be adapted to these Bulls, they were issued by the sommista, whose office was created by Alexander VI and later, as was said above, united by Alexander VIII with that of the vice-chancellor.

  At the present time, all the vacabili having been abolished, these various forms of expedition have been suppressed, the new Constitution providing that all Bulls be issued by way of the Chancery, on order of the Congregation of the Consistory for all matters of the competency of that body, and by order of the pope for all others. This is in keeping with the new organization of the Chancery as a merely issuing office. The Constitution "Sapienti consilio" provided that the ancient formulae of Bulls should be changed, and the duty of preparing new ones was given to a commission of cardinals composed of the chancellor, the datary, and the secretary of the Consistorial Congregation. This commission has already reformed the Bulls for the Consistorial benefices, and Pius X, by his Motu Proprio of 8 December, 1910, approved the new formula; and ordered them to be used exclusively after 1 January, 1911. The college of the abbreviators of the greater presidency having been suppressed, and the abbreviators of the lesser presidency having become extinct in fact, the Apostolic prothonotaries in actual office have been appointed to sign the Bulls. A very reasonable change has also been made in regard to the dating of Bulls. Formerly Bulls were dated according to the year of the Incarnation, which begins on 25 March. This medieval style of dating remained peculiar to papal Bulls, and in time gave rise to much confusion. Pius X ordered these documents to be dated in future according to common custom, by the year which begins on 1 January.

  Mention should here be made of what are known as the Rules of the Chancery. This name was given to certain Apostolic Constitutions which the popes were in the habit of promulgating at the beginning of their pontificate, in regard to judicial causes and those concerning benefices. In many cases the pope merely confirmed the provisions of his predecessor; in others he made additions or suppressions. The result has been an ancient collection of standing rules which remained unmodified even in the recent reorganization of the Curia. These Rules are usually divided into three classes: rules of direction or expedition, which concern the expedition of Bulls; beneficial or reservatory rules, relating to benefices and reservations; lastly, judicial rules, concerning certain prescriptions to be observed in judicial matters, especially with relation to appeals. The Rules of the Chancery have the force of law, and are binding wherever exceptions have not been made to them by a concordat. In ancient times, these rules ceased to be in force at the death of the sovereign pontiff, and were revived only upon the express confirmation of the succeeding pope. Urban VIII, however, declared that, without an express confirmation, the Rules of the Chancery should be in force on the day after the creation of the new pope. It would be outside of the scope of this article to enter into a minute examination of these rules, all the more because the commission of cardinals charged with the reformation of the formulae of Bulls has also charge of revising the Rules of the Chancery.

  B. The Apostolic Dataria

  According to some authorities, among them Amydenus (De officio et jurisdictione datarii necnon de stylo Datariae), this office is of very ancient origin. It is not so, however, as appears from the fact that the business which eventually fell to it was originally transacted elsewhere. The Dataria was entrusted, chiefly, with the concession of matrimonial dispensations of external jurisdiction, and with the collation of benefices reserved to the Holy See. To this double faculty was added that of granting many other indults and graces, but these additions were made later. Until the time of Pius IV matrimonial dispensations were granted through the Penitentiaria; and as to the collation of reserved benefices, that authority could not have been granted in very remote times, since the establishment of those reservations is comparatively recent: although some vestige of reservations is found even prior to the twelfth century, the custom was not frequent before Innocent II, and it was only from the time of Clement IV that the reservation of benefices was adopted as a general rule [c. ii, "De pract. et dignit." (III, 4) in 6°]. It may be said that, while this office certainly existed in the fourteenth century, as an independent bureau, it is impossible to determine the precise time of its creation.

  The Dataria consists, first, of a cardinal who is its chief and who, until the recent Constitution, was called the pro-datary, but now has the official title of datary. There was formerly as much discussion about the title of pro-datary as about that of vice-chancellor (see above). Some are of opinion that it is derived from the fact that this office dated the rescripts or graces of the sovereign pontiff, while others hold it to be derived from the right to grant and give (dare) the graces and indults for which petition is made to the pope. It is certain that, on account of these functions the datary enjoyed great prestige in former times, when he was called the eye of the pope (oculus papae). After the cardinal comes the subdatary, a prelate of the Curia who assists the datary, and takes the latter's place, upon occasion, in almost all of his functions. In the old organization of the Dataria there came after the subdatary a number of subordinate officials who, as De Luca says, bore titles that were enigmatical and sibyllic, as, for example, the prefect of the per obitum, the prefect of the concessum, the cashier of the componenda, an officer of the missis, and the like.

  Leo XIII had already introduced reforms into the organization of the Dataria, to make it harmonize with modern requirements, and Pius X, reducing the competency of the office, gave it an entirely new organization in his Constitution "Sapienti consilio", according to which the Dataria consists of the cardinal datary, the sub-datary, the prefect and his surrogate (sostituto), a few officers, a cashier, who has also the office of distributor, a reviser, and two writers of Bulls. The new Constitution retains the theological examiners for the competitions for parishes. Among the Datary offices that have been abolished mention should be made of that of the Apostolic dispatchers, which, in the new organization of the Curia, has no longer a reason for being. Formerly these officials were necessary, because private persons could not refer directly to the Dataria, which dealt only with persons known to, and approved by, itself. Now, however, anyone may deal directly with the Dataria, as with any of the other pontifical departments. The Dataria, which, as noted above, was commissioned to grant many papal indults and graces, has now only to investigate the fitness of candidates for Consistorial benefices, which are reserved to the Holy See, to write and to dispatch the Apostolic Letters for the collation of those benefices, to dispense from the conditions required in regard to them, and to provide for the pensions, or for the execution of the charges imposed by the pope when conferring those benefices.

  It would be both lengthy and difficult to retrace the former modes of procedure of this office, all the more as it was mainly regulated by tradition, while this tradition was jealously guarded by the officers of the Datary, who were generally laymen, and who had in that way established a species of monopoly as detrimental to the Holy See as profitable to themselves; thus it happened that these offices often passed from father to son, while the ecclesiastical superiors of the officials were to a great extent blindly dependent upon them. Leo XIII began the reform of this condition of things so unfavourable to good administration, and Pius X has totally abolished it.

  C. The Apostolic Camera

  In the Constitution "Sapienti consilio" Pius X provided that during vacancies of the Holy See its property should be administered by this office. The cardinal-camerlengo (see CAMERLENGO) presides over the Camera, and is governed in the exercise of his office by the rules established in the Constitution, "Vacante sede apostolica", of 25 December, 1906. (For history and general treatment see APOSTOLIC CAMERA.)

  D. The Secretariate of State

  After the promulgation of the Constitution of Innocent XII, in 1692, the cardinal nephews were succeeded by the secretaries of State. Of the cardinal nephews many authors have written with greater severity than is justified by the facts, although the dignitaries in question may on more than one occasion have given cause of complaint. In times when the life of the pope was in jeopardy from conspiracies formed in his own court (such, for instance, as that against Leo X mentioned above, under A. The Apostolic Chancery), it was a necessity for the sovereign pontiff to have as his chief assistant one in whom he might repose implicit confidence, and such he could nowhere more surely find than in his own family. The cardinal nephew was called "Secretarius Papae et superintendens status ecclesiasticæ". The cardinal secretary of State, who fills the place of the nephew, has been, and is, in the present day, the confidential assistant of the pope. Hence the office is vacated upon the death of the reigning pontiff. Before the promulgation of the recent Constitution of Pius X, this office of Curia comprised, besides the cardinal secretary himself, a surrogate, also called secretary of the cipher, and some clerks and subaltern officials. Now, however, there have been amalgamated with it certain other offices which were formerly independent. The Secretariate of State, therefore, is at present divided into three sections, the first of which deals with certain extraordinary ecclesiastical affairs, the second with ordinary affairs, including grants of honours, titles, and decorations by the Holy See otherwise than through the majordomo, the third with the expediting of pontifical Briefs.

  For the work of the first section, see what is said on the subject of the Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, under ROMAN CONGREGATIONS. The second section deals with the relations of the Holy See with secular princes, whether through Apostolic nuncios or legates or through the ambassadors accredited to the Vatican. This section of the office of the secretary of State has charge of the distribution of offices of the Curia, and of the election of the various officers. Through this section titles of nobility -- as prince, marquis, count palatine, etc. -- are granted and the decorations of the Holy See, which, besides the golden cross pro Ecclesia et Pontifice, instituted by Leo XIII, include such distinctions as the Supreme Order of Christ (or Order of the Militia of Jesus Christ, as it is called by Pius X in his brief of 7 February, 1905), the Order of Pius IX, established by that pontiff in 1847, the Order of Saint Gregory the Great, created by Gregory XVI in 1831; the Order of Saint Sylvester; the Order of the Golden Militia, or of the Golden Spur, restored by Pius X, and the Order of the Holy Sepulchre, of which Pius X has reserved to himself the supreme mastership.

  As has already been said, the third section of the Secretariate of State is exclusively concerned with the expediting of Briefs.

  E. The Secretariate of Briefs to Princes and of Latin Letters

  The Secretariate of Briefs to Princes consists of the secretary and two office assistants. The secretary is a prelate whose duty it is to write the pontifical Briefs addressed to emperors, kings, civil princes, or other exalted personages. He also prepares the allocutions which the pope pronounces at Consistories, and the Encyclicals or Apostolic Letters addressed to the bishops and to the faithful. All this he does according to the instructions of the pope. He must be a proficient Latinist, since Latin is the language in which these documents are written. The secretary for Latin letters is also a prelate or private chamberlain (cameriere segreto), his duties being to write the letters of less solemnity which the sovereign pontiff addresses to different personages. He has an office assistant.

  III. COMMISSIONS OF CARDINALS AND THE PONTIFICAL FAMILY

  Certain commissions of cardinals which still exist are the Commissions for Biblical Studies, for Historical Studies, for the Administration of the Funds of the Holy See or of the Peterspence, for the Conservation of the Faith in Rome, and for the Codification of the Canon Law.

  In the wider sense of the term, the Curia includes not only the departments already mentioned, but also what is officially known as the Pontifical Family. The chief members of this body are the two palatine cardinals -- cardinal datary and the cardinal secretary of State. Formerly the cardinal datary always lived with the pope; the secretary of State, even now, lives in the Vatican Palace and is the pontiff's confidential officer. After these follow the palatine prelates: majordomo, the maestro di camera, the master of the Sacred Palace, and the carnerieri segreti partecipanti (the private almoner, the secretary of Briefs to Princes, the surrogate for ordinary affairs of the Secretariate of State and secretary of the Cipher, the sub-datary, the secretary for Latin Letters, the copyist, the embassy secretary, and the master of the robes), to whom are added, as palatine prelates, the sacristan and the secretary of Ceremonies. Nearly all these prelates live in the Vatican. It would be impossible to refer, here, to each one of them in particular. The history of their offices is the same for each, connected with that of the Apostolic Palace, and with the lives of the popes. (See MAESTRO DI CAMERA DEL PAPA; MAJORDOMO.)

  The majordomo and maestro di camera are followed in order in the Pontifical Family by the domestic prelates of His Holiness. These are divided into colleges, the first of which is the College of the Patriarchs, Archbishops, and Bishops, Assistants to the Pontifical Throne; the second is the College of Apostolic Prothonotaries, active and supernumerary. After these come the Colleges, respectively, of the Prelate Auditors of the Rota, of the Prelate Clerics of the Apostolic Camera, and of the Domestic Prelates, simply so called. Bishops assistants to the Throne (assistentes solio pontificio) are named by a Brief of the Secretariate of State, and in virtue of their office are members of the Pontifical Chapel (Cappella Pontificia); they wear the cappa magna and wait on the pope, assisting him with the book, and holding the candle (bugia). Moreover, they may wear silk robes -- an exclusive privilege of the Pontifical Family, although many bishops, in ignorance of this rule, act at variance with it.

  For the College of Apostolic Prothonotaries see PROTHONOTARY APOSTOLIC. For the College of Prelate Auditors of the Rota see ROTA, SACRA ROMANA. Of the clerics of the Apostolic Camera, enough has already been said in the present article.

  The domestic prelates are appointed as a rule by a Motu Proprio of the pope, occasionally at the petition of their bishops, and they enjoy several privileges, among which are the use of the violet dress, which is that of a bishop (without the cross), the ring, the violet biretta, and the cappa magna. These domestic prelates are appointed for life, and retain their dignity at the death of the pope. After them in the Pontifical Family come the camerieri segreti di spada e cappa partecipanti, all of whom are laymen, the staff and the higher officers of the Pontifical Noble Guard, the supernumerary camerieri segreti or private chamberlains (ecclesiastics), the active and the supernumerary camerieri di spada e cappa (laymen), the camerieri d'onore in abito paonazzo (ecclesiastics), the camerieri d'onore extra Urbem (ecclesiastics), the camerieri d'onore di spada e cappa, active and supernumerary (laymen), the staff and the higher officers of the Swiss Guard and of the Palatine Guard of Honour, the master of pontifical ceremonies, the private chaplains, the honorary private chaplains, the honorary private chaplains extra Urbem, the chierici segreti, the College of Ordinary Pontifical Chaplains. It would be impossible to refer, here, to each of these ranks in particular. It may be said, however, of the supernumerary camerieri segreti that, like the active and the partecipanti camerieri segreli, their office ceases at the death of the pope; while it lasts they have the right to use the violet dress, of a cut slightly differing, however, from that of the prelates; on account of which difference, they are called monsignori di mantellone, while the prelates are called monsignori, di mantelletta.

  GOMEZ, Tract, de potestate paenitentiariarae (Venice, 1557); LEONI, Praxis ad litteras et bullas majoris Paenitentiarii et offlcii S. Paenitentiaria in quatuor partes distributa, in quibus declarantur singularum formularum clausulae et traditur modus praefatas litteras exequendi (Rome, 1644); CORRADUS, Praxis dispensationum aposiolicarum ex solidissimo Romans curies stylo inconcusse servato excerpta, praxim quoque officii S. Paenitentiaria; Urbis iuxta illius ordinationem novi status complectens (Venice, 1669); SYRUS, Dilucidatio facultatum minorum paenitentiariorum basilicarum Urbis et -praxis executionum ad litteras et rescripta S. paenitentiarice (Rome, 1699); PETRA. Tractatus de paenitentiaria apostolica (Rome, 1717); GIBBINGS, The Tax of the Apostolic Penitentiary (Dublin, 1872); DUPIN DE ST-ANDRÉ, Taxe de la Pénitencerie apostolique d'aprés I'édition publiée à Paris en 1620 (Paris, 1879); DENIFLE, Die älteste Taxrolle d. apostol, Poenitentiarie v. Jahre 1838 in Arch. f. Litt. u. Kirchengesch. d. MA., IV, 201 sqq. (1888); EUBEL, Der Registerband d. Kardinal-Grosspönitentiars Bentevenga in A. f. k KR., LXIV, 3 sqq. (Mainz, 1890); LEA (ed.), A Formulary of the Papal Penitentiary in the Thirteenth Century (Philadelphia, 1892); BATIFFOL, Les prétres pénitentiers remains au Ye siécle, Compte-rendu du Congrés internal, des catholiques à Bruxelles, II (1894), 277 sqq.; LECACHEUX, Un formulaire de la pénitencerie apostolique au temps du cardinal Albornoz (1357-8). in Melanges Arch. Hist. Ecole Franc., Rome. XVIII (1898), 37 sqq.; LANG, Beitrage zur Geschichte der apostol. Poenitenciers in Mitt. d. Instil, f. Oesterr. Geschichtsf., VII, Supplementary Number, 1904; HASKINS, The Sources for the History of the Papal Penitentiary in American Journal of Theol., LIX (1905), 422 sqq.; TARANI A SPALANNIS, Manuale theorico-practicum pro minoribus paenitentiariis (Rome, 1906); GÖLLER, Die paepstliche Poenitentiarie von ihrem Ursprung bis zu ihrer Umgesialtung durch Pius V (Rome, 1907); CHOUET, La sacrée pénitencerie Apostolique (Lyons, 1904).

  GOMES, Compendium utriusqucae signatures (Paris, 1547); STAPHILAEUS, De litteris gratiae, de signatura gratis et liiteris apostolicis in forma brevis (Paris, 1558); MANDOSIUS, Praxis signatures gratiae (Rome, 1559); MARCHESANI, Commissionum ac rescriptorum utriusque signature S. D. N. Papas praxis (Rome, 1615); DE MATIENZO, Tract, de referendariorum, advocatorum, iudicum officio. requisitis, dignitate et eminentia (Frankfort, 1618); DE FATINELLIS, De referendariorum votantium signature iusiitiae collegia (Rome, 1696); VITALE, Comm. de iure signature iustitiae (Rome, 1756).

  CASSIODORUS, Super XIV reg. Cancelleriae (Paris, 1545); BARCHIN, Pratica, Cancellariae apostolicae cum stylo et formis in curia romana usitatis (Lyons, 1549); MANDOSIUS, Comm. in regulas Cancellariae lulii III (Venice, 1554); MILLUS, Annoiationes in regulas Gomesii Cancellerae apostolicae (Lyons, 1557); MANDOSIUS, In regulas Cancelleriae apostolicae commentar. (Rome, 1558); MOLINA, Comm. in regulas Cancelleriae apostolicae (Lyons, 1560); GOMES, In Cancelleriae apost. regulas iudiciales (Venice, 1575); REBUFFUS, Acid-it, in reg. Canceller-ifs (Paris, 1579); BLADIUS, Constitut. Pii IV, V et Gregor. XIII cum regulis Cancellerice (1583); GONZALEZ, Ad regulam VIII Cancell. de reservatione mensium (Geneva, 1605); BUTHILLERI, Tract, ad regul. Cancellariae de infirmis resignationibus (Paris, 1612); PELBUS, In regulas Cancellariae (Paris, 1615); A CHOCKIER, Comm. in reg. Cancellariae apostolicae sive in glossemata Alphonsi Soto nuncupati Glossatoris (Cologne, 1619); DE QUESADA, Regulae Cancellariae apostolicae Gregorii XV cum notis et indicibus (Rome, 1621); LOUETIUS, Notae ad comm. Caroli Molinaei in regulas Cancellariae ape apostolicae (Paris, 1656); SPERENGERUS, Roma nova cum regulis Cancellariae apostolicae et de privilegiis clericorum (Frankfort, 1667); CIAMPINI, De abbreviatoribus de parco maiori sive assistent. S. R. E. Vicecancellario in litierarum apostolicarum expeditionibus . . . dissertatio histories (Rome, 1669); LE PELLETIER, Instructions pour les expeditions de la cour de Rome (Paris, 1680); CASTEL PÉRARD, Paraphrase du commeniaire de M. Ch. Du Sfoulin sur les régles de la Chancellerie romaine (Paris, 1685); CIAMPINI, De S. R. E. Vicecancellaria (Rome, 1697); ANON, Compendiaria notitia abbreviatoris de curia (Rome, 1696); OCZENASSEK, Prael. iur. can. seu comm. in regulas Cancellariae Clementis XI (Vienna, 1712); Bovio, La pietà trionfante sulle distrutte grandezze del gentilismo . . . e degli ufficii delta Cancelleria Apostolica e dei Cancellieri della S. R. Chiesa (Rome, 1729); RIGANTI, Commentaria in regulas, constitutiones et ordinationes Cancetlariae apostolicae, opus posthumum (Geneva, 1571); HEDDERICH, Disputatio ad regulam Cancellariae; de non tollendo ius quaesitum in Germania, diss. XVII (Bonn, 1783); ERLER, Der Liber Cancelleriae' apostolicae v. J. 1380 (Leipzig, 1880); V. OTTENTHAL, Die päpstlichen Kanzleiregein von Johann XXII bis Nikolaus V (1888); TANGL, Die päpstlichen Kanzleiordungen von 1200-1500 (Innsbruck, 1894); KEHR, Scrinium und Palatium. Zur Geschichte des 'päpstlichen Kanzleiwessens im 11 Jahrh. in Mitt. des Instil, fur österr. Geschichtsf., suppl. VI; GÖLLER, Mitteilungen und Unlersuchungen über das päpstliche Register-und Kanzleiwessen im 14. Jahrh., besonders unter Johann XXII und Benedict XII in Quellen und Forschungen des Preuss. histor. Instituts in Rom., VI, 272 sqq.; CHIARI. Memoria giuridico-storica sulla Dataria Cancellaria, rev. Camera apostolica, Compenso di Spagna, vacabili e vacabilisti (Rome, 1900); ANON., Die Vacabilia d. päpstl. Kanzlei u. d. Datarie in Arch. f. k. KR., LXXXII (1902), 163-165; VON HOFMANN, Zur Geschichte der päpstl. Kanzlei vornehmlich in der 3. Hälfte des 15. Jahrh. (Berlin, 1904); SCHMITZ-KALLENBERG, Practica Cancellaria! apostolicae seculi xv exeuntis (Münster, 1904); BAUMGARTEN, Aus Kanzlei u. Kammer (Freiburg, 1905); GÖLLER, Die Kommentatoren der päpstlichen Kanzleiregeln von Ende des 15. bis sum Beginn des 17. Jahrhunderts in Arch. f, k. KR., LXXXV (1905), 441 sqq.; LXXXVI (1906). 20 sqq., 259 sqq.; IDEM, Von d. apostol. Kanzlei (Cologne, 1908).

  AMYDENUS, De officio et jurisdictione Datarii nec non de stylo Dataria; MACANAR, Pedimento sobre abuses de la Dataria (Madrid, 1841); ANON., Die Vacabilia d. päpstl. Kanzlei u. d. Datarie in Arch. f. k. KB, 82, 163 (1902).

  SESTINI, 11 Maestro di Camera. (Florence, 1623); CATALANUS, De Magistro s. Palatii Apostolici (Rome, 1751); MARINI, Memorie istoriche degli archivi delta S. Sede (Rome, 1825); RASPONI, De Basilica et Patriarchio lateranensi (Rome, 1656); GALLETTI, Del Primicero delta S. Sede Apostolica e di altri ufficiali rnaggiori del Sagro Palagio lateranense (Rome, 1776); GALLBTTI, Del vestarario della S. Romana Chiesa (Rome, 1758); CONTI, Originæ fasti e privilege degli avvocaii concistoriali (Rome, 1898); RENAZI. Notizie storiche degli antichi Vicedomini del Patriarchio lateranense e dei moderni Prefetti del Sagro Palazzo Apostolico ovvero maggiordomi poritefici (Rome, 1787); CANCELLIERI, Notizie sopra l'anello pescatorio (Rome, 1823); MAUBACH, 0. Kardinale u. ihre Poltt. urn d. Mitte d. fill. Jahrh. (Bonn, 1902); SÄGMÜLLER, Geschichte d. Kardinalates (Rome, 1893); SACCHETTI, Privilegia protonotariorum apostolicorum (Cologne, 1689); ANDREUCCI, Tr. de protonotariis apostolicis (Rome, 1742); RIGANTI, De protonotariis apostolicis (Rome, 1751); BUONACCORSI, Antichitá del protono-apostolico partecipante (Faenza, 1751); BRUNET, Le parfait notaire apostolique et procureur des officialités et formules ecclésiastiques (Lyons, 1775); MICKE, De protonotariis apostolicis dissertatio (Breslau, 1866); RENAUD, Des protonotaires apostoliques in Rev. des Sciences ecclés. (1867); TROMBETTA, De juribus et privilegiis praelatorum Romance Curiae (Sorrento, 1906).

  BENEDETTO OJETTI

St. Romanos

Surnamed ho melodos and ho theorrhetor, poet of the sixth century. The only authority for the life and date of this greatest of Greek hymn-writers is the account in the Menaion for October; his feast is 1 October. According to this account he was by birth a Syrian, served as deacon in the church at Berytus, and came to Constantinople in the reign of Anastasios. It was in the Church of the Most Holy Theotokos (eis ta Kyrou) that he received the charisma of sacred poetry. "After a religious retreat at Blachernae he returned to his church, and one night in his sleep saw a vision of the Most Holy Theotokos, who gave him a volume of paper, saying, 'Take the paper and eat it'." The saint, in his dream, opened his mouth and swallowed the paper. It was Christmas Day, and immediately he awakened and marvelled and glorified God. Then, mounting the ambo, he began the strains of his

he parthenos semeron ton hyperousion tiktei.

He wrote also about one thousand kontakia for other feasts before he died.

Beyond this passage, there are only two mentions of Romanos's name, one in the eighth-century poet St. Germanos, and once in Suidas (s. v. anaklomenon), who calls him "Romanos the melode". None of the Byzantine writers on hymnology allude to him: his fame was practically extinguished by the newer school of hymn-writers which flourished in the eighth and ninth centuries. Krumbacher has made it fairly certain, by a number of critical arguments, that the emperor named in the Menaion as reigning when Romanos came to the capital is Anastasius I (A.D. 491-518), not Anastasius II (A.D. 713-16); Pitra and Stevenson are of the same opinion. Probably, then, he lived through the reign of Justinian (A.D. 527-65), who was himself a hymn-writer; this would make him contemporary with two other Byzantine melodes, Anastasios and Kyriakos. "In poetic talent, fire of inspiration, depth of feeling, and elevation of language, he far surpasses all the other melodes. The literary history of the future will perhaps acclaim Romanos for the greatest ecclesiastical poet of all ages", says Krumbacher, and all the other critics of Byzantine poetry subscribe to this enthusiastic praise. Some have called him the Christian Pindar. Down till the twelfth century his Christmas hymn was performed by a double choir (from S. Sophia and the Holy Apostles) at the imperial banquet on that feast day. Of most of the others only a few strophes survive. The long hymns (kontakia) consist of twenty-five strophes (troparia), usually of twenty-one verses each, with a refrain. Besides the Christmas hymn we may cite the following titles to exemplify St. Romanos's choice of subjects: "Canticum Paschale", "de Crucis Triumpho", "de Iuda Proditore", "de Petri Negatione", "de Virgine iuxta crucem". Dramatic and pathetic dialogue plays a great part in the structure. The simple sincerity of tone sometimes puts the reader in mind of the Latin medieval hymns, or the earliest Italian religious verse. Romanos, like the other melodes, obeys a purely accentual or rhythmic law; the quantitative scansions are obsolete for those to whom he sings (see BYZANTINE LITERATURE, IV). Editions: Twenty-nine hymns in Pitra, "Analecta Sacra", I, 1876; three more in Pitra, "Sanctus Romanus veterum melodorum princeps" (1888); Krumbacher long ago promised a complete critical edition according to the Patmian codices, but has not yet achieved it.

[ Note: St. Romanos is also described in the article, "Saints Romanus" [(8)], Romanos and Romanus being the Greek and Latin forms respectively of the same name.]

PITRA, Hymnographie de l'Eglise grecque (Rome, 1867); BOUVY, Poetes et Melodes (Nimes, 1886); KRUMBACHER, Gesch. d. byz. Literatur, Munich, 312-18; IDEM, Studien zu Romanos (Munich, 1899); IDEM, Umarbeitungen bei Romanos (Munich, 1899); JACOBI, Zur Geschichte des grieschischen Kirchenliedes in Briegers Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte (1882), V, 177-250.

J.S. PHILLIMORE

Constitutio Romanos Pontifices

The restoration by Pius IX, 29 Sept. 1850, by letters Apostolic "Universalis ecclesiæ" of the hierarchy in England, and the consequent transition to the new order of things, necessarily gave rise to misunderstandings and discussion in various matters of jurisdiction and discipline, particularly between the episcopate and religious orders. Bishops, as was incumbent upon them, strenuously maintained the rights of the hierarchy, while religious superiors were loath to surrender prerogatives previously exercised. The chief points of controversy related to the exemption of regulars from the jurisdiction of bishops; the right of bishops to divide parishes or missions conducted by regulars, and to place secular priests in charge of these newly-created missions; the obligation of regulars engaged in parish work to attend conferences of the clergy and diocesan synods; the force of their appeal from synodal statutes; their liberty to found new houses, colleges and schools, or to convert existing institutions to other purposes; the right of bishops to visit canonically institutions in charge of regulars; and certain financial matters. Individual bishops sought to cope with the situation until finally a proposition of Cardinal Manning, made in an annual meeting of the English hierarchy in 1877, to submit these difficulties to Rome for definite settlement, met with unanimous approval. In July, 1878, the bishops of Scotland formally associated themselves with their English brethren in the controversy. Negotiations were opened with Propaganda, but Cardinal Manning later suggested to Pope Leo XIII the appointment of a special commission to examine the claims of the contestants and to prepare a constitution. Repeated delays ensued, so that it was not until 20 Sept., 1880, that a special commission of nine cardinals chosen to consider the question had its first sitting. Four other sessions followed, and in Jan., 1881, a report was made to the pope. Finally the constitution "Romanos Pontifices", of Leo XIII was issued 8 May of the same year, defining the relations in England and Scotland between bishops and religious. This constitution has been extended to the United States (25 Sept., 1885), to Canada (14 March, 1911), to South America (1 Jan., 1900), to the Philippine Islands (1 Jan., 1910), and quite generally to missionary countries. The provisions of the "Romanos Pontifices" may be grouped into three heads:

• the exemption of religious from episcopal jurisdiction;
• relations to bishops of religious engaged in parochial duties;
• and matters pertaining to temporal goods.

The constitution makes clear the following: though regulars according to canon law are subject immediately to the Holy See, bishops are given jurisdiction over small communities. The constitution "Romanos Pontifices" makes a further concession exempting regulars as such, living in parochial residences in small numbers or even alone, almost entirely from the jurisdiction of the ordinary. "We hesitate not to declare", it states, "that regulars dwelling in their own monasteries, are exempt from the jurisdiction of the ordinary, except in cases expressly mentioned in law, and generally speaking in matters pertaining to the cure of souls and the administration of the sacraments."

In parochial ministrations, then, regulars are subject in all things to episcopal supervision, visitation, jurisdiction, and correction. If engaged in parochial work, religious are obliged to assist at conferences of the clergy as well as at diocesan synods. "We declare," says the constitution, "that all rectors of missions are bound by their office to attend the conferences of the clergy; and moreover we ordain and command that vicars also and other religious enjoying ordinary missionary faculties, living in residences and small missions, do the same." The Council of Trent prescribes that all having the cure of souls be present at diocesan synods. The constitution says in regard to this question: Let the Council of Trent be observed. Another point of controversy related to appeals from synodal decrees. Regulars are not denied this right. Their appeal from the ordinary's interpretation of synodal statutes in matters pertaining to common law has a devolutive effect only; in matters pertaining to regulars as such, owing to their exemption, an appeal begets a suspensive effect. The bishop's right to divide parishes, even though under the management of regulars, is maintained, providing the formalities prescribed in law be observed. The opinion of the rector of the mission to be divided must be sought; while a bishop is not free to divide a mission in charge of religious without consulting their superior. An appeal, devolutive in character, to the Holy See, should the case require it, is granted from the bishop's decision to divide a parish or mission. The ordinary is free to follow his own judgment in appointing rectors of new missions, even when formed from parishes in charge of regulars. The claim of regulars to preference in these appointments is thus denied. It is unlawful for religious to establish new monasteries, churches, colleges, or schools without the previous consent of the ordinary and of the Apostolic See. Similar permission is required to convert existing institutions to other purposes, except where such change, affecting merely the domestic arrangements or discipline of regulars themselves, is not contrary to the conditions of the foundation. The bishop may exercise the right of canonical visitation in regard to churches and parochial or elementary schools, though they be in charge of regulars. This right does not extend to cemeteries or institutions for the use of religious only; nor to colleges in which religious, according to their rule, devote themselves to the education of youth. The temporal affairs of a parish or mission are determined by a decree of Propaganda, published 19 April, 1969. All goods given to parishes or missions must be accounted for according to diocesan statutes; not, however, donations made to regulars for themselves. It is the duty of the ordinary to see that parochial goods are devoted to the purposes designated by the donors. Inventories (Propaganda, 10 May, 1867) will distinguish parochial belongings from those of regulars. These regulations of former decrees are embodied in "Romanos Pontifices."

The constitution may be found in Conc. Plen. Balt. III, pp. 212 sq.; Acta Apos. Sedis, II, pp. 254 sq., where it is officially republished. For the English controversy see SNEAD-COX, Life of Cardinal Vaughan (London, 1910), xiv; TAUNTON, The Law of the Church,, s.v. Regulars.

ANDREW B. MEEHAN

The Roman Rite

( Ritus romanus).

The Roman Rite is the manner of celebrating the Holy Sacrifice, administering Sacraments, reciting the Divine Office, and performing other ecclesiastical functions (blessings, all kinds of Sacramentals, etc.) as used in the city and Diocese of Rome. The Roman Rite is the most wide-spread in Christendom. That it has advantages possessed by no other -- the most archaic antiquity, unequalled dignity, beauty, and the practical convenience of being comparatively short in its services -- will not be denied by any one who knows it and the other ancient liturgies. But it was not the consideration of these advantages that led to its extensive use; it was the exalted position of the see that used it. The Roman Rite was adopted throughout the West because the local bishops, sometimes kings or emperors, felt that they could not do better than use the rite of the chief bishop of all, at Rome. And this imitation of Roman liturgical practice brought about in the West the application of the principle (long admitted in the East) that rite should follow patriarchate. Apart from his universal primacy, the pope had always been unquestioned Patriarch of the West. It was then the right and normal thing that the West should use his liturgy. The irregular and anomalous incident of liturgical history is not that the Roman Rite has been used, practically exclusively, in the West since about the tenth or eleventh century, but that before that there were other rites in the pope's patriarchate. Not the disappearance but the existence and long toleration of the Gallican and Spanish rites is the difficulty (see RITES). Like all others, the Roman Rite bears clear marks of its local origin. Wherever it may be used, it is still Roman in the local sense, obviously composed for use in Rome. Our Missal marks the Roman stations, contains the Roman saints in the Canon (See CANON OF THE MASS), honours with special solemnity the Roman martyrs and popes. Our feasts are constantly anniversaries of local Roman events, of the dedication of Roman churches (All Saints, St. Michael, S. Maria ad Nives, etc.). The Collect for Sts. Peter and Paul (29 June) supposes that it is said at Rome (the Church which "received the beginnings of her Faith" from these saints is that of Rome), and so on continually. This is quite right and fitting; it agrees with all liturgical history. No rite has ever been composed consciously for general use. In the East there are still stronger examples of the same thing. The Orthodox all over the world use a rite full of local allusions to the city of Constantinople.

The Roman Rite evolved out of the (presumed) universal, but quite fluid, rite of the first three centuries during the (liturgically) almost unknown time from the fourth to the sixth. In the sixth we have it fully developed in the Leonine, later in the Gelasian, Sacramentaries. How and exactly when the specifically Roman qualities were formed during that time will, no doubt, always be a matter of conjecture (see LITURGY; MASS, LITURGY OF THE). At first its use was very restrained. It was followed only in the Roman province. North Italy was Gallican, the South, Byzantine, but Africa was always closely akin to Rome liturgically. From the eighth century gradually the Roman usage began its career of conquest in the West. By the twelfth century at latest it was used wherever Latin obtained, having displaced all others except at Milan and in retreating parts of Spain. That has been its position ever since. As the rite of the Latin Church it is used exclusively in the Latin Patriarchate, with three small exceptions at Milan, Toledo, and in the still Byzantine churches of Southern Italy, Sicily, and Corsica. During the Middle Ages it developed into a vast number of derived rites, differing from the pure form only in unimportant details and in exuberant additions. Most of these were abolished by the decree of Pius V in 1570 (see MASS, LITURGY OF THE). Meanwhile, the Roman Rite had itself been affected by, and had received additions from, the Gallican and Spanish uses it displaced. The Roman Rite is now used by every one who is subject to the pope's patriarchal jurisdiction (with the three exceptions noted above); that is, it is used in Western Europe, including Poland, in all countries colonized from Western Europe: America, Australia, etc., by Western (Latin) missionaries all over the world, including the Eastern lands where other Catholic rites also obtain. No one may change his rite without a legal authorization, which is not easily obtained. So the Western priest in Syria, Egypt, and so on uses his own Roman Rite, just as at home. On the same principle Catholics of Eastern rites in Western Europe, America, etc., keep their rites; so that rites now cross each other wherever such people live together. The language of the Roman Rite is Latin everywhere except that in some churches along the Western Adriatic coast it is said in Slavonic and on rare occasions in Greek at Rome (see RITES). In derived forms the Roman Rite is used in some few dioceses (Lyons) and by several religious orders (Benedictines, Carthusians, Carmelites, Dominicans). In these their fundamentally Roman character is expressed by a compound name. They are the "Ritus Romano-Lugdunensis", "Romano-monasticus", and so on.

For further details and bibliography see BREVIARY; CANON OF THE MASS; LITURGY; MASS, LITURGY OF THE; RITES.

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

Sts. Romanus

(1) A Roman martyr Romanus is mentioned in the "Liber Pontificalis" (ed. Duchesne, I, 155) with three other ecclesiastics as companions in the martyrdom of St. Lawrence (10 August, 258). There is no reason to doubt that this mention rests upon a genuine ancient tradition. Like St. Lawrence Romanus was buried in the Catacomb of the Cyriaca on the Via Tiburtina. The grave of St. Romanus is explicitly mentioned in the Itineraries of the seventh century (De Rossi, "Roma sotterranea", I, 178-9). In the purely legendary Acts of St. Lawrence, the ostiary Romanus is transformed into a soldier, and an account in accordance with this statement was inserted in the historical martyrologies and in the present Roman Martyrology, which latter places his feast on 9 August (cf. Duchfourcq, "Les Gesta Martyrum romains", I, 201).

(2) In 303 or 304, at the beginning of the Diocletian persecution, a deacon called Romanus of Caesarea in Palestine suffered martyrdom at Antioch. Upon the proclamation of Diocletian's edict he strengthened the Christians of Antioch and openly exhorted the weaker brethren, who were willing to offer heathen sacrifices, not to waver in the Faith. He was taken prisoner, was condemned to death by fire, and was bound to the stake; however, as the Emperor Galerius was then in Antioch, Romanus was brought before him. At the emperor's command the tongue of the courageous confessor was cut out. Tortured in various ways in prison he was finally strangled. Eusebius speaks of his martyrdom in "De martyribus Palestin.", c. ii. Prudentius ("Peristephanon", X in "P.L.", LX, 444 sqq.) relates other details and gives Romanus a companion in martyrdom, a Christian by name Barulas. On this account several historians, among them Baronius, consider that there were two martyrs named Romanus at Antioch, though more likely there was but the one whom Eusebius mentions. Prudentius has introduced legendary features into his account, and his connection of the martyrdom of Barulas with that of Romanus is probably arbitrary. The feast of St. Romanus is observed on 18 November [cf. Allard, "Histoire des persécutions", IV, 173 sq.; Quentin, "Les martyrologes historiques" (Paris, 1908), 183-5].

(3) The "Martyrologium Hieronymianum" mentions martyrs of this name at several dates, chiefly in large companies of Christians who suffered martyrdom. No further particulars are known of any of them.

(4) A holy priest named Romanus laboured in the district of Blaye, in the present French department of the Gironde, at the end of the fourth century. Gregory of Tours gives an account of him ("De gloria confessorum", c. xlv), and relates that St. Martin of Tours made ready the grave of the dead Romanus. An old life of St. Romanus was published in the "Analecta Bollandiana", V (1866), 178 sqq. The feast of the saint is observed on 24 November.

(5) St. Romanus, Abbot of Condat, now St. Claude in the French Jura, b. about 400; d. in 463 or 464. When thirty-five years old he went into the lonely region of Condat to live as a hermit, where after a while his younger brother Lupicinus followed him. A large number of scholars, among whom was St. Eugendus, placed themselves under the direction of the two holy brothers who founded several monasteries: Condat (now Saint-Claude), Lauconne (later Saint-Lupicin, as Lupicinus was buried there), La Balme (later Saint-Romain-de-Roche), where St. Romanus was buried, and Romainmôtier (Romanum monasterium) in the canton of Vaud in Switzerland. Romanus was ordained priest by St. Hilary of Arles in 444, and with Lupicinus he directed these monasteries until his death. His feast is observed on 28 February. Two lives of him are in existence: one by Gregory of Tours in the "Liber vitae patrum" (Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script. Merov., I, 663), and an anonymous "Vita Sanctorum Romani, Lupicini, Eugendi" [ibid., III, 131 sqq.; cf. Benoît, "Histoire de St-Claude", I (Paris, 1890); Besson, "Recherches sur les origines des évêchés de Genève, Lausanne, et Sion" (Fribourg, 1906), 210 sqq.].

(6) St. Romanus, monk in a monastery near Subiaco, Italy, at the beginning of the sixth century. He aided St. Benedict when the latter withdrew into a solitary place and regularly brought Benedict bread to support life (St. Gregory the Great, "Dialogi", II, i). Romanus later (fom 523) represented St. Benedict at Subiaco, and is said to have afterwards gone to Gaul and to have founded a small monastery at Dryes-Fontrouge, where he died about 550 and was venerated as a saint. His feast is observed on 22 May. A St. Romanus, who is venerated as Bishop of Auxerre on 8 October, is probably identical with this Abbot Romanus whose relics were subsequently translated to Auxerre [cf. "Acta SS.", May, V, 153 sqq.; October, III, 396 sqq.; Adlhoch in "Studien und Mitteilungen aus dem Benedictiner- und Cisterzienerorden" (1907), 267 sqq., 501 sqq.; (1908), 103 sqq., 327 sqq., 587 sqq.; Leclerc, "Vie de St Romain, éducateur de St Bénoit" (Paris, 1893)].

(7) St. Romanus, Bishop of Rouen, date of birth unknown; d. about 640. His feast is observed on 23 October. The legend of this saint has little historical value (Acta SS., October, X, 91 sqq.), and there is but little authentic information concerning him [cf. "Analecta Bollandiana" (1904), 337 sq.].

(8) St. Romanus, "the Singer", the most important representative of rhythmic poetry in the Greek Church. According to the Greek "Menaia" he was born in Syria, was ordained deacon at Berytus, then went to Constantinople, where he became one of the clergy at the Blachernen church. The era in which he lived is not certainly ascertained; most probably, however, his residence in Constantinople was from about 515 to 556. His feast is observed on 1 October. Several of his poems were edited by Pitra, "Analecta sacra", I (Paris, 1876), 1-241 [cf. Maas, "Die Chronologie der Hymnen des Romanus" in "Byzantin. Zeitschrift" (1906), 1-44; Bardenhewer, "Patrologie" (3rd ed.), 486].

[ Note: St. Romanus the Singer, described above (8), is identical with St. Romanos the Melodist (q.v.), Romanus and Romanos being the Latin and Greek forms respectively of the same name.]

J.P. KIRSCH

Pope Romanus

Of this pope very little is known with certainty, not even the date of his birth nor the exact dates of his consecration as pope and of his death. He was born at Gallese near Civita Castellana, and was the son of Constantine. He became cardinal of St. Peter ad Vincula and pope about August, 897. He died four months later. He granted the pallium to Vitalis, Patriarch of Grado, and a privilege for his church; and to the Spanish Bishops of Elna and Gerona, he confirmed the possessions of their sees. His coins bear the name of the Emperor Lambert, and his own monogram with "Scs. Petrus". The contemporary historian Frodoard has three verses about him which argue him a man of virtue. It is possible he was deposed by one of the factions which then distracted Rome, for we read that "he was made a monk", a phrase which, in the language of the times, often denoted deposition.

JAFFE, Regesta Pont. Rom., I (Leipzig, 1888), 441; DUCHESNE, Liber Pontificalis, II (Paris, 1892), 230; MANN, Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages, IV (London, 1910), 86 sq.

HORACE K. MANN

Rome

The significance of Rome lies primarily in the fact that it is the city of the pope. The Bishop of Rome, as the successor of St. Peter, is the Vicar of Christ on earth and the visible head of the Catholic Church. Rome is consequently the centre of unity in belief, the source of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and the seat of the supreme authority which can bind by its enactments the faithful throughout the world. The Diocese of Rome is known as the "See of Peter", the "Apostolic See", the "Holy Roman Church" the "Holy See" -- titles which indicate its unique position in Christendom and suggest the origin of its preeminence. Rome, more than any other city, bears witness both to the past splendour of the pagan world and to the triumph of Christianity. It is here that the history of the Church can be traced from the earliest days, from the humble beginnings in the Catacombs to the majestic ritual of St. Peter's. At every turn one comes upon places hallowed by the deaths of the martyrs, the lives of innumerable saints, the memories of wise and holy pontiffs. From Rome the bearers of the Gospel message went out to the peoples of Europe and eventually to the uttermost ends of the earth. To Rome, again, in every age countless pilgrims have thronged from all the nations, and especially from English-speaking countries. With religion the missionaries carried the best elements of ancient culture and civilization which Rome had preserved amid all the vicissitudes of barbaric invasion. To these treasures of antiquity have been added the productions of a nobler art inspired by higher ideals, that have filled Rome with masterpieces in architecture, painting, and sculpture. These appeal indeed to every mind endowed with artistic perception; but their full meaning only the Catholic believer can appreciate, because he alone, in his deepest thought and feeling, is at one with the spirit that pulsates here in the heart of the Christian world.

Many details concerning Rome have been set forth in other articles of THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA. For the prerogatives of the papacy the reader is referred to POPE; for the ecclesiastical government of the city and diocese, to CARDINAL VICAR; for liturgical matters, to ROMAN RITE; for education, to ROMAN COLLEGES; for literary development, to ROMAN ACADEMIES; for history, to the biographical articles on the various popes, and the articles CONSTANTINE THE GREAT, CHARLEMAGNE, etc. There is a special article on each of the religious orders, saints, and artists mentioned in this article, while the details of the papal administration, both spiritual and temporal, will be found treated under APOSTOLIC CAMERA; PONTIFICAL AUDIENCES; APOSTOLIC EXAMINERS; HOLY SEE; PAPAL RESCRIPTS; ROMAN CONGREGATIONS; ROMAN CURIA; SACRA ROMANA ROTA; STATES OF THE CHURCH, etc. Of the great Christian monuments of the Eternal City, special articles are devoted to BASILICA OF ST. PETER; TOMB OF ST. PETER; LATERAN BASILICA; VATICAN; CHAIR OF PETER.

The present article will be divided:

Topography and Existing Conditions;

General History of the City;

Churches and other Monuments.

I. TOPOGRAPHY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS

The City of Rome rises on the banks of the Tiber at a distance of from 16 to 19 miles from the mouth of that river, which makes a deep furrow in the plain which extends between the Alban hills, to the south; the hills of Palestrina and Tivoli, and the Sabine hills, to the east: and the Umbrian hills and Monte Tolfa, to the north. The city stands in latitude 41°54' N. and longitude 12°30' E. of Greenwich. It occupies, on the left bank, not only the plain, but also the adjacent heights, namely, portions of the Parioli hills, of the Pincian, the Quirinal, the Viminal, the Esquiline (which are only the extremities of a mountain-mass of tufa extending to the Alban hills), the Capitoline, the Cælian, the Palatine, and the Aventine -- hills which are now isolated. On the right bank is the valley lying beneath Monte Mario the Vatican, and the Janiculan, the last-named of which has now become covered with houses and gardens. The Tiber, traversing the city, forms two sharp bends and an island (S. Bartolomeo), and within the city its banks are protected by the strong and lofty walls which were begun in 1875. The river is crossed by fourteen bridges, one of them being only provisional, while ten have been built since 1870. There is also a railroad drawbridge near St. Paul's. Navigation on the river is practicable only for vessels of light draught, which anchor at Ripa Grande, taking cargoes of oil and other commodities.

For the cure of souls, the city is divided into 54 parishes (including 7 in the suburbs), administered partly by secular clergy, partly by regular. The boundaries of the parishes have been radically changed by Pius X, to meet new needs arising out of topographical changes. Each parish has, besides its parish priest, one or two assistant priests, a chief sacristan, and an indeterminate number of chaplains. The parish priests every year elect a chamberlain of the clergy, whose position is purely honorary; every month they assemble for a conference to discuss cases in moral theology and also the practical exigencies of the ministry. In each parish there is a parochial committee for Catholic works; each has its various confraternities, many of which have their own church and oratory. In the vast extent of country outside of Rome, along the main highways, there are chapels for the accommodation of the few settled inhabitants, and the labourers and shepherds who from October to July are engaged in the work of the open country. In former times most of these chapels had priests of their own, who also kept schools; nowadays, through the exertions of the Society for the Religious Aid of the Agro Romano (i. e. the country districts around Rome), priests are taken thither from Rome every Sunday to say Mass, catechize, and preach on the Gospel. The houses of male religious number about 160; of female religious, 205, for the most part devoted to teaching, ministering to the sick in public and private hospitals, managing various houses of retreat etc. Besides the three patriarchal chapters (see below, under "Churches"), there are at Rome eleven collegiate chapters.

In the patriarchal basilicas there are confessors for all the principal languages. Some nations have their national churches (Germans, Anima and Campo Santo; French, S. Luigi and S. Claudio; Croats, S. Girolamo dei Schiavoni; Belgians, S. Giuliano; Portuguese, S. Antonio; Spaniards, S. Maria in Monserrato; to all which may be added the churches of the Oriental rites). Moreover, in the churches and chapels of many religious houses, particularly the generalates, as well as in the various national colleges, it is possible for foreigners to fulfil their religious obligations. For English-speaking persons the convents of the Irish Dominicans (S. Clemente) and of the Irish Franciscans (S. Isidoro), the English, Irish, and American Colleges, the new Church of S. Patrizio in the Via Ludovisi, that of S. Giorgio of the English Sisters in the Via S. Sebastianello, and particularly S. Silvestro in Capite (Pallottini) should be mentioned. In these churches, too, there are, regularly, sermons in English on feast-day afternoons, during Lent and Advent, and on other occasions. Sometimes there are sermons in English in other churches also, notice being given beforehand by bills posted outside the churches and by advertisements in the papers. First Communions are mostly made in the parish churches; many parents place their daughters in seclusion during the period of immediate preparation, in some educational institution. There are also two institutions for the preparation of boys for their First Communion, one of them without charge (Ponte Rotto). Christian doctrine is taught both in the day and night schools which are dependent either on the Holy See, or on religious congregations or Catholic associations. For those who attend the public elementary schools, parochial catechism is provided on Sunday and feast-day afternoons. For intermediate and university students suitable schools of religious instruction have been formed, connected with the language schools and the scholastic ripetizioni, so as to attract the young men. The confraternities, altogether 92 in number, are either professional (for members of certain professions or trades), or national, or for some charitable object (e. g., for charity to prisoners; S. Lucia del Gonfalone and others like it, for giving dowries to poor young women of good character; the Confraternità della Morte, for burying those who die in the country districts, and various confraternities for escorting funerals, of which the principal one is that of the Sacconi; that of S. Giovanni Decollato, to assist persons condemned to death), or again they have some purely devotional aim, like the Confraternities of the Blessed Sacrament, of the Christian Doctrine, of the various mysteries of religion, and of certain saints.

For ecclesiastical instruction there are in the city, besides the various Italian and foreign colleges, three great ecclesiastical universities: the Gregorian, under the Jesuits; the Schools of the Roman Seminary, at S. Apollinare; the Collegio Angelico of the Dominicans, formerly known as the Minerva. Several religious orders also have schools of their own -- the Benedictines at S. Anselmo, the Franciscans at S. Antonio, the Redemptorists at S. Alfonso, the Calced Carmelites at the College of S. Alberto, the. Capuchina the Minor Conventuals, the Augustinians, and others. (See ROMAN COLLEGES.) For classical studies there are, besides the schools of S. Apollinare, the Collegio Massimo, under the Jesuits, comprising also elementary and technical schools; the Collegio Nazareno (Piarists), the gymnasium and intermediate school of which take rank with those of the Government; the Instituto Angelo Mai (Barnabite). The Brothers of the Christian Schools have a flourishing technical institute (de Merode) with a boarding-house (convitto). There are eight colleges for youths under the direction of ecclesiastics or religious. The Holy See and the Society for the Protection of Catholic Interests also maintain forty-six elementary schools for the people mostly under the care of religious congregations. For the education of girls there are twenty-six institutions directed by Sisters, some of which also receive day-pupils. The orphanages are nine in number, and some of them are connected with technical and industrial schools. The Salesians, too, have a similar institution, and there are two agricultural institutions. Hospices are provided for converts from the Christian sects and for Hebrew neophytes. Thirty other houses of refuge, for infants, orphans, old people, etc., are directed by religious men or women.

As the capital of Italy, Rome is the residence of the reigning house, the ministers, the tribunals, and the other civil and military officials of both the national Government and the provincial. For public instruction there are the university, two technical institutes, a commercial high school, five gymnasium-lyceums, eight technical schools, a female institute for the preparation of secondary teachers, a national boarding school, and other lay institutions, besides a military college. There are also several private schools for languages etc. -- the Vaticana, the Nazionale (formed out of the libraries of the Roman College, of the Aracœli Convent and other monastic libraries partially ruined), the Corsiniana (now the School of the Accademia dei Lincei), the Casanatense (see CASANATTA), the Angelica (formerly belonging to the Augustinians), the Vallicellana (Oratorians, founded by Cardinal Baronius), the Militare Centrale, the Chigiana, and others. (For the academies see ACADEMIES, ROMAN.) Foreign nations maintain institutions for artistic, historical, or archæological study (America, Great Britain, Austria-Hungary, Prussia, Holland, Belgium, France). There are three astronomical and meteorological observatories: the Vatican, the Capitol (Campidoglio), and the Roman College (Jesuit), the last-named, situated on the Janiculan, has been suppressed. The museums and galleries worthy of mention are the Vatican (see VATICAN), those of Christian and of profane antiquities at the Lateran (famous for the "Dancing Satyr"; the "Sophocles", one of the finest of portrait statues in existence found at Terracina; the "Neptune", the pagan and Christian sarcophagi with decorations in relief, and the statue of Hippolytus). In the gallery at the Lateran there are paintings by Crivelli, Gozzoli, Lippi, Spagna, Francia, Palmezzano, Sassoferrato, and Seitz. The Capitoline Museum contains Roman prehistoric tombs and household furniture, reliefs from the Arch of Marcus Aurelius, a head of Amalasunta, a half-length figure of the Emperor Commodus, the epitaph of the infant prodigy Quintus Sulpicius Maximus, the Esquiline and the Capitoline Venuses, "Diana of the Ephesians", the Capitoline Wolf (Etruscan work of the fifth century b.c.), Marforius, the Dying Gladiator, busts of the emperors and other famous men of antiquity, and Vespasian's "Lex regia"; the Gallery contains works by Spagna, Tintoretto, Caracci, Caravaggio, Guercino (St. Petronilla, the original of the mosaic in St. Peter's), Guido Reni, Titian, Van Dyke, Domenichino, Paolo Veronese, and other masters. There are important numismatic collections and collections of gold jewelry. The Villa Giulia has a collection of Etruscan terracotta; the Museo Romano, objects recently excavated; the Museo Kircheriano has been enlarged into an ethnographical museum. The Borghese Gallery is in the villa of the same name. The National Gallery, in the Exposition Building (Palazzo dell' Esposizione), is formed out of the Corsini, Sciarra, and Torlonia collections, together with modern acquisitions. There are also various private collections in different parts of the city.

The institutions of public charity are all consolidated in the Congregazione di Carità, under the Communal Administration. There are twenty-seven public hospitals, the most important of which are: the Polyclinic, which is destined to absorb all the others; S. Spirito, to which is annexed the lunatic asylum and the foundling hospital; S. Salvatore, a hospital for women, in the Lateran; S. Giacomo; S. Antonio; the Consolazione; two military hospitals. There are also an institute for the blind, two clinics for diseases of the eye, twenty-five asylums for abandoned children, three lying-in hospitals, and numerous private clinics for paying patients. The great public promenades are the Pincian, adjoining the Villa Borghese and now known as the Umberto Primo, where a zoological garden has recently been installed, and the Janiculum. Several private parks or gardens, as the Villa Pamphili, are also accessible to the public every day.

The population of Rome in 1901 was 462,783. Of these 5000 were Protestants, 7000 Jews, 8200 of other religions and no religion. In the census now (1910) being made an increase of more than 100,000 is expected. Rome is now the most salubrious of all the large cities of Italy, its mortality for 1907 being 18.8 per thousand, against 19.9 at Milan and 19.6 at Turin. The Press is represented by five agencies: there are 17 daily papers, two of them Catholic ("Osservatore Romano" and "Corriere d'Italia"); 8 periodicals are issued once or oftener in the week (5 catholic, 4 in English -- "Rome", "Roman Herald", "Roman Messenger", "Roman World"); 88 are issued more than once a month (7 Catholic); there are 101 monthlies (19 Catholic); 55 periodicals appear less frequently than once a month.

II. GENERAL HISTORY OF THE CITY

Arms and implements of the Palæolithic Age, found in the near vicinity of Rome, testify to the presence of man here in those remote times. The most recent excavations have established that as early as the eighth century b.c. or, according to some, several centuries earlier, there was a group of human habitations on the Palatine Hill, a tufaceous ledge rising in the midst of marshy ground near the Tiber. (That river, it may be observed here, was known to the primitive peoples by the name of Rumo, "the River".) Thus is the traditional account of the origin of Rome substantially verified. At the same time, or very little later, a colony of Sabines was formed on the Quirinal, and on the Esquiline an Etruscan colony. Between the Palatine and the Quirinal rose the Capitoline, once covered by two sacred groves, afterwards occupied by the temple of Jupiter and the Rock. Within a small space, therefore, were established the advance guards of three distinct peoples of different characters; the Latins, shepherds; the Sabines, tillers of the soil; the Etruscans, already far advanced in civilization, and therefore in commerce and the industries. How these three villages became a city, with, first, the Latin influence preponderating, then the Sabine, then the Etruscan (the two Tarquins), is all enveloped in the obscurity of the history of the seven kings (753-509 b.c.). The same uncertainty prevails as to the conquests made at the expense of the surrounding peoples. it is unquestionable that all those conquests had to be made afresh after the expulsion of the kings.

But the social organization of the new city during this period stands out clearly: There were three original tribes: the Ramnians (Latins), the Titians (Sabines), and the Luceres (Etruscans). Each tribe was divided into ten curiœ, each curia into ten gentes; each gens into ten (or thirty) families. Those who belonged to these, the most ancient, tribes were Patricians, and the chiefs of the three hundred gentes formed the Senate. In the course of time and the wars with surrounding peoples, new inhabitants occupied the remaining hills; thus, under Tullus Hostilius, the Cælian was assigned to the population of the razed Alba Longa (Albano); the Sabines, conquered by Ancus Martius, had the Aventine. Later on, the Viminal was occupied. The new inhabitants formed the Plebeians (Plebs), and their civil rights were less than those of the older citizens. The internal history of Rome down to the Imperial Period is nothing but a struggle of plebeians against patricians for the acquisition of greater civil rights, and these struggles resulted in the civil, political, and juridical organization of Rome. The king was high-priest, judge, leader in war and head of the Government; the Senate and the Comitia of the People were convoked by him at his pleasure, and debated the measures proposed by him. Moreover, the kingly dignity was hereditary. Among the important public works in this earliest period were the drains, or sewers (cloacœ), for draining the marshes around the Palatine, the work of the Etruscan Tarquinius Priscus; the city wall was built by Servius Tullius, who also organized the Plebeians, dividing them into thirty tribes; the Sublician Bridge was constructed to unite the Rome of that time with the Janiculan.

During the splendid reign of Tarquinius Superbus, Rome was the mistress of Latium as far as Circeii and Signia. But, returning victorious from Ardea, the king found the gates of the city closed against him. Rome took to itself a republican form of government, with two consuls, who held office for only one year; only in times of difficulty was a dictator elected, to wield unlimited power. In the expulsion of Tarquinius Superbus some historians have seen a revolt of the Latin element against Etruscan domination. Besides wars and treaties with the Latins and other peoples, the principal events, down to the burning of Rome by the Gauls, were the institution of the tribunes of the people (tribuni plebis), the establishment of the laws of the Twelve Tables, and the destruction of Veii. In 390 the Romans were defeated by the Gauls near the River Allia; a few days later the city was taken and set on fire, and after the Gauls had departed it was rebuilt without plan or rule. Cumillus, the dictator, reorganized the army and, after long resistance to the change, at last consented that one of the consuls should be a plebeian. Southern Etruria became subject to Rome, with the capture of Nepi and Sutri in 386. The Appian Way and Aqueduct were constructed at this period. Very soon it was possible to think of conquering the whole peninsula. The principal stages of this conquest are formed by the three wars against the Samnites (victory of Suesaula 343); the victory of Bovianum, 304; those over the Etruscans and Umbrians, in 310 and 308; lastly the victory of Sentinum, in 295, over the combined Samnites, Etruscans, and Gauls. The Tarentine (282-272) and the First and Second Punic Wars (264-201) determined the conquest of the rest of Italy, with the adjacent islands, as well as the first invasion of Spain.

Soon after this, the Kingdom of Macedonia (Cynoscephalæ, 197; Pydna, 168) and Greece (capture of Corinth, 146) were subdued, while the war against Antiochus of Syria (192-89) and against the Galatians (189) brought Roman supremacy into Asia, In 146 Carthage was destroyed, and Africa reduced to subjection; between 149 and 133 the conquest of Spain was completed. Everywhere Roman colonies sprang up. With conquest, the luxurious vices of the conquered peoples also came to Rome, and thus the contrast between patricians and plebeians was accentuated. To champion the cause of the plebeians there arose the brothers Tiberius and Calus Gracchus. The Servile Wars (132-171) and the Jugurthine War (111-105) revealed the utter corruption of Roman society. Marius and Sulla, both of whom had won glory in foreign wars, rallied to them the two opposing parties, Democratic and Aristocratic, respectively. Sulla firmly established his dictatorship with the victory of the Colline Gate (83), reorganized the administration, and enacted some good laws to arrest the moral decay of the city. But the times were ripe for the oligarchy, which was to lead in the natural course of events to the monarchy. In the year 60, Cæsar, Pompey, and Crassus formed the first Triumvirate. While Cæsar conquered Gaul (58-50), and Crassus waged an unsuccessful war against the Parthians (54-53), Pompey succeeded in gaining supreme control of the capital. The war between Pompey to whom the nobles adhered, and Cæsar, who had the democracy with him, was inevitable. The battle of Pharsalia (48) decided the issue; in 45 Cæsar was already thinking of establishing monarchical government; his assassination (44) could do no more than delay the movement towards monarchy. Another triumvirate was soon formed by Antony, Lepidus, and Octavian; Antony and Octavian disagreed, and at Actium (32) the issue was decided in Octavian's favour. Roman power had meanwhile been consolidated and extended in Spain, in Gaul, and even as far as Pannonia, in Pontus, in Palestine, and in Egypt. Henceforward Roman history is no longer the history of the City of Rome, although it was only under Caracalla (a.d. 211) that Roman citizenship was accorded to all free subjects of the empire.

In the midst of these political vicissitudes the city was growing and being beautified with temples and other buildings, public and private. On the Campus Martius and beyond the Tiber, at the foot of the Janiculan, new and populous quarters sprang up with theatres (those of Pompey and of Marcellus) and circuses (the Maximus and the Flaminius, 221 b.c.). The centre of political life was the Forum, which had been the market before the centre of buying and selling was transferred, in 388, to the Campus Martius (Forum Holitorium), leaving the old Forum Romanum to the business of the State. Here were the temples of Concord (366), Saturn (497), the Dî Consentes, Castor and Pollux (484), the Basilica Æmilia (179), the Basilica Julia (45), the Curia Hostilia (S. Adriano), the Rostra, etc. Scarcely had the empire been consolidated when Augustus turned his attention to the embellishment of Rome, and succeeding emperors followed his example: brick-built Rome became marble Rome. After the sixth decade b.c. many Hebrews had settled at Rome, in the Trastevere quarter and that of the Porta Capena, and soon they became a financial power. They were incessantly making proselytes, especially among the women of the upper classes. The names of thirteen synagogues are known as existing (though not all at the same time) at Rome during the Imperial Period. Thus was the way prepared for the Gospel, whereby Rome, already mistress of the world, was to be given a new sublimer and more lasting, title to that dominion -- the dominion over the souls of all mankind.

Even on the Day of Pentecost, "Roman strangers" (advenœ Romani, Acts, ii, 10) were present at Jerusalem, and they surely must have carried the good news to their fellow-citizens at Rome. Ancient tradition assigns to the year 42 the first coming of St. Peter to Rome, though, according to the pseudo-Clementine Epistles, St. Barnabas was the first to preach the Gospel in the Eternal City. Under Claudius (c. a.d. 50), the name of Christ had become such an occasion of discord among the Hebrews of Rome that the emperor drove them all out of the city, though they were not long in returning. About ten years later Paul also arrived, a prisoner, and exercised a vigorous apostolate during his sojourn. The Christians were numerous at that time, even at the imperial Court. The burning of the city -- by order of Nero, who wished to effect a thorough renovation -- was the pretext for the first official persecution of the Christian name. Moreover, it was very natural that persecution, which had been occasional, should in course of time have become general and systematic; hence it is unnecessary to transfer the date of the Apostles' martyrdom from the year 67, assigned by tradition, to the year 64 (see PETER, SAINT; PAUL, SAINT). Domitian's reign took its victims both from among the opponents of absolutism and from the Christians; among them some who were of very exalted rank -- Titus Flavius Clemens, Acilius Glabrio (Cemetery of Priscilla), and Flavia Domitilla, a relative of the emperor. It must have been then, too, that St. John, according to a very ancient legend (Tertullian), was brought to Rome.

The reign of Trajan and Adrian was the culminating point of the arts at Rome. The Roman martyrdoms attributed to this period are, with the exception of St. Ignatius's, somewhat doubtful. At the same time the heads of various Gnostic sects settled at Rome, notably Valentinus, Cerdon, and Marcion; but it does not appear that they had any great following. Under Antoninus, Marcus Aurelius, and Commodus, several Roman martyrs are known -- Pope St. Telesphorus, Sts. Lucius, Ptolemæus, Justin and companions, and the Senator Apollonius. Under Commodus, thanks to Martia, his morganatic wife, the condition of the Christians improved. At the same time the schools of Rhodon, St. Justin, and others flourished. But three new heresies from the East brought serious trouble to the internal peace of the Church: that of Theodotus, the shoemaker of Byzantium; that of Noetus brought in by one Epigonus; and Montanism. In the struggle against these heresies, particularly the last-named, the priest Hippolytus, a disciple of St. Irenæus, bore a distinguished part but he, in his turn, incurred the censures of Popes Zephyrinus and Callistus and became the leader of a schismatical party. But the controversies between Hippolytus and Callistus were not confined to theological questions, but also bore upon discipline, the pope thinking proper to introduce certain restrictions. Another sect transplanted to Rome at this period was that of the Elcesaites.

The persecution of Septimius Severus does not appear to have been very acute at Rome, where, before this time, many persons of rank -- even of the imperial household -- had been Christians. The long period of tranquillity, hardly interrupted by Maximinus (235-38), fostered the growth of Roman church organization; so much so that, under Cornelius, after the first fury of the Decian persecution, the city numbered about 50,000 Christians. The last-named persecution produced many Roman martyrs -- Pope St. Fabian among the first -- and many apostates, and the problem of reconciling the latter resulted in the schism of Novatian. The persecution of Valerian, too, fell first upon the Church of Rome. Under Aurelian (271-76), the menace of an invasion of the Germans who had already advanced as far as Pesaro compelled the emperor to restore and extend the walls of Rome. The persecution of Diocletian also had its victims in the city, although there are no trustworthy records of them; it did not last long, however, in the West. Maxentius went so far as to restore to the Christians their cemeteries and other landed property, and, if we are to believe Eusebius, ended by showing them favour, as a means of winning popularity. At this period several pretentious buildings were erected -- baths, a circus, a basilica, etc. In the fourth and fifth centuries the city began to be embellished with Christian buildings, and the moribund art of antiquity thus received a new accession of vitality.

Of the heresies of this period, Arianism alone disturbed the religious peace for a brief space; even Pelagianiam failed to take root. The conflict between triumphant Christianity and dying Paganism was more bitter. Symmachus, Prætextatus, and Nicomachus were the most zealous and most powerful defenders of the ancient religion. At Milan, St. Ambrose kept watch. By the end of the fourth century the deserted temples were becoming filled with cobwebs; pontiffs and vestals were demanding baptism. The statues of the gods served as public ornaments; precious objects were seldom plundered, and until the year 526 not one temple was converted to the uses of Christian worship. In, 402 the necessity once more arose of fortifying Rome. The capital of the world, which had never beheld a hostile army since the days of Hannibal, in 408 withstood the double siege of Alaric. But the Senate, mainly at the instigation of a pagan minority, treated with Alaric, deposed Honorius, and enthroned a new emperor Attalus. Two years later, Alaric returned, succeeded in taking the city, and sacked it. It is false, however, that the destruction of Rome began then. Under Alaric, as in the Gothic war of the sixth century, only so much was destroyed as military exigencies rendered inevitable. The intervention of St. Leo the Great saved the Eternal City from the fury of Attila, but could not prevent the Vandals, in 456, from sacking it without mercy for fifteen days: statues, gold, silver, bronze, brass -- whether the property of the State, or of the Church, or of private persons -- were taken and shipped to Carthage.

Rome still called itself the capital of the empire, but since the second century it had seen the emperors only at rare and fleeting moments; even the kings of Italy preferred Ravenna as a residence. Theodoric, nevertheless, made provision for the outward magnificence of the city, preserving its monuments so far as was possible. Pope St. Agapetus and the learned Cassiodorus entertained the idea of creating at Rome a school of advanced Scripture studies, on the model of that which flourished at Edessa, but the Gothic invasion made shipwreck of this design. In that Titanic war Rome stood five sieges. In 536 Belisarius took it without striking a blow. Next year Vitiges besieged it, cutting the aqueducts, plundering the outlying villas, and even penetrating into the catacombs; the city would have been taken had not the garrison of Hadrian's tomb defended themselves with fragments of the statues of heroes and gods which they found in that monument. Soon after the departure of Pope Vigilius from Rome (November, 545), King Totila invested it and captured a fleet bearing supplies sent by Vigilius, who by that time had passed over to Sicily. In December, 546, the city was captured, through the treachery of the Isaurian soldiery, and once more sacked. Totila, obliged to set out for the south, forced the whole population of Rome to leave the city, so that it was left uninhabited; but they returned with Belisarius in 547. Two years later, another Isaurian treachery made Totila once more master of the city, which then for the last time saw the games of the circus. After the battle of Taginæ (552), Rome opened its gates to Narces and became Byzantine. The ancient Senate and the Roman nobility were extinct. There was a breathing-space of sixteen years, and then the Lombards drew near to Rome, pillaging and destroying the neighbouring regions. St. Gregory the Great has described the lamentable condition of the city; the same saint did his best to remedy matters. The seventh century was disastrously marked by a violent assault on the Lateran made by Mauricius, the chartularius of the Exarch of Ravenna (640), by the exile of Pope St. Martin (653), and by the visit of the Emperor Constans I (663). The imprisonment of St. Sergius, which had been ordered by Justinian II, was prevented by the native troops of the Exarchate.

In the eighth century the Lombards, with Liutprand, were seized with the old idea of occupying all Italy, and Rome in particular. The popes, from Gregory II on, saved the city and Italy from Lombard domination by the power of their threats, until they were finally rescued by the aid of Pepin, when Rome and the peninsula came under Frankish domination. Provision was made for the material well-being of the city by repairs on the walls and the aqueducts, and by the establishment of agricultural colonies (domus cultœ) for the cultivation of the wide domains surrounding the city. But in Rome itself there were various factions -- favouring either the Franks or the Lombards, or, later on, Frankish or Nationalist -- and these factions often caused tumults, as, in particular, on the death of Paul I (767) and at the beginning of Leo III's pontificate (795). With the coronation of Charlemagne (799) Rome became finally detached from the Empire of the East. Though the pope was master of Rome, the power of the Sword was wielded by the imperial missi, and this arrangement came to be more clearly defined by the Constitution of Lothair (824). Thus the government was divided. In the ninth century the pope had to defend Rome and Central Italy against the Saracens. Gregoriopolis, the Leonine City, placed outside the walls for the defence of the Basilica of St. Peter, and sacked in 846, and Joannipolis, for the defence of St. Paul's were built by Gregory IV, Leo IV, and John VIII. The latter two and John X also gained splendid victories over these barbarians.

The decline of the Carlovingian dynasty was not without its effect upon the papacy and upon Rome, which became a mere lordship of the great feudal families, especially those of Theodora and Marozia. When Hugh of Provence wished to marry Marozia, so as to become master of Rome, his son Alberic rebelled against him and was elected their chief by the Romans, with the title of Patrician (Patricius) and Consul. The temporal power of the pope might then have come to an end, had not John, Alberic's son, reunited the two powers. But John's life and his conduct of the government necessitated the intervention of the Emperor Otto I (963), who instituted the office of prœfectus urbis, to represent the imperial authority. (This office became hereditary in the Vico family.) Order did not reign for long: Crescentius, leader of the anti-papal party, deposed and murdered popes. It was only for a few brief intervals that Otto II (980) and Otto III (996-998-1002) were able to re-establish the imperial and pontifical authority. At the beginning of the eleventh century three popes of the family of the counts of Tusculum immediately succeeded each other, and the last of the three, Benedict IX, led a life so scandalous as made it necessary for Henry III to intervene (1046). The schism of Honorius II and the struggle between Gregory VII and Henry IV exasperated party passions at Rome, and conspicuous in the struggle was another Crescentius, a member of the Imperialist Party. Robert Guiscard, called to the rescue by Gregory VII, sacked the city and burned a great part of it, with immense destruction of monuments and documents. The struggle was revived under Henry V, and Rome was repeatedly besieged by the imperial troops.

Then followed the schism of Pier Leone (Anacletus II), which had hardly been ended, in 1143, when Girolamo di Pierleone, counselled by Arnold of Brescia, made Rome into a republic, modelled after the Lombard communes, under the rule of fifty-six senators. In vain did Lucius II attack the Capitol, attempting to drive out the usurpers. The commune was in opposition no less to the imperial than to the papal authority. At first the popes thought to lean on the emperors, and thus Adrian IV induced Barbarossa to burn Arnold alive (1155). Still, just as in the preceding century, every coronation of an emperor was accompanied by quarrels and fights between the Romans and the imperial soldiery. In 1188 a modus vivendi was established between the commune and Clement III, the people recognizing the pope's sovereignty and conceding to him the right of coinage, the senators and military captains being obliged to swear fealty to him. But the friction did not cease. Innocent III (1203) was obliged to flee from Rome, but, on the other hand, the friendly disposition of the mercantile middle class facilitated his return and secured to him some influence in the affairs of the communes, in which he obtained the appointment of a chief of the Senate, known as "the senator" (1207). The Senate, therefore, was reduced to the status of the Communal Council of Rome; the senator was the syndic, or mayor, and remained so until 1870. In the conflicts between the popes, on the one hand, and, on the other Frederick II and his heirs, the Senate was mostly Imperialist, cherishing some sort of desire for the ancient independence; at times, however, it was divided against itself (as in 1262, for Richard, brother of the King of England, against Manfred, King of Naples).

In 1263 Charles of Anjou, returning from the conquest of Naples, caused himself to be elected senator for life;. but Urban IV obliged him to be content with a term of ten years. Nicholas III forbade that any foreign prince should be elected senator, and in 1278 he himself held the office. The election was always to be subject to the pope's approval. However, these laws soon fell into desuetude. The absence of the popes from Rome had the most disastrous results for the city: anarchy prevailed; the powerful families of Colonna, Savelli, Orsini, Anguillara, and others lorded it with no one to gainsay them; the pope's vicars were either stupid or weak; the monuments crumbled of themselves or were destroyed; sheep and cows were penned in the Lateran Basilica; no new buildings arose, except the innumerable towers, or keeps, of which Brancaleone degli Andalò, the senator (1252-56) caused more than a hundred to be pulled down; the revival of art, so promising in the thirteenth century was abruptly cut off. The mad enterprise of Cola di Rieuzo only added to the general confusion. The population was reduced to about 17,000. The Schism of the West, with the wars of King Ladislaus (1408 and 1460, siege and sack of Rome), kept the city from benefiting by the popes' return as quickly as it should. Noteworthy, however, is the understanding between Boniface IX and the Senate as to their respective rights (1393). This pope and Innocent VII also made provision for the restoration of the city.

With Martin V the renascence of Rome began. Eugene IV again was driven out by the Romans, and Nicholas V had to punish the conspiracy of Stefano Porcari; but the patronage of letters by the popes and the new spirit of humanism obliterated the memory of these longings for independence. Rome became the city of the arts and of letters, of luxury and of dissoluteness. The population, too, changed in character and dialect, which had before more nearly approached the Neapolitan, but now showed the influence of immigration from Tuscany, Umbria, and the Marches. The sack of 1527 was a judgment, and a salutary warning to begin that reformation of manners to which the Brothers of the Oratory of Divine Love (the nucleus of the Theatine Order) and, later, the Jesuits and St. Philip Neri devoted themselves. In the war between Paul IV and Philip II (1556), the Colonna for the last time displayed their insubordination to the Pontifical Government. Until 1799 Rome was at peace under the popes, who vied with the cardinals in embellishing the city with churches, fountains, obelisks, palaces, statues, and paintings. Unfortunately, this work of restoration was accompanied by the destruction of ancient and, still more, medieval monuments. An attempt was also made to improve the ground plan of Rome by straightening and widening the streets (Sixths IV, Sixtus V -- the Corso, the Ripetta, the Babuino, Giulia, Paola, Sistina, and other streets). The artists who have successively left their imprint on the City are Bramante, Michelangelo, Vignola, Giacomo della Porta, Fontana, Maderna, Bernini, Borromini, and, in the eighteenth century, Fuga. The most important popular risings of this period were those against Urban VIII, on account of the mischief done by the Barberini and against Cardinal Cascia, after the death of Benedict XIII.

The pontificate of Pius VI, illustrious for its works of public utility, ended with the proclamation of the Republic of Rome (10 February, 1798) and the pope's exile. Pius VII was able to return, but after 1806 there was a French Government at Rome side by side with the papal, and in 1809 the city was incorporated in the empire. General Miollis, indeed, deserved well of Rome for the public works he caused to be executed (the Pincian), and the archæological excavations, which were vigorously and systematically continued in the succeeding pontificates, especially that of Pius IX. Of the works of art carried away to Paris only a part were restored after the Congress of Vienna.

But the Revolutionary germ still remained planted at Rome, even though it gave no signs of activity either in 1820 or in 1830 and 1831. A few political murders were the only indication of the fire that smouldered beneath the ashes. The election of Pius IX, hailed as the Liberal pontiff, electrified all Rome. The pope saw his power slipping away; the assassination of Pellegrino Rossi and the riots before the Quirinal (25 November, 1848) counselled his flight to Gaeta. The Triumvirate was formed and, on 6 February, 1849, convoked the Constituent Assembly, which declared the papal power abolished. The mob abandoned itself to the massacre of defenceless priests, and the wrecking of churches and palaces. Oudinot's French troops restored the papal power (6 August, 1849), the pope retaining a few French regiments. Secret plotting went on, though at Rome none dared attempt anything (the Fausti trial). Only in 1867, when Garibaldi, the victor at Monterotondo, defeated at Mentana, invaded the Papal States, was the revolt prepared that was to have burst while Enrico Cairoi was trying to enter the city; but the coup de main failed; the stores of arms and ammunition were discovered; the only serious occurrence was the explosion of a mine, which destroyed the Serristori Barracks in the Borgo. Not until 20 September, 1870, was Rome taken from the popes and made the actual capital of the Kingdom of Italy.

III. CHURCHES AND OTHER MONUMENTS

The "Annuario Ecclesiastico" enumerates 358 public churches and oratories in Rome and its suburbs. Besides, there are the chapels of the seminaries, colleges, monasteries, and other institutions. Since 1870 many churches have been destroyed, but many new ones have arisen in the new quarters.

The principal patriarchal basilicas are St. Peter's (the Vatican Basilica), St. John Lateran (the Basilica of Constantine), and St. Mary Major (the Liberian Basilica).

The Liberian Basilica dates from the fourth century, when it was called the Basilica Sicinini; in the fifth century, under Sixtus III, it was adorned with interesting mosaics of Biblical subjects; Eugene III added the portico, when the mosaics of the apse and the façade were restored and, to some extent, altered. On the two sides are two chapels with cupolas: that of Sixtus V, containing the altar of the Blessed Sacrament and the tombs of Sixtus V and St. Pius V; the other, that of Paul V, with the Madonna of St. Luke, which existed as early as the sixth century. Benedict XIV caused it to be restored by Fuga (1743), who designed the façade which now almost shuts out the view of the mosaics. Beneath the high altar, the baldacchino of which is supported by four porphyry columns, are the relics of St. Matthew and of the Holy Crib (hence the name, S. Maria ad prœsepe). Here are buried St. Jerome, Nicholas IV, Clement VIII, IX, and X, and Paul V. (See also SAINT PAUL-OUTSIDE-THE-WALLS.)

Among the lesser basilicas is S. Croce in Gerusalemme (Basilica Sessoriana), founded, it is said, by St. Helena in the place called the Sessorium, restored by Lucius II (1144) and by Benedict XIV (1743). Here, in the tribune, is the fresco of Pinturicchio representing the Finding of the Cross, and here are preserved the relics of the Cross of Jesus Christ, the Title, one of the Thorns, the finger of St. Thomas, etc. The church is served by Cistercians, whose convent, however, has been converted into barracks.

St. Lawrence-Outside-the-Walls, another minor basilica, which stands in the Cemetery of S. Ciriaco, where the saint was buried, was built under Constantine and, next to St. Peter's, was the most frequented sanctuary in Rome at the end of the fourth century (see Prudentius's description). Pelagius II (578), Honorius III, and Pius IX made thorough repairs in this basilica, the last-named adding frescoes by Fracassini, representing the martyrdom of St. Lawrence. The frescoes of the atrium date from the thirteenth century. The high altar stands beneath a raised ambo, behind which is the simple tomb of Pius IX. The mosaics of the triumphal arch date from the time of Pelagius II. Near this basilica is the Cemetery of Rome, constructed in 1837, and surpassed by few in Italy for the sumptuousness of its monuments. Both the church and the cemetery are served by Capuchina.

St. Sebastian-Outside-the-Walls, near the cemetery ad catacumbas (see CATACOMBS), built in the fourth or fifth century and altered in 1612, contains Giorgini's statue of the saint. The churches so far named are the "Seven Churches" usually visited by pilgrims and residents to gain the large indulgences attached to them.

S. Agnese fuori le Mura, near the catacombs of the same name, was built, by Constantine, decorated by Pope Symmachus with mosaics, in which that pope's portrait appears, and restored by Honorius II (portrait), by Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere (1479), and by Pius IX. It is served by Canons Regular of St. John Lateran. In one of the adjacent buildings Pius IX, in 1856, fell with the flooring of a room, but without suffering any injury.

Not far off is S. Costanza, the mausoleum of Constantine's daughter, which was made into a church in 1256. S. Giorgio in Velabro, Cardinal Newman's diaconal title, takes its name from the ancient Velabrum, where it stands, and dates from the fourth century; it has a fine tabernacle, but the church is much damaged by damp. S. Lorenzo in Damaso, built by Pope Damasus (370), was, in the time of Bramante, enclosed in the palace of the Cancelleria; it contains modern frescoes and the tombs of Annibale Caro and Pellegrino Rossi. S. Maria ad Martyres (the Pantheon) is a grandiose circular building with a portico. It was built in 25 b.c. by Marcus Agrippa and has often been restored; in 662 Constantine II caused the bronze which covered its dome to be taken away; it contains the tombs of Raphael, Cardinal Consalvi and Kings Victor Emmanuel II and Humbert I. S. Maria in Cosmedin, which stands on the foundations of a temple of Hercules and a granary, dates from the sixth century at latest; it was a diaconate and the seat of the Greek colony, and was restored by Adrian I, Nicholas I, and Cardinal Albani (1718), and at last was remodelled in its original form. It has a noteworthy ambo and tabernacle (c. 130), and its campanile, with seven intercolumnars, is the most graceful in Rome. This was the title of Reginald Cardinal Pole. S. Maria in Trastevere, the title of Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, dates from St. Callistus or, more probably, from St. Julius I, and was restored by Eugene III by Nicholas V, and by Pius IX, to the last-named of whom are due the mosaics of the façade, the antique columns, and the rich baroque ceiling. The mosaics of the tribune are of the twelfth century, the others are by Cavallini (1291). It contains the tombs of Stanislaus Hosius and other cardinals. The four basilicas enumerated above have collegiate chapters.

S. Agostino was built (1479-83) by Cardinal d'Estoutevile, with Giacomo di Pietrasanta for architect. On the high altar, by Bernini, is the Madonna of St. Luke, brought from Constantinople. Its chapel of St. Augustine contains a picture by Guercino; in its chapel of the Blessed Sacrament is the tomb of St. Monica; its altar of St. Peter has a relief by Cotignola, and below one of the pilasters is Raphael's Isaiss. In the basement of this church is the Madonna del Parto, the work of Jacopo Tatto, one of the most highly venerated images in Rome. The adjoining convent, once the residence of the general of the Augustinians, is now the Ministry of Marine; but the Angelica Library, founded (1605) by Cardinal Angelo Rocca, an Augustinian, is still there. S. Alfonso, built in 1855 for the Redemptorists, who have their generalate there, has fine pictures by von Rhoden. Its high altar possesses a Byzantine image of unknown origin, called the Madonna del Perpetuo Soccorso. S. Ambrogio della Massima, in the paternal mansion of St. Ambrose, belongs to the Cassinese Benedictines. S. Andrea della Valle (Theatines), notable for the severe majesty of its lines, was built by Carlo Maderna in 1591; it contains the chapel of the Strozzi, the tombs of Pius II, of Nicolò della Guardía, and, opposite, of Pius III, and the frescoes of Domenichino, his most perfect work, as well as other very modern frescoes. In this church, on every feast of the Epiphany, solemn Mass is celebrated in every rite subject to Rome, and there are sermons in the various European languages -- a festival instituted by Ven. Vincent Gallotta. S. Andrea de Quirinale belongs to the Jesuits, who have their novitiate here, in which the cell of St. Stanislaus Kostka is still to be seen. S. Andrea delle Fratte, belonging to the Minims, was, in the Middle Ages, the national church of the Scots; it received its present form (a cupola and a fanciful Campanile) from the architects Guerra and Borromini in the seventeenth century and has two angels by Bernini. Before the Lady altar of this church took place the conversion of Venerable Marie Alphonse Ratisbonne. S. Angelo in Pescheria, built in the eighth century and restored in 1584, is occupied by the Clerics Regular Minor, who were transferred to it from S. Lorenzo in Lucina. S. Anselmo, on the Aventine, is a Romanesque building (1900), annexed to the international college of the Benedictines, and is the residence of the abbot primate of their order. Santi Apostoli, adjoining the generalate of the Minor Conventuals, dates from the fifth century; it was restored by Martin V, with frescoes by Melozzo da Forli, remodelled in 1702 by Francesco Fontana, and contains the tombs of Cardinals Riario and Bessarion. The convent is occupied by the headquarters of a military division. S. Bartolomeo all' Isola, Friars Minor, stands on the site of the ancient temple of Æsculapius and was built by Otto III, in 1001, in honour of St. Adalbert. The relics of St. Bartholomew were brought thither from Beneventum, those of St. Paulinus of Nola being given in exchange. The church has been several times restored. S. Bernardo alle Terme, Cistercians, is a round church built in 1598, its foundations being laid in the calidarium of the baths (Italian terme) of Diocletian. S. Bonaventura, on the Palatine, Friars Minor, contains the tomb of St. Leonard of Port Maurice. S. Camillo, a very modern church, is the residence of the Camilline Attendants of the Sick, and has a hospital connected with it. S. Carlo (Carlino) of the Spanish Trinitarians belongs to the Borromini. S. Carlo ai Catinari, Barnabites, formerly dedicated to St. Biagius, was put into its present shape by Rosati in 1612, with frescoes and framed pictures by Domenichino, Pietro da Cortona, Guido Reni, and Andrea Sacchi. Its convent is occupied by a section of the Ministry of War. S. Carlo al Corso, the church of the Lombards, was built by the Lunghi for the canonization of St. Charles Borromeo, on the site of a little church dedicated to S. Niccolo del Tufo. The decorations of the cupola are by Pietro da Cortona; there is a picture by Maratta and a statue of Judith by Le Brun. The Rosminians have officiated in this church for some years past. S. Claudio dei Borgognoni is served by the Congregation of the Most Holy Sacrament; it has Exposition all the year around.

S. Clemente, the church of the Irish Dominicans (1643), and titular church of William Cardinal O'Connell, Archbishop of Boston, existed as early as the fourth century, dedicated to St. Clement, pope and martyr. It is characterized by the two ambos which project about half way down the nave and an atrium which is also the courtyard of the convent which stands in front of the basilica. The ambos date from John VIII (872); the altar and tabernacle, from Paschal II. The church was destroyed in the conflagration kindled by Robert Guiscard (1084); its rebuilding was begun immediately, but the plan was adopted of raising somewhat the pavement of the old church, which was filled in with debris; the new church was also less spacious. At this period the mosaics of the apse were executed. In the chapel of st. Catherine are some frescoes attributed to Masaccio (1428); in the chapel of the Blessed Sacrament, the tombs of Cardinals Brusati and Roverella; in that of St. Cyril, who is buried in the basilica, modern frescoes. In 1858 the excavation of the old basilica was begun, through the efforts of the Dominican prior, Mulhooly. The frescoes, seventh to eleventh century, are important; in them may be distinguished the first indications of a new birth of Christian art, and particularly interesting are those relating to Sts. Cyril and Methodius. The original basilica was raised upon the remains of a still earlier building, in which, moreover, there was a spelœum, or grotto, of Mithras; it is probable that this building was St. Clement's paternal home. Santissima Concenzione, Capuchins, near the Piazza Barberini, was built by the Capuchin Cardinal Barberini, twin brother of Urban VIII (1624). Bl. Crispin of Viterbo is buried here. The church is noted for a St. Michael by Guido Reni, a St. Francis by Domenichino, a St. Felix of Cantalico by Turchi, and other pictures by Sacchi and Pietro da Cortona. Beneath the church is the ossarium of the friars. Sts. Cosmas and Damian, Franciscan Tertiaries, is made up of two ancient buildings, the temples of Romulus, son of Maxentius, and of the Sacra Urbs, which were given to the Church by Theodoric and converted into a basilica by Felix IV (528), to whom are due the mosaics of the apse and the arch, retouched in the ninth and sixteenth centuries. Urban VIII caused its pavement to be raised ten feet. In the crypt are the tomb of Felix II and some objects belonging to the old church.

St. Crisogono, Trinitarians, dates at least as far back as the fifth century, and was restored by Cardinal Scipione Borghese (1623). It has a fine tabernacle and, in the apse, mosaics by Cavillini (1290). Excavations have recently been made under this church, which is associated with English history as having been the titular church of Cardinal Langton. S. Cuore al Castro Pretorio, Salesians, a fine church built in 1887 by Vespegniani, is due to the zeal of Don Bosco. Connected with it is a boarding-school of arts and industries. S. Francesca Romana (S. Maria Nova), Olivetans, was erected by Leo IV in place of S. Maria Antiqua, which was in danger of being injured by the ruins of the Palatine, on a portion of the ruined temple of Venus and Rome, where once stood a chapel commemorating the fall of Simon Magus. It was restored by Honorius III and under Paul V. In the apse are mosaics of 1161; in the confession, the tomb of St. Frances of Rome (1440). There is a group by Meli, also the tombs of Gregory XI (1574), Cardinal Vulcani, and Francesco Rido. S. Francesco a Ripa, the provincialate of the Friars Minor (1229), has pictures by the Cavaliere d'Arpino and by Sabiati (Annunciation), and the tomb of Lodovico Albertoni, one of Bernini's best works. S. Francesco di Paola belongs to the Minims, the convent being now occupied by a technical institute.

The Gesù, connected with the professed house and general's residence of the Jesuits, is the work of Vignola (1568-73), completed by Giacomo della Porta, through the munificence of Cardinal Alessandro Farnese. It became the model of the style known as "Jesuit". Its altar of St. Ignatius, who is buried there, has a silver statue of the saint which is ordinarily covered by a picture painted by the Jesuit Pozzo; the globe and four columns are of lapis lazuli Opposite is the altar of St. Francis Xavier, where an arm of that saint is preserved, and a picture by Maratta. The ceiling is painted by Gaulli with the Triumph of the Name of Jesus. The Madonna della Strada is venerated in one of the chapels. In this church are the tombs of Cardinal Bellarmine and Ven. Giuseppe Maria Pignatelli. Gesù e Maria, Calced Augustinians, with its magnificent high altar, is in the Corso. S. Gioacchino, Redemptorists, was erected for the sacerdotal jubilee of Leo XIII, its side chapels being subscribed for by the various nations. S. Giovanni Calibita, on the Island of S. Bartolomeo, belongs to the Fatebenefratelli, who have a hospital. SS. Giovanni e Paolo, on the Cælian, Passionists, was built by Pammachius in the house of these two saints, who were officials in the palace of Constantia, daughter of Constantine, and were slain by order of Julian. In 1154 the church was enlarged and adorned with frescoes, some of which are preserved in the chapel of the Blessed Sacrament. The chapel of St. Paul of the Cross is modern. Under the church are still to be seen thirteen interstices of the house of the saints with other saints. This was the titular church of Edward Cardinal Howard, afterwards Cardinal-Bishop of Frascati (died 1892). S. Gregorio al Celio, Camadolese, was built by Gregory II in the paternal home of St. Gregory the Great, and was modernized by Soria (1633) and Ferravi (1734). It contains an altar of the saint, with his stone bed and his marble chair, and there is an ancient image of the Madonna. In the monks' garden there are also three chapels; those of St. Silvia, mother of St. Gregory, with her statue by Cordieri and frescoes by Guido Reni, of St. Andrew, decorated by Reni and Domenichino, and of St. Barbara, with a statue of St. Gregory by Cordieri. The title of this church was borne successively by Henry Edward Cardinal Manning and Herbert Cardinal Vaughan, Archbishops of Westminster.

S. Ignazio, Jesuits, was built in 1626 by Cardinal Ludovisi, under the direction of the Jesuit Grassi. The frescoes of the vault, representing the apotheosis of St. Ignatius, were painted by the Jesuit lay brother Pozzo, whose are also some of the pictures on the altars. Sts. Aloysius Gonzaga and John Berchmans, buried here, have splendid altars; in the adjoining Roman College (now the Ginnasio-Liceo and National Library) there are still other chapels with souvenirs of these two saints. On the highest point of the façade Father Secchi caused to be erected a pole with a ball which, by a mechanical contrivance, drops precisely at noon every day. S. Isidoro belongs to the Irish Franciscans. In the adjoining convent the famous Luke Wadding wrote his history of the Franciscan Order. S. Marcello, Servites, is believed to be built over the stable in which Pope St. Marcellus was compelled to serve. It was restored in 1519 by order of Giuliano de' Medici (Clement VII), completed in 1708 by Carlo Fontana, and contains paintings by Pierin del Vaga and Federico Zuccaro. It was the titular church of Thomas Cardinal Weld (see WELD, FAMILY OF). S. Maria in Ara Cœli, on the Capitol, once the general's residence of the Franciscans (beginning from 1250), is (1911) the titular church of Cardinal Falconio. It stands on the site of the ancient citadel of Rome and the temple of Juno Moneta, and is approached by a flight of 124 steps. The façade is still of brick, and the church contains antique columns and capitals; in the Buffalini chapel are frescoes (Life of St. Bernardino) by Pinturicchio, and on the high altar is a Madonna attributed to st. Luke, where was formerly the Madonna of Foligno. To the left a small building, known as the Cappella Santa di Sant' Elena (Holy Chapel of St. Helena), marks the spot where, according to a legend winch can be traced to the ninth century, the Emperor Augustus saw the Blessed Virgin upon an altar of heaven (Lat. ara cœli). To this legend something was contributed by Virgil's fourth eclogue, in which he speaks of the "nova progenies" descending from heaven, and which was interpreted in Christian antiquity as a prophecy of the coming of Christ (thus Constantine in the sermon "Ad sanctorum cœtum"). In the sacristy is venerated the "Santo Bambino", a little figure of olive wood from the Mount of Olives (sixteenth century) for which the Romans have a great devotion. The sepulchral monuments of this church are numerous and important, including those of Cardinal Louis d'Albert, with figures of St. Michael and St. Francis; Michelangelo Marchese di Saluzzo, by Dosio; Pietro de' Vincenti, by Sansovino; Honorius IV and others of the Savelli family in the Savelli chapel, which dates from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries; Cardinal Matthew of Acquasparta; Catherine, Queen of Bosnia (1478). The Crib, built every year in the second chapel on the left, is famous; at Christmas and Epiphany children recite dialogues and little discourses near it.

S. Maria in Traspontina, in the Borgo, Calced Carmelites, was erected by Sixtus IV on the site of a chapel that had been built there, in 1099, to drive away the demons which haunted the ashes of Nero. The architect was Meo del Caprina; Bramante and Bernini modified the building. It is one of the most beautiful monuments of the Renaissance, its cupola being the first of its kind built in Rome. It contains paintings by Pinturicchio -- the Adoration of the Shepherds, all the paintings of the Lady Chapel and the chapel of St. Augustine, the frescoes of the vault, etc. Raphael designed the mosaics of the Chigi chapel, and there are paintings by Caracci, Caravaggio and Sebastiano del Piombo (the Birth of the Blessed Virgin). The sepulchral monuments are costly including those of Giovanni della Rovere, Cardinal Costa, Cardinal Podocatharo, Cardinal Girolamo Basso, by Sansovino, and Cardinal Sforza, by the same sculptor, Agostino Chigi, in the Chigi chapel after suggestions, and decorated, by Raphael, and Cardinal Pallavicino. The painted windows, the most beautiful in Rome, are by Guillaume de Marcilot (1509). S. Maria del Priorato, Knights of Malta, on the Aventine, was built in 939, when Alberic II gave his palace to St. Odo of Cluny. The present form of the church, however, is due to Piranesi (1765). Some of the tombs of the grand masters of the Order of Malta -- Caraffa, Caracciolo, and others -- are interesting. The adjoining residence commands a splendid panorama. S. Maria del Rosario, on Monte Mario, belongs to the Dominicans. S. Maria della Scala, Discalced Carmelites, built by Francesco da Volterra, is so called from an image of the Madonna found under the stairs of a neighbouring house, and contains paintings by Saraceni and Gerhard Honthorst. In the adjoining convent, a great part of which is occupied by the Guardie di Pubblica Sicurezza, the friars have a pharmacy where they make the "Acqua della Scala". S. Maria della Vittoria, Carmelites, was erected by Paul V in memory of the victory of the Imperialists over the Protestants at Prague (1623), and contains pictures by Domenichino, Guercino, and Serra (1884), also a famous group by Bernini, of St. Teresa transfixed by an angel, and Turkish standards captured at the siege of Vienna (1683). S. Maria in Aquiro, the ancient diaconate titulus Equitii, was restored in 1590. It was formerly an asylum for the destitute; Clement VIII gave it to the Somaschi Brothers, who still have an orphanage there under the supervision of the municipality. S. Maria in Campitelli was built in 1665 to receive the image of S. Maria in Portica (now S. Galla) in thanksgiving for Rome's deliverance from the plague (1658). It contains a picture of St. Anne, by Luca Giordano, and the tomb of Cardinal Pacca. It is served by the Clerics Regular of the Mother of God.

S. Maria in Vallicella (the Chiesa Nuova, or "New Church"), Oratorians of St. Philip Neri, is associated with the spiritual renewal of the City by the labours of St. Philip, who founded it. The frescoes of the vaulting and of the cupola are by Pietro da Cortona, the three pictures of the high altar by Rubens, and others by Scipione Gaetano, Cavaliere d'Arpino Maratta, Guido Reni (St. Philip), Ronocelli, and Baroccio. The chapel of the saint is rich in votive offerings; in the adjoining house, until now almost entirely occupied by the Assize Court, is his cell, with relics and souvenirs of him. The library (Vallicelliana) now belongs to the State. S. Maria in Via, Servites is a fine church of the late Renaissance (1549). S. Maria Maddalena, Servants of the Sick (formerly their generalate), is now occupied by the elementary communal schools. Here the cell of St. Camillus of Lellis is preserved, with the crucifix which encouraged him to found his order. S. Maria Sopra Minerva, the only authentic Gothic church in Rome, belongs to the Dominicans, who had their general staff and their higher schools in the adjoining convent, now the Ministry of Instruction, as well as the Casanatense Library, now in the hands of the State. This was the titular church of the Cardinal of Norfolk (see HOWARD, THOMAS PHILIP), Cardinal McCloskey, Archbishop of New York, and Cardinal Taschereau, Archbishop of Quebec (see MCCLOSKEY JOHN; TASCHEREAU, ELZÉAR ALEXANDRE); its title is now (1911) held by Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York. The church stands on the ruins of a temple of Minerva, one of those built by Pompey. In the eighth century there was a Greek monastery here. In 1280 Fra Sisto and Fra Ristoro, Dominicans, began the new church by order of Nicholas III, and with the aid of the Caetani, Savelli, and Orsini. It was completed in 1453. The pillars of the nave are clustered columns; the side chapels are in Renaissance or baroque style. Beneath the high altar rests the body of St. Catherine of Siena. The chapel of the Annunziata has a confraternity, founded by Cardinal Torquemada, which every year distributes dowries to 400 poor young women, and there is a picture by Antoniazzo Romano dealing with the subject. The Caraffa family chapel of St. Thomas contains frescoes by Filippo Lippi (1487-93); that of St. Dominic, pictures by Maratta; of the Rosary, by Venusti. There are also paintings by Baronio and others. The statue of the Risen Christ is by Michelangelo. Here also are the tombs of Giovanni Alberini (1490), Urlan VII, by Buonvicino, the Aldobrandini family by Giacomo della Porta, Paul IV, by Sigorio and Casignola, Gulielmus Durandus, by Giovanni di Cosma (1296), Cardinal Domenico Capranica (1458), Clement VII and Leo X, by Baccio Bandienelli, Blessed Angelico, of Fiesole, with an epitaph by Nicholas V, and Cardinal Schönberg (1537).

S. Martino ai Monti, Carmelites, probably dates from the time of Constantine, when the priest Equitius built an oratory on his own land. Symmachus rebuilt it, dedicating it to St. Silvester and St. Martin of Tours, and then again to St. Martin, Pope. In 1559 it was given to the Carmelites, who in 1650 remodelled it. It is notable for its landscapes by Poussin. Under the more modern church is the old church of St. Silvester, with remains of mosaics, frescoes, etc. Our Lady of the Sacred Heart of Jesus (formerly S. Giacomo degli Spagnuoli), in the Piazza Navona, belongs to the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart, who have an apostolic school there. S. Onofrio on the Janiculum, Hieronymites, was built in 1439 by the de Cupis family and Nicolò da Forca Palena. The frescoes of the portico are by Domenichino, three scenes from the life of St. Jerome; within are frescoes by Baldassarre Peruzzi, and the tombs of Cardinal Mezzofanti and the poet Tasso, who died in the convent, where his cell contains a small museum of objects that belonged to him. S. Pancrazio fuori le Mura was built by Pope Symmachus (c. 504) near the Cœmeterium Calepodii; in 1849 it was wrecked by the Garibaldians; the government caused it to be freshly decorated. Near S. Pancrazio degli Scolopii is the generalate of the Piarists (Scolopii). S. Paolo alle Tre Fontane belongs to the Trappists, who have put the surrounding land under cultivation. The abbey contains three churches. The oldest, SS. Vincenzo e Anastasio, founded by Honorius I, came into the hands of Greek monks; Innocent II restored and assigned it, with the abbey, to the Cistercians. There is a fine cloister adjacent to this church, the earliest example of its kind. S. Maria Scala Cœli, ninth century, was rebuilt in 1590 by Giacomo della Porta, and contains a mosaic by Francesco Zucca. S. Paolo alle Tre Fontana was built by the same Giacomo della Porta (1599) on the three springs which appeared, as the legend says, on the three places successively touched by the head of St. Paul, who was beheaded here. The springs, however, existed before St. Paul's martyrdom as the Aquæ Salviæ, and in 1869 some ancient mosaic pavements were dug up here. S. Pietro in Montorio, Friars Minor, was in earlier days known as S. Maria in Castro Aureo, and had connected with it a monastery which passed into the hands of various orders until, in 1472, it was given to the Franciscans for the training of subjects for the foreign missions. Ferdinand the Catholic had the church and convent rebuilt, and they were dedicated to St. Peter, following a belief which had gained acceptance owing to a somewhat unfortunate conjecture hazarded by Maffeo Vegio, and which is even yet keenly debated. The rose-window of the façade is very fine and there are frescoes and other paintings by Sebastiano del Piombo (the Flagellation), Vasari, Daniele da Volterra, Baluren. (the Entombment), and others; Raphael's Transfiguration is on the high altar, and there is a beautiful balustrade. Here, too, are the tombs of Cardinals Fabiano and Antonio del Monte (Ammannati), and of Giuliano, Archbishop, of Ragusa (Dosio). In the courtyard of the convent, on the spot where St. Peter is supposed by some to have been crucified, stands Bramante's tempietto the most graceful work of that genius. A splendid view of Rome may be had from the piazza in front of the church. It was the titular church of Paul Cardinal Cullen Archbishop of Dublin.

S. Pietro in Vincoli, Canons Regular of St. John Lateran, existed as the titulus Apostolorum as early as 431. Sixtus III made alterations in the church with funds given him by the Empress Eudoxia, who also presented the Jerusalem chain of St. Peter together with his Roman chain. These relics had been venerated here long before Sixtus III, but the title, a vinculis S. Petri, occurs for the first time only in 530. Filings from the chains were given as relics -- like those taken to Spoleto by Bishop Achilles in 419. The chains themselves are kept in a precious reliquary attributed to Pollaiulo. The church was restored by Sixtus IV and Julius II. Its twenty monolithic columns are antique, and it contains pictures by Guercino and Domenichino (The Deliverance of St. Peter) a mosaic (St. Sebastian) of about the year 680, and the tombs of Julius II, with the celebrated statue of Moses, and of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, with a portrait in relief. In the adjoining monastery the scuola di applicazione of the Engineers is established. S. Prassede, Vallombrosans, was built by Paschal II (822) at some distance from the older S. Prassede which, then in ruins, was restored by Nicholas V and St. Charles Borromeo. Its twenty-two antique columns are still standing, and there are interesting mosaics of the ninth century (the chapel of St. Zeno and the apse) and the thirteenth century (the crypt). In the crypt are antique sarcophagi with the relics of Sts. Praxedes, Pudentiana, and others, and Paschal caused the bones of 2300 (?) martyrs, brought by him from the catacombs, to be laid in an enclosed cemetery. There are pictures by Giulio Romano, Federico Zuccaro, and the Cavaliere d'Arpino. Santi Quaranta in Trastevere belongs to the Spanish Franciscans. Santi Quattro Coronati, Capuchins, was the Titulus Æmilianœ as early as the fourth century, and is dedicated to four soldiers (cornicularii) who were martyred on the Via Labicana, with whom were afterwards associated five martyrs, stonecutters of Pannonia. Honorius built a vast basilica, which, however, Paschal II reduced to the proportions of what had been the nave. There are remains of the older basilica in the two atria and, in the church, frescoes by Giovanni Manozzi and a ciborium by Capponi (1493). Annexed to this church is the chapel of the Corporation of Stonecutters, with pictures of the thirteenth century. The Augustinian Sisters have a refuge for young women adjoining the church. S. Sabina all' Aventino, Dominicans, built under Clement I by the Illyrian priest Petrus (424), is remarkable for a half-door decorated with wood-carving of the fifth century, while its columns of Parian marble were taken from the temple of Diana on the Aventine. In the apse and above the door are mosaics, and the picture by Sassoferrato (the Madonna of the Rosary) is famous. In the adjoining convent, formerly the Savelli palace, are shown the cells of St. Dominic and St. Pius V.

S. Salvatore della Scala Santa, Passionists, contains, according to the legend, the stairs of Pilate's prætorium, which were bathed with the Blood of Christ, but of which there is no mention earlier than 845. By these stairs, which were restored by Nicholas III and by Cosmas II, pilgrims ascend on their knees (ginocchioni) to the Cappella Sancta Sanctorum, in which the most famous relics of the pontifical palace of the Lateran are preserved (see SCALA SANCTA). There is a ninth-century mosaic picture and a very ancient picture of the Saviour, on cedarwood, believed to have been made not by human hands. S. Silvestro in Capite, Pallottini (see PIOUS SOCIETY OF MISSIONS), built by Paul I (761) in his paternal home, was given to some Greek monks and subsequently passed into the possession of various orders. It was restored by Domenico de Rossi in 1681, and has a high altar by Rinaldo. This is, in a sense, the national church of the English Catholics. Its monastery has now become the Postal Department. S. Stefano degli Abissini, Trinitarians, with an interesting doorway, was erected by St. Leo the Great, and was one of the churches surrounding the Basilica of St. Peter's. S. Stefano del Cacco, Sylvestrines, was erected by Honorius I (630) on the ruins of the temple of Isis, of which it contains twelve columns. S. Teresa, with the generalate of the Discalced Carmelites, in the Lombard style, is one of the recently erected churches (1900). Santissima Trinità in the Via Condotti, Dominicans of the Philippines Province, was erected in the sixteenth century, and has fine pictures on its altars. Santissima Trinità in the Via della Missione belongs to the Lazarists, who have a house of retreat for the clergy there. S. Venanzio, Minor Conventuals, is at the foot of the Capitol. Santi Vincenzo ed Atanasio, in the Piazza di Trevi, ministers of the sick, was built by Cardinal Mazarin (1650). Here are kept the urns containing the viscera of deceased popes.

Other notable churches are the following: S. Agata dei Goti, or in Suburra, built in 460 for the Arians (Goths and other Germans), by Ricimerus, who caused a mosaic to be made there (destroyed in 1633), and who was buried there. In 591 St. Gregory the Great dedicated it to Catholic worship, and it is connected with the Irish College. In it is the tomb of John Lascaris, the famous Greek humanist (1535). S. Agnese al Circo Agonale stands on a part of the site of Domitian's stadium, where St. Agnes was exposed to shame (the vaults of the church), and where she was put to death. The older church is not mentioned in any records earlier than the ninth century; the present one, in baroque style, is the work of Carlo Rinaldi (1652); its turrets are by Borromini. On the high altar is a tabernacle of 1123; there is an antique statue transformed into a St. Sebastian by Paolo Campi and a monument of Innocent X. S. Alessio sull' Aventino was originally dedicated to the Roman martyr Boniface. S. Anastasia, at the foot of the Palatine, built in the fourth century and modernized in 1721, contains the tomb of Cardinal Angelo Mai. Here is preserved a chalice which was probably used by St. Jerome. S. Appollinare, the church of the Roman Seminary, formerly of the German College, was restored by Benedict XIV and contains a picture of the school of Perugino. S. Balbina, on the Aventine, consecrated by St. Gregory the Great, has a house of correction for boys adjoining it. It was the titular church of Cardinal Kemp, Archbishop of Canterbury (see KEMP, JOHN). S. Benedetto in Piscinula (Trastevere) stands on the site of the mansion of the Anicii, St. Benedict's family, and contains a picture of the saint. S. Caterina dei Funari, on the ruins of the Circus Flaminius, was begun in 1549. Its façade is by Giacomo della Porta, and it contains pictures by Caracci, Federico Zuccari, and others. Connected with it is a refuge for penitent women founded by St. Ignatius.

S. Cecilia, a very ancient church, stands on the site of that saint's house. Paschal I, admonished by a vision, restored it and transferred the body of the saint thither from the Catacombs (821). Cardinal Rampolla had its ancient character partly restored. In the apse are some mosaics dating from Paschal. The tabernacle of the high altar is by Arnolfo di Cambio (1283); there are some ancient frescoes and some by Pietro Cavallini; in the confession is a recumbent statue of the saint by Maderno, showing her as she was found when the sarcophagus was opened in 1599; also the tomb of the English cardinal, Adam of Hertford (died 1398). It was the titular church of Cardinal Wolsey. S. Cesareo, on the Appian Way, erroneously identified with S. Cesareo in Palatio (which has recently been discovered on the Palatine), is older than the days of St. Gregory the Great, and has an interesting ambo of the thirteenth century and mosaics of about the year 1600. S. Cosimato in Trastevere, built in the ninth century and completely transformed under Sixtus IV, is notable for paintings by Pinturicchio and a tabernacle taken from S. Maria del Popolo. In the adjoining monastery, originally Benedictine and then Clarissan (1234), is a fine cloister with coupled columns (twelfth century). This monastery is now used as a home for old women. Santi Domenicho e Sisto, Dominican Sisters, thirteenth century, was restored in 1640, with a fine façade. S. Eligio dei Ferrari contains a fine picture by Sermoneta; S. Eusebio, frescoes by Mengs. S. Eustacchio is an ancient diaconate and possesses the relics of the saint. S. Giacomo in Augusta, in the Corso, is connected with the hospital for incurables (1338). S. Giovanni dei Fiorentini is the work of Sansovino (1521) and contains a picture by Salvator Rosa. S. Girolamo dei Shiavoni was built by Sixtus IV for the Dalmatians, Croatians, and Albanians who had fled from the Turks; Sixtus V restored it; it contains fine frescoes by Gagliardi (1852). S. Giuseppe a Capo le Case with its paintings by Andrea Sacchi (St. Teresa) and Domenichino (St. Joseph), has a convent of the Carmelite Sisters which is now used as a museum of the industrial arts. S. Giuseppe dei Falegnami is built upon the ancient Tullian Dungeon, where, according to tradition, St. Peter was imprisoned.

S. Lorenzo in Lucina preserves the gridiron on which St. Lawrence suffered martyrdom. It is believed that here was the house of the matron, Lucina, so often mentioned in the Acts of Roman martyrs; this house was transformed by Sixtus III into a basilica which was repeatedly restored. It has a fine campanile, a picture by Guido Reni (The Crucifixion), and the tomb of Poussin. S. Lorenzo in Miranda was built over the temple of Faustina (141) in the Forum. In S. Lorenzo in Fonte, it is believed, was the saint's prison. S. Marco, enclosed within the Palazzo di Venezia, is attributed to the pope of that name (336). The Rogation procession (25 April), instituted by St. Leo. the Great, used to set out from this church. It was restored in the ninth century, in the fifteenth century, and by Cardinal Quirini in 1727. In the tribune are mosaics of the time of Gregory IV; there are also pictures by Palma il Giovane and Melozzo da Forli; two ciboria, in the sacristy, one of the twelfth century, the other by Mino da Fiesole; the tombs of Pesaro, by Canova, and of Cardinal Gregorio Barbarigo. S. Maria degli Angeli was built by Michelangelo at the command of Pius IV, within the baths of Diocletian. The church was given to the Carthusians. Here are to be seen many of the original designs for the mosaics now in St. Peter's; also Houdon's famous statue of St. Bruno, and the tombs of Pius IV and Cardinal Serbelloni. The adjoining monastery now contains the Museo Nazionale delle Terme.

S. Maria della Pace, the titular church of Michael Cardinal Logue, Archbishop of Armagh, commemorates the peace concluded in 1482 between the pope, Florence, Milan, and Naples. It was built for Sixtus IV by Pietro da Cortona, who added a beautiful semicircular portico in front. In the Chigi chapel are the famous Sibyls of Raphael; there are also frescoes by Peruzzi. The adjoining monastery (Canons Regular of the Lateran) contains a courtyard by Bramante and the chapel of the St. Paul's Association of the Clergy of Rome. S. Maria in Campo Marzio belongs to the Benedictine Sisters. S. Maria di Loreto, an octagonal church with a cupola, is the work of Antonio da Sangallo il Giovane (1507), and has a statue of St. Susanna by Duquesnoy. The Churches of S. Maria de' Miracoli and S. Maria di Monte Santo were built in 1662 by Cardinal Gastaldo, and form the termination of three streets -- the Ripetta, the Corso Umberto and the Babuino -- which lead from the Piazza del Popolo. S. Maria dell' Orto (1489) is the fruit-vendors' church. S. Maria in Trivio, in the Piazza di Trevi, has a beautiful façade of the fifteenth century. S. Maria in Lata, a very ancient diaconate, stood near the Arch of Diocletian, but was destroyed rn 1485; its present subterranean form is due to Pietro da Cortona. Here, according to the legend, St. Paul and St. Mark were imprisoned, and here are the remains of the Sœpta Julia and of the ancient basilica, with some frescoes. Santi Martina e Luca, in the Forum, occupies the site of the Secretarium Senatus; it existed before the seventh century and contained the body of St. Martina the Roman martyr; in 1640 the new church was built above the old by Pietro da Cortona (who made a statue of St. Martina), and was dedicated to St. Luke, being the church of the Academy of St. Luke. Santi Nereo e Achilleo, on the Appian Way, a very ancient church, contains mosaics of the time of Leo III and an ambo of the thirteenth century. S. Nicola in Carcere stands on the ruins of the three temples of Pietas, Juno Sospita, and Spes. Santissimo Nome di Maria, in Trajan's Forum, was built to commemorate the deliverance of Vienna from the Turks (1683). One Church of SS. Pietro e Marcellino stands in the Via Merulana; the other is outside the walls, on the Labicana, near the mausoleum of St. Helena. S. Prisca, on the Aventine, occupies the site of the temple of Diana Aventina. The legend has it that Priscilla, the wife of Aquila, mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles as entertaining St. Peter, lived here.

S. Pudenziana, again, is associated with memories of St. Peter: it was the mansion of the senator, Pudens, whose daughters, Pudentiana and Praxedes, gave it to St. Pius I, and from that time it became a church. Since the time of Siricius (384) it has had the form of a basilica, and its apse has been adorned with the most beautiful mosaics in Rome. It was restored in 1598, and a cupola was added with frescoes by Roncalli. At the altar of St. Peter is venerated the wooden table which St. Peter used for the celebration of the Eucharist. There is a marble group of Christ giving the keys to St. Peter, by Giacomo della Porta. The title of S. Pudenziana was borne by Nicholas Cardinal Wiseman, first Archbishop of Westminster. S. Saba, on the Aventine, existed in the time of St. Gregory, whose mother retired to a spot near by. To her were dedicated some ancient frescoes recently brought to light. That it was even then the abode of monks is indicated by the name cella and by an ancient burial-place of an earlier date (c. 649). Here a community of Greek monks was installed until the ninth century. After that it passed to the Benedictines, and then to the German College, which still possesses it. S. Salvatore in Lauro, the church of the Sodality of the Piceni, earlier than the thirteenth century, was restored in 1450 and in 1591. It has a fine cloister and the tombs of Maddalena Orsini and of Eugene IV (transferred hither from St. Peter's), the work of Isaia da Pisa. S. Sisto Vecchio, earlier than the sixth century, has a fine campanile and frescoes of the fifteenth century. Here was the first house of the Dominicans in Rome. The title was borne by Cardinal Langham, Archbishop of Canterbury (see LANGHAM, SIMON). S. Spirito in Sassia is so called because in this quarter (the Borgo) an Anglo-Saxon colony led by King Ina, was established, with a church called S. Maria in Saxia. In 1201 Innocent III built a hospital and foundling institute which was entrusted to the Hospitallers of the Holy Ghost. Sixtus IV removed the hospital, and Paul III had the present church built by Antonio da Sangallo il Giovane (1544); but the campanile dates from Callistus III. The residence of the superior (Palazzo del Commendatore dello Spedale) is adjacent to the church, but about half of it has been pulled down for the construction of the Victor Emmanuel Bridge. S. Stefano Rotondo, built by Pope Simplicius on the foundations of an ancient building consisting of three, concentric circles divided by two rings of twenty columns in all, is decorated with frescoes by Pomarancio and Tempesta. It was the titular church of Cardinal Beaton, Archbishop of St. Andrews (see BEATON, DAVID), and now belongs to the German College. S. Susanna, dedicated to the Roman martyr of that name, dates back to the fourth century. In its restoration by Maderno (1600) the mosaics of 796 perished, and it was decorated with frescoes by Croce. It was the titular church of Cardinal Moran, Archbishop of Sydney. S. Teodoro, at the foot of the Palatine, also stands on a circular structurer an ancient diaconate. It has a mosaic of the time of Adrian I. Santissima Trinità dei Monti is said to have been built through the munificence of Charles VIII of France. Its great flight of stairs, leading from the Piazza di Spagna, was built by order of Louis XIV. It contains fine pictures of the school of Perugino, also by Raphael, Pierin del Vaga, Veit, Daniele da Volterra (Taking down from the Cross). The church belongs to the Ladies of the Sacred Heart who have an institution (1827) in the chapel of which is venerated the Ter Admirabilis (Thrice Admirable) Madonna. Of the churches outside the City special mention should be made of the sanctuary of the Madonna del Divino Amore (of the Divine Love) on the Via Ardeatina, near an old castle of the Orsini, which is visited by a great concourse of people ou Whit-Monday.

National Churches

S. Antonio (Portuguese); S. Luigi (French-1496); S. Maria dell' Anima (German), with a hospice for pilgrims founded in 1399; the present church was built in 1500; pictures by Saraceni, Seitz, and Giulio Romano (high altar); tombs of Adrian VI and Duke Charles Frederick of Cleves by Lucas Holstenius (see ROMAN COLLEGES); S. Maria della Pietà, with the German Burial Ground, dating from the time of Charlemagne; S. Maria di Monserrato (Spanish). Also the churches of various cities -- Florence, Naples, Siena, Venice, Bergamo, Bologna, the Marches -- of Italy. -- Churches of the Oriental rites. -- Besides the churches of the various colleges (see ROMAN COLLEGES), the following should be mentioned: the Armenian Church of St. Mary of Egypt, occupying the site of the ancient temple of Fortuna Virilis; the Græco-Melchite Basilian Church of S. Maria in Domnica (mosaics of the eighth century); S. Lorenzo ai Monti, for Græco-Ruthenian Uniats. Moreover there are eight Protestant churches intended for propaganda work, each having one or two halls, known as --sale cristiane, connected with it while five others are principally for the benefit of foreigners, and the Germans have decided to build one more. The Orthodox Russians, too, have a church, where the Bishop of Kronstadt officiates. The Hebrews have a large new synagogue and an oratory, besides a school of religious learning and various benevolent organizations.

Non-religious Buildings

The Palace of the Cancelleria, by Bramante; the Curia of Innocent X now occupied by the Italian Parliament; the Quirinal Palace, the king's residence, built by Gregory XIII and enlarged by Paul V and Pius VI, where the popes formerly resided, and the conclaves were held; the Palazzo di Giustizia, built by Calderari entirely of travertine; the Bank of Italy (Koch) and the Palazzo Buoncompagni, the residence of the queen-mother; the Palazzo Braschi (offices of the Ministry of Internal Affairs), Palazzi Capitolini (Michelangelo), Palazzo del Consulta (Ministry of Foreign Affairs), Villa Medici (French Academy), Palazzo Venezia (Austrian Embassy), built by Paul II, Palazzo Corsini (Accademia dei Lincei), Palazzo Farnese (Michelangelo), now the property of France and occupied by the French Embassy. Among the private palaces are the Altieri (Clement X), Barberini (Bernini), Borghese (Paul V), Caetani (Ammannati), Pamfili, Esedra, Giraud (Bramante -- now belonging to the Torlonia family), Massimo, Odescalchi, Farnesina (Sangallo), and Ruspoli. The chief private villas are the Doria Pamfili and the Massimo (frescoes by Overbeck). Of all the public monuments we need mention only that recently inaugurated to the memory of Victor Emmanuel II at the back of the Capitoline Hill, consisting of a gilded equestrian statue, with a semicircular colonnade behind it. The principal fountains are: the Acqua Paola, on the Janiculum (Paul V); the Piazza S. Pietro fountain, the Tartarughe (Raphael), the Fontana del Tritone (Bernini), and, most magnificent of all, the Trevi (Clement XII, Nicolà Salvi).

Principal ancient Edifices and Monuments

The Flavian Amphitheatre, or Colosseum, begun by Vespasian. Much of its material, particularly on the south side, has been pilfered, this destructive practice having been effectively stopped only in the eighteenth century. The Arch of Constantine was erected in 312 to commemorate the victory over Maxentius, the decorations being, in part, taken from the Arch of Trajan. That of Marcus Aurelius, on the Flaminian Way (Corso), was removed by Alexander VII; its decorations are preserved in the Capitol. That of Septimius Severus (203) is richly decorated with statues and bas-reliefs; that of Titus, commemorating his victory over the Jews, has the celebrated bas-relief representing objects taken from the Temple of Jerusalem; that of Drusus (Trajan?) is near the Porta S. Sebasstiano. The Arch of Dolabella (a.d. 10) is surmounted by three conduits taken from a branch of the Aqua Claudia. The Arch of Gallienus dates from a.d. 262. The secular basilicas are the Æmilian, or Fulvian (167 b.c.), the Julian (54 b.c.), the Basilica of Constantine (a.d. 306-10), and the Ulpian, on the Forum of Trajan, with which a library was once connected.

For Christian catacombs see CATACOMBS, ROMAN. The most important catacombs of the Hebrews are those of Vigna Randanini, on the Appian Way.

The Circuses are: that of Domitien, now the Piazza Navona; the Flaminian (the Palazzo Mattei); the Circus Maximus, the oldest of all, erected in the Murcian Valley, between the Palatine and the Aventine, where, even in the days of Romulus, races and other public amusements used to be held (as on the occasion of the Rape of the Sabines); that of Nero, near St. Peter's, where the Apostle was martyred; that of Maxentius outside the city, near the Via Appia. Trajan's Column on the forum of the same name, with a spiral design of the emperor's warlike exploits, is 100 Roman feet (about 97 English feet) in height, erected by the senate and people a.d. 113. That of Marcus Aurelius, with reliefs showing the wars with the Marcomanni, Quadi, Sarmati, etc. (172-75), is interesting for its representation of the miraculous rainfall which, as early as Tertullian's time, was attributed to the prayers of the Christian soldiers. This column bears a bronze statue of St. Paul, as Trajan's is crowned with a statue of St. Peter (Sixtus V, 1589). That of Phocas was erected in 608 by the exarch Smaragdus. The Roman Forum was originally the swampy valley between the Palatine, Capitoline, and Esquiline, which became a market and a meeting-place for the transaction of public business. Soon it was surrounded with shops and public buildings -- basilicas, the Curia Hostilia, the Rostra, or platform for public speakers, and various temples. Other forums were those of Augustus, of Peace, of Nero, the Julian, and Trajan's, in the same neighbourhood.

The Mausoleum of Augustus, between the Corso and the Via Ripetta, is now a concert hall. The Mausoleum of Hadrian (Castle of S. Angelo) was used as a fortress by Goths and Romans as early as the sixth century; in the tenth and following centuries it often served as a prison, voluntary or compulsory, for the popes; Boniface IX, Alexander VI, and Urban VIII were the popes who did most to restore and transform it. The Tomb of Cæcilia Metella, on the Via Appia, still fairly well preserved, was a stronghold of the Caetani in the Middle Ages, and from them passed to the Savelli and the Colonna. The Pyramid of Caius Cæstius (time of Augustus) is more than 120 feet in height. The tomb of Eurysaces, outside the Porta Maggiore, has interesting bas-reliefs showing the various operations of baking bread. That of the Scipios, near the Gate of St. Sebastian, was discovered in 1780, with the sarcophagus of Scipio Barbatus, consul in 298 which is now in the Vatican Museum. The Appian Way was lined with numbers of sepulchral monuments; among these mention may be made here of the columbaria, or grottoes where a family or an association was wont to deposit in niches the cinerary urns of its members. The most important of these are in the Vigna Codini and near S. Giovanni in Oleo.

With Septimius Severus a new architectural period was inaugurated, which was continued by Heliogabalus and Alexander Severus. The house of Augustus, that of Tiberius, the hippodrome, the library, the house of Livia, the pœdagogium, or quarters of the imperial pages (where the celebrated drawing of a certain Alexamenos adoring a crucified ass was discovered) -- all these are still clearly distinguishable. There were also a temple of the Great Mother (205 b.c.), one of Jupiter Victor (295 b.c.-commemorating the victory of Sentinum), and one of Apollo, surrounded by a great portico in the enclosure of which now stands the Church of S. Sebastiano in Palladio. In the substructures of the palace of Caligula was discovered some years ago the ancient basilica of S. Maria Antiqua, probably dating from the fourth century, in which frescoes of the eighth and ninth centuries (including a portrait of Pope St. Zacharias, then living) were found. It is evident at certain points, where the paintings have been broken, that two other layers of painting lie beneath. Other temples are those of Concordia, three columns of which are still standing in the Roman Forum, built in 388 b.c. for the peace between the Patricians and the Plebeians, and in which the Senate often assembled; of the Deus Rediculus, outside the city, near the Appian Way, on the spot where Hannibal, alarmed by a vision, resolved to retire without besieging Rome; of Castor and Pollux, built in 484 b.c. to cornmemorate the victory of Lake Regillus, over the Latins, and restored in 117 (three columns remaining); of Faustina and Antoninus (S. Lorenzo in Miranda); of Fortuna Virilis (second century B. C.; now the Church of St. Mary of Egypt); of Julius Cæsar, erected by Augustus in the Forum, on the spot where Cæsar's body was burned; of Jupiter Capitolinus, now the German Embassy; of Mars Ultor (the Avenger) erected in the Forum of Augustus to fulfil his vow made at the battle of Philippi, where he avenged the assassination of Cæsar; of Minerva Medica, which is, indeed, rather a nymphæum, or reservoir for distributing the water supply; of Neptune, with its stone piazza, now the Exchange; of Peace, built by Vespasian after his victory over the Jews; of Romulus (the son of Maxentius) which now, like Sacræ Urbis temple (of the Holy City), forms part of Santi Cosmo e Damiano; of Saturn, in the Forum. The two temples of Venus and Rome have their apses touching each other, and were surrounded by a common peristyle, a plan designed by the Emperor Hadrian himself; to the temple of Vesta, below the Palatine, is annexed the house of the Vestals; the small round temple of the Mater Matuba, in the Forum Boarium, has been commonly called Vesta's.

Characteristic of Rome are the lofty brick towers generally square with few windows, winch may still be seen here and there throughout the city. They were built, for the most part, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and are monuments of the discord between the most powerful families of Rome. The most important of them are: the Torre Anguillara in Trastevere, adjoining the palace of the Anguillara family, reconstructed and used as a medieval museum; the two Capocci towers, in the Via Giovanni Lanza; that of the Conti, once the largest and strongest, built by Riccardo, brother of Innocent III; that of the Scimmia, or of the Frangipani, near S. Antonio dei Portoghesi surmounted by a statue of the Madonna; the Torre Millina, in the Via dell' Anima; the Torre Sanguigna. The Torre delle Milizie has been erroneously called "Nero's Tower", that emperor being supposed to have watched from it the burning of Rome; it was built, however, under Innocent III, by his sons Piero and Alessio, partisans of the senator Pandolfo, who opposed the pope's brother Riccardo.

Guida Commerciale di Roma e Provincia (annual); Monografia della città di Roma (publ. of the Italian Ministry of Agriculture, Rome, 1881).
History. -- MOMMSEN, tr. DICKSON, The History of Rome (London, 1886); DYER, A History of the City of Rome (London, 1865); GREGOROVIUS, History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages (London, 1894-1902); GRISAR, Geschichte Roms und der Päpste im Mittelalter (Freiburg im Br., 1901); REUMONT, Gesch. Roms im Mittelalter (Stuttgart, 1905); ADINOLFI, Roma nell' età di mezzo (Rome, 1881); TOMMASSETTI, La Campagna di Roma 1879-1910; EHRLE, Roma prime di Sisto V (Rome, 1908); POMPILI-OLIVIERI, Il Senato Romano (1143-1870) (Rome, 1886); CALVI, Bibliografia di Roma nel Medio Evo (476-1499) (Rome, 1906); Appendix (more complete) (1908).
Monuments, Antiquities, etc. -- CHANDLERY, Pilgrim Walks in Rome (St. Louis and London, 1905); CRAWFORD, Ave, Roma Immortalis (London, 1905); DE WAAL, Roma Sacra (Munich, 1905); STETTINER, Roma nei suoi monumenti (Rome, 1911); ANGELI, Roma, in Italia Artistica, XXXVII, XL (Bergamo, 1908); PETERSEN, Das alte Rom (Leipzig, s. d.); STEINMANN, Rom in der Renaissance (Leipzig, 1902); LANCIANI, Pagan and Christian Rome (Boston, 1893); IDEM, Ancient Rome (New York, 1889); IDEM, Forum e Palatino; BOISSIER, Promenades archéologiques (Paris, 1881); RICHTER, Topographie der Stadt Rom (Nordlinger, 1889); NIBBY, Roma e suoi dintorni (Rome, 1829); HELBIG, Guide to the Public Collections of Classical Antiquities in Rome (Leipzig, 1895-96); ARMELLINI, Le chiese di Roma (Rome, 1891); ANGELI, Le chiese di Roma (milan, 1906).
Archæological Reviews. -- Bulletino d'Arch. Crist. (1863-): Nuovo Bulletino d'Arch. crist. (1895-); Bulletino della Comissione arch. comunale di Roma (1873-); Archivo della Società Romano di Storia Patria (Rome, 1877-); Notizie degli scavi di antichità (Rome, 1876-); Ann. Ecclesiastico (Rome, 1911).

U. BENIGNI.

University of Rome

The University of Rome must be distinguished from the "Studium Generale apud Curiam", established by Innocent IV in 1244-5 at Lyons for the convenience of the members of the pontifical Court and of the persons who flocked from all over the world to tho Holy See. The Studium comprised the faculties of theology and of canon and civil law. Clerics and priests could not only attend the lectures in the latter branch, but were allowed to teach it, despite the prohibition of Honorius III. The Studium accompanied the popes on all their journeys and was thus transferred to Avignon. In accordance with the Decree of the Council of Vienne, the Studium Curiæ was the first, owing to the generosity of John XXII, to establish chairs of Arabic, Hebrew and Chaldaic; there was, moreover, a professor of Armenian. At Avignon professorships of medicine were also instituted. During the Schism both the popes at Avignon and those at Rome had a Studium Generale; but in the former theology alone was taught. In the fifteenth century the Studium Generale was abolished in favour of the University of Rome. Previously King Charles of Anjou, out of gratitude for his election as senator of Rome, had decided, 14 October, 1265, to erect a Studium Generale "tam utriusque juris quam artium" (of civil and canon law and of arts), but his plan was not carried into execution. The real founder of the University of Rome was Boniface VIII (Bull "In supremæ" of 20 April, 1303), who established it in order that Rome, the recipient of so many Divine favours, might become the fruitful mother of science. The chief source of revenue of the university was the tribute which Tivoli and Rispampano paid the City of Rome. It is worthy of note that a school of law already existed in Rome in the thirteenth century.

The transference of the papal Court to Avignon did not at first injure the Studium Generale. John XXII took a deep interest in it, but limited the granting of degrees to the two faculties of law. The Vicar of Rome was to preside at the examinations; to obtain a degree the Candidate had to study six years (five for canon law) and profess the same for two years. There exist documents from the year 1369 showing that degrees were then granted. But later, in the days of anarchy that overtook the city, the Studium gradually decayed. In 1363 the statutes were reformed; among other changes, provision was made for obtaining foreign professors, who would be independent of the various factions in the city. In 1370, however, or a little later, the Studium was entirely closed. Towards the end of the century the Roman Commune tried to restore the university by offering very large salaries to the professors. Innocent VII in 1406 gave it new statutes and arranged with Manuel Chrysoloras to accept the chair of Greek literature. But the death of Innocent and the subsequent political and ecclesiastical troubles frustrated this plan. The real restorer of the university was Eugene IV (10 October 1431). He drew up regulations for the liberty and immunity of the professors and students, and increased the revenues by adding to them the duties imposed oa wines imported from abroad. For the purpose of government, four reformatores, Roman citizens, were appointed to assist the rector. The position of chancellor was given to the cardinal-camerlengo. The university was located near the Church of Sant' Eustachio, where it had first been established. The first college for poor students was the Collegium Capranica (1458 see ROMAN COLLEGES); but the later plan of establishing another was not realized. The Studium of law soon flourished; but the theological faculty, on account of the competition of the Studium Curiæ, was not so successful. Under Nicholas V the classical studies developed rapidly owing to the labours of Lorenzo Valla, Poggio Bracciolini, Bruni, Francesco Filelfo, Pomponio Leto, and the Greeks, Lascaris, Chalcocondylas, and Musuros. But the process against the Academia Romana under Paul II reacted on the university. Sixtus IV intended to suppress it and reduced the salaries of the professors. Bettor days returned with Alexander VI, who began the present building of the Sapienza, which was remodelled in the seventeenth century. It seems, however, that it was Leo X who suppressed the Studium Curiæ in favour of the University of Rome. In 1514 the latter had 88 professors: 4 of theology, 11 of canon law, 20 of civil law, 15 of medicine, the remainder teaching philosophy, mathematics, rhetoric, grammar, and botany. Lectures were given even on feast days. The number of students was very small, being frequently less than the number of professors. The blame is to be laid on the latter, whose other official and professional duties interfered with their lectures. Leo X established in the Campidoglio a chair of Roman history, the lectures to be open to the public; the first to fill the position was Evangelista Maddaleni Capodiferro. Leo also granted a new constitution to the university, obliged the professors to hold a "circle" with the students after their lectures, forbade them to exercise any other profession, and imposed a penalty for lectures omitted. He appointed three cardinals protectors of the university.

As a result of the occurrences of 1527, the university remained closed during the entire pontificate of Clement VII. Paul III immediately after his accession reopened it, obtaining distinguished professors, such as Lainez, S.J., for theology, Faber, S.J., for Scripture, Copernicus for astronomy, and Accorambono for medicine. It is from this date that the university assumed the name of the Sapienza (a name used previously elsewhere, as at Perugia). In 1539 the professors numbered 24; 2 of theology, 8 of canon and civil law, 5 of medicine (one teaching anatomy and one botany), 5 of philosophy, 3 of Latin, and 1 of Greek literature. Julius III entrusted the administration to a congregation of cardinals. Pius V enlarged the botanical garden of medical herbs previously established near the Vatican by Nicholas V, and allowed the bodies of condemned infidels to be used for the purposes of anatomical study. He also established chairs of Hebrew and mathematics. A mineralogical museum (the "Metalloteca" which was after abandoned) was founded in the Vatican. Under Gregory XIII adjunct chairs with salary attached were established for the young doctors of Rome, who might later become ordinary professors. In that and the following centuries the professors of theology were generally the procurators general of the various religious orders. Sixtus V granted 22,000 scudi to extinguish the debt encumbering the university. He gave to the college of consistorial advocates the exclusive right of electing the rector who, until then, had been elected by the professors and the students, and he instituted a congregation of cardinals, "Pro Universitate Studii Romani". At the end of the sixteenth century the university began to decline, especially in the faculties of theology, philosophy, and literature. This was due in part to the formidable concurrence of the Jesuits in their Collegio Romano, where the flower of the intellect of the Society was engaged in teaching. Moreover, Plato was the favoured master in the Sapienza, while Aristotle was more generally followed elsewhere. Among the distinguished professors in this century besides those already mentioned were Tommaso de Vio, O.P., later the celebrated Cardinal Gaetano; Domenico Jacovazzi; Felice Peretti (Sixtus V); Marco Antonio Muret, professor of law and elegant Latinist; Bartolomeo Eustacchio, the famous anatomist.

In the seventeenth century the decline was rapid. Many of the professors had the privilege of lecturing only when they pleased; most of them were foreigners. The medical school alone continued to prosper owing to the labours of Cesalpino and Lancisi. The Academia dei Lincei promoted the study of the natural sciences and was honoured by Benedettino Castelli, the disciple and friend of Galilei, and Andrea Argoli; later Vito Giordani the mathematician attracted many students. Only two jurisconsults of note are found during this century, Farinacci and Gravina. Giuseppe Carpani brought the students together at his home to familiarize them with the practice of law. The most important event of the century occurred in 1660, under Alexander VII (1655-67), when the university buildings begun by Alexander VI (1492-1503) were completed. Alexander VII established moreover the university library (the Alexandrine Library) by obtaining from the Clerks Regular Minors of Urbania, whom he compensated by giving them permanently the chair of ethics, the printed books from the library of the Dukes of Urbino. In addition he founded six new chairs, among which was that of controversial church history, first filled by the Portuguese Francesco Macedo. Innocent XI erected a fine anatomical hall. The most celebrated and relatively speaking most frequented schools were those of the Oriental languages. Under Innocent XII a move was made to suppress the university and assign the buildings to the Piarists for the free education of young boys. Fortunately the plan was not only not executed but resulted in a radical reform and the introduction (1700) of a new regime which benefited in particular the faculty of law.

Clement XI purchased (1703) with his private funds some fields on the Janiculum, where he established a botanical garden, which soon became the most celebrated in Europe through the labours of the brothers Trionfetti. Benedict XIV, who had been a professor and rector of the university (1706-19), promulgated in 1744 new regulations concerning especially the vacations, the order of examinations, and the selection of professors, which was to be by competitive examination, whereas from the time of Innocent XII they were ordinarily appointed by the pope. Another Edict (1748) dealt with the rights and duties of the professors and established chairs of chemistry, botany, and experimental physics. The following chairs were then in existence: 6 of jurisprudence; 6 of medicine; 15 of arts (including theology). In 1778 the sciences were divided into five classes: theology, 5 chairs; jurisprudence, 6; medicine, 9; philosophy and arts, 5; languages (Latin, Greek, Arabic, Hebrew, Syriac). But a rector of that time deplored the inertia of the professors and the laziness of the students. Pius VII (1804) founded the mineralogical and natural history museum, and in 1806 a chair of veterinary science. From 1809 till 1813 the French system was in force. Leo XIII in 1824 established the Congregation of Studies, and gave it control of the universities in the pontifical state. Many professors at Rome as at Bologna had to resign their chairs on account of their political opinions, which resulted in the university failing to keep pace with the universities in other states, for instance, the chairs of public and commercial law were not founded till 1848; and that of political economy still later. Among the distinguished professors of the eighteenth century were the jurists, Fagnano, Renazzi (also the historian of the university), Petrocchi; the professors of medicine, Baglivi Tozzi, Pascoli; the mathematician, Quartaroni; the Syrian scholar, Assemani; and Menzini and Fontanini the littérateurs; in the nineteenth century the Abbate Tortolini and Chelini, mathematicians. In 1870 there were 6 professors of theology, 8 of law, 2 of notarial art, 13 of medicine, 4 of pharmacy, 11 of surgery, 3 of veterinary science, 15 of philosophy and mathematics, 8 of Italian and classical philology, and 4 of Oriental languages. Under the new Government all the professors who refused to take the oath of allegiance were dismissed, among those refusing being the entire theological staff. These alone then formed the pontifical university, which came to an end in 1876.

The university is now under the control of the Italian Government and is called the Royal University. Its present state is as follows: philosophy and letters, chairs ordinary, 23, extraordinary, 3; tutors, 13; physics and mathematics, chairs ordinary, 23, extraordinary, 7; tutors, 16; law, chairs ordinary, 16; tutors, 8; medicine, chairs ordinary, 20, extraordinary, 2; tutors, 15; philosophy and letters, professors, 33; docents, 33; physics and mathematics, professors, 34 (with 4 assistants); docents, 41; law professors, 17; docents, 36; medicine, professors, 35; docents, 98. Annexed to the university are schools of philosophy, literature, and natural science, archæology, medieval and modern art, Oriental languages, pharmacy, and applied engineering. There are also institutes of pedagogy, chemistry, physics, mineralogy, zoology, botany, anatomy, anthropology, geology, physiology, the astronomical observatory of the Campidoglio, many medical institutes and clinics, and finally the Alexandrine library. The number of students in 1909-10 was 3686. Owing to the growth of the university after 1870, the building of the Sapienza was insufficient, consequently the schools of physical and natural sciences had to be located elsewhere.

See the Annuario della Reale Università degli studi di Roma (1870-71 to 1909-10) RENAZZI, Storia dell' Università degli Studi di Roma (Rome, 1803-6); CARAFA, De Gymnasio Romano eiusque professoribus ab Urbe condita (Rome, 1751); DENIFLE, Die Universitäten des Mittelalters, I (Berlin, 1885); Relazione e notizie intorno alla Regia Università di Roma (Rome, 1873).

U. BENIGNI.

Juan Romero

Missionary and Indian linguist, b. in the village of Machena, Andalusia, Spain, 1559; d. at Santiago, Chile, 31 March, 1630. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1580, was assigned to the South American mission in 1588, and arrived in Peru in January, 1590, to take up his work among the Indians. From 1593 to 1598 he was superior of the missions of Tucuman, the missionary centre for the wild tribes of what is now northern Argentina. After a term as procurator in Rome, he returned to South America in 1610 and was successively superior of the Jesuit college at Buenos Aires, rector of the colleges of Santiago del Estero, Argentina, and Santiago, Chile, and first vice-provincial of Chile. In his long service of nearly forty years as active or directing missionary Father Romero acquired a more or less fluent knowledge of several Indian languages, particularly of the Guarani (q.v.) of Paraguay, on which he was an authority. He was also the author of numerous letters and shorter papers and of an important manuscript work, "De Praedestinatione."

SOMMERVOGEL, Bibliotheque de la C. de J., pt. I (Brussels and Paris, 1896), bibliogr. vii; sketch in LOZANO, Historia de la Compania de Jesus de la Provincia del Paraguay (2 vols., Madrid, 1754-5).

JAMES MOONEY

St. Romuald

Born at Ravenna, probably about 950; died at Val-di-Castro, 19 June, 1027. St. Peter Damian, his first biographer, and almost all the Camaldolese writers assert that St. Romuald's age at his death was one hundred and twenty, and that therefore he was born about 907. This is disputed by most modern writers. Such a date not only results in a series of improbabilities with regard to events in the saint's life, but is also irreconcilable with known dates, and probably was determined from some mistaken inference by St. Peter Damian. In his youth Romuald indulged in the usual thoughtless and even vicious life of the tenth-century noble, yet felt greatly drawn to the eremetical life. At the age of twenty, struck with horror because his father had killed an enemy in a duel, he fled to the Abbey of San Apollinare-in-Classe and after some hesitation entered religion. San Apollinare had recently been reformed by St. Maieul of Cluny, but still was not strict enough in its observance to satisfy Romuald. His injudicious correction of the less zealous aroused such enmity against him that he applied for, and was readily granted, permission to retire to Venice, where he placed himself under the direction of a hermit named Marinus and lived a life of extraordinary severity. About 978, Pietro Orseolo I, Doge of Venice, who had obtained his office by acquiescence in the murder of his predecessor, began to suffer remorse for his crime. On the advice of Guarinus, Abbot of San Miguel-de-Cuxa, in Catalonia, and of Marinus and Romuald, he abandoned his office and relations, and fled to Cuxa, where he took the habit of St. Benedict, while Romuald and Marinus erected a hermitage close to the monastery. For five years the saint lived a life of great austerity, gathering round him a band of disciples. Then, hearing that his father, Sergius, who had become a monk, was tormented with doubts as to his vocation, he returned in haste to Italy, subjected Sergius to severe discipline, and so resolved his doubts. For the next thirty years St. Romuald seems to have wandered about Italy, founding many monasteries and hermitages. For some time he made Pereum his favourite resting place. In 1005 he went to Val-di- Castro for about two years, and left it, prophesying that he would return to die there alone and unaided. Again he wandered about Italy; then attempted to go to Hungary, but was prevented by persistent illness. In 1012 he appeared at Vallombrosa, whence he moved into the Diocese of Arezzo. Here, according to the legend, a certain Maldolus, who had seen a vision of monks in white garments ascending into Heaven, gave him some land, afterwards known as the Campus Maldoli, or Camaldoli. St. Romuald built on this land five cells for hermits, which, with the monastery at Fontebuono, built two years later, became the famous mother-house of the Camaldolese Order (q.v.). In 1013 he retired to Monte-Sitria. In 1021 he went to Bifolco. Five years later he returned to Val-di-Castro where he died, as he had prophesied, alone in his cell. Many miracles were wrought at his tomb, over which an altar was allowed to be erected in 1032. In 1466 his body was found still incorrupt; it was translated to Fabriano in 1481. In 1595 Clement VII fixed his feast on 7 Feb., the day of the translation of his relics, and extended its celebration to the whole Church. He is represented in art pointing to a ladder on which are monks ascending to Heaven.

[ Note: By the Apostolic Constitution Calendarium Romanum, promulgated in 1969, the feast of St. Romuald was assigned, as an "Optional Memorial," to 19 June, the day of his death.]

Acta SS., Feb., II (Venice, 1735), 101-46; CASTANIZA, Historia de S. Romvaldo (Madrid, 1597); COLLINA, Vita di S. Romualdo (Bologna, 1748); GRANDO, Dissertationes Camaldulenses (Lucca, 1707), II, 1-144; III, 1-160; MABILLON, Acta SS. O.S.B., saec. VI, par. I (Venice, 1733), 246-78; MITTARELLI AND COSTADONI, Annales Camaldulenses, I (Venice, 1755); St. Peter Damian in P.L., CXLIV (Paris, 1867), 953-1008; TRICHAUD, Vie de Saint Romuald (Amiens, 1879); WAITZ in PERTZ, Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script., IV (Hanover, 1841), 846-7.

LESLIE A. ST. L. TOKE

Romulus Augustulus

Deposed in the year 476, the last emperor of the Western Roman Empire. His reign was purely nominal. After the murder Valentinian III (455) the Theodosian dynasty was extinct in Western Europe and the Suevian Ricimer, a grandson of Wallia, a king of the West Goths, governed the Western Empire for sixteen years as its real ruler. Like Stilicho and Aetius he raised five shadowy emperors to the throne and then deposed them, partly in agreement with the Eastern Empire. After his death in 472 his nephew Gundobad succeeded. At Ravenna Gundobad appointed the soldier Glycerius as emperor, but Leo, the Eastern Roman Emperor, chose Julius Nepos, a relative of Empress Verina, who had succeeded his uncle Marcellinus as Governor of Dalmatia. Nepos advanced with the fleet to Ravenna and forced Glycerius to become Bishop of Salona. Leo's successor, Zeno the Isaurian, withdrew the fleet which Nepos had had, and thus the latter was forced to depend upon his own resources, while the turmoil in Rome and Gaul constantly increased. Nepos appointed Orestes "magister militum" and made him a patrician. Orestes had been minister of Attila, after whose death he had come to Rome. Nepos commissioned Orestes to advance into Gaul to restore order with the troops still available. Orestes however prevailed upon the mercenaries to march against Ravenna instead of going to Gaul. Nepos fled to Dalmatia while Orestes entered Ravenna on 28 August, 475.

Orestes allowed two months to pass without appointing a new emperor, and the troops growing impatient proclaimed his son. On account of the boy's youth (he was only thirteen years old) he was called Augustulus, the little emperor. The administration was carried on cautiously and shrewdly by Orestes. He obtained the recognition of his son by the emperor of the Eastern Empire, made treaties for the protection of Italy with the German princes in Africa, Gaul, and Spain, and thus gained a few years of peace for the country. However, the German warriors in his army, who had driven out the Emperor Nepos in the belief that they would receive grants of land, now demanded a third of the territory of Italy, according to the custom existing in the Roman army. When Orestes refused the troops mutinied under the leadership of the Skyrian Odoacer. Orestes advanced against them, but was obliged to fall back on Pavia, which city was stormed by Odoacer; Orestes was taken prisoner and beheaded at Piacenza in 476. Odoacer was proclaimed king by his troops and marched against Ravenna where Romulus waited in fear. Odoacer spared his life, gave him a year's income, and sent him with his relatives to Cape Misenum opposite Baia. Odoacer now reigned as first King of Italy, while three deposed emperors dragged out inglorious and powerless lives: Romulus Augustulus in private life on his estate in Campania, Glycerius as Bishop of Salona, and Julius Nepos as commander in Dalmatia. The Roman Empire of the West had ceased, and the conception of imperial power was henceforth exclusively connected with the person of the Eastern emperor.

NITZSCH, Deutsche Gesch., I, VON RANKE, Weltgeschichte, IV, PFEILSCHIFTER, Theodorich der Grosse in Weltgesch. in Karakterbildern (Mainz, 1910).

KARL HOEBER

St. Ronan

There are twelve Irish saints bearing the name of Ronan commemorated in the "Martyrology of Donegal"; of these the most celebrated are: St. Ronan of Ulster, brother of St. Carnech, and grandson of Loarn, d. 11 January, 535; St. Ronan, son of Berach, a disciple of the great St. Fechin of Fore. He became first Abbot of Drumshallon, and d. 18 November, 665. St. Ronan Fionn is honoured as patron of Lan Ronan (Kelminiog) in Iveagh. His feast is celebrated on 22 May, both in Ireland and Scotland. St. Ronan of Iona is explicitly referred to by St. Bede as one of the protagonists of the Roman custom of celebrating Easter as against the Irish tradition, and he had a warm controversy on the subject with his countryman St. Finan, Bishop of Lindisfarne, 660. This controversy was ended at the Synod of Whitby, in 664, when St. Ronan's views were upheld. St. Ronan of Lismore was a distinguished successor of St. Carthage, and several Munster churches were built in his honour. His feast is celebrated on 9 February 763. Another saint of this name is best known by the ruined church of Kilronan, Co. Roscommon, where Turlogh O'Carolan and Bishop O'Rourke are buried.

W.H. GRATTAN-FLOOD

Pierre de Ronsard

French poet, b. 2 (or 11) Sept., 1524, at the Château de la Poissonniere, near Vendôme; d. 27 Dec., 1585, at the priory of Saint-Cosme-en l'Isle, near Tours. He was first educated at home by a private tutor, and at the age of nine was sent to the College of Navarre, in Paris. Having left the college before graduating he was appointed page to the Duke of Orléans, son of Francis I, and soon afterwards to James V, King of Scotland. After a sojourn of three years in Scotland and England, during which he became thoroughly proficient in the English language, he traveled in Germany, Piedmont, and other countries. In 1541, being afflicted with an incurable deafness, he retired from public life and for seven years devoted his entire time to study. He studied Greek under the famous scholar Dorat, at the Collège de Coqueret. His ambition was to find new p a t h s for French poetry, and he was soon recognized as the "Prince of Poets ", a title he merited by his "Odes" (1550), "Amours de Cassandre", etc. He was a great favorite with Charles IX; Elizabeth, Queen of England, sent him a diamond; Mary Stuart found relief in her imprisonment in reading his poems; the City of Toulouse presented him with a solid silver Minerva; and the literary men of that time acknowledged him as their leader. His last ten years were saddened by ill-health. He retired to Croix-Val-en-Vendômois, in the forest of Gastine, and then to the priory of Saint-Cosme-en l'Isle, where-he died. The works of Ronsard are numerous and their chronology is very intricate. In twenty-four years (1560-84) six editions of his works were published, and the number of occasional pieces is almost incalculable. The following are the most important: "Les Amours de Cassandre" (2 books of sonnets, Paris, 1550), "Odes" (5 books, Paris, 1551-1552), "Le bocage royal" (Paris, 1554), "Les Hymnes" (2 books, Paris, 1556), "Poèmes" (2 books, Paris, 1560-73), "Discours sur les misères du temps" (1560), "La Franciade" (Paris, 1572). His influence and his reforms were far-reaching. He enriched the French vocabulary with a multitude of words borrowed not only from Greek and Latin, but from the old romance dialects as well as from the technical languages of trades, sports, and sciences. His many rules concerning verse-making were as influential as numerous. He invented a large variety of metres, adopted the regular intertwining of masculine and feminine rhymes, proscribed the hiatus, and introduced harmony in French verse. He was perhaps the greatest French lyrical poet prior to the nineteenth century. His themes are as varied as their forms, simple and sublime, ironical and tender, solemn and familiar.

BINET, La vie de Pierre de Ronsard (Paris, 1586), re-edited, with notes and commentaries by LAUMONIER (Paris,1910); BRUNETIERE, Hist. de la litt. class., I (Paris, 1908); LAUMONIER, L'aeuvre de Ronsard (Paris, 1910), which work contains a full and complete bibliography.

LOUIS N. DELAMARRE

Rood

(Anglo-Saxon Rod, or Rode, "cross"), a term, often used to signify the True Cross itself, which, with the prefix Holy, occurs as the dedication of some churches -- e.g. Holyrood Abbey, in Scotland. But more generally it means a large crucifix, with statues of Our Lady and St. John, usually placed over the entrance to the choir in medieval churches. These roods were frequently very large, so as to be seen from all parts of the church, and were placed either on a gallery, or screen, or on a beam spanning the chancel arch. Roods are also occasionally found sculptured outside churches, as at Sherborne and Romsey, and on churchyard and wayside crosses. As to the antiquity of the rood in the church, there is no certain evidence. The silver crucifix set up in the middle of St. Peter's at Rome by Leo III, in 795, is sometimes claimed as an early example, but there is nothing to prove that this was a rood in the medieval sense. By the thirteenth or fourteenth century, however, the great rood or crucifix had become a common feature in almost every church of Western Christendom, and the addition of the figures of Sts. Mary and John, in allusion to John, xix, 25, came in about the fifteenth. Numerous examples still remain, both in England and elsewhere. They were usually of wood, richly carved, painted or gilded, with foliated or crocketed sides, and with the arms of the cross terminating either in fleurs-de-lys or in emblazoned medallions of the symbols of the four evangelists.

Rood-lights were kept burning before the rood in medieval times, consisting either of a wick and oil in a cresset, or rood- bowl, or of a taper on a pricket in the centre of a mortar of brass, lattern, or copper. During the whole of Lent, except at the procession of Palm Sunday, the Rood was covered with a veil (rood-cloth), which in England was either violet or black, and often was marked with a white cross. When the rood was exceptionally large or heavy, its weight was sometimes taken partly by wrought-iron rood-chains depending from the chancel arch, which were generally of elaborate design; the staples to which they were fixed may still be seen in some churches from which the rood itself has been removed -- e.g. at Cullompton, England. The rood, however, striking and prominent as it was intended to be, was often eclipsed by the rood-screen over which it was placed. The precise origin of the screen and its connection with the rood is somewhat obscure, and apparently varied in different churches. The custom of screening off the altar is very ancient, and emphasizing, as it did, the air of mystery surrounding the place of sacrifice, was possibly a survival of Judaism; but the placing of a screen, more or less solid, between the chancel and nave -- i.e. between clergy and people -- must have originated from practical rather than from symbolic reasons, and was probably an attempt to secure privacy and comfort for those engaged in the work of the choir, more especially at times when there was no congregation present. This was certainly the case with the heavy closed screens, usually of stone, in the large conventual and collegiate churches, where the long night offices would have been impossible in winter without some such protection.

Over such screens was a loft or gallery (rood-loft), which, according to some authorities, was used for the reading of the Epistle or Gospel, certain lections, the pastorals of bishops, the Acts of councils, and other like purposes. The episcopal benediction was also sometimes pronounced, and penitents absolved, from the loft, and in some churches of France the paschal candle stood there. The Blessed Sacrament was exposed on the loft in Lyons cathedral and, according to De Moleon, similarly also at Rouen in the eighteenth century. The loft likewise frequently provided convenient accommodation for the organs and singers. In large monastic churches it was called the pulpitum and was separate from the rood-screen supporting the rood, the latter being placed westward of the pulpitum; but in secular cathedrals and parish churches there does not seem to have been usually a separate rood-screen, the rood, in such cases, being either on or over the pulpitum itself. In France the rood-loft was called the jube, which seems to imply that it was used liturgically for the reading of lessons and the like. A gallery or loft corresponding to the medieval jube was not unknown in the early Church, but there is no satisfactory evidence to show that it was surmounted by a rood. Thiers, taking Sens cathedral as his example, suggests that the loft began merely as a sort of bridge connecting the two ambos on either side of the chancel arch, and that it was gradually made more spacious as it proved useful for other purposes. This could only have been so, however, in the smaller churches where there was no pulpitum, unless perhaps it was itself the origin of the pulpitum.

In smaller parish churches it seems probable that the loft was originally only a convenience for reaching the rood-lights, and that its obvious suitability for other uses caused its enlargement and elaboration. Nothing, however, can be stated with absolute certainty. Many of these medieval screens, both with and without lofts, remain to the present day, in spite of the iconoclasm of the Reformation period. Notable screens that may be mentioned as typical examples are at Cawston, Ranworth, Southwold, Dunster, and Staverton in England; at Troyes, Albi, St-Fiacre-le-Faouet, and St-Etienne-du-Mont, Paris, in France; at Louvain and Dixmude in Beligium; at Lubeck in Germany. Some are constructed of stone, and some of the later ones of metal-work, but they are mostly of wood and usually consist of close panelling below -- often decorated with painted figures of saints -- and open screenwork above, supporting tracery and richly carved cornices and crestings. In England they were generally lavishly coloured and gilded. In some instances they extend across the aisles of the church as well. In England, also, the rood frequently stood not on or near the screen and loft, but on a separate transverse beam called the rood-beam, which was similarly carved and gilded. There were sometimes other beams also, besides that supporting the rood, like those at St. David's, between the choir and sanctuary, and Lincoln beyond the high altar, on which stood lights and reliquaries. Corbels, or stone brackets in English churches -- e.g., Worcester cathedral - often indicate the position of the rood-beam before its removal in the sixteenth century. Leading up to the rood-loft were the rood-stairs, many of which still remain even where the loft itself has been destroyed. In England these stairs were generally enclosed in the wall separating chancel from nave, but in other countries they often constituted an architectural feature with elaborate tracery, as at Rouen (since destroyed), Strasburg, St-Etienne-du-Mont, and La Madeleine at Troyes.

In churches where there were both pulpitum and rood- screen the latter usually had two doors, and between them was placed, on the western side, the rood-altar, which, in monastic churches, often served as the parish altar, the parishioners being accommodated in the nave. This was the case in almost all the monastic cathedrals and greater abbeys of England, and the altar, being immediately under the great rood, was dedicated to the Holy Cross, except at Durham, where it was called the Jesus altar, and at St. Albans, where the dedication was to St. Cuthbert. The latter still remains in situ as the parish altar. In Munster cathedral and at Lubeck, in the hospital church, there were three altars, with the two doors of the screen between them. In smaller churches, with no separate pulpitum, but only a rood-screen with a central doorway, there was usually an altar on either side of the door, but it is doubtful whether these can strictly be termed rood-altars. It seems probable that in some cases the rood-altar was on the loft itself, instead of beneath -- e.g., at Litchfield, Lyons, and St- Maurice, Vienne. In some old lofts drains have been found which may possibly be the remains of the piscinas for such altars. The daily parish Mass said at the altar on or under the rood-screen, was called the rood Mass, though occasionally this term is used to signify merely the Mass of one or other of the feasts of the Holy Cross.

A few other terms used in connection with the rood may here be briefly explained. The rood-arch was the arch separating chancel from nave, under which the rood and rood-screen were usually situated. A rood-door was either the central door of a rood- screen or one of the two doors on either side of the rood-altar. Rood-gallery was another term for rood-loft. The rood-gap was the space under the chancel arch, partially occupied by the rood. The rood-saints were the figures of Sts. Mary and John on either side of the rood; rood-steps, the steps leading up from the nave into the chancel, under or immediately before the rood-screen. Rood-steeple, or rood-tower, was a name sometimes given to the central tower of a church at the intersection of nave and chancel with the transepts, as at Durham, Notre-Dame, Paris, and Lincoln. At the last-named place the name has since been corrupted into "Broad Tower."

G. CYPRIAN ALSTON

Johann Philipp Roothaan

Twenty-first General of the Society of Jesus, b. at Amsterdam, 23 November, 1785; d. at Rome, 8 May, 1853. Originally Protestant, the Roothaan family emigrated from Frankfort to Amsterdam, where it became Catholic. Johann Philipp, the youngest of three brothers, was on account of his special talent destined for study, and, before he was sixteen, graduated from the gymnasium of his native town. Thence passing to the athenaeum illustre (high school), he continued for four years his classical studies under the celebrated Professor Jakob van Lennep with the greatest success. Confronted with the necessity of choosing his vocation, he determined to join the Society of Jesus, which still survived in White Russia and had been officially recognized hy Pius VII. In 1804 he set out for the novitiate in Dunaburg; the descriptions of his month's journey thither are very interesting. On the conclusion of his novitiate, he was, on account of his great knowledge of the classics, appointed teacher at the Jesuit gymnasium at Dunaburg (1806-9), and completely satisfied the expectations of his superiors. He had already mastered Polish; as a native of Holland, he naturally spoke also French, while the two classical languages and Hebrew were among his favorite studies. He subsequently began the higher study of philosophy and theology at Polotsk, and in 1812 was ordained priest. The following four years were spent as professor of rhetoric at Pusza -- this was the stormy era of the Franco-Russian War. The joyous incident of the restoration of the Society of Jesus by Pius VII also belongs to this period (1814). The other four years which preceded the banishment of the Jesuits from Russia (1820) were passed by Roothaan partly as teacher and partly in pastoral duties in Orsa. During this interval he took the final solemn vows, and could thus enter courageously on his journey into exile. This journey lasted three months, and ended in Brieg (Canton of Wallis, Switzerland). Here he again taught rhetoric for three years, besides taking zealous part in popular missions. He thrice accompanied, on his tour of visitation, the provincial of the vice-province of Switzerland, to which also belonged the Jesuit houses in Germany, Belgium, and Holland, and learned the conditions from personal examination. He was able, after a seventeen years' absence, to revisit his kindred at Amsterdam. Roothaan's subsequent appointment to the rectorship of the newly-founded college at Turin brought him to his real life's task. On the death of A. Fortis, General of the Society of Jesus, Roothaan was named his successor.

His labors as General were most fruitful in every domain for the newly-restored order. His first care was for the preservation and strengthening of the internal spirit of the Society. To this object he devoted nine of his eleven general letters. Of still greater fundamental importance than these valuable encyclicals were his labors on the new edition of the Exercises of St. Ignatius according to the original text; this edition he provided with an introduction and explanatory notes. The enlightened and renewed use of this precious work is his chief service, which alone must have rendered his name immortal in the Society. He also displayed great zeal in raising the standard of studies; having himself enjoyed such a splendid classical -education, he was able to appreciate the value of the classics for a mental training. After careful investigation and counsel, he published in 1832 the Revised Order of Studies, excellently adapted to the conditions of the time. Having thus provided for their spiritual and intellectual armor, he was also able to open up the richest fields for the activity of his brethren in the Society, namely the home and foreign missions. During his administration, the order increased twofold in the number of its members (5000) and in its apostolic activity, although it had meanwhile to suffer banishment and persecution in many places, especially in the year of revolution, 1848. The General himself had to quit Rome for two years. On his return his health was broken, his strength began to fail, and fits of weakness announced his approaching end. The characteristics of Roothaan are well expressed in the words which he himself declared the principle of his administration: "fortiter et suaviter". The same idea is expressed in the words of his biographer: "Impetuous by nature, he governed all passions by the exercise of Christian self-denial, so that a most measured moderation in all things forms his distinctive characteristic."

THYM, Levenschets Van P. Joannes Philippus Roothaan, General der Societeit van Jesus (Amsterdam, 1885), German tr. MARTIN (Ravensburg, 1898); TERWECOREN, Esquisse historique sur le T.R.P. Roothaan (Brussels, 1857).

N. SCHEID

William Roper

Biographer of St. Thomas More, born 1496; died 4 January, 1578. Both his father and mother belonged to distinguished legal families. He was educated at one of the English universities, and received his father's office of clerk of the pleas in the Court of King's Bench. He held this post till shortly before his death. When he was about twenty-three he seems to have been taken into Sir Thomas More's household, and he married Margaret, Sir Thomas's eldest daughter, in 1521. Erasmus who saw much of the More family describes him as a young man "who is wealthy, of excellent and modest character and not unacquainted with literature". He became fascinated, however, by the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith, and professed his heresy so openly as to be summoned before Wolsey. Sir Thomas frequently reasoned with his son-in-law: "Meg", he said to his daughter, "I have borne a long time with thy husband; I have reasoned and argued with him in these points of religion, and still given to him my poor fatherly counsel, but I perceive none of all this able to call him home; and therefore, Meg, I will no longer dispute with him, but will clean give him over and get me to God and pray for him". To these prayers Roper attributed his return to the Faith; henceforth he was an ardent Catholic. He sat in four of Mary's parliaments, twice as member for Rochester and twice as member for Canterbury. His Catholicism got him into difficulties with the Government under Elizabeth and he was summoned before the Council in 1568; in the following year he was bound over to be of good behaviour and to appear before the Council when summoned. He does not seem to have been troubled further. His reminiscences of Sir Thomas More were written in the time of Queen Mary nearly twenty years after the events with which they deal, but his relations with his father-in-law had been so close and the impressions he received in that delightful household so vivid, that these rather disjointed notes form a most attractive biography. Roper's "Life" was not printed till 1626, but it was used by the earlier biographers of More, and is the chief authority for his personal history.

F.F. URQUHART

Rorate Coeli

(Vulgate, text), the opening words of Isaiah 45:8. The text is used frequently both at Mass and in the Divine Office during Advent, as it gives exquisite poetical expression to the longings of Patriarchs and Prophets, and symbolically of the Church, for the coming of the Messias. Throughout Advent it occurs daily as the versicle and response at Vespers. For this purpose the verse is divided into the versicle, "Rorate coeli desuper et nubes pluant justum" (Drop down dew, ye heavens, from above, and let the clouds rain the just), and the response: "Aperiatur terra et germinet salvatorem" (Let the earth be opened and send forth a Saviour"). The text is also used: (a) as the Introit for the Fourth Sunday in Advent, for Wednesday in Ember Week, for the feast of the Expectation of the Blessed Virgin, and for votive Masses of the Blessed Virgin during Advent; (b) as a versicle in the first responsory of Tuesday in the first week of Advent; (c) as the first antiphon at Lauds for the Tuesday preceding Christmas and the second antiphon at Matins of the Expectation of the Blessed Virgin; (d) in the second responsory for Friday of the third week of Advent and in the fifth responsory in Matins of the Expectation of the Blessed Virgin. In the "Book of Hymns" (Edinburgh, 1910), p. 4, W. Rooke-Ley translates the text in connection with the O Antiphons (q.v.):

Mystic dew from heaven
Unto earth is given:
Break, O earth, a Saviour yield --
Fairest flower of the field".

The exquisite Introit plain-song may be found in in the various editions of the Vatican Graduale and the Solesmes "Liber Usualis", 1908, p. 125. Under the heading, "Prayer of the Churches of France during Advent", Dom Guéranger (Liturgical Year, Advent tr., Dublin, 1870, pp. 155-6) gives it as an antiphon to each of a series of prayers ("Ne irascaris ", "Peccavimus", "Vide Domine", "Consolamini") expressive of penitence, expectation, comfort, and furnishes the Latin text and an English rendering of the Prayer. The Latin text and a different English rendering are also given in the Baltimore "Manual of Prayers" (pp. 603-4). A plain-song setting of the "Prayer", or series of prayers, is given in the Solesmes "Manual of Gregorian Chant" (Rome-Tournai, 1903, 313-5) in plain-song notation, and in a slightly simpler form in modern notation in the "Roman Hymnal" (New York, 1884, pp. 140-3), as also in "Les principaux chants liturgiques" (Paris, 1875, pp. 111-2) and 'IRecueil d'anciens et de nouveaux cantiques notés" (Paris, l886, pp. 218-9).

H.T. HENRY

Salvatore Rosa

(Also spelled SALVATOR; otherwise known as RENNELLA, or ARENELLA, from the place of his birth).

Neapolitan artist, born at Renella, a little village near Naples, 1615; died at Rome 15 March, 1673. He was the son of poor parents; his father, Vita Antonio, was trained as an architect; his mother, Giulia Greca Rosa, belonged to one of the Greek families of Sicily. The boy was intended first of all for the Church, and by the assistance of a relative of his mother's was sent to a college in Naples to be trained, but his excitable and impulsive nature started all kinds of difficulties, and he had to leave before his education was completed. His mother had come of a family of painters, and a Sicilian uncle had early in his life given him some lessons in drawing, while his sister's husband was an artist who had been trained by Spagnoletto, therefore there were divers reasons why the young lad should take up painting. He threw his whole heart into his work, but succeeded so poorly that presently he left home, joined a band of robbers who infested the southern part of Italy, and wandered about with them, meanwhile making all kinds of sketches, which were eventually very useful in his larger pictures. His father died when Salvatore was seventeen; the income for the family ceased, and young Rosa as its head, was regarded as its sole support. He again took to painting and worked exceedingly hard, exposing his pictures for sale in the street, and in that way by a fortunate accident, came under the attention of Lanfranco, and through him got to know Falcone. Both of these artists were of the greatest possible assistance to him. His progress, however, was exceedingly slow, and the members of his family took almost everything that he earned for their own support; meantime he was laid up almost periodically with a malignant fever, the seeds of which had been sown in his journeys with the robbers.

In 1634, he came to Rome, but fell very ill, and had to return again to Naples more dead than alive. After a little while, however, he went back to Rome, and there gained a loan in Cardinal Brancaccio, who gave him various commissions both in the Eternal City and in Viterbo. In some of these works he was assisted by a fellow pupil named Mercuri. From this point he began to make progress, but presently discovered that he had a genius for composing witty poems, sparkling and epigrammatic, having gained for him a sudden reputation in Rome; this he turned to good account; then suddenly dropping his poetic work as quickly as he had taken it up, turned again to his favourite profession of painting. He worked very hard, and was a painter of considerable power, and of marked personality. His pictures as a rule are distinguished by gloom and mystery, rich colouring, magnificent shadows, and broad, free, easy work, nervous and emotional. There is a general air of melancholy over almost all his works, and they appear to have been turned out at top speed, but there is an impressiveness about his pictures which can never be mistaken. For a while they were regarded far too highly at a time when the Academic School was the only one in repute; they then passed under a cloud when the Primitives came into their own, but now their genius is again asserting itself, and the landscapes of Rosa with their marvellous draughtsmanship and extraordinary, melancholy magnificence are being appreciated by persons able to understand the merits of a poetic interpretation. The last few years of the artist's life were passed between Naples and Rome, with one temporary visit to Florence, where he remained three or four years. It was in Rome that he died; but the best part of his life was passed in his native town, where he was held in high repute, and regarded as one of its glories. His works are to be found in almost all the galleries of Europe, notably in the Pitti, the National Gallery of London, the Hermitage, the galleries of Dulwich and Edinburgh, and in almost every important palace in Rome. He was a skilful etcher, leaving behind him some thirty-five or forty well-etched plates, and was a very powerful draughtsman in black and sanguine. Many of his pictures are signed by his conjoined initials arranged in at least a dozen different ways, and always skilfully combined.

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON

St. Rosalia

Hermitess, greatly venerated at Palermo and in the whole of Sicily of which she in patroness. Her feast is celebrated on 4 September. A special feast of the translation of her relics is kept in Sicily 15 June. There is no account of her before Valerius Rossi (about 1590), though churches were dedicated in her honour in 1237. Her Vita (Acta SS., 11 Sept., 278) which, according to the Bollandist J. Stilting, is compiled from local traditions, paintings, and inscriptions, says: She was the daughter of Sinibald, Lord of Quisquina and of Rosa, descended from the family of Charlemagne; in youthful days she left home and hid herself in a cave near Bivona and later in another of Monte Pellegrino near Palermo, in which she died and was buried. In 1624 her remains were discovered and brought to the Cathedral of Palermo. Urban VIII put her name into the Roman Martyrology. Whether before her retirement she belonged to a religious community, is not known. The Basilians, in their Martyrology, claim her as a member. She is often represented as a Basilian nun with a Greek cross in her hand. Many of her pictures may be found in the Acta SS.

FRANCIS MERSHMAN

The Rosary

I. IN THE WESTERN CHURCH

"The Rosary", says the Roman Breviary, "is a certain form of prayer wherein we say fifteen decades or tens of Hail Marys with an Our Father between each ten, while at each of these fifteen decades we recall successively in pious meditation one of the mysteries of our Redemption." The same lesson for the Feast of the Holy Rosary informs us that when the Albigensian heresy was devastating the country of Toulouse, St. Dominic earnestly besought the help of Our Lady and was instructed by her, so tradition asserts, to preach the Rosary among the people as an antidote to heresy and sin. From that time forward this manner of prayer was "most wonderfully published abroad and developed [promulgari augerique coepit] by St. Dominic whom different Supreme Pontiffs have in various past ages of their apostolic letters declared to be the institutor and author of the same devotion." That many popes have so spoken is undoubtedly true, and amongst the rest we have a series of encyclicals, beginning in 1883, issued by Pope Leo XIII, which, while commending this devotion to the faithful in the most earnest terms, assumes the institution of the Rosary by St. Dominic to be a fact historically established. Of the remarkable fruits of this devotion and of the extraordinary favours which have been granted to the world, as is piously believed, through this means, something will be said under the headings Feast of the rosary and Confraternities of the rosary. We will confine ourselves here to the controverted question of its history, a matter which both in the middle of the eighteenth century and again in recent years has attracted much attention.

Let us begin with certain facts which will not be contested. It is tolerably obvious that whenever any prayer has to be repeated a large number of times recourse is likely to be had to some mechanical apparatus less troublesome than counting upon the fingers. In almost all countries, then, we meet with something in the nature of prayer-counters or rosary beads. Even in ancient Nineveh a sculpture has been found thus described by Lavard in his "Monuments" (I, plate 7): "Two winged females standing before the sacred tree in the attitude of prayer; they lift the extended right hand and hold in the left a garland or rosary." However this may be, it is certain that among the Mohammedans the Tasbih or bead-string, consisting of 33, 66, or 99 beads, and used for counting devotionally the names of Allah, has been in use for many centuries. Marco Polo, visiting the King of Malabar in the thirteenth century, found to his surprise that that monarch employed a rosary of 104 (? 108) precious stones to count his prayers. St. Francis Xavier and his companions were equally astonished to see that rosaries were universally familiar to the Buddhists of Japan. Among the monks of the Greek Church we hear of the kombologion, or komboschoinion, a cord with a hundred knots used to count genuflexions and signs of the cross. Similarly, beside the mummy of a Christian ascetic, Thaias, of the fourth century, recently disinterred at Antinöe in Egypt, was found a sort of cribbage-board with holes, which has generally been thought to be an apparatus for counting prayers, of which Palladius and other ancient authorities have left us an account. A certain Paul the Hermit, in the fourth century, had imposed upon himself the task of repeating three hundred prayers, according to a set form, every day. To do this, he gathered up three hundred pebbles and threw one away as each prayer was finished (Palladius, Hist. Laus., xx; Butler, II, 63). It is probable that other ascetics who also numbered their prayers by hundreds adopted some similar expedient. (Cf. "Vita S. Godrici", cviii.) Indeed when we find a papal privilege addressed to the monks of St. Apollinaris in Classe requiring them, in gratitude for the pope's benefactions, to say Kyrie eleison three hundred times twice a day (see the privilege of Hadrian I, A.D. 782, in Jaffe-Löwenfeld, n. 2437), one would infer that some counting apparatus must almost necessarily have been used for the purpose.

But there were other prayers to be counted more nearly connected with the Rosary than Kyrie eleisons. At an early date among the monastic orders the practice had established itself not only of offering Masses, but of saying vocal prayers as a suffrage for their deceased brethren. For this purpose the private recitation of the 150 psalms, or of 50 psalms, the third part, was constantly enjoined. Already in A. D. 800 we learn from the compact between St. Gall and Reichenau ("Mon. Germ. Hist.: Confrat.", Piper, 140) that for each deceased brother all the priests should say one Mass and also fifty psalms. A charter in Kemble (Cod. Dipl., I, 290) prescribes that each monk is to sing two fifties (twa fiftig) for the souls of certain benefactors, while each priest is to sing two Masses and each deacon to read two Passions. But as time went on, and the conversi, or lay brothers, most of them quite illiterate, became distinct from the choir monks, it was felt that they also should be required to substitute some simple form of prayer in place of the psalms to which their more educated brethren were bound by rule. Thus we read in the "Ancient Customs of Cluny", collected by Udalrio in 1096, that when the death of any brother at a distance was announced, every priest was to offer Mass, and every non-priest was either to say fifty psalms or to repeat fifty times the Paternoster ("quicunque sacerdos est cantet missam pro eo, et qui non est sacerdos quinquaginta psalmos aut toties orationem dominicam", P. L., CXLIX, 776). Similarly among the Knights Templar, whose rule dates from about 1128, the knights who could not attend choir were required to say the Lord's Prayer 57 times in all and on the death of any of the brethren they had to say the Pater Noster a hundred times a day for a week.

To count these accurately there is every reason to believe that already in the eleventh and twelfth centuries a practice had come in of using pebbles, berries, or discs of bone threaded on a string. It is in any case certain that the Countess Godiva of Coventry (c. 1075) left by will to the statue of Our Lady in a certain monastery "the circlet of precious stones which she had threaded on a cord in order that by fingering them one after another she might count her prayers exactly" (Malmesbury, "Gesta Pont.", Rolls Series 311). Another example seems to occur in the case of St. Rosalia (A. D. 1160), in whose tomb similar strings of beads were discovered. Even more important is the fact that such strings of beads were known throughout the Middle Ages -- and in some Continental tongues are known to this day -- as "Paternosters". The evidence for this is overwhelming and comes from every part of Europe. Already in the thirteenth century the manufacturers of these articles, who were know as "paternosterers", almost everywhere formed a recognized craft guild of considerable importance. The "Livre des métiers" of Stephen Boyleau, for example, supplies full information regarding the four guilds of patenôtriers in Paris in the year 1268, while Paternoster Row in London still preserves the memory of the street in which their English craft-fellows congregated. Now the obvious inference is that an appliance which was persistently called a "Paternoster", or in Latin fila de paternoster, numeralia de paternoster, and so on, had, at least originally, been designed for counting Our Fathers. This inference, drawn out and illustrated with much learning by Father T. Esser, O.P., in 1897, becomes a practical certainty when we remember that it was only in the middle of the twelfth century that the Hail Mary came at all generally into use as a formula of devotion. It is morally impossible that Lady Godiva's circlet of jewels could have been intended to count Ave Marias. Hence there can be no doubt that the strings of prayerbeads were called "paternosters" because for a long time they were principally employed to number repetitions of the Lord's Prayer.

When, however, the Hail Mary came into use, it appears that from the first the consciousness that it was in its own nature a salutation rather than a prayer induced a fashion of repeating it many times in succession, accompanied by genuflexions or some other external act of reverence. Just as happens nowadays in the firing of salutes, or in the applause given to a public performer, or in the rounds of cheers evoked among school-boys by an arrival or departure, so also then the honour paid by such salutations was measured by numbers and continuance. Further, since the recitation of the Psalms divided into fifties was, as innumerable documents attest, the favourite form of devotion for religious and learned persons, so those who were simple or much occupied loved, by the repetition of fifty, a hundred, or a hundred and fifty were salutations of Our Lady, to feel that they were imitating the practice of God's more exalted servants. In any case it is certain that in the course of the twelfth century and before the birth of St. Dominic, the practice of reciting 50 or 150 Ave Marias had become generally familiar. The most conclusive evidence of this is furnished by the "Mary-legends", or stories of Our Lady, which obtained wide circulation at this epoch. The story of Eulalia, in particular, according to which a client of the Blessed Virgin who had been wont to say a hundred and fifty Aves was bidden by her to say only fifty, but more slowly, has been shown by Mussafia (Marien-legenden, Pts I, ii) to be unquestionably of early date. Not less conclusive is the account given of St. Albert (d. 1140) by his contemporary biographer, who tells us: "A hundred times a day he bent his knees, and fifty times he prostrated himself raising his body again by his fingers and toes, while he repeated at every genuflexion: 'Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb'." This was the whole of the Hail Mary as then said, and the fact of all the words being set down rather implies that the formula had not yet become universally familiar. Not less remarkable is the account of a similar devotional exercise occurring in the Corpus Christi manuscripts of the Ancren Riwle. This text, declared by Kölbing to have been written in the middle of the twelfth century (Englische Studien, 1885, P. 116), can in any case be hardly later than 1200. The passage in question gives directions how fifty Aves are to be said divided into sets of ten, with prostrations and other marks of reverence. (See The Month, July, 1903.) When we find such an exercise recommended to a little group of anchorites in a corner of England, twenty years before any Dominican foundation was made in this country, it seems difficult to resist the conclusion that the custom of reciting fifty or a hundred and fifty Aves had grown familiar, independently of, and earlier than, the preaching of St. Dominic. On the other hand, the practice of meditating on certain definite mysteries, which has been rightly described as the very essence of the Rosary devotion, seems to have only arisen long after the date of St. Dominic's death. It is difficult to prove a negative, but Father T. Esser, O.P., has shown (in the periodical "Der Katholik", of Mainz, Oct., Nov., Dec., 1897) that the introduction of this meditation during the recitation of the Aves was rightly attributed to a certain Carthusian, Dominic the Prussian. It is in any case certain that at the close of the fifteenth century the utmost possible variety of methods of meditating prevailed, and that the fifteen mysteries now generally accepted were not uniformly adhered to even by the Dominicans themselves. (See Schmitz, "Rosenkranzgebet", p. 74; Esser in "Der Katholik for 1904-6.) To sum up, we have positive evidence that both the invention of the beads as a counting apparatus and also the practice of repeating a hundred and fifty Aves cannot be due to St. Dominic, because they are both notably older than his time. Further, we are assured that the meditating upon the mysteries was not introduced until two hundred years after his death. What then, we are compelled to ask, is there left of which St. Dominic may be called the author?

These positive reasons for distrusting the current tradition might in a measure be ignored as archaeological refinements, if there were any satisfactory evidence to show that St. Dominic had identified himself with the pre-existing Rosary and become its apostle. But here we are met with absolute silence. Of the eight or nine early Lives of the saint, not one makes the faintest allusion to the Rosary. The witnesses who gave evidence in the cause of his canonization are equally reticent. In the great collection of documents accumulated by Fathers Balme and Lelaidier, O.P., in their "Cartulaire de St. Dominique" the question is studiously ignored. The early constitutions of the different provinces of the order have been examined, and many of them printed, but no one has found any reference to this devotion. We possess hundreds, even thousands, of manuscripts containing devotional treatises, sermons, chronicles, Saints' lives, etc., written by the Friars Preachers between 1220 and 1450; but no single verifiable passage has yet been produced which speaks of the Rosary as instituted by St. Dominic or which even makes much of the devotion as one specially dear to his children. The charters and other deeds of the Dominican convents for men and women, as M. Jean Guiraud points out with emphasis in his edition of the Cartulaire of La Prouille (I, cccxxviii), are equally silent. Neither do we find any suggestion of a connection between St. Dominic and the Rosary in the paintings and sculptures of these two and a half centuries. Even the tomb of St. Dominic at Bologna and the numberless frescoes by Fra Angelico representing the brethren of his order ignore the Rosary completely.

Impressed by this conspiracy of silence, the Bollandists, on trying to trace to its source the origin of the current tradition, found that all the clues converged upon one point, the preaching of the Dominican Alan de Rupe about the years 1470-75. He it undoubtedly was who first suggested the idea that the devotion of "Our Lady's Psalter" (a hundred and fifty Hail Marys) was instituted or revived by St. Dominic. Alan was a very earnest and devout man, but, as the highest authorities admit, he was full of delusions, and based his revelations on the imaginary testimony of writers that never existed (see Quétif and Echard, "Scriptores O.P.", 1, 849). His preaching, however, was attended with much success. The Rosary Confraternities, organized by him and his colleagues at Douai, Cologne, and elsewhere had great vogue, and led to the printing of many books, all more or less impregnated with the ideas of Alan. Indulgences were granted for the good work that was thus being done and the documents conceding these indulgences accepted and repeated, as was natural in that uncritical age, the historical data which had been inspired by Alan's writings and which were submitted according to the usual practice by the promoters of the confraternities themselves. It was in this way that the tradition of Dominican authorship grew up. The first Bulls speak of this authorship with some reserve: "Prout in historiis legitur" says Leo X in the earliest of all. "Pastoris aeterni" 1520; but many of the later popes were less guarded.

Two considerations strongly support the view of the Rosary tradition just expounded. The first is the gradual surrender of almost every notable piece that has at one time or another been relied upon to vindicate the supposed claims of St. Dominic. Touron and Alban Butler appealed to the Memoirs of a certain Luminosi de Aposa who professed to have heard St. Dominic preach at Bologna, but these Memoirs have long ago been proved to a forgery. Danzas, Von Löe and others attached much importance to a fresco at Muret; but the fresco is not now in existence, and there is good reason for believing that the rosary once seen in that fresco was painted in at a later date ("The Month" Feb. 1901, p. 179). Mamachi, Esser, Walsh, and Von Löe and others quote some alleged contemporary verses about Dominic in connection with a crown of roses; the original manuscript has disappeared, and it is certain that the writers named have printed Dominicus where Benoist, the only person who has seen the manuscript, read Dominus. The famous will of Anthony Sers, which professed to leave a bequest to the Confraternity of the Rosary at Palencia in 1221, was put forward as a conclusive piece of testimony by Mamachi; but it is now admitted by Dominican authorities to be a forgery ("The Irish Rosary, Jan., 1901, p. 92). Similarly, a supposed reference to the subject by Thomas à Kempis in the "Chronicle of Mount St. Agnes" is a pure blunder ("The Month", Feb., 1901, p. 187). With this may be noted the change in tone observable of late in authoritative works of reference. In the "Kirchliches Handlexikon" of Munich and in the last edition of Herder's "Konversationslexikon" no attempt is made to defend the tradition which connects St. Dominic personally with the origin of the Rosary. Another consideration which cannot be developed is the multitude of conflicting legends concerning the origin of this devotion of "Our Lady's Psalter" which prevailed down to the end of the fifteenth century, as well as the early diversity of practice in the manner of its recitation. These facts agree ill with the supposition that it took its rise in a definite revelation and was jealously watched over from the beginning by one of the most learned and influential of the religious orders. No doubt can exist that the immense diffusion of the Rosary and its confraternities in modern times and the vast influence it has exercised for good are mainly due to the labours and the prayers of the sons of St. Dominic, but the historical evidence serves plainly to show that their interest in the subject was only awakened in the last years of the fifteenth century.

That the Rosary is pre-eminently the prayer of the people adapted alike for the use of simple and learned is proved not only by the long series of papal utterances by which it has been commended to the faithful but by the daily experience of all who are familiar with it. The objection so often made against its "vain repetitions" is felt by none but those who have failed to realize how entirely the spirit of the exercise lies in the meditation upon the fundamental mysteries of our faith. To the initiated the words of the angelical salutation form only a sort of half-conscious accompaniment, a bourdon which we may liken to the "Holy, Holy, Holy" of the heavenly choirs and surely not in itself meaningless. Neither can it be necessary to urge that the freest criticism of the historical origin of the devotion, which involves no point of doctrine, is compatible with a full appreciation of the devotional treasures which this pious exercise brings within the reach of all.

As regards the origin of the name, the word rosarius means a garland or bouquet of roses, and it was not unfrequently used in a figurative sense -- e.g. as the title of a book, to denote an anthology or collection of extracts. An early legend which after travelling all over Europe penetrated even to Abyssinia connected this name with a story of Our Lady, who was seen to take rosebuds from the lips of a young monk when he was reciting Hail Marys and to weave them into a garland which she placed upon her head. A German metrical version of this story is still extant dating from the thirteenth century. The name "Our Lady's Psalter" can also be traced back to the same period. Corona or chaplet suggests the same idea as rosarium. The old English name found in Chaucer and elsewhere was a "pair of beads", in which the word bead originally meant prayers.

II. IN THE GREEK CHURCH, CATHOLIC AND SCHISMATIC

The custom of reciting prayers upon a string with knots or beads thereon at regular intervals has come down from the early days of Christianity, and is still practised in the Eastern as well as in the Western Church. It seems to have originated among the early monks and hermits who used a piece of heavy cord with knots tied at intervals upon which they recited their shorter prayers. This form of rosary is still used among the monks in the various Greek Churches, although archimandrites and bishops use a very ornamental form of rosary with costly beads. The rosary is conferred upon the Greek monk as a part of his investiture with the mandyas or full monastic habit, as the second step in the monastic life, and is called his "spiritual sword". This Oriental form of rosary is known in the Hellenic Greek Church as kombologion (chaplet), or komboschoinion (string of knots or beads), in the Russian Church as vervitza (string), chotki (chaplet), or liestovka (ladder), and in the Rumanian Church as matanie (reverence). The first use of the rosary in any general way was among the monks of the Orient. Our everyday name of "beads" for it is simply the Old Saxon word bede (a prayer) which has been transferred to the instrument used in reciting the prayer, while the word rosary is an equally modern term. The intercourse of the Western peoples of the Latin Rite with those of the Eastern Rite at the beginning of the Crusades caused the practice of saying prayers upon knots or beads to become widely diffused among the monastic houses of the Latin Church, although the practice had been observed in some instances before that date. On the other hand, the recitation of the Rosary, as practised in the West, has not become general in the Eastern Churches; there it has still retained its original form as a monastic exercise of devotion, and is but little known or used among the laity, while even the secular clergy seldom use it in their devotions. Bishops, however, retain the rosary, as indicating that they have risen from the monastic state, even though they are in the world governing their dioceses.

The rosary used in the present Greek Orthodox Church -- whether in Russia or in the East -- is quite different in form from that used in the Latin Church. The use of the prayer-knots or prayer-beads originated from the fact that monks, according to the rule of St. Basil, the only monastic rule known to the Greek Rite, were enjoined by their founder to pray without ceasing" (I Thess., v, 17; Luke, 1), and as most of the early monks were laymen, engaged often in various forms of work and in many cases without sufficient education to read the prescribed lessons, psalms, and prayers of the daily office, the rosary was used by them as a means of continually reciting their prayers. At the beginning and at the end of each prayer said by the monk upon each knot or bead he makes the "great reverence" (he megale metanoia), bending down to the ground, so that the recitation of the rosary is often known as a metania. The rosary used among the Greeks of Greece, Turkey, and the East usually consists of one hundred beads without any distinction of great or little ones, while the Old Slavic, or Russian, rosary, generally consists of 103 beads, separated in irregular sections by four large beads, so that the first large bead is followed by 17 small ones, the second large bead by 33 small ones, the third by 40 small ones, and the fourth by 12 small ones, with an additional one added at the end. The two ends of a Russian rosary are often bound together for a short distance, so that the lines of beads run parallel (hence the name ladder used for the rosary), and they finish with a three-cornered ornament often adorned with a tassel or other finial, corresponding to the cross or medal used in a Latin rosary.

The use of the Greek rosary is prescribed in Rule 87 of the "Nomocanon", which reads: "The rosary should have one hundred [the Russian rule says 103] beads; and upon each bead the prescribed prayer should be recited." The usual form of this prayer prescribed for the rosary runs as follows: "O Lord Jesus Christ, Son and Word of the living God, through the intercessions of thy immaculate Mother [tes panachrantou sou Metros] and of all thy Saints, have mercy and save us. If, however, the rosary be said as a penitential exercise, the prayer then is: O Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner. The Russian rosary is divided by the four large beads so as to represent the different parts of the canonical Office which the recitation of the rosary replaces, while the four large beads themselves represent the four Evangelists. In the monasteries of Mount Athos, where the severest rule is observed, from eighty to a hundred rosaries are said daily by each monk. In Russian monasteries the rosary is usually said five times a day, while in the recitation of it the "great reverences" are reduced to ten, the remainder being simply sixty "little reverences" (bowing of the head no further than the waist) and sixty recitations of the penitential form of the prescribed prayer.

Among the Greek Uniats rosary is but little used by the laity. The Basilian monks make use of it in the Eastern style just described and in many cases use it in the Roman fashion in some monasteries. The more active life prescribed for them in following the example of Latin monks leaves less time for the recitation of the rosary according to the Eastern form, whilst the reading and recitation of the Office during the canonical Hours fulfils the original monastic obligation and so does not require the rosary. Latterly the Melchites and the Italo-Greeks have in many places adopted among their laity a form of to the one used among the laity of the Roman Rite, but its use is far from general. The Ruthenian and Rumanian Greek Catholics do not use it among the laity, but reserve it chiefly for the monastic clergy, although lately in some parts of Galicia its lay use has been occasionally introduced and is regarded as a latinizing practice. It may be said that among the Greeks in general the use of the rosary is regarded as a religious exercise peculiar to the monastic life; and wherever among Greek Uniats its lay use has been introduced, it is an imitation of the Roman practice. On this account it has never been popularized among the laity of the peoples, who remain strongly attached to their venerable Eastern Rite.

HERBERT THURSTON ANDREW J. SHIPMAN

Breviary Hymns of the Rosary

The proper office granted by Leo XIII (5 August, 1888) to the feast contains four hymns which, because of the pontiff's great devotion to the Rosary and his skilful work in classical Latin verse, were thought by some critics to be the compositions of the Holy Father himself. They have been traced, however, to the Dominican Office published in 1834 (see Chevalier, "Repertorium Hymnologicum", under the four titles of the hymns) and were afterwards granted to the Dioceses of Segovia and Venice (1841 and 1848). Their author was a pious client of Mary, Eustace Sirena. Exclusive of the common doxology (Jesu tibi sit gloria, etc.) each hymn contains five four-lined stanzas of classical dimeter iambics. In the hymn for First Vespers (Coelestis aulae nuntium) the Five Joyful Mysteries are celebrated, a single stanza being given to a mystery. In the same manner the hymn for Matins (In monte olivis consito) deals with the Five Sorrowful Mysteries and that for Lauds (Jam morte victor obruta) with the Five Glorious Mysteries. The hymn for Second Vespers (Te gestientem gaudiis) maintains the symmetrical form by devoting three stanzas to a recapitulation of the three sets of myteries (Joyful, Sorrowful, Glorious), prefacing them with a stanza which sums up all three and devoting a fifth to a poetical invitation to weave a crown of flowers from the "rosary" for the Mother of fair love. The compression of a single mystery" into a single stanza may be illustrated by the first stanza of the first hymn, devoted to the First Joyful Mystery:

The first (or prefatory) stanza of the fourth hymn sums up the three sets of mysteries:

The still greater compression of five mysteries within a single stanza may be illustrated by the second stanza of this hymn:

Archbishop Bagshawe translates the hymns in his "Breviary Hymns and Missal Sequences" (London, s. d., pp. 114-18). As in the illustration quoted from one of these, the stanza contains (in all the hymns) only two rhymes, the author's aim being "as much as possible to keep to the sense of the original, neither adding to this, nor taking from it" (preface). The other illustration of a fully-rhymed stanza is taken from another version of the four hymns (Henry in the "Rosary Magazine", Oct 1891). Translations into French verse are given by Albin, "La Poésie du Bréviaire with slight comment, pp. 345-56.

H.T. HENRY

Confraternity of the Holy Rosary

In accordance with the conclusion of the article ROSARY no sufficient evidence is forthcoming to establish the existence of any Rosary Confraternity before the last quarter of the fifteenth century. Dominican guilds or fraternities there were, but we cannot assume without proof that they were connected with the Rosary. We know, however, that through the preaching of Alan de Rupe such associations began to be erected shortly before 1475; that established at Cologne in 1474 by Father James Sprenger is especially famous. People from all parts of the world desired to be enrolled in it. A casual English example occurs in the Plumpton Correspondence (Camden Society, p. 50), where a priest in London writes in 1486 to his patron in Yorkshire: "I send a paper of the Rosary of our Ladye of Coleyn and I have registered your name with both my Ladis names, as the paper expresses, and ye be acopled as brether and sisters." Even at that time the entry of the name of each associate on the register was an indispensable condition of membership, and so it remains to this day. It was undoubtedly to this and similar confraternities, which by degrees began to be erected in many other places under Dominican supervision, that the great vogue of the Rosary as well as the acceptance of a more uniform system in its recitation of the Rosary was mainly due. The recitation of the Rosary is alone prescribed for the members -- at present they undertake to recite the fifteen mysteries at least once in each week -- but even this does not in any way bind under sin. The organization of these confraternities is entirely in the hands of the Dominican and no new confraternity can be anywhere given without the sanction of the general. It is to the members of the Rosary confraternities that the principal indulgences have been granted, and there can be no need to lay stress upon the special advantages which the confraternity offers by the union of prayer and devotional exercises as well as the participation of merits in this which is probably the largest organization of the kind within the Catholic church. Moreover, in the "patent of erection", which is issued for each new confraternity by the General of the Dominicans, a clause is added granting to all members enrolled therein "a participation in all the good works which by the grace of God are performed throughout the world by the brethren and sisters of the said [Dominican] Order." An important Apostolic Constitution on the Rosary Confraternity, which may be regarded as a sort of new charter, was issued by Leo XIII on 2 October, 1898.

The Perpetual Rosary is an organization for securing the continuous recitation of the Rosary by day and night among a number of associates who perform their allotted share at stated times. This is a development of the Rosary Confraternity, and dates from the seventeenth century.

The "Living Rosary" was began in 1826, an is independent of the confraternity; it consists in a number of circles of fifteen members who each agree to recite a single decade every day and who thus complete the whole Rosary between them.

HERBERT THURSTON

Feast of the Holy Rosary

Apart from the signal defeat of the Albigensian heretics at the battle of Muret in 1213 which legend has attributed to the recitation of the Rosary by St. Dominic, it is believed that Heaven has on many occasions rewarded the faith of those who had recourse to this devotion in times of special danger. More particularly, the naval victory of Lepanto gained by Don John of Austria over the Turkish fleet on the first Sunday of October in 1571 responded wonderfully to the processions made at Rome on that same day by the members of the Rosary confraternity. St. Pius V thereupon ordered that a commemoration of the Rosary should be made upon that day, and at the request of the Dominican Order Gregory XIII in 1573 allowed this feast to be kept in all churches which possessed an altar dedicated to the Holy Rosary. In 1671 the observance of this festival was extended by Clement X to the whole of Spain, and somewhat later Clement XI after the important victory over the Turks gained by Prince Eugene on 6 August, 1716 (the feast of our Lady of the Snows), at Peterwardein in Hungary, commanded the feast of the Rosary to be celebrated by the universal Church. A set of "proper" lessons in the second nocturn were conceded by Benedict XIII. Leo XIII has since raised the feast to the rank of a double of the second class and has added to the Litany of Loreto the invocation "Queen of the Most Holy Rosary". On this feast, in every church in which the Roman confraternity has been duly erected, a plenary indulgence toties quoties is granted upon certain conditions to all who visit therein the Rosary chapel or statue of Our Lady. This has been called the "Portiuncula" of the Rosary.

HERBERT THURSTON

Alberico de Rosate

(Or ROSCIATE).

Jurist, date of birth unknown; died in 1354. He was bom in the village of Rosate (Rosciate) in the district of Bergamo, and was of humble parentage. He studied law at Padua where he gained the degree of Doctor, without, however, becoming a teacher. He passed his life at Bergamo where he was a lawyer and took part in various public affairs. He was employed in particular by Galeazzo Visconti of Milan, and after Galeazzo's death by Lucchino Visconti and Lucchino's brother John, Bishop of Novara. In 1340 he was commissioned by the bishop to go as his envoy in important matters to Pope Benedict XII at Avignon. In his later years Rosate devoted himself especially to scientific literary labours. The last certain report concerning his life belongs to the year 1350, when he went with his sons to Rome to attend the jubilee. His writings won him a high reputation, especially among practical jurists. Special mention should be made of his commentaries on the "Digests" and the "Codex", which were often printed later, as at Lyons (1517, 1545-48); the "Opus Statutorum" (Como 1477; Milan, 1511); and the "Dictionarium", a collection of maxims of law as well as a dictionary, which was often reprinted.

J.P. KIRSCH

Roscelin

Roscelin, a monk of Compiègne, was teaching as early as 1087. He had contact with Lanfranc, St. Anselm, and Ivo of Chartres. Brought before a council at Soissons (1093), where he was accused of Tritheism, he denied the doctrines attributed to him, but this was done through fear of excommunication, for later he returned to his early theories. He was successively in England, at Rome, and finally returned to France. Of his writings there exists only a letter addressed to Abelard. Hauréau brings forward his name in connection with a text: "Sententia de universalibus secundum magistrum R." ("Notices et extr. de quelques manuscr. lat.", V, Paris, 1892, 224) but this is a conjecture. On the other hand we have as evidences of his doctrine texts of St. Anselm, Abelard, John of Salisbury, and an anonymous epigram. His share in the history of ideas and especially the value of his Nominalism have been exaggerated, his celebrity being far more due to his theological Tritheism. This article will study him from both points of view.

I. ROSCELIN'S NOMINALISM, OR "SENTENTIA VOCUM"

According to Otto of Freisingen Roscelin "primus nostris temporibus sententiam vocum instituit" ("Gesta Frederici imp". in "Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script., XX, 376), but the chronicler of the "Historia Francia" (cf. Bouquet, "Rec. des hist. des Gaules et de la France", XII, Paris, 1781, 3, b, c) mentions before him a "magister Johannes", whose personality is much discussed and who has not yet been definitively identified. What constitutes the sententia vocum"? To judge of it we have besides the texts mentioned above which bear directly on Roscelin an exposition of the treatise "De generibus et speciebus (thirteenth cent.), wrongly attributed to Abelard by Victor Cousin. The "sententia vocum" was one of the anti-Realist solutions of the problem of universals accepted by the early Middle Ages. Resuming Porphyry s alternative (mox de generibus et speciebus illud quidem sive subsistent sive in nudis intellectibus posita sint) the first medieval philosophers regarded genera and species (substance, corporetiy, animality, humanity) either as things or as having no existence (see NOMINALISM), and applying to this alternative a terminology of Boethius, they derived thence either res (things) or voces (words). To the Nominalists universals were voces, which means: (1) above all that universals are not "res", that is that only the individual exists: nam cum habeat eorum sententia nihil esse praeter individuum . . ." (De gener. et spec., 524). Nominalism was essentially anti-Realist. (2) that universals are merely words, "flatus vocis", e.g., the word "homo", divisible into syllables, consonants, and vowels. "Fuit autem, nemini magistri nostri Roscellini tam insana sententia ut nullam rem partibus constare vellet, sed sicut solis vocibus species, ita et partes ascridebat (Abelard, "Liber divisionum, ed. Cousin, 471). "Alius ergo consistit in vocibus, licet haec opinio cum Roscelino suo fere omnino evanuerit (John of Salisbury, Metalog., II, 17). The universal is reduced to an emission of sound (flatus vocis), in conformity with Boethius s definition: Nihil enim aliud est prolatio (vocis) quam aeris plectro linguae percussio . Roscelin's universal corresponds to what is now called the "universale in voce" in opposition to "universale in re" and "universale in intellectu".

But this theory of Roscelin's had no connection with the abstract concept of genus and species. He did not touch on this question. It is certain that he did not deny the existence or possibility of these concepts, and he was therefore not a nominalist in the fashion of Taine or in the sense in which Nominalism is at present understood. That is why, in reference to the modern sense of the word, we have called it a pseudo-Nominalism. John of Salisbury, speaking of "nominalis secta" (Metalog., II, 10) gives it quite another meaning. So Roscelin's rudimentary, even childish, solution does not compromise the value of universal concepts and may called a stage in the development of moderate Realism.

Roscelin was also taken to task by St. Anselm and Abelard for the less clear idea which he gave of the whole and of composite substance. According to St. Anselm he maintained that colour does not exist independently of the horse which serves as its support and that the wisdom of the soul is not outside of the soul which is wise (De fide trinit., 2). He denies to the whole, such as house, man, real existence of its parts. The word alone had parts, "ita divinam paginam pervertit, ut eo loco quo Dominus partem piscis assi comedisse partem hujus vocis, quae est piscis assi, non partem rei intelligere cogatur (Cousin, P. Abaelardi opera, II. 151). Roscelin was not without his supporters; among them was his contemporary Raimbert of Lille, and what the monk Hériman relates of his doctrine agrees with the statements of the master of Compiègne. Universal substances, says Hériman, are but a breath, which means eos de sapientium numero merito esse exsufflandos". He merely comments on the saying of Anselm characterized by the same jesting tone: a spiritualium quaestionum disputatione sunt exsufflandi" (P. L., 256a), and says that to understand the windy loquacity of Raimbert of Lille one has but to breathe into his hand (manuque ori admota exsufflans "Mon. Germ. Hist.", XIV, 275).

II. TRITHEISM OF ROSCELIN

Roscelin considered the three Divine Persons as three independent beings, like three angels; if usage permitted, he added, it might truly be said that there are three Gods. Otherwise, he continued, God the Father and God the Holy Ghost would have become incarnate with God the Son. To retain the appearance of dogma he admitted that the three Divine Persons had but one will and power [Audio . . . quod Roscelinus clericus dicit in tres personas esse tres res ab invicem separatas, sicut sunt tres angeli, ita tamen ut una sit voluntas et potestas aut Patrem et Spiritum sanctum esse incarnatum; et tres deos vere posse dici si usus admitteret (letter of St. Anselm to Foulques)]. This characteristic Tritheism, which St. Anselm and Abelard agreed in refuting even after its author's conversion, seems an indisputable application of Roscelin's anti-Realism. He argues that if the three Divine Persons form but one God all three have become incarnate, which is inadmissible. There are therefore three Divine substances, three Gods, as there are three angels, because each substance constitutes an individual, which is the fundamental assertion of anti-Realism. The ideas of the theologian are closely linked with those of the philosopher.

M. DE WULF

Roscommon

Capital of County Roscommon, Ireland; owes origin and name to a monastery founded by St. Coman in the first half of the eighth century on a "ros" or wooded point amidst marshes. Ware and his copiers make Coman author of a monastic rule observed throughout three-fourths of Connaught; but this statement is wrongly deduced from annalistic records of the collection of dues by St. Coman's successors, under the title of "Lex Comani", from the Teora Connachta, tribes occupying a portion of the province. The records indicate, indeed, that with support from the King of Connaught St. Coman's foundation had some pre-eminence, if not jurisdiction. He himself may have been, as Colgan believed, a bishop; some of his earliest successors certainly were. Whilst the tribal system prevailed the bishops at Rosecommon, as pastors over the patrimonial territory of the provincial king, would hold in the Church a position analogous to his in the state, and through this analogy would be the "high" or "noble bishops of the Connaughtmen". Roscommon became a seat of learning as well as of authority, and had scholars and scribes celebrated in the national annals. From the middle of the tenth century, if not earlier, it was closely united with Clonmacnoise and shared with that great school the fame of Cormac O'Cillene and Tighernach O'Braoin, the annalist. It shared also in the prosperity of the Connaught kings, after they had risen to the monarchy of Ireland. Toirdhealbhach O'Conchubhair's son, Maol-Iosa, was Abbot of Roscommon, and he himself was a liberal benefactor; he bestowed on the monastery a piece of the true cross brought him from Rome in 1123, and had it enshrined in the famous Bachal Buidhe, lately named the Cross of Cong, a masterpiece of design and workmanship, now one of the greatest treasures in the collection of the Royal Irish Academy, Dublin. When the Irish monasteries exchanged their primitive rules for those of the great orders of the Church, the monks at Roscommon became Augustinian canons, but remained till the latter part of the fifteenth century an Irish community under native superiors despite the Norman castle built within their fields in 1268 and the policy of ousting the Irish from their monasteries. During the great Western Schism, Thomas Macheugan (Mac Aodhagain) whom the antipope Clement VII made prior of this house, came from Avignon as Clement's agent, and convening the prelates, clergy, and laity of Connaught at Roscommon, secured the adhesion of all except the Bishop of Elphin, who did not attend, and the Bishop of Killala, who sent his archdeacon to uphold the right of Urban VI. When the O'Conors made terms with Queen Elizabeth, the abbey and its possessions were attached to the constableship of Roscommon Castle, and subsequently granted to Sir Nicholas Malbie; even the site is searcely traceable.

The Dominican friary that was situated at Roscommon was founded in the year 1253 by Fedhlimidh O'Conchubhair, King of Connaught, and consecrated to the Blessed Virgin in 1257; in 1265 the founder ended his stormy life within its walls, and was buried there. His monument, still extant represents him recumbent in long robes of peace and wearing a royal crown. In subsequent centuries this church was the chosen burial-place of several of his and other princely families. After the confiscation this friary, like the house of Augustinian Canons, was first attached to the constableship of Roscommon and then granted to Malbie; but the friars lingered around the spot. Under Cromwell several of them, amongst whom O'Heyne mentions Donald O'Neaghten, Edmund O'Bern, Raymund MacEochaidh, and Bernard O'Kelly, were put to death. Afterwards they obtained a small house and land and assembled a community numbering sixteen in 1791, but it died out in 1844. Of the original buildings only ruins of the church remain. The Franciscans also had a convent at Roscommon for a brief period; founded in 1269, it was burned down in 1270, and on account of the founder's death never rebuilt.

ARCHDALL, Monasticon Hibernicum (Dublin, 1786); LANIGAN, Eccles. Hist. of Ireland (Dublin, 1829); WARE, De Scriptoribus Hiberniae, (Dublin, 1639); USSHER, Britannicarum Ecclesiarum Antiquitates in Works (Dublin, 1847); O'HEYNE, Irish Dominicans ed. COLEMAN (Dundalk, 1902); De BURGO, Hibernia Domincana (Cologne, 1762); WELD, Statistical Survey of Co. Roscommon (Dublin, 1832).

CHARLES MCNEILL

Rosea

A titular see. The official catalogue of the Roman Curia mentioned formerly a titular see of Rosea in Syria. The title is borne at present by Mgr Félix Jourdan de la Passardière, of the Oratory of France, who lives in Paris. The name Rosea being only a corruption of Rhosus was replaced by the latter in 1884 (see Rhosus).

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Roseau

(ROSENSIS).

Diocese; suffragan of Port of Spain, Trinidad, B.W.I. The different islands of the Carribean Sea, which constitute the Diocese of Roseau, belonged to the Vicariate Apostolic of Port of Spain up to 1850, when Pius IX by Brief of 30 April, 1850, erected the Diocese of Roseau, with the episcopal see at Roseau, the capital of Dominica. The Very Reverend Father Michael Monaghan was elected first bishop of the new diocese and consecrated 16 February, 1851. He died in St. Thomas, 14 August, 1855, and was succeeded in 1856 by Rev. Father Michael Vesque, who died 10 August, 1859. The third bishop was René Marie Charles Poirier, C.J.M., who governed the diocese from 1859 to 1878. Next came Bishop Michael Naughten from 1880 till 4 July, 1900. The present occupant is Philip Schelfhaut, C.SS.R., b. at St. Nicholas, Belgium, 27 September, 1850, ordained priest 18 October, 1878, and consecrated bishop, 16 March, 1902. The diocese comprises the Islands of Dominica, B.W.I., with 30,000 Catholics, 12 parishes 18 priests, 16 churches, and 4 chapels; Montserrat, B.W.I., with 600 Catholics, 1 parish, 1 priest, 1 church; Antigua, B.W.I., with 400 Catholics, 1 parish, 1 priest, 1 church; St. Kitts, B.W.I., with 1500 Catholics, 1 parish, 2 priests, 1 church, 2 chapels; St Croix, D.W.I., with 4100 Catholics, 2 parishes, 4 priests, 2 churches, 1 chapel; St. Thomas, D.W.I. with 3000 Catholics, 1 parish, 3 priests, 1 church, I chapel. The total Protestant population of the diocese is about 100,000. In the smaller British Islands of Nevis, Anguilla, Barbuda, Sombrero, and in the Virgin Islands, Tostola, Anegada, and Virgin Gorda, as also in the Danish Island of St. John, the Catholic Church has so few adherents that no priest has ever been resident there. With the exception of two parishes, which are served by secular priests, the whole diocese is under the care of the Redemptorist Fathers of the Belgian province, and the Fathers of Mary Immaculate (Chavagne en Paillers, France). There are also 14 Redemptorist Brothers on the mission. In Roseau, the Religious of the Faithful Virgin devote themselves to the education of the girls of both the lower and higher classes, while the Ladies of the Union of the Sacred Hearts conduct a high school for girls in St. Thomas. In Dominica nearly all the schools are in the hands of the local Government; however, religious instruction is given by the priests during school hours. In the other Islands, with the exception of Antigua, parochial schools are attached to the mission.

Ecclesiastical Bulletin of Roseau (Roseau, 1908-9), MSS.

J. MORIS

William Starke Rosecrans

Born at Kingston Ohio, U. S. A., 6 Sept., 1819; died near Redondo California, 11 March, 1898. The family came originally from Holland and settled in Pennsylvania moving thence to Ohio. His mother was a daughter of Samuel Hopkins, a soldier of the Revolution and one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. He graduated at the U. S. Military Academy, West Point, in July 1842, and after a brief service in the engineer corps returned to the Academy as a professor, remaining there until 1847. It was during this period that he became a Catholic. In 1854 he resigned from the army, but at the breaking out of the Civil War he was made a colonel of volunteers and, in June, 1861, a brigadier-general of regulars. During the succeeding years he held various important commands in West Virginia, Mississippi, and Tennessee, until 19 and 20 Sept., 1863, when he was defeated by Gen. Bragg, at the battle of Chickamauga. Then after a short period of service in the department of Missouri he was relieved of all command. Up to this he had been uniformly successful as a good fighter and military strategist. At the close of the war he resigned from the army and, in 1868, served as U. S. Minister to Mexico, where from 1869 to 1881 he devoted himself to railroad and industrial enterprises. He was elected to Congress as a Democrat, in 1880, and again in 1882. From 1885 to 1893 he was registrar of the U. S. Treasury. In 1889 Congress restored him to the rank and pay of a brigadier general of the regular army on the retired list.

His brother, Sylvester Harden Rosecrans, first Bishop of Columbus, was also a convert. Born at Homer, Ohio 5 Feb., 1827, he was sent to Kenyon College, the leading Episcopalian institution of the state. While there in 1845 he received a letter from his brother William, then a professor at West Point, announcing his conversion to the Catholic Faith. It so impressed him that he also sought instruction and became a Catholic. He then went to St. John's College, Fordham, New York, graduating there in 1846. Electing to study for the priesthood he was sent by the Bishop of Cincinnati as a student to the College of Propaganda, Rome, where he was ordained priest in 1852. Returning to Cincinnati he officiated at St. Thomas's church, and was a professor in the diocesan seminary. In 1859 a college was opened in connection with the seminary and he was made its president. In 1862 he was consecrated titular Bishop of Pompeiopolis and Auxiliary of Cincinnati. When the Diocese of Columbus was created, 3 March, 1868, he was transferred to that see as its first bishop and died there 21 October, 1878 (see DIOCESE OF COLUMBUS). During his residence in Cincinnati he was a frequent editorial contributor to the "Catholic Telegraph".

CULLUM, Biog. Register of the Officers and Graduates, U. S. Military Academy (Boston, 1891); HOUCK, A Hist. of Catholicity in Northern Ohio (Cleveland, 1902); Am. Cath. Hist. Researches (Philadelphia, July, 1896); The Catholic Telegraph (Cincinnati), files; HOWE, Historical Collections of Ohio (Cincinnati, 1900); BICKHORN, Rosecrans' Campaign with the Fourteenth Armory Corps (Cincinnati, 1863); CLARKE, Lives of the Deceased Bishops of Cath. Ch. U. S., III (New York, 1888); The Catholic Directory, files.

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

St. Roseline

(Rossolina.)

Born at Château of Arcs in eastern Provence, 1263; d. 17 January, 1329. Having overcome her father's opposition Roseline became a Carthusian nun at Bertaud in the Alps of Dauphiné. Her "consecration" took place in 1288, and about 1330 she succeeded her aunt, Blessed Jeanne or Diane de Villeneuve, as Prioress of Celle-Robaud in the Diocese of Fréjus near her home. In 1320 her brother Hélion, Grand Master (1319-46) of the Knights of St. John, restored the monastery, and in 1323 and 1328 John XXII, formerly Bishop of Fréjus, increased its revenue, granting indulgences for the anniversary of the dedication of the church. Roseline obtained leave to resign her office before her death. Many visions together with extraordinary austerities and great power over demons are ascribed to her. Her feast is given in the Acta SS. on 11 June, the day of the first translation of her remains in 1334 by her brother Elzear, Bishop of Digne; but by the Carthusian Order it is celebrated in 16 October. There has always been a local cultus and this was confirmed for the Diocese of Fréjus by a Decree of 1851, for the Carthusian Order in 1857. The saint is usually represented with a reliquary containing two eyes, recalling the fact that her eyes were removed and preserved apart. This relic was still extant at Arcs in 1882. There is no ancient life of the saint, but that given in the Acta SS., 2 June, 489 sq., was constructed by Papebroch from ancient documents.

RAYMOND WEBSTER

Rosenau

(Hungarian ROZSNYÓ; Latin ROSNAVIENSIS).

Diocese in Hungary, suffragan of Eger, established by Maria Theresa, in 1775-76. In 1636 Cardinal Peter Pázmány proposed to establish a distinct see for this part of Hungary, where the Catholic Faith was almost dead. Pázmány's death intervened, and nothing was done until Maria Theresa took up the plan. In 1776 John Galgóczy was appointed first Bishop of Rosenau, but died before taking charge. His successor, Count Anthony Révay (1776-80), caused the church to be restored and the high altar to be renovated. Of his successors may be mentioned: John Scitovszky (1827-38), later Bishop of Funfkirchen and Archbishop of Gran; Ethelbert Bartakovics (1845-50), later archbishop of Eger. Since 1905 the see is governed by Louis Balás. The diocese is divided into 3 archdeaconries and has 2 abbeys and 3 provostships. The chapter consists of 6 active members and 6 titular canons. The parishes number 99, and there are 154 secular, 28 regular, priests; 3 monasteries; 34 nunneries; 190,000 Catholics; 10,165 Greek Uniats; 97,071 Lutherans; 44,609 Calvinists; 11,220 Jews. The seminary was established in 1814.

A katolikus Magyarorszag (Catholic Hungary) (Budapest, 1902), in Hungarian; Schematismus (1910).

A. ALDASY

St. Rose of Lima

Virgin, patroness of America, born at Lima, Peru 20 April, 1586; died there 30 August, 1617.

At her confirmation in 1597, she took the name of Rose, because, when an infant, her face had been seen transformed by a mystical rose. As a child she was remarkable for a great reverence, and pronounced love, for all things relating to God. This so took possession of her that thenceforth her life was given up to prayer and mortification. She had an intense devotion to the Infant Jesus and His Blessed Mother, before whose altar she spent hours. She was scrupulously obedient and of untiring industry, making rapid progress by earnest attention to her parents' instruction, to her studies, and to her domestic work, especially with her needle. After reading of St. Catherine she determined to take that saint as her model. She began by fasting three times a week, adding secret severe penances, and when her vanity was assailed, cutting off her beautiful hair, wearing coarse clothing, and roughening her hands with toil. All this time she had to struggle against the objections of her friends, the ridicule of her family, and the censure of her parents. Many hours were spent before the Blessed Sacrament, which she received daily. Finally she determined to take a vow of virginity, and inspired by supernatural love, adopted extraordinary means to fulfill it. At the outset she had to combat the opposition of her parents, who wished her to marry. For ten years the struggle continued before she won, by patience and prayer, their consent to continue her mission. At the same time great temptations assailed her purity, faith, and constance, causing her excruciating agony of mind and desolation of spirit, urging her to more frequent mortifications; but daily, also, Our Lord manifested Himself, fortifying her with the knowledge of His presence and consoling her mind with evidence of His Divine love. Fasting daily was soon followed by perpetual abstinence from meat, and that, in turn, by use of only the coarsest food and just sufficient to support life. Her days were filled with acts of charity and industry, her exquisite lace and embroidery helping to support her home, while her nights were devoted to prayer and penance. When her work permitted, she retired to a little grotto which she had built, with her brother's aid, in their small garden, and there passed her nights in solitude and prayer. Overcoming the opposition of her parents, and with the consent of her confessor, she was allowed later to become practically a recluse in this cell, save for her visits to the Blessed Sacrament. In her twentieth year she received the habit of St. Dominic. Thereafter she redoubled the severity and variety of her penances to a heroic degree, wearing constantly a metal spiked crown, concealed by roses, and an iron chain about her waist. Days passed without food, save a draught of gall mixed with bitter herbs. When she could no longer stand, she sought repose on a bed constructed by herself, of broken glass, stone, potsherds, and thorns. She admitted that the thought of lying down on it made her tremble with dread. Fourteen years this martyrdom of her body continued without relaxation, but not without consolation. Our Lord revealed Himself to her frequently, flooding her soul with such inexpressible peace and joy as to leave her in ecstasy four hours. At these times she offered to Him all her mortifications and penances in expiation for offences against His Divine Majesty, for the idolatry of her country, for the conversion of sinners, and for the souls in Purgatory.

Many miracles followed her death. She was beatified by Clement IX, in 1667, and canonized in 1671 by Clement X, the first American to be so honoured. Her feast is celebrated 30 August. She is represented wearing a crown of roses.

Hansen, Vita Mirabilis (1664), Spanish tr. by PARRA.

EDW. L. AYMÉ

St. Rose of Viterbo

Virgin, born at Viterbo, 1235; died 6 March, 1252. The chronology of her life must always remain uncertain, as the Acts of her canonization, the chief historical sources, record no dates. Those given above are accepted by the best authorities.

Born of poor and pious parents, Rose was remarkable for holiness and for her miraculous powers from her earliest years. When but three years old, she raised to life her maternal aunt. At the age of seven, she had already lived the life of a recluse, devoting herself to penances. Her health succumbed, but she was miraculously cured by the Blessed Virgin, who ordered her to enroll herself in the Third Order of St. Francis, and to preach penance to Viterbo, at that time (1247) held by Frederick II of Germany and a prey to political strife and heresy. Her mission seems to have extended for about two years, and such was her success that the prefect of the city decided to banish her. The imperial power was seriously threatened. Accordingly, Rose and her parents were expelled from Viterbo in January, 1250, and took refuge in Sorriano. On 5 December, 1250, Rose foretold the speedy death of the emperor, a prophecy realized on 13 December. Soon afterwards she went to Vitorchiano, whose inhabitants had been perverted by a famous sorceress. Rose secured the conversion of all, even of the sorceress, by standing unscathed for three hours in the flames of a burning pyre, a miracle as striking as it is well attested. With the restoration of the papal power in Viterbo (1251) Rose returned.

She wished to enter the monastery of St. Mary of the Roses, but was refused because of her poverty. She humbly submitted, foretelling her admission to the monastery after her death. The remainder of her life was spent in the cell in her father's house, where she died. The process of her canonization was opened in that year by Innocent IV, but was not definitively undertaken until 1457. Her feast is celebrated on 4 September, when her body, still incorrupt, is carried in procession through Viterbo.

Bullar. Franc., 1, 640; Acta Proc. Canonizationis, ann. 1456 in Acta SS., IV Sept.; WADDING, Annales Min. (Rome, 1731), II, 423; III, 280; ANDREUCCI, Notizie criticoistoriche di S. Rosa, Verg. Viterbese (Rome, 1750); BRIGANTI, S. Rosa ed il suo secolo (Venice, 1889); LEON, Lives of the Saints of the Three Orders of S. Francis (Taunton, England, 1886). The best modern life is that by DE KERVAL, Ste Rose, sa vie et son temps (Vanves, 1896); PIZZI, Storia della Città di Viterbo (Rome, 1887).

GREGORY CLEARY

Rosicrucians

The original appelation of the alleged members of the occult-cabalistic-theosophic "Rosicrucian Brotherhood", described in the pamphlet "Fama Fraternitatis R.C." (Rosae crucis), which was circulated in MS. As early as 1610 and first appeared in print in 1614 at Cassel. To the first two additions were prefixed the tract "Allgemeine und Generalreforation der ganzen weiten Welt", a translation of Fr. Boccalini's "Dei Ragguagli di Parnasso", 1612. Beginning with the fourth edition in 1615, the third Rosicrucian rudiment, "Confessio der Fraternitat", was added to the "Fama". According to these, the Rosicrucian brotherhood was founded in 1408 by a German nobleman, Christian Rosenkreuz (1378-1484), a former monk, who while travelling through Damascus, Jerusalem and Fez had been initiated into Arabian learning (magic), and who considered an antipapal Christianity, tinged with theosophy, his ideal of a religion. Concerned above all else that their names should appear in the Book of Life, the brothers were to consider the making of gold as unimportant-although for the true philosophers (Occultists) this was an easy matter and a parergon. They must apply themselves zealously and in the deepest secrecy to the study of Nature in her hidden forces, and to making their discoveries and inventions known to the order and profitable to the needs of humanity. And to further the object of the said order they must assemble annually at the "Edifice of the Holy Spirit", the secret head-quarters of the order, cure the sick gratuitously, and whilst each one procured himself a successor they must provide for the continuance of their order. Free from illness and pain, these "Invisibles", as they were called in the vernacular, were supposed to be yearning for the time when the church should be "purified".

For two hundred years, while the world never had the least suspicion of their existence, the brotherhood transmitted by these means the wisdom of "Father" Rosenkreuz, one hundred and twenty years after the latter's burial, until about 1604 they finally became known. The "Fama", which effected this, invited "all of the scholars and rulers of Europe" openly to favour the cause, and eventually to sue for entrance into the fraternity, to which, nevertheless, only chosen souls would be admitted. The morbid propensity of the age for esoterism, magic, and confederacies caused the "Fama" to raise a feverish excitement in men's minds, expressed in a flood of writings for and against the brotherhood, and in passionate efforts to win admission to the order, or at least to discover who were its members. All of these endeavours, even by scholars of real repute like Descartes and Leibniz, were without results. From the manifestly fabulous and impossible "History" of the brotherhood, it was apparent that it depended upon a "mystification". This mystification was directly explained by an investigation by the author, who appears unquestionable to have been the Lutheran theologian of Würtemberg, John Valentin Andrea (1586-1654). According to his own admission, Andrea composed in 1602 or 1603 the Rosicrucian book, "Chymische Hochzeit Christiani Rosenkreuz 1459", which appeared in 1616. This book, called by Andrea himself a youthful literary trifle in which he intended to ridicule the mania of the times for occult marvels (Life, p. 10), bears the closest intrinsic relation to the "Fama", which, in the light of this, is undoubtedly a later work of Andreä's or at least of one of the circle of friends inspired by him. Alchemistic occultism is mocked at in these works and in the "General-Reformation", the follies of the then untimely reformers of the world are openly ridiculed. The fantastic form of the tracts is borrowed from contemporary romances of knighthood and travel. The "Rosy Cross" was chosen for the symbol of the order because, first, the rose and cross were ancient symbols of occultism and, secondly, occur in the family arms of Andrea. It recalls Luther's motto: "Des Christen Hertz auf Rosen geht, wenn's mitten unter'm Kreuze steht" (Hossback, 121). As a result of his satirically meant but seriously accepted works, which soon gave rise to occult humbuggery (opposed by him) in new Rosicrucian raiment, Andrea openly renounced Rosicrucianism and frequently referred to it as a ridiculous comedy and folly. In spite of this, the Rosicrucian fraud, which served in many ways as a model for the anti-Masonic Taxil-Schwindel, has continued effective until the present day. In the seventeenth century Michael Maier and Robert Fludd were its champions. Psuedo-Rosicrucian societies arose, falsely claiming descent from the genuine fraternity of the "Fama". After 1750 occult Rosicrucianism was propagated by Freemasonry, where it led to endless extravagant manifestations (St. Germain, Cagliostro, Schropfer, Wollner etc.). In the system of high degrees in "Scottish" Freemasonry, especially in the Rosendruez degree, the Rosicrucian symbols are still retained with a Masonic interpretation. Finally, since about 1866 there have existed in England and Scotland (London, Newcastle, York, Glasgow) and in the United States (Boston, Philadelphia) "colleges" of a Masonic Rosicrucian society, whose members claim to be direct descendants of the brotherhood founded in 1408. Only Master Masons are eligible for membership. According to the definition of the president of the London branch (Supreme Magus), Brother Dr. Wm. Wynn Westcott, M.B., P.Z., it is "the aim of the Society to afford mutual aid and encouragement in working out the great problems of life and in searching out the secrets of nature; to facilitate the study of philosophy founded upon the Kabbalah and the doctrines of Hermes Trismegistus, which was inculcated by the original Fratres Roseae Crucis of Germany, A.D. 1450; and to investigate the meaning and symbolism of all that now remains of the wisdom, art, and literature of the ancient world". The view which has been lately revived, especially by Katsch and Pike, that Rosicrucianism definitely or even perceptibly cooperated in the foundation of modern Freemasonry in 1717, is contradicted by well-known historical facts.

ARNOLD, "Unparteiische Kirchen u. Ketzerhistorie", II (Frankfort, 1699), 640 sq.; HERDER, "Samtl. Werke" (Berlin, 1888), XV, 82 sq.; XVI, 596 sq.; BUHLE, "ursprung u. d. vornehmsten Schicksale der Rosenkreuzer u Freimaurer" (Gottingen, 1804); NIKOLAI, Einige Bemerkungen uber den Ursprung u. d. Gesach. D. Rosendreuzer u. Freimaurer" (Berlin, 1806); HOSSBACH, JU. W. "Andrea u. sein zeitalter" (Berlin, 1819); GUHRAUER, "Zeitschr. F. hist. Theol. (1852), 298 sq.; SIERKE, "Schwarmer u. Schwinder zu Ende d. 18 Jahrh. " (Leipzig, 1874); KOPP, "Die Alchemie", II (Heidelberg, 1886); WAITE, "The real History of the Rosicrucians" (London, 1887), needs revision; KATSCH, "Die Entstehung u. d. wahre Endzweck d. Freimaurerei" (Berlin, 1897); HEFELE [RAICH] in "Kirchenlex.", s.v. "Rosendreuzer"; HERMELINK in "Realencyk." F. prot. Theol., s.v. "Rosenkreuzer"; "Allg. Handbuch d. Freimaurerei", II (3rd ed., 1900), 259-63; BEGMANN, "Monatshefte d. Comenius-Gesellschaft" (Berlin), V (1896), 212 sq.,; VI (1897), 204 sq.; VIII (1899), 145 sq.; "Zirkelkorrespondenz" (Berlin, 1896), 212; "Vorgessch. U. Anfange d. Freimaurerei in England", I (1909), II (1910), 16, 384; GOULD, Hist of Freemasonry", II (London, 1884), 60 sq.; "Concise Hist. Of Freemasonry" (London, 1903), 61-93; "Ars Quatuor Coronatorum", transactions (London), I (1888), 28, 54; V (1892), 67; VI (1893), 202 sq.,; VII (1894), 36 sq., 83; VIII (1895), 46; "The Theosophist" (Madras, 1886), VII, 451 sq., VIII, IX, X; "Rosicrucian Society of England: rules and Ordinances" (London, 1881); revised 1882); Transacations, etc" (1879-91); "The Rosicrucian: A Quarterly Record" (1868-79); KLOSS, "Bibliog. D. Freimaurerei, etc." (Frandfort, 1844), 174-201, gives 274 works on the subject; GARDNER, "Bibliotheca Rosicruciana": I, catalogue (London, privately printed, 1903), gives a list of 604 works on the subject.

HERMANN GRUBER

August Roskoványi

Bishop of Neutra in Hungary, doctor of philosophy and theology, b. at Szenna in the County of Ung, Hungary, 7 December, 1807; d. 24 February, 1892. He took his gymnasial course in the college of the Piarists at Kis-Szeben from 1817-22, studied philosophy at Eger, 1822-24, theology in the seminary for priests at Pesth, and completed his training at the Augustineum at Vienna. After his ordination to the priesthood in 1831 he was for a short time engaged in pastoral duties, then went to the seminary at Eger as prefect of studies, became vice-rector of the seminary, and in 1841 rector. In 1836 he was made a cathedral canon of Eger, in 1839 received the Abbey of Saár, in 1847 became auxiliary bishop, in 1850 capitular vicar, in 1851 Bishop of Waitzen, and in 1859 Bishop of Neutra. Roskoványi was also made a Roman count, prelate, and assistant at the papal throne. His charity is shown by the foundations he established, valued at several hundred thousand gulden. He was distinguished as an ecclesiastical writer. Among his works, all of which are in Latin, should be mentioned: "De primatu Romani Pontificis ejusque juribus" (Augsburg, 1839; 2nd ed., Agram, 1841); "De matrimoniis mixtis" (5 vols., Fünfkirchen, 1842; Pesth, 1854, 1870 1); "De matrimoniis in ecclesia catholica" (2 vols., Augsburg, 1837-40); "Monumenta catholica pro independentia potestatis ecclesiasticae ab imperio civili" (14 vols. Funfkirchen, 1847; Pesth, 1856, 1865, 1870-71); "Coelibatus et breviarium, duo gravissima clericorum officia", etc. (7 vols., Pesth, 1867, 1875); "Romanus Pontifex tamquam primas ecclesiae", etc. (16 vols., Neutra and Comaromii, 1867, 1878); "Beata Virgo Maria in suo conceptu immaculata" (12 vols., Budapest, 1873-4; Neutra 1877).

VAGNER, Adatok a nyitrai varosi plebaniak tortenetehez (Neutra, 1902), written in Hungarian; also in Hungarian, SZINNYEI, Magyar Irok, XI, giving a complete list of Roskoványi's works and a full bibliography.

A. ALDASY

Rosmini and Rosminianism

Antonio Rosmini Serbati, philosopher, and founder of the Institute of Charity, born 24 March, 1797, at Rovereto, Austrian Tyrol; died 1 July, 1855, at Stresa, Italy; was educated at home until his twentieth year, and, after a three years' course at the University of Padua, returned to Rovereto to prepare for Holy orders. He was ordained priest at Chioggia, 21 April, 1821, and in 1822 received at Padua the Doctorate in Theology and Canon Law. In 1823 he went to Rome with Mgr. Pyrker, Patriarch of Venice, met Consalvi and other prominent men, and was encouraged by Pius VII to undertake the reform of philosophy. The next three years (1823-26) he spent in philosophical pursuits at Rovereto, devoting himself especially to the study of St. Thomas. He had already adopted as principles of conduct:

• never to assume external works of charity on his own initiative, but, until summoned by some positive outward manifestation of God's will, to busy himself with his own sanctification, a thing always pleasing in the Divine sight (principle of passivity);
• at any clear sign from God, to assume with alacrity any external work of charity, without, so far as concerned his higher will personal preferences or repugnances (principle of indifference).

On these maxims he based the rules of the Institute of Charity which, at the instance of Maddalena, Marchioness of Canossa, and of John Loewenbruck, a zealous priest from German Lorraine, he founded in 1828 at Monte Calvario near Domodossola. In 1828 he again went to Rome, where he was encouraged by Leo XII and later by Pius VIII to pursue his philosophical studies and consolidate his institute. During this visit he published his "Maxims of Christian Perfection" and his "Nuovo saggio sull' origine delle idee" (1829; tr. "Origin of Ideas", London, 1883-84). In the autumn of 1830 he inaugurated the observance of the rule at Calvario, and from 1834 to 1835 had charge of a parish at Rovereto. About this time the pope made over to Rosmini several missions tendered him in England by the vicars Apostolic, as also the Abbey of S. Michele della Chiusa in Piedmont. Later foundations followed at Stresa and Domodossola. The Constitutions of the institute were presented to Gregory XVI and, after some discussion regarding the form of the vow of religious poverty, were formally approved 20 December, 1838. On 25 March, 1839, the vows of the institute were taken by twenty Fathers in Italy and by six in England (Spetisbury and Prior Park). The Letters Apostolic ("In sublimi", 20 Sept., 1839) formally recorded the approval of the institute and its rule, and appointed Rosmini provost general for life. The institute then spread rapidly in England and Italy, and requests for foundations came from various countries. The publication of Rosmini's "Trattato della coscienza morale" (Milan, 1839) led to a sharp controversy. Against Rosmini were writers like Melia, Passaglia, Rozaven, Antonio Ballerini, all members of the Society of Jesus, in which Rozaven held the office of assistant to the general. On the defensive, along with Rosmini, were L. Eastaldi, Pestalozza, Pagamini. For fifteen years the wordy war was protracted, with a truce from 1843 to 1846, due to an injunction of Gregory XVI enjoining perpetual silence on both sides. Pius IX, who succeeded Gregory in 1846, showed himself favourable to the institute, and various new foundations in England attested its vitality. In 1848 Rosmini published (Milan) his "Costituzione secondo la giustizia sociale" and "Cinque piaghe della chiesa"; the latter against Josephism, especially in the matter of Austrian episcopal appointments in Northern Italy. In August of the same year, he was sent to Rome by King Charles Albert of Piedmont to enlist the pope on the side of Italy as against Austria. Pius IX appointed him one of the consultors to deliberate on the definability of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and at the outbreak of the revolution asked Rosmini to share his exile at Gaeta. Antonelli's influence, however, prevailed and Rosmini left Gaeta, 19 June, 1849. His works, "Costitunone" and "Cinque piaghe", were condemned in August, a sentence which he unhesitatingly accepted. A further attack was made on him in the "Postille" and the "Lettere di un prete Bolognese" (1848). Pius IX (1850) referred the "Postille" to the Congregation of the Index, which rejected it as false. In view of other charges the pope ordered an examination of all Rosmini's works. The decision, rendered 3 July, 1854, was that all the works be dismissed (esse dimittenda), that the investigation implied nothing disparaging to the author, to the institute founded by him, or to his exceptional services to the Church, and that to prevent any renewal and dissemination of charges and strife, silence was for the third time imposed on both parties. Within a year after this decision Rosmini died. His body reposes in the Church of the Santissimo Crocifisso built by him at Stresa. (See ROSMINIANS.)

THE ROSMINIAN SYSTEM

According to Rosmini, philosophy is "the science of the ultimate reasons or grounds of human knowledge". The philosopher at the outset must answer the questions: What is knowledge? What is thought? Can we be certain of what we know? Rosmini's answer is given in his ideology and logic. Intellect, he holds, is essentially different from sense; thought is objective, sensation is subjective. The term of the intellectual act is seen in such a way that the seer, at the moment, is conscious neither of himself nor of any relation with himself as seeing. The primal and essential act of human intelligence, thus terminating in its object, is intuition — an attitude rather than an activity, in which the mind pronounces no judgment on what is known, but merely receives the communication of the intelligible object. All our concepts, when analyzed, reveal being (somethingness) as their essential constituent; or, conversely, human concepts are nothing but determinations more or less complex of the simple and elementary notion of being. This fundamental idea is indeterminate and general, conveying to the intellect no knowledge of particular things, but simply manifesting itself as the essence of being. Our abstraction does not produce it, but merely discovers it already present in thought. Being, as it appears within man's experience, has two modes, each governed by its own conditions and laws, each with well-defined attributes, diverse, but not contradictory. Manifesting itself to the mind as the intelligible object, not exerting any stimulus upon the intellect, but simply illuminating it, this is being in its ideal mode. As it acts or is acted upon in feeling, modifying the human subject in sensation, constituting the sentient principle in action and passion, this is being in its real mode. The former is essentially objective, simple, and one — universal, necessary, immutable, eternal; the latter is subjective and, in our world, contingent, particular, temporal, manifold, and almost infinitely varied in aspect. Ideal being is not God, but we may call it, says Rosmini, an appurtenance of God, and even Divine, for its characteristics are not those of created finite things, and its ultimate source must be in God. If thought had in it no element transcending the contingent and finite, all knowledge of the absolute and infinite would be inexplicable, and truth, uncertain and variable, would exist only in name.

To explain our knowledge of particular real entities, Rosmini says that our knowledge of realities reduces itself to a judgment whereby we predicate existence of what is felt by us. Real entities act upon man's senses, and he immediately recognizes them as particular activities of that essence of being already manifested under another mode in intuition. Because of its simplicity, the human ego, or subject-principle, is constrained to bring together and collate its feeling and its knowledge of being, and thus it perceives being energizing in the production of feeling. This act of the human subject whereby it cognizes real entities, Rosmini calls reason. By sense we are introduced to realities, but we could not know them as beings unless we already possessed the idea of being. This is given to our mind prior to all perception or individual cognition; it is not acquired by any act of thought, but is implanted in us by the Creator from the beginning of our existence: it is innate, and constitutes for us the light of reason. Furthermore, it is the very form of the human intelligence, a form not multiple, but one — not subjective, but objective — i. e., not a quality or attitude or component of the human subject, but distinct from it and superior to it, existing in an absolute mode and called the form of the mind because, in manifesting itself to man, it draws forth and creates, so to speak, the act of his intelligence.

Logic, says Rosmini, is "the science of the art of reasoning". The scope of reasoning is certainty, i. e., a firm persuasion conformable to truth. The truth of a thing is, in last analysis, its being, and since being is the form of the human intellect, it follows that a criterion of truth and certainty lies at the base of all thought and reasoning. The principles which govern reflection and argument are founded on the primitive intuition of being. "Being is the object of thought"; this is the principle of cognition, and it is antecedent to the principle of contradiction. Error is found, not in the idea of being, which is without any determination, nor in the principles of reasoning, which simply express the essential object of the mind in the form of a proposition without adding anything foreign, but in reflection, and hence in the will, which usually initiates reflection. Logic shows us how to use reflection so as to attain truth and avoid error.

The Sciences of Perception are psychology and cosmology. The subject of psychology is the ego in its primal condition, i. e., stripped of its acquired relations and developments. The soul is felt by and through itself; it is essentially a principle of feeling. "The human soul is an intellective and sensitive subject or principle, having by nature the intuition of being and a feeling whose term is extended, besides certain activities consequent upon intelligence and sensitivity." This "extended term" is twofold: space, which, simple and immovable, underlies all sense phenomena as the idea of being underlies the phenomena of thought; and body, a limited extended force which the sentient principle passively receives and thereby acquires individuation. It is a favourite doctrine of Rosmini that the extended can exist only in synthesis with a simple, immaterial principle. Considered apart from this principle, the material corporeal term lacks the unity and coherence necessary for existence and permanence. Our own body, the "subjective body", is felt directly as the proper term of the human sentient principle and is the seat of corporeal feelings. Other (external) bodies, since they modify not the soul, but the bodily term in connexion with the soul, are felt by an extra-subjective perception. We feel our own bodies as we feel external bodies, through vision, touch etc.; but we also feel them immediately with a fundamental feeling, always identical and substantial, in which no distinct limits, figure, or relation of parts can be assigned. Shape, hardness, colour etc., belong to the extra-subjective world. But the body is not merely felt by the soul; it is also intellectually perceived by the soul in a primordial and immanent judgment, whereby being is applied to it (the body) in the way above described. In this perception is found the true nexus intimately uniting soul and body. The body is the felt-understood term of the human principle which in this intellective synthesis performs its first act as a rational soul and exerts a real physical influence on its bodily term. Hence Rosmini's definition of life as "the incessant production of all those extra-subjective phenomena which precede, accompany, and follow parallel with the corporeal and material feeling (subjective)".

Every time that by generation an animated organism is produced, perfectly constituted according to the human type, the vivifying, sentient principle rises to the vision of the intelligible object, ideal being. This happens in virtue of a primordial law, established by God in the creative act. There is, however, no chronological passing from sentience to intelligence, as if one could assign an instant in which the human soul was purely sentient and another following in which it had become rational. All is consummated in a single point of time. The soul's immortality is deduced from its nature as an intellective principle having for its object-term the eternal and necessary idea of being. This is independent of space and time, and the act of intuition continues even after the bodily term has been dissolved by death, and the soul's immanent perception of its body has been for a period destroyed.

Cosmology, which considers the ordered universe, the nature of contingent real being and its cause, is not a complete science in itself; it must be treated in connexion with the sciences of reasoning in which reflection, testing the observations of intuition and perception, discovers new truths and arrives at the existence of beings beyond the reach of intuition and perception.

The Sciences of Reasoning are ontological and deontological. The former comprise ontology and natural theology. Ontology treats of being in all its extent as known to man, viz., ideal being, the necessary object of the intellect; real being, i.e., subjective force and feeling; moral being, the relation between real and ideal — a special act of recognition and adherence on the part of the subject harmonizing it with the object. Light, life, love; intellect, sense, will — these are the forms under which the essence of being manifests itself in man's world; they are also the foundation of the categories. Natural theology treats of the Absolute Being, God. The existence of God is known, not through perception or direct intuition, but through reasoning. Ideal being is being under only one of its forms and therefore incomplete; in the real world we meet only partial realizations of being. Comparing in reflection the products of our perception with the essence of being manifested in intuition, we see that they do not exhaust the possibilities of that essence; yet this must find its full realization in some way far transcending our experience; it cannot, in that fulness, be finite and imperfect as are the things of this world. This knowledge of the Absolute Being Rosmini calls negative-ideal; it tells us not so much what God is as what God is not.

Definite proofs of God's existence are furnished by being in its essence and in each of its forms. The essence of being is eternal, necessary, infinite; but these attributes it would not possess if it did not subsist identical under the other two forms of reality and morality, complete and perfect. Where it exists under all these forms, it is being in every way infinite and absolute, i. e., God. Again, the ideal form that creates intelligence is an eternal object and hence demands an eternal subject with infinite wisdom — God. The real form of being is contingent, and it therefore postulates a First Cause in whose essence subsistence is included. Finally, the binding force of the moral law is eternal, necessary, absolute, and its ultimate sanction must be found in an Absolute Being in whom the essence of holiness subsists. Thus man naturally does not perceive God; his knowledge of God is but of a negative kind. In the supernatural order of grace, the real communication of God to man, a new light super-added to that of reason brings man into conjunction with God's own reality, which reveals itself to him in an incipient and obscure manner, yet acts upon the soul with positive efficacy. Thus the Christian becomes a new creature, consors divinœ naturœ.

The deontological sciences treat of the perfections of beings and the ways in which these perfections may be acquired, produced, or lost. Amongst them, ethics, the science of virtue, is prominent (see "Compendio di Etica", Rome, 1907). Each moral act contains three elements: the law, the subject's free will, and the relation (agreement or disagreement) between law and will. Man is not a law unto himself; the moral imperative must come from a higher source, from the necessary and universal object of the understanding Being, manifested to the mind, has an order of its own, and the various entities we know though it occupy different places in the scale of excellence. We cognize them by an act of intellect; we recognize them by a practical act of our will, adhering to the good we see in them with an intensity determined by the moral exigence of the object. The idea of an entity, therefore, as the medium which reveals its excellence, clothes itself with the authority of law; and as all ideas are but determinations of the idea of being, the first of laws and the first principle of obligation is: "Follow the light of reason", or "Recognize being". Besides the testimony of consciousness and the consent of mankind, the proofs for free-will, i. e., the power of choice between objective good (duty) and subjective good (pleasure, self-interest), are closely bound up with Rosmini's theory of man and the soul. Man is stimulated by sensation and his subjective modifications; at the same time he is illumined by the light of being eternal and absolute whence he can draw strength to overcome the allurements of sense and unite himself to the absolute good.

In reference to the third element Rosmini used a distinction which led to sharp controversy. By peccatum (sin) he means the sinful condition of the will in its antagonism to objective good; by culpa (sin as fault), the same condition considered relatively to its cause, free will. Ordinarily, peccatum is also culpa, and every sin is traceable to a free agent. But, in abnormal circumstances, there may be peccatum where there is not, at the moment, culpa. The acts of an acquired sinful habit, when performed without advertence or deliberation, are contrary to law, though at the moment the will is not responsible. They are culpœ and imputable, but to complete the imputability one must link them with the first free wicked acts whence the habit resulted. Original sin is a true sin yet not a culpa, not imputable to the person in whom it is found as to its free cause. The responsible cause is to be sought in the free will of Adam, whose sin was both peccatum and culpa. Rosmini wrote voluminously in defence of the traditional Catholic doctrine of original sin. Conscience he defines as "a speculative judgment on the morality of the practical judgment"; and since morality, he points out, belongs to an order of reflection anterior to the conscience, there may exist in man moral or immoral conditions apart from conscience — a doctrine which he also applied to original sin and to certain states of virtue and vice. Regarding probabilism, he distinguishes, in the question of the doubtful law, what is intrinsically evil from what is evil only on account of some extrinsic cause, for example, prohibition by positive law, and lays down the rule: "If there is a doubt respecting the existence of the positive law, and the doubt cannot be resolved, the law is not binding; but if there is a doubt in a matter pertaining to the natural law and relating to an evil inherent in action, the risk of the evil must be avoided." This theory provoked controversy, but Rosmini maintained that it accorded substantially with the teaching of St. Alphonsus Ligouri.

The science of rational right arises from the protection which the moral law affords to the useful good. The classification of the goods and rights which we possess in our relations with our fellow-men, is based on freedom and property. Freedom is the power, which each one has, to use all his faculties and resources so long as he does not encroach on the rights of others. Property is the union of goods with the human personality by a triple bond, physical, intellectual, and moral. The moral bond guards the other two, for the moral law forbids one man to wrest from another what he has united to himself by affection and intelligence. The subject of right may be either the individual man or man in society. Concerning the three societies necessary for the full development of the human race, Rosmini speculates at length in his "Filosofia del diritto" (Milan, 1841-43).

Rosmini applied his philosophical principles to education in "Della educazione cristiana" (Milan, 1856) and especially, "Del principio supremo della metodica" (Turin, 1857; tr. by Grey, "The Ruling Principle of Method Applied to Education", Boston, 1893). His basic idea is that education must follow the natural order of development. The mind of the child must be led from the general to the particular. The natural and necessary order of all human thoughts is expressed in the law: "A thought is that which becomes the matter, or provides the matter of another thought." The whole sum of thoughts which can occur to the human mind is classified in divers orders of which Rosmini enumerates five. To the first order belong thoughts whose matter is not taken from antecedent thoughts; each of the successive orders is characterized by its matter being taken from the order immediately preceding it. The ruling principle of method is: Present to the mind of the child (and this applies to man in general), first, the objects which belong to the first order of cognitions, then those which belong to the second order, and so on, taking care never to lead the child to a cognition of the second order without having ascertained that his mind has grasped those of the first order relative to it, and the same with regard to the cognitions of the third, fourth, and other higher orders. In applying this principle to the different orders, Rosmini explains the cognitions proper to each, the corresponding activities, the instruction which they require, the moral and religious education which the child should receive. Both in his general theory of adapting education to the needs of the growing mind and in the importance he attached to instinct, feeling, and play, Rosmini anticipated much that is now regarded as fundamental in education. "The child", he says, "at every age must act." To regulate the different kinds of activity, and to make each kind reasonable, is really to educate. It is in the kindergarten system of Fröbel, the contemporary of Rosmini, that these principles are most fully worked out.

The most important of Rosmini's posthumous works, the "Teosofia" (ontology and natural theology), was published in five volumes (Turin, 1859-64; Intra, 1864-74). In 1876 some Catholic newspapers and periodicals in Italy, interpreting the "Dimittantur" decree of 1854, declared that Rosmini's works were open both to criticism and to censure. The Rosminian school on the contrary maintained that, while the decree gave no positive approval, it at least guaranteed that the books examined contained nothing worthy of censure and could therefore be safely read, and their conclusions accepted by Catholics. This view seemed to be confirmed by the Master of the Sacred Palace, who, in a letter to the "Osservatore Romano" (16 June, 1876), reminded the editor of the silence enjoined on both parties and stated that no theological censure could be inflicted. A month later, the "Osservatore Cattolico" of Milan, as ordered by the Prefect of the Congregation of the Index, acknowledged its interpretation to be erroneous.

After the death of Pius IX, the controversy was renewed. An answer of the Index was given (21 June, 1880) that " dimittantur signifies only this — a work dismissed is not prohibited" — and another (5 Dec., 1881) that a work dismissed is not to be held as free from every error against faith and morals and may be criticized both philosophically and theologically without incurring the note of temerity. Both answers were taken by the adversaries of Rosmini's doctrines to justify new censures, while the Rosminian writers contended that these answers in no degree rendered untenable the position they had always occupied. On 14 Dec., 1887, a decree of the Inquisition condemned forty propositions taken from the works of Rosmini. The decree, published 7 March, 1888, lays special stress on the posthumous works which, it says, developed and explained doctrines contained in germ in the earlier books; but the propositions condemned have no theological nota attached. About one-half of the propositions refer to Rosmini's ontology and natural theology; the remainder, to his teachings on the soul, the Trinity, the Eucharist, the supernatural order and the beatific vision (Denzinger, "Enchir.", 1891 sq.). Some of the propositions were clearly taught in the works examined in 1854; others repeated what Rosmini had said over and over again in the principal books published during his lifetime. The superior general of the Institute of Charity enjoined obedience and submission on the members. Leo XIII in a letter to the Archbishop of Milan (1 June, 1889) plainly stated that he approved and confirmed the decree. Cardinal Mazella discussed the propositions exhaustively in "Rosminianarum propositionum trutina theologica" (Rome, 1892). This brought out a reply from an erudite layman, Prof. Giuseppe Morando, under the title "Esame critico delle 40 proposizioni Rosminiane" (Milan, 1905).

Besides the works already mentioned, Rosmini wrote a large number of treatises the more important of which are: "Il Rinnovamento della Filosofia in Italia" (Milan, 1836); "Psicologia", (Novara, 1843; Turin, 1887; tr., London, 1884-88); "Logica", (Turin, 1853; Intra, 1868); "La Filosofia della Morale" (Milan, 1831);" L'Antropologia in servizio della Scienza Morale" (Milan, 1838); "Antropologia sopranaturale" (Casale, 1884); "Teodicea" (Milan, 1845); "Filosofia della Politica" (Milan, 1858); "La societa e il suo fine" (Milan, 1839); "V. Gioberti e il Panteismo" (Milan, 1847); "Introduzione alla Filosofia" (Casale, 1850); "Introd. al Vangelo secondo S. Giovanni" (Turin, 1882).

Rosmini: ANON., La Vita di Antonio Rosmini (Turin, 1897), the standard life, written by a priest of the Institute of Charity; ANON., Piccola Vita di Antonio Rosmini (Casale, 1897); Della Missione a Roma di Antonio Rosmini-Serbati, negli Anni 1848-49 (Turin, 1881); Epistolario completo di Antonio Rosmini-Serbati (Casale, Turin, 1887-94); PAOLI, Memorie della vita di Antonio Rosmini-Serbati (Turin, 1880-84); Antonio Rosmini e la sua prosapia (Rovereto, 1880); Life of Antonio Rosmini-Serbati, ed. LOCKHART (London, 1886); The Life of Antonio Rosmini-Serbati, tr. from the Italian of PAGANI (London, 1907).

DAVIDSON, Rosmini's Philosophical System (London, 1882) contains a copious bibliography of the works of Rosmini and his school.

Rosminian School: BURONI, Dell' Essere e del Conoscere, studii su Parmenide Platone e Rosmini (Turin, 1878); FERRE, Degli Universali secondo la Teoria Rosminiana (Casale, 1880-86); PESTALOZZA, Le Dottrine di A. Rosmini difese (Milan, 1851; Lodi, 1853); PETRI, A. Rosmini e i Neo-Scolastici (Rome, 1878); BILLIA, Quaranta Proposizioni attribuite ad A. Rosmini (Milan, 1889); Per Ant. Rosmini nel primo centenario della nascita (Milan, 1897); MORANDO, Il Rosminianismo e l'Enciclica Pascendi, and Apparenti Contraddizioni di S. Tommaso, reprinted from the Rivista Rosminiana (1908); MANZONI, Il Dialogo sull' Invenzione (Milan, 1879); CALZA AND PEREZ, Esposizione della Filosofia di A. Rosmini (Intra, 1878); CASARA, La Luce dell' occhio corporeo e quella dell' Intelletto (Parabiago, 1879).

Periodicals: La Sapienza (Turin, 1879-86) (ed. PAPA); La Rivista Rosminiana (Voghera, 1905) (ed. MORANDO).

Opposing Schools: Postille (s. d.); Alcune Affermazioni del Sig. A. Rosmini prete roveretano con un saggio di riflessioni scritte da Eusebio Cristiano (s. d.); Principi della scuola Rosminiana esposti in Lettere Famigliari da un Prete Bolognese (Milan, 1850); GIOBERTI, Degli Errori Filosofici di A. Rosmini (Capologo, 1846); CORNOLDI, Il Rosminianismo sintesi dell' Ontologismo e del Panteismo (Rome, 1881); LIBERATORE, Degli Universali (Rome, 1881-83), tr. DERING,. On Universals (Leamington, 1889); MAZZELLA, Rosminianarum propositionum trutina theologica (Rome, 1892); ZIGLIARA, Il Dimittatur e la spiegazione datane dalla S. Congregazione dell' Indice.

Independent: SHELDON, The Teachings of A. Rosmini, in Papers of the American Society of Church History 1897, VIII; DYROFF, Rosmini, in the series Kultur und Katholizismus (Munich 1906); ORESTANO, Rosmini, in the series Biblioteca Pedagogica (Rome, 1908); PALHORIÈS, Rosmini, in the series Les Grands Philosophes (Paris, 1908).

GEORGE CORMACK D. HICKEY

Rosminians

The Institute of Charity, or, officially, Societas a charitate nuncupata, is a religious congregation founded by Antonio Rosmini, first organized in 1828, formally approved by the Holy See in 1838, and taking its name from "charity" as the fullness of Christian virtue. In English-speaking lands its members are commonly called Fathers of Charity, but in Italy, Rosminians.

Foundation of the Institute

The founder of this society was, strictly speaking, Rosmini alone. Nevertheless there existed in the age into which he was born many very potent directive elements which gave a bent to his thoughts and supplied an opportunity for their embodiment in some organization. His life was in the immediate wake of the French Revolution, and doubtless it was by the many tendencies and movements, some of them remote enough, which culminated in that upheaval, that he was gradually and unconsciously led to consider the intellectual and moral inheritance of Christendom as a whole, not in blind protest and reaction merely, but with impartial contemplation of new ideas as well as of old. The one side of truth was to be corrected by its counterpart, and secondary things which had usurped a primacy were to resume their just order. Rosmini not only saw the Church's enemies roused to new vigour of attack, but also a growing danger among many who still remained within the Church of a practical denial or at least a belittling of the supernatural in man. There was ill-regulated activity and impatience of ancient tradition, and by reaction from this in other quarters there was an equally ill-timed and fatal passiveness. The world was too wrong, it seemed, ever to be set right; and nothing it could say was worthy of being even heeded. This was a spirit that shut itself up in the past and anathematized all fresh thought. The Church was to renounce either tradition or development, in either case abandoning her Divine Guide.

On such a basis there could easily be set up a spirit which looked on the whole Church as a party, and furthered her cause with partisan eagerness, or else substituted for the great end of the Church's good the petty end of the good of some society or persons within her. It tended to replace Catholicism by clericalism. But Rosmini judged these domestic ills no less than the relentless attacks from without to be traceable to one deeply-seated cause, namely, that men were relaxing their grip on the fundamental and general truths. What was becoming blurred was God's own part in the world: first His creative part; then the Divine nature of that moral good which in some sort stands before the human mind as truth itself; and again the Divine action of grace, causing truth and good to be felt in the depths of the soul as having not only infinite rightness and bindingness but also supreme driving-power. The crying need then was for a clearer recognition of God's place in nature, in the soul, and in the Church, and hence for the re-establishment of Christian first principles as a slow, indeed, but the only radical, cure of the evils of the day.

Antonio Rosmini, an Italian from Rovereto, was ordained in 1821. He was already organizing his life on principles of order, an order which puts God's prompting first and man's instant and swift action second. His two life-principles, written down at this time for his own guidance, and forming the true harmony of humility with confidence and passiveness with activity, were: first, to apply himself to the amendment of his faults and the purifying of his soul without seeking other occupations or undertakings on his neighbour's behalf, since of himself he was powerless to do anyone real service; and, second, not to refuse offices of charity when Divine Providence offered them, but in fulfilling them to maintain perfect indifference and do the offered work as zealously as he would any other. The formulating of this rule and the putting of it into practice by living retired in prayer and study constituted the first step towards founding the Institute of Charity; the second was this: the Venerable Marchioness di Canossa, foundress of a society of Daughters of Charity for poor friendless girls, had long desired a like institution for boys, and no sooner was Rosmini a priest than she began to urge him to establish one. On 10 December, 1825, he wrote to her that in accordance with his rules of life he could not altogether refuse her request if God were to provide means, but that even then he could form such a society only on the basis of the two aforesaid principles.

The rough sketch of the Priests of Charity written on this date is really only the first brief form of what was approved by Rome more than twelve years later. But he took no practical measures. He still waited for God's signs. Led to Milan in February, 1826, for a charitable work and better convenience for study, he received there a powerful stimulus in June, 1827, by meeting the Abbé Loewenbruck. This zealous and impetuous priest introduced himself abruptly enough with the words: "I am thinking of a society directed to a reform of the clergy, and you must help me to carry this into effect." Rosmini answered by confessing his own aspirations and laying down the principles on which alone he would build. They conferred further, sought and received more light, and at last agreed to spend the next year's Lent together in fasting and prayer in an almost ruinous house on Monte Calvario above Domodossola, a town near the Italian end of the Simplon Pass. Here on 20 February, 1828, Rosmini began his great work, but alone, as Loewenbruck did not present himself again to cooperate in the labour. Lent was passed by Rosmini in practising austerities and writing the constitutions of the institute.

Still, this was no more than a plan. For forming a religious society a number of like-minded men are needed. Rosmini sought none, encouraged none. Two or three who knew his thoughts joined him; their very principles made them at once into a community practising many of the religious virtues. These principles urged him to betake himself forthwith to the Holy See and lay his society before it. He arrived at Rome in November, 1828, but would not do anything there to further his cause. Pius VIII, who was elected pope in the following March, called him to an audience a few weeks after. "If you think", said the Pope, "of beginning with something small, and leaving all the rest to God, we gladly approve; not so if you thought of starting on a large scale." Rosmini answered that he had always proposed a very humble beginning. His was no extraordinary vocation, he said, like that of St. Ignatius, but quite ordinary. In the autumn of 1830 he gave the institute something of its regular form; and all the community began to pass through their stages of religious training. Such was the state of affairs when on 2 February, 1831, Rosmini's friend and protector at Rome, Cardinal Cappellari, was chosen pope and took the name of Gregory XVI.

The new pope became from the outset the foster-father of the institute, and Rosmini shunned all initiative more than ever. An unsolicited papal Brief came forth in March, calling the new society by its name and rejoicing in its progress under the approval of the bishops. Special spiritual graces were granted by a later Brief, and in 1835 the pope made known his wish that, since solemn episcopal approval had been given the society in the Dioceses of Novara and Trent, Rosmini should no longer delay, but submit the constitutions of the society to the formal examination of the Holy See. It was not, however, till March, 1837, that these were at length submitted, with a short letter in which Rosmini petitioned the pope to approve and confirm them and to grant to the institute the privileges of regulars, adding only that these seemed necessary to the well-being of a society which was intended for the service of the universal Church.

The matter was entrusted to the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, which declared, on 16 June, its general commendation of the society, but also its judgment that it was as yet too young to be approved as a regular order, and its hesitation on one or two points in the constitutions, notably on the form of poverty. They therefore deferred the approbation. Rosmini satisfied Cardinal Castracane, the promoter of the cause, on these heads; but before proposing a new examination the promoter is accustomed to hear some other consultor; and to this end Zecchinelli, a Jesuit, was admitted by Castracane to write his opinion. It was unfavourable, principally concerning the matter of poverty; and his party further procured the appointment of a new consultor, a Servite, whose hostile vote was launched almost on the eve of the session in which a decision was to be taken. This action drove Castracane to appeal to the pope that the meeting might be postponed, and the pope intervened at once with such effect that the last vote was set aside and other consultors deputed instead. On 20 December, 1838, the congregation met and gave its final sentence that the society and its rule deserved the formal approbation of the Holy See, and that the institute should have the status of a religious congregation, with the usual privileges. The pope immediately ratified this decision. On the following 25 March the vows were first made, by twenty in Italy and five in England. Five of these then went to Rome and on 22 August, in the Catacombs of St. Sebastian made the fourth vow of special obedience to the pope. Apostolic letters embodying Rosmini's own summary of the constitutions were issued on 20 September, naming Rosmini as the first provost-general of the institute for life.

Spirit and Organization

The end which the Institute of Charity sets before its members is perfect charity. Love of God is plenitudo legis, because it extends of its very nature to all intelligent creatures who are in God's image. No special manner of life is added in this rule as an obligatory proximate end; hence for a vocation to it nothing is required but a true and constant desire to love justice most. It is a universal vocation. It embraces all vocations, not indeed by taking all charitable works whatsoever as its province; rather it does not take one, but it refuses none. The field then is vast, but only with a negative vastness. Hœc est voluntas Dei, sanctificatio vestra. But by focusing the will on that one point the best way is opened to everything else. Thus the first or elective state of the Rosminian is just the unum necessarium, the contemplative life; not inactivity, not sluggishness, but prayer and labour and study and the learning of some mechanical or liberal art, that so he may be ready for any call and not become a burden to others. It is a time for accumulating experience and strength, and those who avail themselves of it apply themselves to their duties, awaiting the time when they will go forth to answer the call of zeal. If no such call comes, it matters little, for in the elective state all their end is achieved. If the call does come, the elective is laid aside for the assumed state, this being accepted not of choice at all, but only because of God's will clearly manifested.

By what methods does the institute discern this will? Apart from extraordinary inward motions of the Holy Ghost, the common way is that of outward events, which give sure tokens of God's will to those who use the light of faith. The principal events, as the institute views it, which make known God's call to charitable work are:

Among simultaneous requests there is a choice. The pope's come first, a bishop's next;
ceteris paribus, earlier petitions are accepted rather than later. But in general whenever a neighbour, in the universal Christian meaning of that word, seeks the help of the institute, it has to be given, unless one of the following conditions be wanting: that the desired work be no hindrance to the fulfilment of duties already undertaken, that the whole labour which such addition involves be not beyond the brethren's strength, and that the institute have at its disposal members sufficient in both number and endowment for its rightful discharge.

Again, charity which is one in essence, is threefold in exercise, and according as good things regard the bodily and sentient life or the intellectual or the moral, the charity which bestows them is divided in the institute into temporal, intellectual, and spiritual. The temporal is the lowest and gives the lowest kind of good. Inconceivably far above it stands that which seeks to increase the life of the understanding by the knowledge of truth; and above both there is the spiritual charity which tends to make men good and happy by loving the known truth. Hence we see that the topmost point of the institute's activity is the cure of souls. Its whole theory leads to the religious and the pastoral life wedded together, as the crowning achievement of charity. The blending of the two types in the rule consists in this, that the brethren have to choose and prefer a private state in the Church. They are of the ecclesia discens. The restless disposition which indirectly seeks honours or powers would be treason to their whole spirit. Passive in privacy till public work summons them, they must then be all courage, confidence, perseverance, and work.

There are three classes of persons who more or less strictly belong to the Institute of Charity. The first is of those who, led by a desire to keep the Evangelical law perfectly, take on themselves the discipline of the society and bind themselves by vows. The second is of Christians who desire perfection, but are so bound by earlier engagements that they cannot make these vows, yet desire as far as possible to co-operate with the society, and these are "adopted children". The third is of "ascribed members", good Christians who do not aspire to the life of the counsels, yet according to their condition desire also to co-operate. But since only the religious are of the substance of the society, it is of their formation and regulation alone that we will here add a few words.

The institute neither solicits nor insinuates vocations, but leaves the initiative to Divine Providence, being from its fundamental principles just as perfect when small and hidden as if it was large and famous. Of the care used in examining and instructing the postulant and in implanting firm roots of piety and charity in the novices and in trying his vocation in many ways we need not here give detailed notice. After two years of noviceship his first profession is made, obedience being understood to comprehend the acceptance of any grade that superiors may assign. He thus becomes an "approved scholastic", who is not, however, definitively incorporated with the institute until he has fitted himself by study or other preparation for taking the coadjutor's vows. Coadjutors, spiritual or temporal, add the further promise of not seeking any dignity either within the society or outside and of not accepting and not refusing the spontaneous offer of it except under obedience. They are divided moreover into internal coadjutors if living in houses of the institute, and external if elsewhere, the latter state being from the universality of charity quite in harmony with the rule. From among the internal spiritual coadjutors presbyters are chosen, and these take a fourth vow of special obedience to the sovereign pontiff. Thus the body of the society consists of presbyters and coadjutors, but it is the presbyters who give life and movement to the rest and to whom the more universal works of charity are committed.

Vows in the institute are life-long, and ordinarily, though not necessarily, simple. Its form of poverty permits the retention of bare ownership in the eye of the civil law, but each member must be ready to surrender even that at the call of obedience, and none may keep or administer or use one farthing at his own will. Strenuous opposition was offered in Rome to this form of religious poverty, which was declared by one party to be merely affective, no effective. Rosmini answered by indicating the conditions just named and also the nature of property itself; that it is a complexus of rights, that rights are relations, and are divisible; that they may be relative to the State or to the Church; and that a religious keeps property relatively to the State only, and not absolutely. It is absolute ownership, not relative, that offends Evangelical poverty. The founder's sagacity in leaving property under the legal dominion of individuals has been abundantly illustrated since his time; the spiritual gains of the occasions thus given for continually renewed acts of sacrifice are no less obvious. The true facts of the rule are that board, lodging, and clothing are to be those of poor men, and that all, even superiors, do much of their own servile work. Chastity next, considered as a vow, is understood in the sense of the subdeacon's obligation. The virtue of obedience is regarded as a director of charity and, therefore, as quite universal; as a vow, however, though its field is still unrestricted, it comes more seldom into play.

The institute is governed by a provost-general elected for life by certain presbyters according to a minutely prescribed form. He has full powers except for a few exceptional cases. It is he who admits to the various grades in the society and who appoints all the superiors. The institute is divided into provinces, and each province, at least in theory, into dioceses, and each diocese into parishes; and there may be rectories besides for more particular works of charity. Having in view only the fullness of Christian law, it has followed as nearly as possible the organization of the Christian Church. Being ordered to charity, the institute chooses a way of living that will not sunder the brethren too far from other men. No habit and no special bodily mortification is prescribed them, but in lieu of further austerities they embrace the lasting hardness of their chosen lot. Not the hedge of a multitude of regulations, but a strong conviction of lofty principles is to make men such as the institute desires.

The institute as such holds no property and takes no kind of civil action. From the State it does not seek exemptions, but only common right. If guarantees of association were refused it, it could still live privately and contemplatively, and attain its whole end. Its members remain citizens, with a citizen's interest and duties. Towards the Church it has this chief relation, that it lives for her, not for itself, insists on not confounding the interests of one religious society with those of Christendom, and is so constructed as to be altogether ancillary to the Christian episcopate. Any exclusive esprit de corps is banned throughout the rule and is quite contrary to its spirit; for "the one groundwork of the institute," said its founder, "is the Providence of God the Father, and to lay another would be to destroy it." Instead of seeking its own aggrandizement, its tendency is to render the union of all Catholics more intimate and sensible, to make them feel their own greatness, and that they are stronger than the world and are follow-workers with Providence in putting all things under Christ.

History and Activities

The institute is too young to have much history yet. As was to be expected from its principles, it has progressed but slowly. Its chief houses in Italy are Monte Calvario, which has long been both a novitiate and house of theological study; the college founded in 1839 for young boys at Stresa, and the large college for older ones at Domodossola built in 1873 and taking the place of a school handed over to the institute by Count Mellerio in 1837. Rosmini founded a house at Trent in 1830 at the bishop's invitation; but Austrian dislike of Italian influences brought it to an end in 1835. The same spirit drove the institute from Rovereto in 1835 and from Verona in 1849. The charge of the Sanctuary of S. Michele della Chiusa, an ancient abbey on a steep mountain-peak near Turin, was accepted in 1835 at the King of Sardinia's desire, and remains of deceased members of his house were transferred thither. This sanctuary is still kept, but the king's plan of a house of retreat was left unexecuted by his Government. A good number of elementary schools are conducted by the institute in various parts of northern Italy, and in 1906 it accepted the charge of the Church of S. Charles in the Corso at Rome. Noteworthy also are Rosmini's plans of an English college of missionaries for different parts of the British Empire, with a special training for work in India; his college of elementary masters in the institute, still flourishing, and his project of a medical college towards which Prince d'Aremberg offered a large sum. An orphanage, founded with this money at Sainghin, near Lille, was closed in 1903 through the hostility of the French Government.

The founding of the English province is inseparably linked with the name of Luigi Gentili. This cultured and ardent young Roman threw himself wholeheartedly into religious life in 1831, and from the first felt greatly drawn towards England. Ambrose de Lisle was already inviting him to work in Leicestershire, and Bishop Baines, Vicar Apostolic of the Western District, had offered him a post at Prior Park. To this college he was sent by Rosmini in 1835 with two companions to teach both lay and church students. He became rector there the next year, but the entrance of two of the bishop's clergy, Furlong and Hutton, into the institute brought the engagement to an abrupt close in 1839. Invited next to the Midland district, the fathers taught for a while at old Oscott, and in 1841 was opened the mission of Loughborough, which has since remained in the institute's hands. Many converts were made and some missions founded in the neighbourhood, and in 1843 the first public mission ever preached in England was given by Gentili and Furlong. In the same year at Ratcliffe, near Leicester, were laid the foundations of a novitiate designed by Pugin, but in 1846 the present college for boys of the middle class was opened there. The mission of Newport, Monmouthshire, was undertaken in 1847, that of Rugby in 1850 and Cardiff (of which only two churches are now retained by the institute) in 1854.

The fathers were all this time giving zealous aid towards dissipating that excessive fear of outward devotion which English Catholics had inherited from times of persecution. Rosmini's warm interest in England had led him to send thither some of the most capable and apostolic men he had, Pagani (this J. B. Pagani, author of "The Science of the Saints" and "Anima Divota", is to be distinguished from the Italian provincial of the same name, author of a "Life of Rosmini", and other Rosminian works), Gentili, Rinolfi, Ceroni, Cavalli, Gastaldi, Bertetti, Caccia, Signini; and the mission of Gentili and Furlong, and also of Rinolfi and Lockhart, in many parts of the British Isles produced a deep and lasting effect. Gentili died of fever in Dublin, in 1848, while preaching a mission in a fever-stricken district. Of Lockhart it should be added that in 1854 he began the mission of Kingsland in North London, and here he worked for twenty years. The Church of St. Etheldreda, formerly chapel of the London palace of the bishops of Ely, and a fine specimen of thirteenth-century Gothic, was restored by the institute to Catholic worship in 1876, and Lockhart became its first rector. Other houses under the charge of the English province are the reformatory called St. William's School at Market Weighton, Yorkshire, and two Irish industrial schools, one at Upton near Cork, and, one towards which Count Moore gave land and money, at Clonmel. The latest mission established by the institute is that of Bexhill-on-Sea. The Rugby house, which had from 1850 the English novitiate, became in 1886 a juniorate, or preparatory school for novices. The present novitiate stands in wooded grounds at Wadhurst, Sussex, and a house for Irish novices has been opened at Omeath on the shores of Carlingford Lough in the Archdiocese of Armagh.

In America Fr. Joseph Costa, after working singlehanded in various parts of Illinois, gathered the first community of the institute about him at Galesburg in that state. Here they have St. Joseph's Church, which existed before; and in addition they have built Corpus Christi Church (1887) and College (1896) as well as St. Joseph's Academy, directed by Sisters of Providence, and in 1906 St. Mary's schools.

The provost-generals, since Rosmini's death have been Pagani, who succeeded in 1855, Bertetti (1860), Cappa (1874), Lanzoni (1877), and Bernardino Balsari in 1901. Other names deserving mention are Vincenzo de Vit, known principally for two works of vast labour and research, the "Lexicon totius Latinitatis", a new and greatly enlarged edition of Forcellini, and the "Onomasticon", a dictionary of proper names; Giuseppe Calza, noteworthy as a philosopher; Paolo Perez, formerly professor at Padua, and master of a singularly delicate Italian style; Gastaldi, afterwards Archbishop of Turin; Cardozo-Ayres, Bishop of Pernambuco, who died at Rome during the Vatican Council, and whose incorrupt body has lately been transported with great veneration to his see; and two English priests, Richard Richardson, organizer of the holy war against intemperance, and enroller in it of 70,000 names; and Joseph Hirst, member of the Royal Archæological Institute. (See ROSMINI AND ROSMINIANISM, GENTILI, LOCKHART, SISTERS OF PROVIDENCE.)

ROSMINI, Maxims of Christian Perfection (London, 1888); IDEM, Letters (London, 1901); LOCKART, Life of Rosmini (London, 1886); PAGANI, Life of Rosmini (London, 1907); Missions in Ireland (Dublin, 1855); Vita di Rosmini da un sacerdote dell' Instituto (Turin, 1897).

W. H. POLLARD.

Ross

(ROSSENSIS).

Diocese in Ireland. This see was founded by St. Fachtna, and the place-name was variously known as Roscairbre and Rosailithir (Ross of the pilgrims). St. Fachtna founded the School of Ross as well as the see; and his death occurred about 590, on 14 August, on which day his feast is celebrated. The succession of bishops was uninterrupted till after the Reformation period. King John in 1207 granted the cantred of Rosailithir to David Roche, regardless of the claims of the native chief, the O'Driscoll, but the episcopal manors were left undisturbed. In 1306, the value of the bishop's mensa was 26 marks, while the cathedral was valued at 3 marks; and the tribal revenue of the see was but 45 pounds sterling. The number of parishes was 29, divided into 3 divisions; and there was a Cistercian abbey, Carrigilihy (de fonte vivo); also a Benedictine Priory at St. Mary's, Ross. The Franciscans acquired a foundation at Sherkin Island from the O'Driscolls in 1460. Owing to various causes the see was not in a flourishing condition in the fourteenth century, and the Wars of the Roses contributed to the unfortunate state of affairs which prevailed in the second half of the fifteenth century. Blessed Thady MacCarthy was appointed Bishop in 1482, but was forcibly deprived of his see in 1488. However he was translated to the united Sees of Cork and Cloyne in 1490; was again a victim of political intrigues, and died a glorious confessor at Ivrea in 1492, being beatified in l895. In 1517 the revenue of the diocese was but 60 marks. At that date the chapter was complete with 12 canons and 4 vicars, and there were 27 parishes, including three around Berehaven. Thomas O'Herlihy assisted at the Council of Trent, and ruled from 1562 till his death on 11 March, 1580. It was not until 1581 that Queen Elizabeth ventured to appoint a Protestant prelate under whom, in 1584, the Sees of Cork and Cloyne were annexed to Ross. However, in the Catholic arrangement Ross continued independent, and Owen MacEgan died a confessor in January, 1602-3. In 1625 the bishop (de Torres) was a Spaniard, who ruled his diocese through a vicar-general. In 1647 the nave and tower of the cathedral were levelled by the Puritans; and the bishop (MacEgan) was basely hanged by Lord Broghill, on 10 April, 1650. At length, in 1693, Bishop Sleyne of Cork was given Ross in commendam, and the see continued under his successors till 1748, when it was united to Cloyne under Bishop O'Brien. From 1748 Ross was administered by the Bishops of Cloyne, but it regained its autonomy under Bishop Crotty, and in 1857 Bishop O'Hea was consecrated to Ross. During the episcopate of Dr. O'Hea (the Catholic population was then 65,000) the episcopal see was transferred to Skibbereen, and the diocese was materially improved under his fostering care. His successor, William Fitzgerald (1877-97) also labored zealously. The present bishop, the Most Rev. Denis Kelly, was born near Nenagh, Co. Tipperary, in 1852, and was educated at Ennis and Paris. He was appointed president of the Killaloe Diocesan College in 1890, and was consecrated 9 May, 1897. Bishop Kelly has acted on several Royal commissions, and has recently (1911) been named one of the two commissioners for the projected Home Rule finance. In 1901 the Catholic population was 46,694, and there were eleven parishes—two of which were mensal—served by 28 priests. The latest returns give the number of churches as 22, and there are three Convents of Mercy, respectively, at Skibbereen, Clonakilty, and Rosscarbery. There is no chapter, but there are two vicars forane.

Calendar of Papal Registers (9 Vols., London, 1893-1911); BRADY, Records of Cork, Cloyne, and Ross (Dublin, 1864); IDEM, Episcopal Succession (Rome, 1876); ARCHDALL, Monasticon Hibernicum (Dublin, 1873); SMITH, Cork (new ed., Cork, 1893); Irish Catholic Directory (1911).

W.H. GRATTAN-FLOOD

School of Ross

The School of Ross—now called Ross-Carbery, but formerly Ross-Ailithir from the large number of monks and students who flocked to its halls from all over Europe—was founded by St. Fachtna, who is generally regarded as the same who founded the Diocese of Kilfenora, for the feast in both cases is kept on 14 August; and in both the saint's descent is traced to the princely race of Corca Laighde. Fachtna was born at a place called Tulachteann, and died at the early age of forty-six, in what year we cannot say, but probably late in the sixth century, and is buried in his own cathedral church at Ross. Like many other great Irish saints, he received his first lessons in piety from St. Ita of Killeedy, the Brigid of Munster, from whose care he passed, according to some writers, to St. Finnbar's seminary at Loch Eirce, near Cork. He founded the monastery Molana, on the little island of Dririnis in the Blackwater, not far from the town of Youghal. Returning to his native territory, he set about a more important foundation on a rocky promontory situated in the midst of woods and green fields between two lovely bays. This was the monastic School of Ross, called in the "Life of St. Mochoemoc", magnum studium scholarium, for it quickly became famous for its study of Sacred Scripture, and the attention given to all the branches of a liberal education. One of the assistant teachers was St. Brendan the Navigator, whom Fachtna had known and loved as a companion when under the care of St. Ita. An old document quoted by Usher represents Brendan as being at Ross in 540. While engaged in teaching here, St. Fachtna was stricken with total blindness. On appealing to God in his distress, he was directed by an angel to make application to Nessa, the sister of St. Ita, who was about to become the mother of St. Mochoemoc. Fachtna did as he was directed and his sight was miraculously restored. Fachtna, it is generally thought by the best authorities, received episcopal orders, and became the first Bishop of Ross. He is sometimes called Facundus, in allusion to his eloquence, to which, as well as to his sanctity, unmistakable testimony is borne by St. Cuimin of Connor. Cuimin describes him as "the generous and steadfast, who loved to address assembled crowds and never spoke aught that was base and displeasing to God".

His immediate successor in the School of Ross was St. Conall, and we read also of a St. Finchad, a former schoolmate at Loch Eirce. Both were probably tribesmen of his own, for we are told that he was succeeded by twenty-seven bishops of his own tribe, whose names unfortunately have not been preserved. Under several ninth-century dates we find in the Four Masters reference to the abbots of the School of Ross; and under date 840 we are told that the institution was ravaged by the Danes. Once only in the two centuries that followed is there mention of a bishop, Neachtan MacNeachtain whose death is set down under date 1085. In all other references to Ross the word airchinnect is used, as if showing that the government of the school had fallen into the hands of laymen, who no doubt employed ecclesiastics to perform the spiritual duties and functions. Nevertheless the School must have continued to flourish, for we read under date 866—according to the "Chronicon Scotorum", 868—of the death of Feargus who is described as a celebrated scribe and anchorite of Ross-Ailithir. But more remarkable evidence still of the extent and variety of the literary work done at Ross is furnished by the geographical poem in the Irish language still extant, composed by MacCosse or Ferlegind, a lecturer at this school, and used no doubt as a text-book in the different classes. When we. take into account the period at which MacCosse lived, his geographical treatise may fairly be thought one of the most accurate and interesting of its kind that has ever yet been written. Of the later history of the School we have but few details, but mention of the native spoiler is not missing in them. In 1127, according to the "Chronicon Scotorum", one Toirdhealbach O Conor sailed to Ross-Ailithir and laid waste the land of Desmond. He was followed by the Anglo-Normans under FitzStephen, who towards the close of the century completed the devastation. All record of this ancient seat of learning is then lost.

COLGAN, Acta SS.; O'HANLON, Lives of the Irish Saints, 14 August; OLDEN in Proceedings of Royal Irish Academy (Jan.1884); HEALY Ireland's Ancient Schools and Scholars (5th ed.).

JOHN HEALY

Rossano

(ROSSANENSIS).

Archdiocese in Calabria, province of Cosenza, Southern Italy. The city is situated on an eminence not far from the Gulf of Taranto. It was the ancient Roscianum, a Roman colony, and was ravaged by Totile. The Saracens failed to conquer it. In 982 Otto II captured it temporarily from the Byzantines, who had made it the capital of their possessions in Southern Italy. It preserved its Greek character long after its conquest by the Normans. In the cathedral there is an ancient image of the "Madonna acheropita" (i.e. the "Madonna not made by hands"). Rossano was the birthplace of John VII, the antipope John VII (Philagathus), St. Nilus,—founder of the Abbey of Grottaferrata, and St. Bartholomew, another abbot of that monastery. The first known bishop of this see is Valerianus, Bishop of the "Ecclesia Rosana" in the Roman Council of 680. Cappelletti, however, names a certain Saturninus as first bishop. In the tenth century, or perhaps earlier, the Greek Rite was introduced at Rossano, and continued until the sixteenth century, although two attempts were made to introduce the Latin Rite—once in 1092, and again by Bishop Matteo de' Saraceni in 1460. Priests of the Latin Rite, however, were often appointed bishops. The Greek Rite was maintained especially by the seven Basilian monasteries in the diocese, the most famous of which was S. Maria in Patiro. In 1571 the Greek Rite was abandoned in the cathedral, and half a century afterwards throughout the city. It is still observed in a few villages inhabited by Albanians. Noteworthy bishops were: Vincenzo Pimpinella (1525), nuncio in Germany; Giovanni Battista Castagna (1553), afterwards Urban VII; Lucio Sanseverino, founder of the seminary; Pier Antonio Spinelli (1628) and Jacopo Carafa (1646), both of whom restored and embellished the cathedral. The archdiocese is without suffragans. It includes the ancient Diocese of Turio (Thurii), a city which arose after the destruction of Sybaris; five of its bishops are known, the first being Giovanni (501) and the last Guglielmo (1170). Rossano has 39 parishes, 70,000 Catholics, 140 secular priests, 4 houses of nuns, and 3 schools for girls. For the famous "purple Codex Rossanensis", discovered in 1879 in the cathedral sacristy, see Batiffol (below). This Greek parchment manuscript of St. Matthew (to xvi, 14) and St. Mark is the oldest pictorial Gospel known, and is accorded by scholars various dates from the end of the fifth to the eighth or ninth century; it is probably of Alexandrine origin (ed. Gebhardt and Harnack, 1880; A. Muñoz, Rome, 1907).

CAPPELLETTI, Le Chieze d'Italia, XXI; DE ROSIS, Cenno storico della citta di Rossano (Naples, 1839); RENDE, Cronistoria dei Monastero di S. Maria in Patiro (Naples, 1747); BATIFFOL L'abbaye de Rossano (Paris, 1891); GAY, Les dioceses de Calabre a l'epoque byzantine (Macon, 1900). For the Codex Rossanensis, as above, see KRAUS. Gesch. christl. Kunst (Freiburg, 1896-7); KONDAKOFF, Hist. de l'art byzantin, I (Paris, 1886), 114 sqq.

U. BENIGNI

Cosimo Rosselli

(LORENZO DI FILIPPO).

Italian fresco painter, b. at Florence, 1439; d. there in 1507. The master-works of this skilful artist are the four panels in the Sistine Chapel which he painted for Sixtus IV as a part of the decoration in that building. Vasari tells us that they pleased the pope more than the similar panels by Ghirlandajo, Signorelli, Perugino, and Botticelli by reason of the glory of blue and gold which distinguished them, but is not existent now. The panels are skilfully composed, marked by clever draughtsmanship, and harmonious in their colour scheme, but vastly inferior to the other panels in the same chapel. One is, therefore, more easily able to understand Vasari's comment upon them, because there must have been some reason to account for Rosselli being given so many panels. His reputation rests more securely on his close friendship with Benozzo Gozzoli and on the fact that amongst his pupils were Fra Bartolommeo and Piero di Cosimo. Amongst his other works are three frescoes at Berlin, a very important one from Fiesole in the National Gallery, a fine example in Paris, and several at Florence, including one in the Academy, and others in various churches.

BRYAN, Dict. of Painters and Engravers, V (London, 1904), s.v.

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON

Bernardo de Rossi

(DE RUBEIS, GIOVANNI FRANCESCO BERNARDO MARIA).

Theologian and historian; b. at Cividale del Friuli, 8 Jan., 1687; d. at Venice, 2 Feb., 1775. He made his religious profession with the Dominicans at Conegliano, 1704, after which he studied at Florence and Venice. He taught at Venice for fifteen years, and was twice general vicar of his province. In 1722 he was theologian to a Venetian embassy to Louis XV and remained in Paris five months. He resigned his chair in 1730 and devoted the remainder of his life to literary activity. His sanctity and learning won for him a wide reputation, and his correspondence with the great men of his time fills nine volumes. His works, written in elegant Latin, show a vast erudition and a mind at once critical and profound. Amongst his dogmatic writings must be mentioned the masterly work "De Peccato Originali" (Venice, 1757). He is famous especially for his new edition of the works of St. Thomas with a commentary (Venice, 1745-60, 24 vols.). He was also the author of thirty-two excellent dissertations on the life and writings of the Angelic Doctor, which have been placed in the first volume of the Leonine Edition of St. Thomas's works. De Rossi also ranks high as a writer on historical, patristic, and liturgical subjects. Besides his numerous works which are published, he left thirty volumes in manuscript.

HURTER, Nomenclator, s. v.

J.A. MCHUGH

Pellegrino Rossi

Publicist, diplomat, economist, and statesman, b. at Carrara, Italy, 13 July, 1787; assassinated at Rome, 15 November, 1848. He studied at the Universities of Pavia and Bologna, in which latter city he practiced law with great success. In 1874 he obtained the chair of criminal law ad civil procedure. Rossi being an advocate of Italian unity and independence, and a member of the Carbonari, Joachim Murat, King of Naples, who then aspired to the sovereignty of the entire peninsula, appointed him commissioner general of the provinces lying between the Po and the Tronto; but on Murat's defeat at Tolentino, Rossi was forced to fly to France, whence, after Waterloo, he betook himself to Geneva. At Geneva he began a private course of Roman law which gained him a chair in the university of that city, notwithstanding the fact that he was a Catholic. Having married a Protestant Genevese lady, he was elected to the Cantonal Council of Geneva, where he played a prominent role in the compilation of the laws on mortgages, civil marriage, and court procedure. In 1832 he presented to the Swiss Federal Diet a plan of a constitution (called the Patto Rossi) based on that of 1803, which was approved by the Diet, but rejected by the communes. Notwithstanding his political activity he continued his deep study of law. Between 1819 and 1821, with the collaboration of Sismondi and Bello, he published the "Annales de legislation et d'économie politique", which in a short time gained him a world-wide reputation. With Guizot he established the doctrinaire school, the juridical principles of which did not differ fundamentally from those of the eighteenth century. In 1829 he published his "Traité de droit pénal", an authoritative work of the time.

The hostility caused by his projected constitution led him, in 1833, to seek the chair of political economy in the College de France, and although the Academie des Sciences Morales had presented another candidate, Rossi was successful. In the beginning he met with some opposition, which, however, he overcame, chiefly through the influence of Guizot, minister of Louis Philippe, who knew that Rossi shared his political and juridical views. In 1834 he taught constitutional law in the university; nor did he fail to gain further honours and distinctions, being elected a member of the Academie des Sciences Morales (1836) and mad a peer of France (1839) and an officer of the Legion of Honour (1841). In 1845 he withdrew from the professorial chair to embrace a diplomatic career. He was sent to Rome to negotiate the suppression of the Jesuits, at first only as an envoy extraordinary, later as an ambassador, with the title of Count. On the fall of Louis Philippe he withdrew into private life, watching the development of the Revolution in the first years of the pontificate of Pius IX. He believed that the age demanded a regime of liberty, but that it should be granted gradually. The pope, who knew his opinions on this subject, appointed him minister of justice in the Fabbri ministry, on the fall of which Rossi was invited to draw up a programme. His intention was to re-establish the papal authority, together with a form of constitutional government, but above all to restore public order. Such a programme was as displeasing to the Conservative Party, who distrusted the prevailing views, as to the advanced Republicans, who hated Rossi as the representative of the constitutional monarchy. Like Pius IX, he favoured the Italian league, but wished to preserve the independence of each state. This programme, and the energy which Rossi exhibited against the disturbers of public order, caused him to be sentenced to death by the secret societies. On 15 November, 1848, Rossi was on his way to the Legislative Assembly (in the Palazzo della Cancelleria) to explain his programme; hardly had he seated himself in his carriage, when an assassin stabbed him in the neck with a dagger. He expired almost immediately. Pius IX, on hearing the tidings, exclaimed: "Count Rossi has died a martyr of duty." The assassination was for the secret societies the signal to spread the flames of the revolution which drove Pius IX into exile and established the Roman Republic.

The most important of Rossi's writings is his "Cours d'économie politique", a classic work, based on the theories of Smith, Say, Malthus, and Ricardo. Like these authors, he favoured freedom of trade, labour, and manufacture; and in general, not clearly foreseeing the difficulties of economic life, he wished to solve them by the free plan of individual force and intelligence rather than by legislation. But he recognized the great economic utility of associations. A characteristic note of his scientific speculations is his fondness for considering social phenomena from a mathematical point of view, so that he was called the geometrician of economy. This made him attach great importance to statistics. In politics he is the father of the principle of non-intervention, and published an essay on the subject. A most distinguished representative of the middle-class Liberal doctrinaires of a policy too advanced for the supporters of the Holy Alliance, and too backward for the generation that was being prepared by Cavour.

Garnier, Notice sur la vie et les travaux de M. Rossi)Paris, 1849); Reybau, Economistes modernes (Paris, 1862); Processi dell' assassinio del conte P. Rossi (Rome, 1854) in Hist. pol. Blatter, XXVI, 109 sqq.; Civilta Catt., 2nd series, VIII; D'Ideville, Le comte Pellegrino Rossi (Paris, 1887).

U. BENIGNI

Gioacchino Antonio Rossini

Born 29 February, 1792, at Pesaro in the Romagna; died 13 November, 1868, at Passy, near Paris. He was twice married: in 1822 to Isabella Colbrand; in 1847 to Olympe Pélissier, who survived him, but he had no children.

Rossini was not only the chief operatic composer of his time, but also a great innovator. Lesueur, in 1824, the greatest composer of the French school, said that "his ardent genius had opened a new road and marked a new epoch in musical art". In the opera seria for long recitatives he substituted more singing; in the opera buffa he inaugurated a new comedy style. He introduced many new instruments into the Italian orchestras. To him belongs the preghiera for a whole body of voices, as first introduced in "Mosè". He had a good baritone voice, and was an excellent pianist. In 1804 he had lessons in singing and pianoforte playing at Bologna. Two years later he acted as musical director to a traveling company, but soon returned to Bologna to study composition at the Lyceum. His first successes were at Venice and Milan. In 1813 he wrote "Tancredi", the first of his operas which, with "L'Italiana in Algeri", became celebrated throughout Europe. In 1816 and 1817 he composed for the Teatro Valle at Rome his happiest, if not his greatest work, "The Barber of Seville" and "Cenerentola". Meanwhile he had begun his career at the San Carlo in Naples, and wrote for this important opera-house in 1818 "Mosè", in 1819 "La Donna del Lago". In 1823 came "Semiramide", written for Venice, his last work in Italy; it was his thirty-fourth opera. In 1824 he spent the season in London, and at the first concert he himself sang the solo. The same year he undertook in Paris the direction, first of the Italian Opera, and then of the Académie. He wrote for Paris in 1829 "William Tell", his last and finest opera. Then followed the comparatively inactive period of his life, in which he ceased to write for the stage, but still produced in 1832 his well known "Stabat", in 1847 his "Stanzas" to Pius IX, in 1864 a "Messe Solennelle". In 1836 he went to live with his father at Bologna; but from 1855 till his death he was again in France.

Edwards, The Life Of Rossini (London, 1869); Silvestri, Della Vita e delle opere di G. Rossini (Milan, 1874); Azevedo, Rossini, sa vie et ses oeuvres (Paris, 1864); Oettinger, Joachim Rossini (Lepizig, 1852).

A. WALTER

Sebastian von Rostock

Bishop of Breslau, b. at Grottkau, Silesia, 24 Aug. 1607; d. at Breslau, 9 June, 1671. He studied classics at Neisse and from 1627 to 1633, philosophy and theology at Olmutz. After his ordination to the priesthood in 1633 he was assigned to pastoral duty at Neisse, and was distinguished for his courage and oratorical talent. When the Swedes captured the city in 1642, Rostock was taken prisoner and deported to Stettin. After his release he was ennobled by the emperor, but remained pastor of Neisse until his transfer in 1649 to the cathedral of Breslau. Henceforth he played a prominent part in the administration of the diocese, and in 1653 was appointed vicar-general. It was largely through his efforts that the right of reformation (jus reformandi), granted the emperor by the peace of Westphalia, was effectively exercised in the territory of Breslau, so that 656 Catholic churches which had been seized by the Protestants were restored to their former owners. Considerable difficulty was experienced in providing suitable priests for these numerous churches, and in infusing new religious life into an almost completely-ruined diocese. But Rostock consecrated his life to the task, in spite of the additional difficulty from the almost uninterrupted absence from their diocese of the three bishops under whom he served. In 1664 he was himself elected bishop, and shortly after the civil administration of the district was also placed in his hands. He continued with greater independence in work of Catholic reorganization, endeavoured to suppress the power of the Protestants over affairs of the Catholic Church and to neutralize the anti-Catholic influence of Protestant teachers. He succumbed to an attack of apoplexy, superinduced by an imperial decree which suspended a decision that had been previously granted and which was favourable to Catholic interests.

Jungnitz, Sebastian von Rostock (Breslau, 1891).

N.A. WEBER

University of Rostock

Located in Mecklenburg-Schwerin, founded in the year 1419 through the united efforts of Dukes John IV and Albert V, and on 13 February of the same year granted a Bull of foundation by Pope Martin V. At first the university included only the three secular faculties; in 1432 a theological faculty was added with the approval of Eugenius IV. The Bishop of Schwerin was appointed chancellor of the university; his present successors are the Grand Dukes of Mecklenburg. The majority of the professors came from Erfurt, among them the first rector, Petrus Stenbeke. The city of Rostock endowed the university most generously with lands, as did the Bishop of Schwerin, who presented his house at Rostock as a residence. At a later date it received contributions from Hamburg and Lubeck. In 1427 it obtained from Martin V a unique privilege, allowing the rector in conjunction with several doctors to bestow a degree if the chancellor refused without a valid reason to grant it. When Rostock was placed under the bann of the empire and the Church on account of outbreaks among the citizens, the university moved to Greifswald (Easter, 1437). In 1443 it returned to Rostock, but when the dukes wished to raise one of the churches of the city to a cathedral-church in order to give the professors the canonries as benefices, the town opposed the procedure and there developed what is known as the cathedral feud. The university migrated temporarily in the summer of 1487 to Wismar and then to Lubeck. It fell into complete decay after the beginning of the Reformation in (1523) when the university revenues were lost and matriculations ceased. When an effort was made later to reorganize the university a dispute arose between the city of Rostock and the dukes of Mecklenburg as to the administration and supervision of the school. In 1563 the agreement called the "Formula concordiae", was made between the contending parties, which granted nearly equal rights to both. The university now enjoyed an era of prosperity. In 1758 Duke Frederick desired the appointment of a rigidly orthodox professor, but the theological faculty opposed him; whereupon the duke obtained an imperial patent for the founding of a university at Butzow which was opened in 1760. The two universities proving too expensive for the country, the school at Butzow was closed and united with Rostock in 1789. In 1829 the town council renounced its right of co-patronage. During the second half of the nineteenth century the University began steadily to develop and gain, so that in 1911 it had about 800 students.

Krabbe, Die Universitdat Rostock im XV. und XVI. Jarhundrert (Rockstock, 1854); Hofmeister, Die Matrikel der Universitdat Rostock (1899).

KARL HOEBER

Sacra Romana Rota

In the Constitution "Sapienti Consilio" (29 June, 1908), II, 2, Pins X re-established the Sacra Romana Rota, one of the three tribunals instituted by that Constitution. To it are assigned all contentious cases that must come before the Holy See and require a judicial investigation with proof, except the so-called major cases. The Rota therefore tries in the first instance the cases, including criminal cases, which the pope, either motu proprio or at the request of the contesting parties, calls up for his own judgment and commits to the Rota; it decides these cases even in the second and third instance. Moreover, it is the court of appeal for cases already tried judicially in the episcopal tribunals of first instance. Finally, it decides in the last instance cases tried by any inferior tribunal of second or further instance, as the cause has not then become res judicata. In addition to major cases, episcopal decisions which are given without judicial procedure are excluded from its authority, being under the jurisdiction of other congregations. The Rota is composed of the auditors, ranking as prelates, appointed by the pope; they must be priests who have obtained a doctorate in theology and canon law. When they reach the age of seventy their office ceases ipso facto, but they retain the title of "emeritus auditor". These form a college of which the oldest among them is dean. Each auditor chooses an assistant, who must be a doctor of canon law, and whose selection must be approved by the pope. Other officers are a promotor of justice, corresponding to the pubblico ministero in modern Italian civil courts, and, for cases relating to matrimony, religious profession and sacred ordination, a defender of the bond (defensor vinculi), who may have a substitute. These officers are appointed by the pope on the recommendation of the College of Auditors. There are also notaries (at present three in number) selected by the College of Auditors after a concursus, to draw up acts, etc. The auditors give their decision either through three of their number or in pleno; but sometimes the pope may in a particular case ordain otherwise. A case may also be submitted to the Rota not for a decision but for an opinion. The auditor who prepares the report is called the ponente or relator. An appeal may be made from one judicial commission to another. The contestants may plead personally or, as more ordinarily happens, may employ a procurator or advocate, whose selection must be confirmed. The complaint and the defence must be in writing or printed, and copies distributed among the judges, the assistants, the promotor, and others concerned. The written defence may be elucidated orally in presence of the judges. The auditors decide by a majority of votes. The sentence must contain not only the conclusion arrived at, but the reasons therefor.

HISTORY

The many and various ecclesiastical cases which were referred to the Holy See from every quarter of the Christian world were, till near the end of the twelfth century, discussed and decided by the pope, as a rule, in the Consistory, which from the presence of many bishops became like a council. From the end of the twelfth century, however, owing to the increasing number of these cases and to the more detailed and complicated procedure, the popes appointed for each case either a cardinal or one of their chaplains, and sometimes a bishop, to arrange for the suit, hear the evidence of the litigants (hence the term auditor), and then make a report to thc pope, who would give his decision personally or in a Consistory. Sometimes, too, the auditor was empowered to decide, but his judgment had to be confirmed by the pope. In the latter half of the thirteenth century we find the auditors as a class distinct from the chaplains, with the title of "Sacri palatii causarurn generales auditores". This innovation was made by Innocent IV, who entrusted to them cases relating to benefices (which had increased owing to the many expectative reservations granted by this pope) and other minor ones, while he employed the cardinals in the other cases. Gradually the various cases were almost always entrusted to them for decision, subject to the approval of the sovereign pontiff.

The auditors consequently did not as yet constitute a tribunal with definitive jurisdiction, but only a college from which the pope selected at pleasure judges for the cases he chose to entrust to them. Nicholas III and Martin IV temporarily appointed auditors general for civil suits in the papal dominions; Nicholas IV (1288) appointed them permanently for the various provinces of the pontifical states. Clement V (1307) instituted an auditor general with two others in the second instance for ecclesiastical beneficiary suits, and in 1309 an auditor general for contentious ecclesiastical cases, the litigant having the choice of going before the pope himself or the auditor general.

Thus arose an autonomous tribunal, but one in concurrence with the pope. From the year 1323 we have the first document of a transaction adjudicated collegialiter, and in a definitive way by that, tribunal; John XXII, by the Bull "Ratio Juris" (1331), laid down certain rules for it; but its sphere of competency was not marked out, so through all the fourteenth century the causes were referred in a special way to the pope. Sixtus IV fixed the number of auditors at twelve. Other popes, like Martin V ("Romani pontificis", 1422; "Statuta et ordinationes", 1414), Innocent VIII ("Finem litibus", 1487), Pius IV ("In throno justitiae", 1561), Paul V ("Universi agri", 1611), determined their competency more definitely. Civil appeals in the papal dominions were also entrusted to the tribunals of the auditors of the sacred palace, probably after the end of the Western Schism; but criminal eases were always excluded. With the institution of the Roman congregations the jurisdiction of the Rota in ecclesiastical matters was greatly curtailed, and it became, generally speaking, a civil tribunal, enjoying a world-wide reputation.

CHARACTER

The civil character of the Rota was confirmed by the legislation of Gregory XVI, and mixed suits and purely ecclesiastical suits concerning economical matters, if the subject matter did not amount to over 500 scudi, were assigned to it. Leo XIII entrusted to the auditors part of the process of beatification and canonization, as well as the canonical suits of those employed in the Apostolic Palace. Formerly the auditors had many privileges. France, Austria, Spain, Venice, and Milan each had the right of proposing one of their subjects as an auditor. Austria still has the privilege, at present the auditors being two in number. From 1774 there has been a tribunal of the Rota at Madrid, the president of which is the Nuncio. The origin of the name Rota is uncertain and has been a matter of discussion; it occurs first in 1336.

U. BENIGNI

Heinrich Roth

Missionary in India and Sanskrit scholar, b. of illustrious parentage at Augsburg, 18 December, 1620; d. at Agra, 20 June, 1668. He became a Jesuit in 1639; was assigned to the Ethiopian mission (Piccolomini, "Instruction pro P. Hen. Roth, Ingolstadio, ad missionem Aethiopicam profecturo", in Huonder, "Deutsche jesuitenmissionare im 17. und 18. Jahr.", Freiburg, 1899, 213), and arrived at Goa by the land route, via Ispahan. He laboured first on the Island of Salsette off Goa, where from time to time he acted as Portuguese interpreter. He was sent on an embassy to one of the native princes, and finally reached the empire of the Great Mogul, where, as rector of the residence at Agra, he was involved in the persecution under Shah Jahán. Here the French explorer, Francis Bernier, learned to know and appreciate him as one eminently versed in expert knowledge of the philosophy of religions in India ("Travels in Hindustan", new ed., Calcutta, 1904, p. 109 sqq.). In 1662 Roth revisited Europe by the land route via Kabul to obtain new recruits for the mission, and returned to Agra in 1664. Roth shares with the Jesuit, Hanxleden, the fame of being among Europeans the pioneer Sanskrit scholar, and of having compiled the first Sanskrit grammar (Wiener, Zeitschr. für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, XV, 1901, pp. 303-320). "During his stay in Agra, he succeeded in persuading some Brahmins to teach him Sanskrit and, after six years of diligent study, he obtained complete mastery of this difficult tongue. He was the author of the interesting description of the Sanskrit alphabet, published by Athanasius Kircher in his "China illustrata" (Max Müller, "Lectures on the Science of Language", London, 1866, p. 277. Roth's works, most of which were published by his learned friend, Athanasius Kircher, S.J., are: "Relatio rerum notabilium Regni Mogor in Asia", which contains the first information concerning Kabul which had reached Europe (Straubing, 1665, Aschaffenburg, 1668); "Iter ex Agra Mogorum in Europam ex relatione PP. Joh. Gruberi et H. Roth" in Kircher, "China illustrata" (Amsterdam, 1667), pp. 91 sqq.; "Itinerarium St. Thomae Apost. ex Judaea in Indiam", and "Dogmata varia fabulossissima Brachmanorum", ib., 156-162; "Exactissimum opus totius grammaticae Brachmanicae cujus et rudimenta is [Roth] primus Europae communicavit" in "Romani Collegii S.J. musaeum" (Amsterdam, 1678), p. 65; a letter (Rome, 1664) in "Welt-Bott", I (Augsburg, 1726), 35 manuscript-letters and relations in Royal Library, Brussels, Nos. 6828-29, fol. 415.

HOSTEN, Jesuit Missionaries in Northern India, 1580-1803 (Calcutta, 1906), 30 sqq.; BALFOUR, Encycl. of India (London, 1885), s. v.; BENFEY, Gesch. der Sprachwissenschaft (Munich, 1869), 335; V. SCHLEGEL, Sprache u. Weisheit der Indier (Heidelberg, 1808), p. xi.

ANTHONY HUONDER

David Rothe

Bishop of Ossory (Ireland), b. at Kilkenny in 1573, of a distinguished family; d. 20 April, 1650. Having studied at the Irish College, Douai, and at the University of Salamanca, where he graduated doctor in civil and canon law, he was ordained in 1600, and proceeded to Rome. From 1601 to 1609 he was professor of theology and secretary to Archbishop Lombard, and on 15 June, 1609, was appointed Vice-Primate of Armagh. He arrived in Ireland in 1610, having been made prothonotary Apostolic, and held a synod for the Ulster Province at Drogheda, in February, 1614, and a second synod in 1618. Though appointed Bishop of Ossory on 10 October, 1618, he had, owing to the severity of the penal laws, to seek consecration in Paris, where he was consecrated early in 1620; he returned to Ireland in the winter of 1621. As early as 1616, Dr. Rothe had published the first part of his famous "Analecta" and the completed work was issued at Cologne (1617-19); a new edition was brought out by Cardinal Moran in 1884. In 1620 he published "Brigida Thaumaturga", at Paris, followed by "Hiberniae sive Antiquioris Scotiae" in 1621 at Antwerp, and "Hibernia Resurgens" at Paris, in the same year. Other works of his except some few fragments have long since disappeared. In 1624 Bishop Rothe presided over a synod at Kilkenny, and he labored zealously for religion and country during a trying period. He joined the Confederates in 1642, and welcomed the papal nuncio, Rinuccini, to Kilkenny, on 14 November, 1645. Unfortunately, three years later, he refused to acknowledge the validity of the censures issued by Rinuccini, believing that the Supreme Council were acting in the best interests of the country. Although seriously ill in 1649, he continued to minister to the plague-stricken citizens of Kilkenny. He was compelled by the Cromwellians to leave his episcopal city 28 March, 1650, but, being robbed on the way, he was permitted to return. His remains were interred in St. Mary's Church, but there is a cenotaph to his memory in St. Canice's Cathedral.

LYNCH, De praesulibus Hiberniae (1672); WARE, De praesulibus Hiberniae (Dublin, 1665); MEEHAN, Franciscan Monasteries (Dublin, 1872); MORAN, Spicilegium 0ssoriense (Dublin, 1874-84); CARRIGAN, History of Ossory (Dublin 1905); Report on Franciscan MSS. in Hist. MSS. Com. (Dublin, 1906).

W.H. GRATTAN-FLOOD

Rottenburg

(ROTTENBURGENSIS).

Diocese; suffragan of the ecclesiastical Province of the Upper Rhine. It embraces the Kingdom of Wurtemberg, three parishes in the Grand Duchy of Baden, and one parish in the Prussian territory of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen.

The diocese is divided into 29 deaneries, and in 1911 contained 698 parishes, 19 Pfarrkuratien (incorporated churches with an independent care of souls), 164 chaplaincies, and 155 other pastoral charges; 1084 active and 75 pensioned secular clergy; and 728,000 Catholics. The cathedral chapter, which enjoys the right of electing the bishops, consists of a cathedral dean and vicar-general, six capitulars, and six cathedral prebendaries. The bishop, cathedral dean, and the six capitulars constitute also the ordinariate; the legal adviser of the ordinariate is the syndicus, a lay official who is likewise director of the chancellery of the ordinariate, consisting of six members. The rights of the State circa sacra are entrusted to a royal Catholic church council, which is composed of a director, two clerical, and several lay members. The diocesan institutions are: the priests' seminary at Rottenburg, with a regent, viceregent, and a Repetent, or private tutor; the theological college "Wilhelmsstift" at Tübingen with a director and 7 Repetenten, supported by the State, and placed under the supervision of the bishop and church council; the gymnasial boarding-schools at Ehingen and Rottweil, also maintained by the State: the diocesan boys' seminaries at Rottenburg and Mergentheim. Theological students are trained partly in the "Wilhelmsstift" and partly in the theological faculty of University of Tübingen, which has four ordinary and three extraordinary clerical professors. The "Theologische Quartalschrift", the oldest theological periodical in Germany, is published by the professors of the theological faculty. Priests also act as instructors in the private boarding schools at Ehingen, Ellwangen, and Rottweil, which are under the patronage of the bishop, as well as in the twenty-four State intermediate schools (Gymnasien, Realschulen, Lateinschulen etc.).

Despite every effort on the part of the Catholics, the male religious orders have not yet been readmitted into the Kingdom of Wurtemberg. In 1910 the following orders and congregations of women had establishments in the diocese: the Congregation of the Third Order of St. Francis, who have a mother-house at Bonlanden, a boarding school, and two branches (116 sisters); the Sisters of St. Francis from Heiligenbronn, with a mother-house and two branches (188 sisters), who conduct an institute for the rescue, education, and boarding of poor neglected girls, an institute for boys, and a children's home; the School Sisters of Our Blessed Lady, with a mother-house at Ravensburg and one branch (79 sisters); the Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis, from Reute, who have 103 nursing establishments, schools for manual work, and schools for children (783 sisters); the School Sisters of the Order of St. Francis, who have a mother-house at Siessen and 30 branches (373 sisters), and conduct several high schools for girls, and numerous public schools and schools for manual work; the Sisters of Mercy of St. Vincent de Paul, who have a mother-house at Untermarchtal and 127 branches (1245 sisters), and, besides nursing the sick, conduct schools for children, and schools for manual training, homes for working women, boarding schools, and rescue institutions; the Sisters of the Holy Cross, from Strasburg, Alsace, who have one establishment with 13 sisters. There are also in the diocese 11 ecclesiastical boarding schools for poor children and one royal orphanage under religious direction. Of the numerous Catholic churches notable from the artistic standpoint may be mentioned: the Cathedral of St. Martin at Rottenburg, a three-naved Gothic basilica, which was completely renovated after the fire of 1644 (a new cathedral is being planned by the present bishop); the late roman Church of St. John at Gmund (thirteenth century); the Gothic parish church of Gmund (1351-1410); the church of the former Benedictine Monastery of Ellwangen, the largest Romanesque church in the country (1124); the parish church of Weingarten; the "Sankt Petersdom Württembergs", erected in the Baroque style by the Benedictines (1738-53); the Gothic Church of Our Lady, Stuttgart (1879). Of the churches which were formerly Catholic, but which now are Protestant, the most important is the Gothic cathedral at Ulm (1377-1494), which has the highest church tower in the world (over 528 feet). Much frequented places of pilgrimage are Weingarten, Weggental, near Rottenburg; Reute, with the grave of Blessed Elizabeth Bona; the Schönberg, near Ellwangen, the Dreifaltigkeitsberg, near Spaichingen. Concerning the erection and beginnings of the diocese, see PROVINCE OF THE UPPER RHINE; concerning its further history and the relations between the Catholic Church and the State, see WÜRTEMBERG. It will be sufficient here to give a list of the bishops: Johann Baptist von Keller (1828-45), the first bishop; Joseph von Lipp (1848-69); Karl Joseph von Hefele (1869-93); Wilhelm von Reiser (1893-98); Franz Xaver von Linsenmann, d. 21 Sept., 1898, before his consecration; Paul Wilhelm von Keppler (elected 11 Nov., 1898; consecrated 18 Jan., 1899).

Die kathol, Kirchengesetze fur das Bistum Rottenburg, ed. LANG (Rottenburg, 1836); GOLTHER, Der Staat u. die kathol. Kirche im Konigreich Wurttemberg (Stuttgart, 1874); cf. therewith RUMELIN, Reden und Aufsatze, new series (Freiburg, 1881), 205-77; RUCKGABER, Die Diozese Rottenburg u. ihre Anklager (Tübingen 1869); Die kathol. Kirche unserer Zeit, II (Munich, 1900), 97-102; NEHER, Die kathol. u. evangel. Geistlichen Wurttembergs, 1813-1901 (Ravensburg, 1904); Personalkatalog des Bistums Rottenb. (Rottenburg, 1910); Diozesanarchiv von Schwaben (Stuttgart, 1882); concerning the churches see KEPPLER, Wurttembergs kirchl. Kunstaltertumer (Rottenburg, 1888); Das Konigreich Wurttemberg, ed. by the NATIONAL OFFICE OF STATISTICS, 4 vols., 2nd ed. (Stuttgart, 1904-7); Kunst und Altertumsdenkmale im Konigreich Wurttemberg (Esslingen, up to 1909), 60 parts.

JOSEPH LINS

Rotuli

Rotuli, i.e. rolls — in which a long narrow strip of papyrus or parchment, written on one side, was wound like a blind about its staff — formed the earliest kind of "volume" (volumen from volvere, to roll up) of which we have knowledge. Many such rolls have been recovered in their primitive form from the excavations at Herculancum and elsewhere. In the fourth and fifth centuries, however, these rolls began to give place to books bound as we know them now, i.e. a number of written leaves were laid flat one on top of the other and attached together by their corresponding edges. This was a gain in convenience, but for certain purposes rolls were still. retained. To this latter class belonged certain legal records (from which is still. derived the title of the judicial functionary known as the "Master of the Rolls"), also the manuscripts used for the chanting of the Exultet, and especially the documents employed in sending round the names of the deceased belonging to monasteries and other associations which were banded together to pray mutually for each other's dead. These "mortuary rolls" (in French "rouleaux des morts") were called in Latin "rotuli". They consisted of strips of parchment, sometimes of prodigious length, at the head of which was entered the notification of the death of a particular person deceased or sometimes of a group of such persons. The roll was then carried by a special messenger ("gerulus", "rotularius", "rollifer", "tomiger", "breviator", were some of the various titles given him) from monastery to monastery, and at each an entry was made upon the roll attesting the fact that the notice had been received and that the requisite suffrages would be said.

By degrees a custom grew up in many places of making these entries in verse with complimentary amplifications often occupying many lines. It will be readily understood that these records, some of which are still in existence, preserving as they do specimens of ornate verse composition by a representative scholar of each monastery or institution, and engrossed on the roll by some skillful penman in each community, afford valuable materials both for the study of palaeography and also for a comparative judgment of the standard of scholarship prevalent in these different centres of learning. The use of these mortuary rolls flourished most in the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries. Some are of prodigious size. That of the Abbess Matilda of Caen, the daughter of William the Conqueror, was seventy two feet long and eight or ten inches wide, but this no doubt was altogether exceptional.

DELISLE:, Rouleaux des morts du IX au XV siecle (Paris, 1866); IDEM in Bibl. de l'ecole des Chartes, series II, vol. III; Sur l'usage de prier pour les morts; THURSTON, A Mediaeval Mortuary-card in The Month (London, Dec., 1896); NICHOLS in Mem. Archaeolog. Institute (Norwich, 1847); MOLINIER, Obituaires francais au moyen-age (Paris, 1886); EBNER, Gebetsverbruderungen (Freiburg, 1891); WATTENBACH, Schriftwesen im Mittelalter (3rd ed., Leipzig), 150-74.

HERBERT THURSTON

Archdiocese of Rouen

(ROTHOMAGENSIS)

Revived by the Concordat of 1802 with the Sees of Bayeux, Evreux, and Séez as suffragans: it also includes the Department of the Seine Inferieure. The Archdiocese of Rouen was curtailed in 1802 by giving the Archdeanery of Pontoise to the Diocese of Versailles; the Deaneries of Pont Audemer and Bourgtheroulde, and a part of the Deanery of Périer, to the Diocese of Evreux; several parishes of the Deanery of Aumale were annexed to the Diocese of Beauvais. The Archbishop of Rouen bears the title of Primate of Normandy. Rouen, chief city of the Secunda Provincia Lugdunensis under Constantine, and later of Neustria, has been since 912 the capital of Normandy and residence of the dukes.

The episcopal catalogues of the ninth and tenth centuries and the "Liber Eburneus" of the cathedral of Rouen, which extends to 1068, indicate St. Mellon as first Bishop of Rouen; the "Liber Niger" of St. Ouen which comes down to 1079 and the episcopal lists dating from the twelfth century mention the episcopate of a certain Nicasius (Nicaise) as antedating that of St. Mellon. The legend of this Nicaise, based on Hilduin, makes him and his two companions, Quirinus and Scubiculus, disciples of St. Denis who came from Rome to Normandy but suffered martyrdom at their arrival on the banks of the river Epte. It was under the episcopate of William (Bonne Ame) the Good (1079-1110) that the name of Nicaise was placed at the head of the episcopal lists of Rouen. A number of saints were the successors of St. Mellon; according to the chronology of the Abbé Sauvage they were: St. Avitianus (about 314); St. Severus; St. Victricius, born about 330, a soldier in the beginning of his career and as such a confessor of the Faith under Julian the Apostate; made Bishop of Rouen about 380 and died, according to his biographer, Abbé Vacandard, before 409; famous for his friendship with St. Paulinus of Nola and St. Martin, also for going in 396 to England where he worked zealously for the conversion of the English people; his treatise "De Laude Sanctorum" is a strong plea in favour of the devotion to relics; Innocent I commissioned him in 404 to make known in Gaul the "Liber Regularum", which contains urgent instructions for ecclesiastical celibacy, for the respect due to the hierarchy, and Roman supremacy; St. Innocent; St. Evodius (about 430); St. Goldardus (490-525), brother of St. Medardus, one of the assistants at the baptism and coronation of Clovis; St. Flavius; St. Pretextatus (550-586), exiled in 577 by order of King Chilperic, was reinstated in the diocese in 584, and stabbed before the altar in 586 by order of Fredegonde; St. Romanus (631-641) former chancellor of Clotaire II; legend relates how he delivered the environs of Rouen from a monster called Gargouille, having had him captured by a liberated prisoner in commemoration of St. Romain in the Middle Ages the Archbishops of Rouen were granted the right to set a prisoner free on the day that the reliquary of the saint was carried in procession; St. Ouen (Audoennus) (641-684), previous to his appointment as bishop, was chancellor of Dagobert, and wrote a life of St. Eloy (Eligius); his episcopate was distinguished by the foundation of the monasteries of Fontenelle, Jumièges, and Fécamp, by the unceasing efforts he made to exterminate all traces of paganism in his dioceses, and by the arbitration effected through his influence between Austrasia and Neustria; his fame as a miracle-worker was great in the Middle Ages; St. Ansbert (684-92 or 93) chancellor of Clotaire III, and afterwards confined for political reasons by Pepin of Heristal in the Abbey of Hautmont; recently there was found in the library of Carlsruhe a curious little poem of the seventh century written by him on St. Ouen; this poem came originally from the Abbey of Reichenau; St. Hugh (722-30) was a monk of Jumièges before being made bishop; he subsequently combined the Sees of Rouen, Paris and Bayeux, also the abbeys of Jumiegès and Fontenelle; St. Remi (755-772), brother of King Pepin, was also archbishop of Rouen.

Guntbaldus who had played a certain part in the restoration of Louis the Pious, having become Bishop of Rouen, was commissioned in 846 by Sergius II to settle a dispute between Ebbo and Hincmar, and died in 849. The name of a certain St. Leo who suffered martyrdom at Bayonne sometimes appears incorrectly on the lists of archbishops of Rouen at the end of the ninth century and should be struck off. Among the more famous archbishops of Rouen were: Archbishop Franco (911-19), who baptized the Northman chief Rollo; St. Maurille (1055-67), who reformed his clergy and fought the heresy of Berengarius; John of Bayeux (1069-79), whose book on ecclesiastical services regulated religious devotions in Normandy; William I (Bonne Ame) (1071-1119), first a Benedictine and allowed St. Anselm to leave the Abbey of Bec to occupy the See of Canterbury; Hugh of Amiens (1130-74), author of numerous theological works; under his episcopate Rouen was honoured in May, 1131, by a visit from Innocent II, the only pope who ever entered Normandy; Gautier de Coutances called the Magnificent (1184-1207) the favourite companion of Richard the Lion Hearted; Eudes II Rigaud (1247-1274), one of the most eminent statesmen of the day; he accompanied St. Louis on his Tunis crusade and left a diary of his pastoral visitations which has the most important bearing on the ecclesiastical history of the province; Gilles Aycelin (1311-18), Chancellor of France; Pierre Roger (1330-39) became Pope Clement VI; Peter de la Foret (1352-56) was at first Bishop of Paris and became a cardinal in 1356 as Chancellor of France he was one of the most faithful adherents of the dauphin, afterwards Charles V.

During the Hundred Years War the English occupied Rouen from 1417-1449; the Duke of Bedford at his own request was formally made a member of the Chapter of Rouen in 1430. The English rule, so severe for the people, increased the privileges of the clergy but dealt rigorously with such ecclesiastics as were thought rebellious; especially with Archbishop Louis de Harcourt who was deprived in 1421 of his possessions for refusing to pay homage to Henry V. The following should be added to the list of archbishops: John of la Rochetaillée (1423-29), cardinal in 1426; Louis of Luxembourg (1436-42), cardinal in 1439, was the sworn agent in France of Henry VI, King of England; William of Estouteville (1453-83), cardinal in 1437 and commissioned by Nicholas V in 1453 to mediate between France and England, and to obtain from Charles VII certain modifications of the Pragmatic Sanction; Robert of Croismare (1483-93) and Cardinal Georges d'Amboise (1493-1510), both of whom played an important part in the Renaissance movement; the two Cardinals Charles of Bourbon (1550-90 and 1590-94), the first of whom was at one time a candidate for the throne of France; François, Cardinal de Joyeuse (1604-15) who negotiated peace in the name of Henry IV between Paul V and the Republic of Venice; the two François de Harlay (1615-51) and (1651-71); John Nicholas Colbert (1691-1707), son of the minister; Nicholas de Saulx Tavannes (1733-59), cardinal in 1756; Dominic de la Rochefoucauld (1759-1800), cardinal in 1778, president of the clergy at the States General, emigrated after 10 August, 1792, and died in exile at Münster; Etienne Hubert de Cambacérès (1802-18) brother of the archchancellor of Napoleon, cardinal in 1803; Prince de Croy (1823-44), chief almoner of France under the Restoration, and cardinal in 1825; Henry de Bonnechose (1858-83), cardinal in 1863; Léon Thomas (1884-94), cardinal in 1893; William Sourrieu (1894-99), cardinal in 1897.

It is not known exactly whether Rouen became a metropolitan at the time of St. Victricius or under Bishop Grimo, who in 744 received the pallium from Pope Zachary; in the Middle Ages it exercised metropolitan rights over Evreux, Avranches, Seez, Bayeux, Lisieux, and Coutances. It seems that in the seventh century Lillebonne (Juliobona) was for a short time the see of a bishop suffragan of Rouen. The Archbishop of Rouen assumed at an early date the title of Primate of Normandy and Neustria, to indicate the entire independence of his metropolitan see which was directly subject to the Holy See. In vain did Gebuin, Archbishop of Lyons, obtain from Gregory VII two Bulls in 1070 which recognized his primacy over Rouen; they remained unexecuted as well as a similar Bull of Celestine II given in 1144. On 12 November, 1455, Cardinal Dominic Capranica, papal delegate, recognized the independence of the Church of Rouen by giving a definite decision, confirmed in 1457 and 1458 by two Bulls of Callistus III. The Archdeacon of Rouen was known as the "grand archidiacre de la chrétienté". The Chapter, in virtue of a Bull from Gregory XI in 1371, was completely exempt from the archbishop's jurisdiction both spiritual and temporal. Nicholas Oresme (died 1382) was head master of the College of Navarre and Bishop of Lisieux; he translated Aristotle and was dean of the Church of Rouen; the famous Peter d'Ailly and the historian Thomas Basin, later Bishop of Lisieux belonged to the Chapter of Rouen. St. Remy, Bishop of Rouen, was after Chrodigang, Bishop of Metz, the principal initiator in the reform which under Pepin replaced the Gallican with the Roman liturgy. In 1729 the cathedral of Rouen accepted the breviary of Urbain Robinet, vicar-general of Rouen, who revised the liturgy in a Gallican sense. Later Cardinal Bonnechose insisted on the use of the Roman liturgy in the diocese. The Chapter of Rouen preserved the custom until the Revolution of chanting the Office by heart; it was forbidden even to bring a book into the choir. The faculty of Catholic theology of Rouen was founded in 1808 and organized in 1809; it was however suppressed in 1885.

No town of France has produced such marvels of religious architecture as Rouen. The oldest part of the Cathedral, which has survived all fires, is the belfry of St. Romanus's tower, which dates from about 1160; the construction of the nave began about 1200; the Calende portal, so called from an imaginary animal, and the portals of the libraries, famous for the richness of their ornamentation, were finished in the first quarter of the fourteenth century. The Butter Tower (la Tour de Beurre), so called because it was built with the alms derived from the Lenten dispensations, dates from the end of the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth century, and is one of the most famous edifices in the flamboyant style. The ninety-six choir stalls were carved in the fifteenth century under the direction of Philippot Viart and represent in their workmanship all the professions of the period. There are three celebrated tombs preserved in the cathedral; one, whether correctly or not, is said to be the tomb of Archbishop Maurille, and dates from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries; that of the two cardinals d'Amboise dates from 1520 to 1525 and on it is the statue of George d'Amboise, the work of Jean Goujon; that of Louis de Brézé, attributed in part to Jean Goujon, was executed from 1535 to 1544 at the expense of Diane de Poitiers, widow of Louis de Brézé. The present Church of St. Ouen, where a small Roman apse is still preserved and some bases of Roman pillars dating from the eleventh century, is one of the rare examples that exists in France of a large and beautiful church of the fourteenth century, almost complete, and one of the most delicate pieces of architecture extant. The Church of St. Maclou dates from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries; the folding doors are attributed to Jean Goujon. On one side of the church is a monument unique in its way, the aitre st. Maclou. The word aitre is derived from Atrium. L'aitre St. Maclou, the old cemetery of the parish, is a large rectangular space surrounded by porticoes built in 1526-40, and shows the Renaissance style in all its purity. A Dance of Death (Danse Macabre) sculptured on its columns was unfortunately badly defaced by the Huguenots. The Palace of Justice in Rouen is one of the most celebrated buildings belonging to the end of the Gothic period.

Among the twelve Benedictine abbeys for men which the Diocese of Rouen possessed under the old regime must be mentioned, besides Fontenelle and Jumièges, the Benedictine Abbey of St. Ouen de Rouen, founded in 548, where a school of theology flourished which was recognized by Gregory IX in 1238; and the Abbey of Fécamp, dedicated to the Trinity in 658 by St. Waningus (Vaning), Governor of Neustria and Count of the Palace under Clovis II. This was first occupied by nuns under the direction of St. Hildemarche, was ruined by the Normans in 841, and reopened for priests by Richard, first Duke of Normandy, who had the present beautiful church dedicated in 990. St. William (1001-28) was the first Abbot of Fécamp; he had among his successors the future Pope Clement VI and Jean Casimir, King of Poland, who, after abdicating his throne, became Abbot of Fécamp in 1669. The Abbey of St. George de Boscherville was founded in 1060 by Raoul de Tancarville, chamberlain of William the Conqueror. The abbey of Tréport was founded in 1056-59 by Robert, Count d'Eu, companion of William the Conqueror. During the religious wars the Calvinists committed great ravages in Rouen; having become masters of the city 16 April, 1562, they devastated St. Ouen, made a pyre in the centre of the church with the stalls and fragments of the superb screen, and then burnt the body of St. Ouen and other relics of the basilica. Rouen was retaken 26 October, 1562, by François de Guise and Antoine de Bourbon; the majority of Charles IX was proclaimed there in 1563. Rouen, which had declared for the League, was ineffectually besieged by Henry IV from December, 1591, to April, 1592, and only surrendered in 1594 to the new Bourbon king.

In the eleventh century an association of distinguished men was founded at Rouen in honour of the Immaculate Conception. Its chief or president was called "prince". In 1486 Pierre Daré, lieutenant-general of the bailiwick of Rouen, was "prince" and converted the association into a literary society which awarded a prize for the best poems written on the Immaculate Conception. Every stanza of the poems, according to a special rule, must end with the same verse as the first; this repeated verse, which they called "palinodie", gave the name of "Palinod" to the confraternity. Malherbe took the prize in 1555; Pierre Corneille competed in 1633, but does not seem to have been crowned; Jacqueline Pascal received the prize in 1640; Thomas Corneille in 1641. The three-volume Bible, finished at the end of the twelfth century for the Chapter of Rouen, is one of the finest specimens of calligraphy of the Middle Ages. A copy of the "Chroniques de Normandie", made at Rouen about 1450 for the aldermen and given to Colbert in 1682 for the royal library, is illustrated with ten miniatures which are among the most beautiful productions of the fifteenth century., The finest copy extant of the "Chroniques de Monstrelet" was made at Rouen and contains drawings of the greatest importance for the history of the fifteenth century. The manuscripts, written in the sixteenth century by order of Cardinal George d'Amboise, who brought back with him the most beautiful manuscripts from the royal library of Naples, compare favourably with those of the best Italian masters.

Besides those already mentioned, many saints are connected with the history of the Diocese of Rouen or are the objects there of special devotion: St. Severus (sixth century) who perhaps was the Bishop of Avranches and whose relics are preserved at the cathedral of Rouen; St. Austreberta, Benedictine abbess (seventh century); St. Sidonius, of Irish origin (seventh century); the hermit St. Clair, of Vexin, martyr of the ninth century; St. Lawrence O'Toole, Archbishop of Dublin, died at Eu in the diocese 1180; Blessed Joan of Arc was imprisoned at Rouen in the tower constructed in 1206 by King Philip Augustus, and was burned in the old market place 31 May, 1431, after her so-called abjuration at the cemetery of St. Ouen; St. John Baptist de la Salle, who established the first novitiate of the Brothers of the Christian Schools at St. Yon near Rouen in 1705 and died at Rouen in 1719. The saints given to the diocese by Fontenelle and Jumièges must also be mentioned. The saints of Fontenelle are: the founder, St. Wandrille (Wandregesilus) (570-667); the abbots St. Bain (about 729), St. Wando (742-756); St. Gerbold (died 806); St. Ansegisus (823-833), who compiled the capitularies or statutes of Charlemagne and Louis the Pious; St. Gerard (1008-31); and the monks St, Gond (died about 690); St. Erembert, who became, about 657, Bishop of Toulouse; St. Wulfram, Archbishop of Sens and apostle of the Frisians (died in 720); St. Agatho; St. Désiré; St. Sindoard; St. Condé (second half of the seventh century); St. Erbland or Hermeland, who died in 715 after founding the monastery of Hindre (Indret) in the Diocese of Nantes; St. Erinhard (died 739); St. Hardouin (died 811). The saints of Jumièges are: the founder, St. Philcert (675); St. Aicadre (died 687), and St. Gontard (1072-95). The distinguished natives of the diocese should also be mentioned: the two Corneille brothers; the philosopher, Fontenelle (1657-1757); the Jesuit, Brumoy (1688-1742), famous for his translations of Greek plays; the Jesuit, Gabriel Daniel (1649-1728), whose three-volume "History of France", published in 1713, is considered the first reliable and complete history of France; Cavelier de la Salle (1640-87), explorer of the Valley of the Mississippi; the Protestant theologian, Samuel Bochart (1599-1677), a famous Oriental scholar; the numerous Protestant family of Basnage, the most distinguished member of which, Jacques Basnage (1653-1723), is well known as a historian and diplomat; the liberal publicist, Armand Carrel (1800-36); Boildieu, the composer (1775-1834) and pupil of the cathedral music school of Rouen.

The principal pilgrimages of the archdiocese are: Our Lady of Salvation (Notre Dame de Salut), near Fécamp, which dates from the eleventh century; Our Lady of Good Help (Notre Dame de Bon Secours) at Blosseville, a pilgrimage which existed in the thirteenth century; Our Lady of the Waves (Notre Dame des Flots) at St. Adresse, near the harbour of Havre, is a chapel built in the fourteenth century. Before the Law of 1901 directed against the religious orders, there were in the Diocese of Rouen, Benedictines, Jesuits, Dominicans, Franciscans, Picpusiens, Fathers of the Holy Ghost and of the Sacred Heart of Mary, and Brothers of the Christian Schools. Some religious orders for women originated in the diocese, of which the most important are the Sisters of Providence, a teaching order founded in Rouen in 1666 by the Minim Barré and the priest Antoine de Lahaye, and the Sisters of the Sacred Heart, hospitaliers and teachers, founded at Ernemont in 1698 by Archbishop Colbert. The religious owned in the Diocese of Rouen at the end of the nineteenth century 6 infant asylums, 43 infant schools, 1 asylum for deaf-mutes, 5 orphanages for boys, 1 orphanage for children of both sexes, 28 girls' orphanages, 3 schools of apprenticeship, 7 societies for preservation, 1 house of correction, 38 hospitals, 1 dispensary, 26 houses of religious who care for the sick in their homes, 4 houses of convalescence, 2 homes for incurables, 1 asylum for the blind. In 1910 the Diocese of Rouen had 863,879 inhabitants, 5 archdeaconeries, 45 deaneries, 16 first-class parishes, 47 second-class parishes, 599 succursal parishes, 53 curacies and about 800 priests.

Gallia Christ. (nova) (1759), XI, 1-121, instr. 58; FISQUET. La France pontificale (Rouen, Paris, 1866); DUCHESNE, Fastes épiscopaux, II, 200-11; SAUVAGE, Elenchi episcoporum Rotomagensium in Anal. Boll. VIII (1889); FALLUE, Histoire politique et religieuse de l'église métropolitaine et du diocèse 4e Rouen (Rouen, 1850); VACANDARD, St Victrice évêque de Rouen (Paris, 1903); IDEM, Vie de St Ouen, évêque de Rouen (Paris, 1902); CHÉRUEL, Histoire de Rouen sous la domination anglaise au XV ^e siècle (Rouen. 1840); THIERRY, Armorial des archevêques de Rouen (Rouen, 1864); LOTH, Histoire du cardinal de la Rochefoucauld et du diocèse de Rouen pendant la Révolution (Rouen, 1893); CLÉRAMBRAY, La Terreur à Rouen (Rouen, 1901); TOUGARD, Catalogue des saints du diocèse de Rouen (Rouen, 1897); IDEM, L'hagiographie Rouennaise in Revue catholique de Normandie, 1909; LONGNON, Pouillés de la province de Rouen (Paris, 1903); Palinods présentés au Puy de Rouen, ed. ROBLLARD DE BEAUREPAIRE (Rouen, 1896); GUIOT, Les trois siècles palinodiques ou histoire générale des palinods, ed. TOUGARD (Rouen, 1898); SARRAZIN, Histoire de Rouen d'après les miniatures des manuscrits (Rouen, 1904); COOK, The Story of Rouen (London, 1899); COLLETTE, Histoire du bréviaire de Rouen (Rouen, 1902); ENLART, Rouen (Paris, 1904); PERKINS, The Churches of Rouen (London, 1900); LAALAND, A Short Guide to Rouen (Rouen, 1907); CHEVALIER, Topobibl., 2618-28.

GEORGES GOYAU.

Synods of Rouen

The first synod is generally believed to have been held by Archbishop Saint-Ouen about 650. Sixteen of its decrees, one against simony, the others on liturgical and canonical matters, are still extant. Pommeraye (loc. cit. infra.) and a few others place this synod in the second half of the ninth century. Later synods were presided over by: Archbishop St. Ansbert some time between 689-93; Archbishop Mauger in 1048; the papal legate Hermanfrid of Sitten at Lisieux in 1055, at which Archbishop Mauger of Rouen was deposed for his loose morals; Archbishop Maurilius in 1055, which drew up a creed against Berengarius of Tours to be subscribed to by all newly elected bishops; Archbishop John of Bayeaux, one in 1072 and two in 1074, urging ecclesiastical reforms; Archbishop William in 1096, at which the decrees of the Council of Clermont (1095) were proclaimed; Archbishop Goisfred in 1118, at which the papal legate Conrad asked the assembled prelates and princes to support Gelasius II against Emperor Henry V and his antipope, Burdinus (Gregory VIII); the same Archbishop in 1119, and the cardinal legate Matthew of Albano, in 1128, to enforce clerical celibacy; Archbishop Gualterus in 1190, and the papal legate Robert de Courçon, in 1214 to urge clerical reform. Other synods were held in 1223, 1231, 1278, 1313, 1321, 1335, 1342, 1445, and 1581. The synod held by Archbishop Colbert in 1699 condemned Fénelon's "Maximes des Saints". The last provincial synod was held by Archbishop Bailleul in 1830; for its Acts see "Collectio Lacensis", IV, 513-36.

MICHAEL OTT

Adrien Rouquette

Born in Louisiana in 1813, of French parentage; died as a missionary among the Choctaw Indians in 1887. The great passion of his youth was devotion to the Choctaw Indians. He was sent north in 1824 to divert his mind from his savage associates. In 1829 he was sent to France and finished his collegiate studies in Paris, Nantes, and Rennes, winning his baccalaureate in 1833. He returned to New Orleans, but refused to mingle in worldly pleasures, and spent much time alone or among his Indian friends. Later he returned to Paris to study law, but preferred literature, and returning to Louisiana, led a desultory life until 1842. He then made a third visit to France, where he published his first poetic essay, "Les Savannes". This was well received and he returned to Louisiana to become editor of "Le Propagateur Catholique". Ere long he found his true vocation and was ordained priest in 184. Assigned to duty at the Cathedral of Saint Louis, at New Orleans, his eloquence crowded the building, and his holy life commanded the love and respect of all denominations. He served for fourteen years as a priest at New Orleans, then suddenly, in 1859, he severed all connection with civilization and made his home for twenty-nine years as a missionary among the Chocktaw Indians on the banks of Bayou La Combe. As a result of his patient labours, he won many converts to the Faith. Among his publications are: "La Thébiade de L'Amérique", "L'Antoniade", "La Nouvelle Atala", "Wild Flowers".

S.B. ELDER

Jean-Baptiste Rousseau

French poet, b. in Paris, 16 April 1670; d. at La Genette, near Brussels, 17 May, 1741. Although he was the son of a shoemaker, he was educated with the greatest care and made his studies a the Jesuit College of Louis le Grand, Paris. On account of his wit, he was admitted to the most exclusive salons. After a short sojourn in London, as private secretary to the French ambassador, Tallard, be frequented the irreligious society which gathered at the Temple, the evil influence of which caused his misfortunes. His first dramatic attempts were failures, but his epigrams gained him a great reputation. He was elected to the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles-Lettres in 1700. "Couplets infâmes", a libel of a most licentious character. Having retorted that they had been written by Saurin, he was sentenced by the Parliament to pay four thousand livres damages to Saurin, and soon after sent to exile. He went first to Switzerland, where he was sheltered by the French ambassador, Count de Luc, then to Vienna, to Prince Eugène's Court, and finally to Brussels. He tried several times to have the court's decision annulled, but failed because of the hostility of Voltaire and a few others. His works consist of: (1) a comedy in prose, "Le café" (1694), two operas, "Jason" (1696) and "Vénus et Adonis" (1697), and five comedies in verse, only two of which were produced on the stage, "Le flatteur" (1696) and "Le capricieux" (1700); (2) four books of odes, the first being an adaptation of the Psalms, two books of allegories and a score of cantatas; (3) his epigrams, the best part of his work, which will secure his fame; (4) his letters. His works were repeatedly reprinted from 1710 to 1820. His lyrics are not esteemed now, but he is still regarded as the greatest epigrammatist of the eighteenth century.

BRUNETIÈRE, Manuel del l'hist. de la litt. Française (Paris, 1899); FAGUET, Revue des cours et conférences (Paris, 1899-1900).

LOUIS N. DELAMARRE

Benedetto da Rovezzano

Sculptor and architect, b. in 1490, either at Rovezzano, near Florence, or, according to some authorities, at Canapale, near Pistoia; d. at Florence, 1530. His family name is said to have been Gratini or Grazini. One of his most important works was the sculptures for the Church of St. John Gualbertus (1505); these sculptures were injured during the siege of Florence, 1530. The mutilated fragments, five reliefs from the life of the saint, are in the Bargello. Benedetto executed many tombs, chiefly architectural in design, with ornaments in sculpture. The monument of Odde Altoviti, Church of SS. Apostoli, Florence, done in 1507, is by him; the monument of Piero Soderini in the choir, church of the Carmine, Florence; and others. Leo X sent to Card. Wolsey twelve terra cotta medallions by Rovezzano and the sculptor himself went to England in 1524. The cardinal engaged him upon a tomb for himself, but as he fell into disgrace before its completion, it was finished by the king's order. Charles I wished to be buried in it, but the tomb remained empty until the death of Nelson. Rovezzano is believed to have acquired prosperity in England. He returned to Florence in later life, and endured long years of blindness before his death. Further works are the altar of St. Denis in the S. Trinità, Florence; two altars in the church of Badia; door of SS. Aposotoli; a St. John in marble in the Duomo; and in the Bargello, marble niches from the Palazzo Cepparello and a chimney piece.

PERKINS, Tuscan Sculptors (London, 1886); SEMPER, Hervorragende Bildhauer, Architekten de Renaissance (Dresden, 1880); SINGER, Allgemeines Künstler Lexicon (Frankfort, 1901); BOCARDO, Nuova Enciclopedia (Turin, 1886).

M.L. HANDLEY

Stephen Rowsham

A native of Oxfordshire, entered Oriel College, Oxford, in 1572. He took orders in the English Church and was minister at the University Church about 1578, but becoming convinced of the truth of the Catholic religion he went to Reims (23 April, 1581), where he was ordained priest, and sent on the English mission (30 April, 1582). Being recognized almost immediately on his landing, he was apprehended and sent to the Tower, 19 May, 1582, and remained a prisoner for more than three years, during half of which time (14 Aug., 1582, until 12 Feb., 1584) he was confined to the dungeon known as the "Little Ease". On the latter date he was transferred to the Marshalsea, from which prison he was carried into exile in the autumn of 1585. He arrived at Reims, 8 October, but set out from England again, 7 Feb., 1586. The field of his labours, which were continued for about a year, was in the west of England. He was taken at the house of the Widow Strange in Gloucester. His trial and martyrdom were at Gloucester in March, 1586-87.

Dowdy Diaries; Req. Univ. Oxon.; RISHTON, Diarium Turri-Lundin; POLLEN, Acts of Eng. Martyrs (London, 1891); Prison Lists (Catholic Record Society).

J.L. WHITFIELD

The Royal Declaration

This is the name most commonly given to the solemn repudiation of Catholicity which, in accordance with provisions of the "Bill of Rights" (1689) and of "the Act of Succession" (1700), every sovereign succeeding to the throne of Great Britain was, until quite recently, required to make in the presence of the assembled Lords and Commons. This pronouncement has also often been called "the King's Protestant Declaration" or "the Declaration against Transubstantiation" and (but quite incorrectly) "the Coronation Oath". With regard to this last term it is important to notice that the later coronation oath, which for two centuries has formed part of the coronation service and which still remains unchanged, consists only of certain promises to govern justly and to maintain "the Protestant Reformed Religion established by Law". No serious exception has ever been taken by Catholics to this particular formula, but the Royal Declaration, on the other hand, was regarded for long years as a substantial grievance, constituting as it did an insult to the faith professed by many millions of loyal subjects of the British Crown. The terms of this Declaration, which from 1689 to 1910 was imposed upon the sovereign by statute, ran as follows: "I, A. B., by the grace of God King (or Queen) of England, Scotland and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is not any Transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever: and that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other Saint, and the Sacrifice of the Mass, as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous. And I do solemnly in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I do make this declaration, and every part thereof, in the plain and ordinary sense of the words read unto me, as they are commonly understood by English Protestants, without any such dispensation from any person or authority or person whatsoever, or without thinking that I am or can be acquitted before God or man, or absolved of this declaration or any part thereof, although the Pope, or any other person or persons, or power whatsoever, should dispense with or annul the same or declare that it was null and void from the beginning".

The terms of the document are important, for even the extravagant and involved wording of the "long rigmarole" at the end added much to the sense of studied insult conveyed by the whole formula. Not only is the Mass stigmatized as idolatrous, but a false statement of Catholic doctrine is implied in the reference to the "adoration" of the Virgin Mary and the saints "as now used in the Church of Rome", while the existence of a supposed dispensing power is assumed which the Catholic Church has never asserted. What added still more to the just resentment of Catholics at the continued retention of the Declaration was the consciousness that, in the words of Lingard, it owed its origin "to the perjuries of an imposter and the delusion of a nation". The formula was no one drafted by a Parliament in its sober senses. With the object of excluding Catholics from the throne, the Bill of Rights, after the deposition of James II in 1689, exacted of the monarch a profession of faith or "Test". The test selected was one which already stood in the statute book, and which was first placed there during the frenzy excited by the supposed Popish Plot of 1678. It was amid the panic created by the fabrications of Titus Oates, that this Test was drafted (not improbably by himself), and it was imposed upon all officials and public servants, thus effectually excluding Catholics from Parliament and positions of trust. By a curious inversion of history the declaration which was drawn up in 1678 to be taken by every official except the king, had come two hundred years later to be exacted of the king and of no one else. Although statements have been made contending that the substance of the Royal Declaration is older that Titus Oates' time, an examination of these earlier formulæ shows little to support such a conclusion (see a full discussion in "The Tablet", 13 Aug., 1910). A brief account of these formulæ, and of the attempts which were made in 1891 and subsequent years to abolish or modify the Royal Declaration, has already been given in the article OATHS. It will be sufficient to cite here the terms of the new Declaration which was formally carried by Mr. Asquith's Government in August, 1910, in time to relieve King George V from the necessity of wounding the feelings of his Catholic subjects by a repetition of the old formula. In virtue of Mr. Asquith's "Accession Declaration Act" the brief statement, which now replaces that quoted above, runs as follows: "I, N., do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God, profess, testify and declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments to secure the Protestant Succession to the Throne of my realm, uphold and maintain such enactments to the best of my power."

See sections IV and V of the bibliography under the article OATHS: THURSTON IN Dublin Review (Oct., 1909), 225-38; The Tablet (London, July and August, 1910), passim.

HERBERT THURSTON

Pierre-Paul Royer-Collard

Philosopher and French politician, b. at Sompuis (Marne), 21 June, 1763; d. at Châteauvieux (Loire et Cher), 4 September, 1845. An advocate under the ancient régime, and assistant registrar of the municipality of Paris from 1790 till 1792, he withdrew to La Marne during the Terror. In 1797 he represented La Marne in the Council of the Five Hundred (Cinq-Cents) and became prominent through a celebrated discourse in which he demanded liberty for the Catholic religion, "which rallied under its ancient standards seven-eighths of the French people", and accused of "profound folly" those who wished to substitute "I know not what philosophical silliness". Driven from the council by the stroke of the 18 Fructidor, he turned to the restoration of the Bourbons and began a correspondence with Louis XVIII; he was even, up to 1804, a member of a secret council which sent messages to the future king. Under the empire he withdrew from public life, but accepted from Napoleon (December, 1809) the chair of philosophy at the Sorbonne. His teaching, which was influenced by the School of Reid, marked a reaction against the sensualism of the eighteenth century. He held to a certain spiritualism based on "common sense", and an "understanding of human weakness". Under the Restoration he again took up politics; he became deputy and was president for five years of the Committee of Public instruction as counsellor of state. As deputy he opposed both the intrigues of the Ultras, and the anti-constitutional manoeuvres of the Left. His discourses on the religious laws of the epoch show that he was inclined to admit, as a consequence of the Concordat, the interference of the state in Church matters. Educated by a Jansenist mother, and declaring voluntarily that "whoever did not know Port-Royal did not know humanity", he preserved certain prejudices against Roman influence and gave expression to them in his discourses. He opposed the law punishing sacrilege with death, and the laws restraining the liberty of the Press. In 1827 he was elected by seven electoral colleges, became president of the Chamber in 1828, and presented to Charles X in 1830 the address of the two hundred and twenty-one in which the Chamber refused to accept Polignac. Royer-Collard described himself when he wrote to Barante (19 Sept., 1833): "my only vocation as a liberal was on the side of the Legitimists". For the "doctrinaires", of whom he was the head, the legitimist monarchy without liberty was an arbitrary absolutism, liberty without the legitimist monarchy, anarchy. Under the monarchy of July he continued as deputy, but only as a spectator. The "Restoration" writes Barante, "was for him a country", and from 1830 this country no longer existed. He resigned from the Chamber in 1842, and passed his last years in retirement, but his disciples, both in philosophy and politics -- Jouffroy, Cousin, Guizot, Rémusat -- perpetuated the influence of certain of his writings; and M. Faguet declares that in these one must seek "the most penetrating, the most solid, and the most far-seeing doctrine on parliamentary government". This he developed with a grave, austere eloquence, trusting to logic for its strength. Whilst during the first half of the nineteenth century the word "liberal" was generally synonymous with Voltaireanism and hostility to the Jesuits, certain speeches of Royer-Collard quoted by Barante show that this liberal, especially in his later years, professed a deferential attachment for the Church. "If Christianity", he wrote, "has been a degradation, a corruption, Voltaire in attacking it has been a benefactor of the human race; but if the contrary be true, then the passing of Voltaire over the Christian earth has been a great calamity." In a letter to Pere de Ravignan he comments upon the institution of the Jesuits as a wonderful creation. His death was that of a professing and believing Catholic. He was the incarnation of the upper middle class of his time. He was a member of the French Academy from 1827.

JOUFFROY, OEuvres de Thomas Reid, III, IV (Paris, 1828-36), contains some lessons in philosophy and historical fragments by Royer-Collard; DE BARANTE, La vie politique de M. de Royer-Collard, ses discours et ses ecrits (2 vols., Paris, 1861); FAGUET, Politiques et moralistes du 19 siecle, first series (Paris, 1891); SPULLER, Royer-Collard (1895).

GEORGE GOYAU

St. Ruadhan

One of the twelve "Apostles of Erin"; died at the monastery of Lorrha, County Tipperary, Ireland, 5 April, 584. Ruadhan studied under Saint Finian of Clonard. His embassy to King Dermot at Tara, in 556, is worked into a romance known as the "Cursing of Tara", but the ardri continued to reside at Tara till his death (564). The legend as to Tara's halls having been deserted after 564 is of comparatively late origin, and is contradicted by the fact that a Feis was held at Tara in 697. St. Ruadhan founded the monastery of Lorrha. His bell is preserved in the British Museum; St. Ruadhan's feast is kept on the anniversary of his death.

O'HANLON, Lives of the Irish Saints, IV (Dublin, s.d.); HEALY, Ireland's Ancient Schools and Scholars (4th ed., Dublin, 1902); UA CLERIGH, History of Ireland (London, 1908).

W.H. GRATTAN-FLOOD

Ruben

(REUBEN.)

A proper name which designates in the Bible: (1) a patriarch; (II) a tribe of Israel.

I. THE PATRIARCH

Ruben, Jacob's eldest son (Genesis 46:8; 49:3) by Lia, was born in Mesopotamia, and called Ruben ("see ye, a son") as an allusion to Lia's distress because of Jacob's previous dislike of her: "The Lord saw my affliction: now my husband will love me" (Genesis 29:32). Ruben was deprived of his birthright in punishment of an incest which he committed in Chanaan (Genesis 35:22; 49:4). It was at his suggestion that instead of killing Joseph, his brothers threw the latter into a pit, whence Ruben vainly hoped to rescue him (Genesis 37:18-24; 29-30; 42:22). When Jacob refused to allow Benjamin to go to Egypt with his brothers, Ruben offered two of his sons as a pledge that Benjamin would be brought back (Genesis 42:37). To these few biblical data concerning Jacob's firstborn, numerous and worthless Haggadic details are added in rabbinical and apocryphal literature.

II. THE TRIBE OF ISRAEL

Situated east of Jordan, and sharing with the tribe of Gad, the original territory of the Amorrhite king, Sehon, between the Arnon and the Jeboc and as far east as Jaser, the border of the Ammonites. The respective lot of Ruben and Gad cannot be given with perfect accuracy, although on the basis of Josue 13:15-23, Ruben's territorial possessions are usually described as on the east of the Dead Sea and Jordan, between Gad on the north and Moab on the south. Among the prominent towns of the Rubenites were Baalmaon, Bethphogor, Cariathaim, Dibon, Hesebon, Jassa, Medaba, and Sabama. During the journey through the wilderness, the tribe of Ruben counted over 40,000 men (Numbers 1:21; 26:7) and marched with Gad and Simeon on the south side of Israel. To the same period are referred the rebellion of the Rubenite chiefs, Dathan and Abiron, against Moses, and its signal punishment (Numbers 16; Deuteronomy 11:6). After contributing to the conquest of Western Palestine and sharing in the various incidents connected with the erection of a great altar, the descendants of Ruben settled in a district favourable to pastoral pursuits (Numbers 32; Josue 22). Together with the Gadites, they held aloof from the war against Sisara (Judges 5), were smitten by Hazael (IV Kings 10:32-3), and carried into captivity by Teglathphalasar (734 B.C.). The Rubenites were pre-eminently a pastoral race, little fitted to resist invasion, and several of their cities fell into the hands of Moab long before the tribes east of Jordan were carried captive by the Assyrians (cf. Isaias 15; Mesa).

FRANCIS E. GIGOT

Peter Paul Rubens

Eminent Flemish painter, b. at Siegen, Westphalia, 28 June, 1577; d. at Antwerp, 30 May, 1640.

His father, Jan Rubens, a lawyer and alderman of Antwerp, was a Protestant who had fled from his native city to Cologne at the time that the Spanish governor was making strong efforts to extirpate heresy in Flanders. After various troublous experiences in connection with the Dutch army, with the wife of Prince William of Orange, and follwing upon more than one imprisonment, the father, who had temporarily to leave Cologne, returned to that city, where Peter Paul commenced his studies. His mother, Maria Pypelinx, had continued a Catholic, although she temporarily concealed the fact during her aggressive husband's life, but she insisted upon the boy's education at a Jesuit school. She herself was formally received back into the Catholic Church, immediately upon the death of the elder Rubens, when, though in reduced circumstances, she was able to return to Antwerp. From her and from his schoolmaster Rombout Verdonck, Rubens acquired the strong religious character which marked the whole of his career. His earliest days were passed as a page in the household of a princess, the widow of Count van Lalaing, former Governor of Antwerp. When nearly thirteen the young Rubens was sent to the studio of Tobias Verhæcht, and thence quickly removed to study under Adam van Noort where he made the acquaintance of Jordaens, a fellow pupil in the same studio and a lifelong friend of the great artist. He soon went to a third studio, that of Otto van Veen, and remained with this last master until 1598, when he was admitted to the Painters' Guild of Antwerp, and started on his first jorney to Italy (1600).

He carried introductions to the Duke of Mantua, Vincenzo Gonzaga, received his patronage, and was sent by him to Florence, Genoa, and Rome to carry out important commissions. He then returned to Mantua and was sent to Spain in charge of certain portraits intended as diplomatic presents. On his return to Italy he entered into the Duke's permanent service, but was permitted to spend considerable time in Rome where he continued his studies. In 1608 he left Italy and returned to his own city of Antwerp, where he married Isabella Brant and settled down as an artist of great renown. He joined more than one religious guild connected with the local churches, and especially became attached to that of St. Peter and St. Paul, in honour of whose great festival on the day of his birth, Rubens had received his two Christian names. At this time he commenced his great house, splendidly built, lavishly decorated, and installed with many fine treasures which he had acquired in Italy. He lived there in great luxury, full of commissions, and surrounded by a host of pupils, among whom was Anthony van Dyck who rivalled and even surpassed him in portraiture, and the eminent painters Jordaens, Snyders, de Vos, and Justus von Egmont.

Here his two sons, Albert and Nicholas, were born. In 1622 he was commissioned to paint the great pictures representing Marie de' Medici, now in a gallery in the Louvre; this occupied him for two years. His wife died in 1626, and four years after, he married Helena Fourment, the daughter of Isabella Brant's sister. Meantime, he had become painter-in-ordinary to the new Governor of the Spanish Netherlands, the Infanta Isabella, who kept him very busy, both as artist and diplomatist, for which his courtliness and sweetness of manner particularly fitted him. In 1629 he was sent to London by the Count Olivarès by way of Brussels and Paris, and was knighted by Charles I on 21 February,1629-30. After his second marriage he purchased a great house near Mechlin and there prepared his designs for the pageant intended to commemorate the triumphal entry into Antwerp of the new governor, Archduke Ferdinand. This governor made him Court painter and showered various commissions upon him, among them the decorations of a shooting box which the King of Spain was at that time erecting near Madrid. By this time Rubens' wonderful energy and health were so broken, that many of his later pictures were executed by his pupils under his supervision and are to a very slight extent his own work.

He had become a man of considerable means through countless commissions not only in painting and designing pictures, but in etching, silver point work, preparing designs for tapestry, engraving on silver, and scheming the entire decoration for the wonderful pageants that were a feature of his period and country. A man of prodigious energy and overpowering enthusiasm, he was the author of perhaps a larger number of huge pictures than can be attributed to any other painter, and though very many of his works were entirely executed by his own hand, he trained his pupils to so skilfully copy his methods and carry out his ideas that in many cases all the rough and bolder work of the picture was executed by them, he himself applying the final details and glazes, which enabled the picture to be declared a masterpiece and gave to it that quality which his hand alone could supply. The best of his religious work is at Antwerp, but the twenty-two pictures representing the history of Marie de' Medici, on all of which he was supposed to have worked to a certain extent, stand supreme in decorative work. Several of his finest portraits are in Madrid, others in Munich, and one or two of his masterpieces in the National Gallery in London, but almost all the great galleries of Europe contain representative examples of his work. Dresden, Brussels, Frankfort, St. Petersburg, Vienna, Berlin, Florence, and Windsor must all be visited if any adequate idea of the output of this extraordinary and remarkable painter is to be obtained.

He has been the subject of many biographies and of constant research. He is always somewhat of a mystery, for at first one is depressed by his very exuberance, his unbridled artistic frenzy, and the vast show of flesh and power which characterize his pictures, while to many who love tenderness, mysticism, a sensitive quality, and stately dignity, his impropriety and exaggerated enthusiasm is repugnant. Some of the greatest artists, such as Rossetti, were in their early days unable to understand the anomalies in the art of Rubens or to appreciate his greatest pictures even in their most lenient moods. There is such an abundant glory, such powerful organic life in the work of this majestic colourist, that his pictures are not easy to appreciate until one is practically vanquished by the glory of their colour and the luxuriance of their unrestraint. A deeper consideration awakens fuller appreciation and the marvellous conceptions of the artist and his exuberant ideas of magnificence impress and reveal the high position of the painter.

In his drawings he is almost supreme. His religious pictures, when properly regarded and thoughtfully understood, are impressive in their intense religious quality apart from the fury of colour and extravagance. His portraits are triumphant, sometimes perhaps sensual, often dreamy, always impressive. He is unequalled as to colours, and though fuller of the delights of earth than of heaven, yet when the nature of the man is understood the intensely devout quality of his beautiful religious pictures can be appreciated. It is, however, as a draughtsman and colourist, as a master of pageant and a decorator of the highest position that the fame of Rubens has been created.

MICHEL, Histoire de la Vie de Rubens (Brussels, 1771); GACHET, Letters of Rubens (Brussels, 1840); ROOSES, The Work of Rubens (Antwerp, 1886); WAUTERS, The Flemish School of Painting (London, 1885). See also various cartalogues of Rubens exhibitions and articles upon him, specially those by WAAGEN, SAINSBURY, and RUELENS.

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON

Rubrics

I. IDEA

Among the ancients, according to Columella, Vitruvius, and Pliny, the word rubrica, rubric, signified the red earth used by carpenters to mark on wood the line to follow in cutting it; according to Juvenal the same name was applied to the red titles under which the jurisconsults arranged the announcements of laws. Soon the red colour, at first used exclusively for writing the titles, passed to the indications or remarks made on a given text. This custom was adopted in liturgical collections to distinguish from the formulæ of the prayers the instructions and indications which should regulate their recitation, so that the word rubric has become the consecrated term for the rules concerning Divine service or the administration of the sacraments. Gavanti said that the word appeared for the first time in this sense in the Roman Breviary printed at Venice in 1550, but it is found in MSS, of the fourteenth century, such as 4397 of the Vatican Library, fol. 227-28; see also the fifteenth-century "Ordo Romanus" of Peter Amelius. The word is used sometimes to indicate the general laws, sometimes to mark a particular indication, but always to furnish an explanation of the use of the text, hence the saying: "Lege rubrum si vis intelligere nigrum" (read the red if you would understand the black). Thus in liturgical books the red characters indicate what should be done, the black what should be recited, and the Rubrics may be defined as: the rules laid down for the recitation of the Divine Office, the celebration of Mass, and the administration of the sacraments. In some respects the rubrics resemble ceremonies, but they differ inasmuch as the ceremonies are external attitudes, actions considered as accidental rites and movements, while the Rubrics bear on the essential rite.

II. KINDS

Writers distinguish between the rubrics of the Breviary, the Missal, and the Ritual, according as the matter regulated concerns the Divine Office, the Mass, or the sacraments; and again between essential and accidental rubrics according as they relate to what is of necessity or to external circumstances in the act which they regulate, etc. But the chief distinction seems to be that which divides them into general and particular rubrics. The first are the rules common to the same sacred function, e.g., those which regulate the recitation of the Divine Office, whether considered as a whole, in its chief parts, or in its secondary parts; they are at present printed under thirty-four titles in the editions of the Roman Breviary at the head of the part for autumn; those which regulate the celebration of Mass printed at the beginning of the Roman Missal (twenty titles containing the general rules, thirteen others giving the rite to be followed in the celebration, and ten others explaining the defects which may occur); those which regulate the administration of the sacraments (given by the Ritual at the beginning of each of the sacraments, as also by the Pontifical for the sacraments administered by a bishop). The particular rubrics are the special rules which determine during the course of the action what must be done at each period of the year, on certain fixed days, as the days of Holy Week, or when a particular formula is recited. They are inserted in the midst of the formulæ of Breviary, Missal, or Ritual.

III. ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT

The Rubrics are as ancient as the Offices themselves. They were long transmitted by oral tradition and when they were consigned to writing it was not in the fullness known to us. Like the various elements of the Divine Office and the Mass, the manner of celebrating them had at first a local character; there were observances peculiar to churches. Thus St. Cyprian (Ep. lvi, in P. L., IV, 410) mentions the peculiarities of Carthage in the administration of the sacraments; St. Augustine in his reply to Januarius (Ep. lv, in P.L., XXXIII, 204) treats at length the rites of the Church, those which might under no circumstances be neglected and those which might be discontinued; St. Gregory the Great, writing to St. Augustine of Canterbury (XI, lxiv, in P.L., LXXVII, 1186) suggests to him the same wise direction with regard to local practices. It is difficult to determine the period at which these rules were consigned to writing. The ancient Sacramentaries, the MSS. Missals, and even the early printed Missals contain some, but very few, rubrics. There is every reason to believe that they were contained in special collections known as Ordinaries, Directories, and Rituals. An Ordo Romanus has been attributed to Gregory the Great (see LITURGICAL BOOKS), but it is difficult to say what it was. Relying on the "Ordines Romani" published by Mabillon, Father Grisar (Civiltà Cattolica, 20 May, 1905) gives the oldest description of the solemn pontifical Mass as dating from the pontificate of Gregory the Great. Hittorp s publication has been much discussed, Cardinal Bona (De divina psalmodia, i, 604) regarding the collection as very ancient but overloaded with the ceremonies of subsequent ages, which is the case with all the ritualistic books. Cardinal Tommasi (Opera, IV, p. xxxv) characterizes it as a confused mass in which it is impossible to distinguish the most ancient and authentic practices. In this primitive state rubrics and ceremonies were generally mingled.

There were no rubricists until the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. At first they were compilers and worked on separate parts. Cardinal Quignónez found the ancient rubrics obscure and confused; the new rubrics which still exist with some additions and alterations form an excellent exposition borrowed from the "Directorium Officii Divini", published in 1540 by the Franciscan L. Ciconialano with the approval of Paul III. In 1502, under Leo X, Burchard edited the general rubrics of the Roman Missal; they were printed in the edition of the "Missale Pianum" and have thuis reached us. In collaboration with Aug. Patrizi Piccolomini, Burchard also issued (1488) the ordinary and the ceremonies of the pontifical Mass under the title "Romanæ Ecclesiæ Cæremoniarium libri tres"; these have passed into our present Pontifical. Finally the Roman Ritual, edited in 1614 under Paul V, was compiled, with the aid of the Ritual of Cardinal Giulio Antonio Santario, from which most of the rubrics are derived. Thus various collections of the rubrics compiled by individuals have received the approval of the sovereign pontiffs, and since Pius V, instead of being published as separate treatises, they have been inserted in the liturgical books with which they dealt. The S. C. of Rites, instituted by Sixtus V in 1587, is commissioned to approve new rites, to suppress abuses in liturgical matters, issue authentic editions of liturgical books, to interpret the rubrics, and to solve difficulties connected therewith. Besides this interpreting authority, individual liturgists may also write commentaries and explanations on the subject.

IV. OBLIGATORY CHARACTER

In describing the kinds of rubrics we have intentionally omitted mention of distinctions which seem to us without sufficient foundation, writers distinguish between Divine and human rubrics, but as soon as rubrics are approved by the soverign pontiff and promulgated in his name it seems to us that they emanate from a Divine-human authority, and none save the Church has the right to establish such rules. According to a prevalent sentiment, we should do away with the distinction between the preceptive rubrics (those which bind under pain of sin, mortal or venial according to the matter) and directive rubrics (those which are not binding in themselves, but state what is to be done in the form of an instruction or counsel).

It may be said that the rubrics of the liturgical books are real laws; this follows from the definition: they are prescriptions for the good order of external worship in the Catholic Church, they emanate from the highest authority--the sovereign pontiff--and considering the terms in which they are promulgated it does not appear that the supreme head of the Church merely desires to give a counsel. Hence the distinction between the preceptive and directive rubrics is (a) in contradiction to the terms of the definition of rubrics, which are rules, consequently ordinances, laws, whose character is to be at once both directive and preceptive, i.e., to impose an obligation: (b) it is contrary to the mind of the sovereign pontiffs as expressed in their Bulls, which in establishing and promulgating rubrics intend to make them real laws. Pius V in the Bull "Quod a nobis", for the publication of the Roman Breviary (1508), expressed himself as follows: "Statuentes Breviarium ipsum nullo unquam tempore, vel totum vel ex parte mutandum, vel ei aliquid addendum, vel omnino detrahendum esse". The same pope uses similar terms in the Bull "Quo primum tempore", for the publication of the Roman Missal (1870): "Mandantes, ac districte . . . praecipientes ut coeteris omnibus rationibus et ritibus ex aliis Missalibus quantumvis vetustis hactenus observari consuetis, in posterum penitus omissis ac plane rejectis, Missam juxta ritum, modum ac normam quæ per Missale hoc a Nobis nunc traditur decantent ac legant, neque in Missæ celebratione alias cæremonias, vel preces quam quæ hoc Missali continentur addere vel recitare præsumant." No less explicit are the expressions employed by Paul V for the publication of the Ritual (Brief "Apostolicæ Sedi", 1614), by Clement VIII for the publication of the Pontifical (Brief "Ex quo in Ecclesia", 1596), etc.; (c) this distinction is equally contrary to the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, which constitute a real command, while it cannot be said that they involve a greater obligation than the rubrics which they explain, which would be the case if the rubrics were not preceptive, when the commentary would have greater force than the text itself. (d) It is contrary to the rubricists' manner of expressing themselves. Thus Bissus declares that the rubrics are laws: "Leges tam Missalis quam Breviarii dicuntur Rubricæ, cum legibus et aliis ordinationibus et solent esse firmæ donec revocentur". De Herdt is still more explicit: Rubricæ sunt regulæ juxta quas officium divinum persolvi, Missæ sacrificum celebrari, et sacramenta administrari debent.

It is true that many others admit the distinction between preceptive and directive rubrics, as De Herdt does, but they write from the standpoint of conscience, and when they excuse infractions of the rule it is in virtue of special reasons due to circumstances. It is also objected that certain rubrics are marked "Ad libitum", e.g. the third Collect of the Mass for certain days, the optional recitation of the "Dies Iræ" in low unprivileged Masses for the dead. But even in these cases there is a certain prescription: a third prayer must be said, which is left to the choice of the celebrant; half of the "Dies Iræ" may not be said, but it must either be omitted or said entire. Rubrical indications whose obligatory character is completely lacking, such as the prayers in preparation for Mass, "pro opportunitate sacerdotis facienda", are exceptional instances, the very terms of which show what is to be understood, but these exceptions merely confirm the thesis. To make them the starting-point in establishing a distinction is merely to multiply distinctions at will, a procedure that is all the more useless because it would eventually amount to saying that there are preceptive precepts and non-preceptive precepts. We can only conclude that the distinction between preceptive and directive rubrics should be done away with, or if it be mentioned at all, it should be simply as an historical reference (see Ephemerides Liturgicæ, I, 146). Under certain circumstances rubrics may be modified by custom, but in this respect they do not differ from laws in general.

GAVANTI, Thesaurus sacr. rit. cum addit.. Merati (Venice, 1769); DE HERDT, Sac. liturg. praxis (Louvain, 1863); MENGHINI, Elem. juris liturg. (Rome, 1907); VAN DER STAPPEN, Sac. liturg. cursus (Mechlin, 1898); ZACCARIA, Bib. ritual. (Rome, 1778); ONOMASTICON (Fraenza, 1787).

F. CABROL

William Rubruck

(Also called William of Rubruck and less correctly Ruysbrock, Ruysbroek, and Rubruquis), Franciscan missionary and writer of travels; b. at Rubrouc in northern France probably about 1200; d. after 1256. He became closely connected with St. Louis (Louis IX) in Paris, accompanied him on his crusade, and was at Acre and Tripoli. Louis, notwithstanding his repeated ill-success, again formed the plan of converting the Tatars to Christianity, and at the same time of winning them as confederates against the Saracens. Consequently at his orders Rubruck undertook an extended missionary journey, going first to visit Sartach, son of Batu and ruler of Kiptchak, then reported to have become a Christian. In 1253 Rubruck started from Constantinople, crossed the Black Sea, traversed the Crimea towards the North, and then continued eastward; nine days after crossing the Don he met the khan. The latter was not inclined to agree to the schemes of St. Louis and sent the ambassadors to his father Batu, living near the Volga. Batu would not embrace Christianity and advised the envoys to visit the great Khan Mangu. In midwinter they reached the eastern point of Lake Alakul, south of Lake Balkasch, and near this the Court of the khan, with which they arrived at Karakorum at Easter, 1254. After residing for some time in this city they had to return home without having obtained anything. On the return journey they took a somewhat more northerly route and arrived in the spring of 1255 by way of Asia Minor at Cyprus, whence they proceeded to Tripoli.

The report of the journey which Rubruck presented to the king is a geographical masterpiece of the Middle Ages. It exceeds all earlier treatises in matter, power of observation, keenness of grasp, and clearness of presentment, besides being but little spoiled by fabulous narratives. In it Rubruck gives a clear account of the condition of China, of the characteristics and technical skill of its inhabitants, of their peculiar writing, and of the manufacture of silk; he also mentions paper money, printing, the division into castes, rice brandy, kumiss, speaks of the physicians who diagnosed diseases by the pulse, and prescribed rhubarb. The Middle Ages also owed to him the solution of a disputed geographical question; he proved that the Caspian was an inland sea and did not flow into the Arctic. He called attention to the relationship between German and the Indo-Germanic group of languages, and to the family unity of the Hungarians, Bashkirs, and Huns in the great racial division of the Finns; and he also gave a circumstantial account of the religion of the Mongols and the various ceremonies of the idolaters. Rubruck's account has been edited by the Société de Géographie in the "Recueil de voyages et de mémoires", IV (Paris, 1893), German translation by Kulb in the "Geschichte der Missionsreisen nach Mongolei", I, II (Ratisbon, 1860); English tr. by Rockhill, "The Journey of William of Rubruk to the Eastern Parts" (London, 1900).

SCHMIDT, Uber Rubruks Reise in Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft fur Erkunde zu Berlin, XX (Berlin, 1885); MATROD, Le voyage de Fr. Guillaume de Rubrouck (Couvin, 1909); SCHLAGER, Mongolenfahrten der Franziskaner (Trier, 1911), 45-126.

PATRICIUS SCHLAGER

Rudolf of Fulda

Chronicler, d. at Fulda, 8 March, 862. In the monastery of Fulda Rudolf entered the Benedictine Order, studied under the celebrated Rabanus Maurus, and was himself a teacher. He was undoubtedly associated with King Louis the Pious, whose intimate friend he considered himself, but it is not known how long he remained at court. It is probable that, after the elevation of Rhabanus to the Archiepiscopal See of Mainz, Rudolf followed him thence, and only towards the close of his life took up his permanent residence once more at Fulda. He was one of the most distinguished scholars of his time. The "Annales Fuldenses", begun by Einhard and continued (838-63) on the same lines by Rudolf, are valuable contributions to the general history of the period on account of his close connection with the court. Among the many editions of the "Annales Fuldenses sive Annales regni Francorum orientalis", that of Kurze (Hanover, 1891) is the best (German tr.by Wattenbach, "Geschichtsschreiber der deutschen Vorzeit", XXIII, Leipzig, 1889). At the suggestion of his master Rabanus, Rudolf (838) compiled, from notes of the priest Mego and from oral tradition, a life of St. Lioba or Leobgyth (published in "Acta SS.", VII, Sept., Antwerp ed., 760-9, and in "Mon. Germ. Script.", XV, i, 121-31). It was St. Lioba whom St. Boniface called to Bischofsheim on the Tauber to assist him by her activity. Under the misleading title, "Vita beati Rabani Mauri, archiepiscopi Moguntini in Germania", there is extant a work upon the miracles performed by the relics brought to Fulda by Rabanus, interspersed, according to the spirit of the times, with important historical and ethnological notes. In the "Mon. Germ. Script." (XV, 329-41) it is printed under the more correct title, "Miracula sanctorum in Fuldenses ecclesias translatorum". A similar work of much more importance historically is "Translatio sancti Alexandri Wildeshusam anno 851" in "Mon. Germ. Script.", II, 673-81, begun by Rudolf in 863 at the request of Waltbraht, a grandson of Widukin, and completed by Meginhart. Taking the "Germania" of Tacitus for his model, he pictured the history of ancient Saxony and the introduction of Christianity.

WATTENBACH, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter, II (Berlin, 1893), 227 sq., 238 sq.; POTTHAST, Bibliotheca historica medii ævi (Berlin, 1896), I, 67; II, 1151, 1429, 1540.

PATRICIUS SCHLAGER

Rudolf of Habsburg

German king, b. 1 May 1218; d. at Speyer, 15 July, 1291. He was the son of Albert IV, the founder of the Habsburg line, and Countess Heilwige of Kiburg. After the death of his father in the Holy Land, Rudolf pursued an independent line of politics. In the conflict between the papacy and the empire he supported the Hohenstaufens, and, during the interregnum, strove to increase the power of his house, especially in Switzerland. In his extensive domains, of which Swabia formed the centre, he showed himself a good, if stern ruler, and especially in the south won many friends. At the instigation of Gregory X, who threatened to appoint a regent to govern the empire if steps were not taken to restore order to the country by the election of a prince who would exercise an effective rule, Rudolf was chosen emperor 1 October, 1273. Towering but lean of stature, with bony cheeks and hooked nose, he was a courageous warrior, a skilled diplomat, and distinguished alike for unrelenting sternness and genial kindness. Six electors voted for Rudolf; the seventh, Ottakar of Bohemia, abstained from voting. This powerful king ruled from Meissen and the mountains in the north of Bohemia as far as the Adriatic, having added Austria, Styria, Carinthia, and Krain to his inherited domains. When Ottakar was summoned to answer for this alienation of the imperial fiefs, Rudolf proved himself an astute politician in the proceedings against Bohemia. Recognizing that it was impossible to force the German princes to the position of vassals, he utilized every opportunity to enhance the power of his house, for only the possession of great domains could ensure for a German king a position of prominence. Supported by the Church, Rudolf began the war in 1276, and on the Marchfeld on 26 August, 1278, Ottakar lost his throne and his life. The ancient possessions of the Bohemian royal house were left to Ottakar s son Wenceslaus, who was still a minor, but the Austrian lands had to be given up and were formally granted by Rudolf to his sons, as according to the prevailing laws of the empire, the sovereign could not retain confiscated lands. In this manner Ostmark came permanently into the possession of the Habsburgs. Whether the downfall of Ottakar was a German success or not, is still an open question among scholars. In recent times, the opinion has prevailed that, far from being hostile to the Germans, Ottakar favoured German immigration into Bohemia, and that, with the possession of the Austrian lands, he might perhaps have completely germanized Bohemia; and, had he secured the imperial crown, this powerful prince might have given a new importance to the imperial authority. The creation of a strong central power was also the object of Rudolf s politics. For the consolidation of his kingdom about the Danube, peace and stability were necessary, and these only a strong imperial government could guarantee. There was no fixed imperial constitution, and the development of such would have been resisted by the territorial princes. Rudolf was shrewd enough to abstain from attempting forcibly to increase his constitutional powers, and contented himself with preserving such domains and rights as were still left to the crown. He sought to recover the many imperial possessions which had been lost since 1245, moreover he saw to it that the taxes laid upon the imperial cities and towns were duly paid; although he failed to establish uniform system of taxation owing to the resistance of many cities which had to be put down by force of arms before they came to an agreement with the Emperor.

With Rudolf began a period of national peace for Germany which was to last for two hundred years. Taking as his model the pacific settlement made by the Emperor Frederick II, in the Landfrieden at Mainz, in 1235, he drew up a number of agreements which, though often broken, were the chief means of protecting commerce and trade. But here also he had to be content, if the princes and towns really carried out these settlements to do which they claimed as their right and if they really checked the system of robbery, which, under the form of feuds, prevailed more and more. This however was not always the case. Even in such cases Rudolf did not take vigorous measures and prove practically that the maintenance of public peace was the duty of the Emperor. Lesser peace-breakers he punished; greater ones only in case they threatened his dynastic interests. In Swabia his governor (Landvogt), Count Albert of Hohenberg, fought without much success against Count Eberhard the Illustrious of W rtemberg; against Siegfried, the ambitious Metropolitan of Cologne, he proceeded by force of arms. But it was not the warlike measures of Rudolf, but the defeat of Siegfried near Worringen in 1288 by the Duke of Brabant in the quarrel concerning the inheritance of Duke Walram of Limburg that curbed the ambitious efforts of the archbishop. Rudolf was more successful in his efforts (1289) to settle the disputes in the House of Wettin. But his chief ambition, to secure the imperial crown for his house, he failed to realize. The electoral authority grew stronger during his reign, and the system of electing its kings remained the canker of the German Empire. Until the very last he endeavored to increase the power of his family; indeed, in the east of the empire, he created for his family such a position that a little later it developed into a decisive factor in the subsequent historical evolution of the German Empire. Meanwhile, considering the difficult conditions, he did very much to restore the unity of the empire. By his wise moderation he secured for himself general recognition, being the first emperor for a long period to achieve this end. The many diets which he held must also have strengthened the feeling of the unity of the empire. His foreign policy showed the same wise moderation. He abstained from taking any action in the Italian question, without however resigning the rights of the empire. However much the pope strove to secure the support of the German king against the powerful Charles of Anjou in order to check his power in the south of the peninsula, Rudolf was always able to skilfully avoid the overtures; even the attractions of the imperial crown were of no account in the eyes of this sober and calculating prince. In Burgundian affairs he interfered only as far as his action was likely to increase the power of his house, by strengthening it on the imperial frontiers towards Burgundy. Otherwise his policy in the west was guided by the principle of preserving peaceful relations with France. The death of this upright and popular monarch was received with lamentations throughout the empire. He was buried at Speyer.

LIUDNER, Deutsche Gesch. unter den Habsburgern u. Luxemburgern (Stuttgart, 1888-93); KOPP, Gesch. der eidgen ssischen B nde (Basle, 1882); MICHAEL, Gesch. des deutschen Volkes vom13. Jahrh. bis zum Ausgang des Mittelalters (Freiburg, 1897-1903); SCHULTE, Gesch. der Habsburger in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten (Innsbruck, 1887); REDLICH, Rudolph von Habsburg (Innsbruck, 1903).

FRANZ KAMPERS

Rudolf of Rüdesheim

Bishop of Breslau, b. at Rüdesheim on the Rhine, about 1402; d. at Breslau in Jan., 1482. From 1422 to 1426 he studied at the University of Heidelberg from which he graduated as master. He then proceeded to Italy, graduated as doctor in ecclesiastical law and became auditor of the Rota. Numerous benefices were conferred upon him at an early date, particularly in the dioceses of Mainz and Worms. From 1438 onward he represented the cathedral chapter of the latter city at the schismatic Council of Basle, where he formed a friendship with Enea Silvio de' Piccolomini, subsequently Pope Pius II. The latter, his successor Paul II, and the Emperor Frederick III entrusted Rudolf with important missions and difficult negotiations. Pius II named him in 1463 Bishop of Lavant in Tyrol. The See of Breslau was conferred on him in 1468, at a time when the inhabitants were spiritedly resisting their ruler, George Podiebrad, King of Bohemia. The latter had been deposed and excommunicated, but maintained his position as ruler. The war which resulted was protracted beyond Podiebrad's lifetime and terminated, with Rudolf's co-operation, in the Peace at Olmütz in 1479. Now intent more exclusively upon the spiritual welfare of his diocese, the bishop sought to heal the wounds of the war, endeavoured to imbue the diocesan secular and regular clergy with a sound ecclesiastical spirit, and insisted upon the importance of their proper theological training. The acts of the synods held in 1473 and 1475 bear witness to the zeal and energy of the skilful prelate.

ZAUN, Rudolf von Rüdesheim, (Frankfort, 1881); PASTOR, Hist. of the Popes, tr. ANTROBUS, III (London, 1894), 174, 198-201.

N.A. WEBER

Rudolf von Ems

(Hohenems in Switzerland).

A Middle High German epic poet of the thirteenth century. Almost nothing is known of his life. He himself tells us that he was in the service of the Counts of Montfort and from the anonymous continuator of the "Weltchronik" we learn that the poet died "in welschen richen", i.e. in Italy, whither he had probably gone with King Konrad IV, about 1254. He professes himself a follower of Gottfried von Strassburg, for whom he entertains the greatest admiration, but his moralizing and didactic tendency differs strikingly from Gottfried's joyous sensualism, and he is prone to diffuseness and redundancy. In the choice of subjects he shows a predilection for those that are learned, and he generally draws from Latin sources. The earliest of his extant poems and one of the best is "Der gute Gerhard" in which the simple piety of an humble merchant of Cologne puts to shame the pharisaical ostentation of the Emperor Otto. The didactic tendency is very conspicuous in the poem "Barlaam und Josaphat", which treats a well-known Christian legend that seems to have its root in Buddhist sources and which on account of its glorification of the ascetic life and its defense of Christianity against Paganism was a favorite subject with medieval poets. Another poem on a legendary subject, the conversion of St. Eustace, which Rudolf mentions among his works, has not been preserved. "Wilhelm von Orlens", a courtly epic with a conventional love story, is based on a French original and was written for one Konrad von Winterstetten (d. 1241). Rudolf's most ambitious efforts were the historical epics "Alexander" and "Weltchronik". For the former the chief sources are the "historia de preliis" and the work of Curtius Rufus. The "Weltchronik" was undertaken at the request of King Konrad IV and was to be a complete history of the world from the beginning to the poet's own time. But death intervened and the story breaks off with King Solomon's reign. An anonymous poet then took up the subject and, making free use of Rudolf's material as well as drawing on Godfrey of Viterbo's "Pantheon", he gave a version that carried the story as far as the Book of Judges. This second recension, usually called the "Christ-Herre-Chronik", from its opening words, was subsequently still further amalgamated with Rudolf's version and amplified by various continuators, notably one Heinrich von München (fourteenth century). In this form the work became very popular and was finally resolved into prose.

"Der gute Gerhard" was edited by Haupt (Leipzig, 1840); "Barlaam und Josaphat" by Pfeiffer (Leipzig, 1843). Of the other works there are as yet no critical editions. A MS. reprint of a "Willehalm von Orlens" was given by Victor Junk in "Deutsche Texte des Mittelalters" (Berlin, 1905), II; selections from "Alexander" by Junk in "Beitrage zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache" (1904), 29, 369-469; from "Weltchronik", by Vilmar, "Die zwei Rezensionen und die Handschriftenfamilien der Weltchronik Rudolfs v. E." (Marburg, 1839).

KRUGER, Stilistische Untersuchungen uber R. v. E. als Nachahmer Gottfrieds (Lubeck, 1896); ZINGERLE, Die Quellen zum Alex. des R. v. E. in WEINHOLD AND VOGT, Germanistische Abhandlungen IV (Breslau, 1885); ZEIDLER, Die Quellen von Rudolfs v. E. Wilhelm von Orlens (Berlin, 1894); JUNK, Die Epigonen des hofischen Epos in Sammlung Goschen, no. 289 (Leipzig, 1906), 16-62.

ARTHUR F.J. REMY

Family of Rueckers

Famous organ and piano-forte builders of Antwerp. Hans Rueckers, the founder, lived in Amsterdam at the end of the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth century, where he became a member of the Guild of St. Luke and was active principally as organ-builder. He died in 1640 or 1641. In what year the house which he established in Amsterdam was transferred to Antwerp is not known, but it was in the latter city that it attained its renown. Hans Rueckers originated a spinet (forerunner of the piano-forte) with two keyboards, which could be played singly or simultaneously. They could be coupled, a higher octave on one keyboard, with a lower octave on the other, thereby doubling the sonority. Hans Rueckers' son, Andreas, b. in 1579, still further perfected the mechanism of their instruments, which gained world-wide celebrity under Andreas the Younger during the second half of the seventeenth century, their importance continuing under his successors throughout the greater part of the eighteenth. Rueckers' pianos were exported to foreign countries, particularly to England, and sold for the price, in those days fabulous, of 3000 francs. Many of these instruments were decorated by famous painters, which caused some of them to be destroyed so that the paintings might be preserved.

RIMBAULT, The Pianoforte, its Origin, Progress, and Construction (London, 1860); HOPKINS, Old Keyboard Instruments (London, 1887); Musikalisches Konversationslexikon (Berlin, 1877).

JOSEPH OTTEN

Paolo Ruffini

Physician and mathematician, b. at Valentano in the Duchy of Castro, 3 Sept., 1765; d. at Modena, 10 May, 1822. At first he intended to enter Holy orders and went so far as to receive the tonsure, but changing his mind, he began the study of mathematics and medicine in the University of Modena, where he received the degree of doctor. At the age of twenty-three he was appointed professor of analysis after having substituted for a year for his teacher Cassiani. In 1791, the chair of elementary mathematics was entrusted to him. In the meantime, he did not neglect the study and practice of medicine. At the time of the French invasion of Italy (1796), he was unexpectedly appointed a member of the Juniori in the legislative body at Milan. It was not without difficulty that he succeeded in returning to his lectures at Modena. Because he refused to take the republican oath without the conditional declaration dictated by his conscience, he was dismissed from his position as a public lecturer; but with the return of the Austrians in 1799 he was restored to his former post and maintained therein by succeeding governments. A call to the chair of higher mathematics in Pavia he declined, because he did not wish to give up his medical practice among his dear Modenese. The university having been degraded to the rank of lyceum, he accepted (1806) the chair of applied mathematics at the newly established military school. In 1814 Franceso IV re-established the university and appointed Ruffini rector for life, and at the same time professor of practical medicine and applied mathematics. By his lectures with the patients actually present he revived the clinical studies which had been neglected for several years. During the typhus epidemic of 1817 he sacrificed himself for his fellow citizens, and finally succumbed. Although he recovered, he never regained his strength. He was buried in the Church of Santa Maria di Pomposa, between the tombs of Sigonio and Muratori.

Ruffini's sole medical treatise is a "Memoria sul tifo contagioso". As a mathematician his name is inseparably associated with the proof of the impossibility of solving algebraically the quintic equation, on which subject he wrote several treatises ("Teoria generale delle equazioni, in cui si dimostra impossibile la soluzione algebraica delle equazioni generali di grado superiore al 4°", 2 vols., Bologna, 1798; "Della soluzione delle equazioni alg. determinate particolari di grado sup. al 4°" in "Mem. Soc. Ital.", IX, 1802, which was awarded a prize by the National Institute of Milan; "Della insolubilità etc. qualunque metodo si adoperi, algebraico esso sia o trascendente" in "Mem. Inst. Naz. Ital.", I, 1806). He also proved the impossibility of the quadrature of the circle ("Riflessioni intorno alla rettificazione ed alla quadratura del circolo" in "Mem. Soc. Ital.", IX, 1802). Less known, however, is the fact that Ruffini published the now familiar "Horner's method" of approximation to the roots of numerical equations fifteen years before Horner's first paper on it appeared in the "Philosophical Transactions" of 1819 (pt. I, pp. 308-35). In 1802 the Italian Society of Forty offered a gold medal for the best method of determining the root of a numerical equation of any degree. In 1804 the medal was awarded to Ruffini, and the dissertation was published under the title "Sopra la determinazione delle radice nelle equazioni numeriche di qualunque grado". In a paper read before the Southwestern Section of the American Math. Soc. (26 Nov., 1910), Professor Florian Cajori pointed out that the computation demanded by Ruffini is identical with that in "Horner's method", and that this method is elaborated by Ruffini with a clearness and thoroughness not surpassed in Horner's own exposition of 1819. In view of this fact, Professor Cajori insists that the name of Ruffini should be associated with that of Horner in the designation of the method. Ruffini again wrote on this subject in 1807 (Algebra elementare, cap. iv, v), and in 1813 (Memorie Soc. It., XVI, XVII). Ruffini was during his whole life a zealous Catholic. His convictions find expression in his apologetic works: "Dell' immortalità dell' anima" (Modena, 1806), dedicated to Pius VII, who sent him a gold medal; "Riflessioni critiche sopra il saggio filosofico intorno alle probabilità del Sig. Conte de la Place" (Modena, 1821), in which he proves himself to be as familiar with metaphysics as with questions of religion.

FANTONETTI, Note storiche sopra i socj defunti: Paolo Ruffini in Mem. Imp. Reg. Ist. del Regno Lomb. Ven., V (1838), 40-41; LOMBARDI, Notizie sulla vita di Paolo Ruffini (Florence, 1824); POGGENDORF, Biogr.-Litt. Handwörterb. zur Gesch. der Exact. Wiss. (1858-63); CAJORI, Horner's Method of Approximation Anticipated by Ruffini in Bull. of American Math. Soc. (May, 1911).

J. STEIN

Rufford Abbey

A monastery of the Cistercian Order, situated on the left bank of the Rainworth Water, about two miles south of Ollerton in Nottinghamshire, was founded by Gilbert de Gant in or about 1147, and colonized with monks from Rievaulx abbey. Gilbert endowed it with the manor of Rufford, and shortly afterwards added "Cratil" (Wellow), Barton, and Willoughby; these donations were confirmed by Stephen and Henry II, who also granted exemption from certain tolls and customs. Other benefactions followed and the abbey grew rich enough to be required in 1310 to supply victuals for Edward II's expedition to Scotland, and to be asked in 1319 for a contribution towards making good the losses suffered by the Archbishop of York through the Scottish war; yet in 1409 it escaped payment of a tenth to the king on the ground of extreme poverty. The published lists of abbots, in Dugdale and the Victoria County History, begin with Philip de Kyme, a well-known Lincolnshire magnate, whose inclusion is due to a mis-punctuation in a Pontefract charter. Both lists also omit the following early abbots: Gamellus, who occurs as witness to a Kirkstead charter of 1148-49 (Dugdale, V, 420) and is eulogized in two epitaphs contained in a Rufford manuscript now in the British Museum (Tit. D. xxiv, ff., 81b, 88); Elias (1156 and 1160), in Bulls of Adrian IV and Alexander III (Harl. Ch. 111, A.2,5); Matthew (c. 1170-80), in various undated charters (Harl. MS. 1063, ff. 10b, 65b, etc.); William, oc. between 1189-95 ("Reg. of Abp. W. Gray", Surtees Soc., p. 39); Walter, 1212 (Harl. MS. 1063, f. 66); Robert, 1228 (ib., f. 127b); John, c. 1260-70 (ibid., f. 22b). The last abbot but one, Rowland Blyton, or Bliton, left Rufford in 1533 to become Abbot of Rievaulx. His successor, Thomas Doncaster, was given a pension of £25 at the dissolution in 1536; but relinquished it within a few months on becoming rector of Rotherham. The dissolved abbey, with its estates, valued at £246 15s. 5d. yearly, was granted in 1537 to George Talbot, fourth Earl of Shrewsbury. On the death of Edward, eighth earl, in 1618, it passed to Sir George Savile through his marriage with Lady Mary Talbot; and it has remained ever since in the possession of the Savile family, the present owner being John, Lord Savile. The remains of the monastic buildings are incorporated in the modern mansion.

DUGDALE, Monast. Anglicanum, V (1825), 517-21; PAGE, Victoria History of co. Nottingham, ii (1910), 101-5; WARNER AND ELLIS, Facsimiles of Brit. Mus. Charters, I (1903), no. 48; authorities cited, especially Harl. MS. 1063, a seventeenth cent. transcript of Abbot John Lyle's chartulary compiled in 1471.

J.A. HERBERT

Sts. Rufina

The present Roman Martyrology records saints of this name on the following days:

(1) On 10 July, Rufina and Secunda, Roman martyrs, who according to the legendary Acts (Acta SS., July, III, 30-1) suffered in 287 during the Aurelian persecution. Their place of burial was at the ninth milestone of the Via Cornelia, as is stated in the Berne manuscript of the "Martyrologium Hieronymianum" (ed. De Rossi-Duchesne, 89). These martyrs are also recorded in the Itineraries of the seventh century as on the road just mentioned (De Rossi, "Roma sotterranea", I, 18283). Pope Damasus erected a church over the grave of the saints. The town on this spot named after St. Rufina became the see of one of the suburbicarian dioceses that was later united with Porto (cf. Allard, "Histoire des Persécutions":, III, 96).

(2) On 19 July, Justa and Rufina, martyrs at Seville (Hispalis) in Spain. Only St. Justa is mentioned in the "Martyrologium Hieronymianum" (93), but in the historical martyrologies (Quentin, "Les martyrologes historiques", 176-77) Justina is also mentioned, following the legendary Acts. There is no doubt that both are historical martyrs of the Spanish Church.

(3) On 31 August, Theodotus, Rufina, and Ammia, of who the first two are said to be the parents of the celebrated martyr Mamas (Mammes), venerated at Cæsarea in Cappadocia (cf. the various Passions of these saints in the "Bibl. hagiographica latina", II, 771 sq., and in the "Bibl. hagiogr. græca", 2nd ed., 143).

(4) On 24 of 25 August, the feast of two martyrs, Rufina and Eutyche, at Cupua in Campania is recorded in the "Martyrologium Hieronymianum" (110). Nothing further is known of either of these saints.

J.P. KIRSCH

Sts. Rufinus

The present Roman Martyrology records eleven saints named Rufinus:

(1) On 28 February, a Roman martyr Rufinus, with several companions in martyrdom; nothing is known concerning them.

(2) On 7 April, an African martyr Rufinus with two companions; their names are mentioned under 6 April in a list of martyrs in the "Martyrologium Hieronymianum" (ed. De Rossi-Duchesne, 40).

(3) On 14 June, the two martyrs Valerius and Rufinus who suffered at Soissons, France, during the Diocletian persecution; their names are given under this date in the "Martyrologium Hieronymianum" (ed. cit., 78; cf. 66 under 26 May; also Acta SS., June, II, 796 sqq.).

(4) On 21 June, Rufinus who suffered martyrdom with Martia at Syracuse; nothing is known concerning him.

(5) On 30 July, Rufinus of Assisi, who was according to legend the bishop of this city and a martyr. He is probably identical with the "episcopus Marsorum" noted under 11 August. The Acts of the martyrdom of this Rufinus are purely legendary [cf. "Bibliotheca hagiographica latina", II, 1068; Elisei, "Studio sulla chiesa cattedrale di S. Rufino" (Assisi, 1893); D. de Vincentiis, "Notizie di S. Rufino" (Avezzano, 1885)].

(6) On 19 August, Rufinus, confessor at Mantua.

(7) On 26 August, a confessor Rufinus venerated at Capua (cf. Acta SS., August, V, 819-820). His name is given in the "Martyrologium Hieronymianum" under 26 and 27 August.

(8) On 4 September, a martyr Rufinus with his companions in martyrdom who suffered at Ancyra in Galatia; he is also mentioned in company with several others in the "Martyrol. Hieronym." (ed. cit., 113) under 31 August, and again under 4 September (ed. cit., 116).

(9) On 9 September, Rufinus and Rufinianus, with no further particulars.

(10) On 16 November, Rufinus, a martyr in Africa with several companions in martyrdom; nothing is known concerning this saint.

(11) Besides the saints already given mention should also be made of a martyr Rufinus of Alexandria whose name is given under 22 June in the "Martyrol. Hieronym." (ed. cit., 81)

J.P. KIRSCH

Sts. Rufus

The present Roman Martyrology records ten saints of this name. Historical mention is made of the following:

(1) On 19 April, a group of martyrs in Melitene in Armenia, one of whom bears the name of Rufus. These martyrs are mentioned already in the "Martyrologium Hieronymianum" (ed. De Rossi-Duchesne, 46).

(2) On 1 August, Rufus, with several companions who, according to the most reliable manuscripts of the "Martyrol. Hieronym." died at Tomi, the place being afterwards by mistake changed to Philadelphia (cf. Quentin, "Les martyrologes historiques", 337).

(3) On 27 August, two martyrs named Rufus at Capua -- one, whose name also appears as Rufinus in the "Martyrol. Hieronym." (ed. cit., 111). The other is said to have suffered with a companion, Carponius, in the Diocletian persecution (cf. "Bibliotheca hagiographica latina", II, 1070; Acta SS., VI August, 18-19).

(4) On 25 September, several martyrs at Damascus, among them one named Rufus.

(5) On 7 November, a St. Rufus, who is said to have been Bishop of Metz; his history, however, is legendary. His name was inserted at a later date in an old manuscript of the "Martyrol. Hieronym." (ed. cit., 140). In the ninth century his relics were transferred to Gau-Odernheim in Hesse, Diocese of Mainz.

(6) On 12 November, Rufus, a supposed Bishop of Avignon, who is perhaps identical with Rufus, the disciple of Paul (21 November). Legend, without any historical proof, has made him the first Bishop of Avignon [cf. Duchesne, "Fastes épiscopaux de l'ancienne Gaule", I, 258; Duprat in "Mémoires de l'Académie de Vaucluse" (1889), 373 sqq.; (1890), 1 sqq., 105 sqq.].

(7) On 21 November, Rufus the disciple of the Apostles, who lived at Rome and to whom St. Paul sent a greeting, as well as he did also to the mother of Rufus (Rom., xvi, 13). St. Mark says in his Gospel (xv, 21) that Simon of Cyrene was the father of Rufus, and as Mark wrote his Gospel for the Roman Christians, this Rufus is probably the same as the one to whom Paul sent a salutation [cf. Cornely, "Commentar. in Epist. ad Romanos" (Paris, 1896), 778 sq.].

(8) On 28 November, a Roman martyr Rufus, probably identical with the Rufinianus who was buried in the Catacomb of Generosa on the Via Portuensis, and who is introduced in the legendary Acts of the martyrdom of St. Chrysogonus (cf. Allard, "Histoire des persécutions", IV, 371 sq.).

(9) On 18 December, the holy martyrs Rufus and Zosimus, who were taken to Rome with St. Ignatius of Antioch and were put to death there for their unwavering confession of Christianity during the persecution of Trajan. St. Polycarp speaks of them in his letter to the Philippians (c. ix).

J.P. KIRSCH

Juan de Ruiz de Alarcón y Mendoza

Spanish dramatic poet, b. at Mexico City, about 1580; d. at Madrid, 4 August, 1639. He received his elementary education in Mexico and finished his studies at the University of Salamanca, obtaining the degree of Bachelor of Laws. In 1606, he removed to Seville with the object of practicing his profession, and remained in that city for three years. While there his friends and associates were the men of letters of the city, among them the illustrious Miguel Cervantes Saavedra, with whom he formed a close friendship The years between 1609 and 1611 he passed in his native country. Returning to Spain, he settled in Madrid. A few years before Philip II had transferred his court to that city, and it was not long before Alarcón's dreams of a prominent position at the bar were shattered, for he saw that only through intrigue and adulation could he hope for preferment. This being distasteful to a man of his temperament, he turned to writing for the stage, attracted by the success of Lope de Vega, Gabriel Tellez (Tirso de Molina), and others of that period, which was so rich in literary masters. He was successful almost from the start. Unfortunately, he gained as well the envy and enmity of some of the poets of the time, among them Lope de Vega, Gongora, and Montalván, who lampooned him mercilessly. After his death he was gradually forgotten, save by plagiarists, who could safely pilfer from his unread works. Posterity, however, has given him his due, and he is considered the first great literary product of the New World and perhaps even to this day, one of the greatest. He is admittedly in the foremost rank of Spanish dramatists, being surpassed if at all, only by Lope de Vega and Calderón. Alarcón was the author of many plays, all of them masterpieces. Among the best known are: "Truth Suspected", which drew forth the highest praise from Corneille, who used it as a basis for his "Le Menteur"; "Walls have Ears" was meant to ridicule the habits of gossip and slander; "The Weaver of Segovia", a drama of intrigue and passion, in two parts, the first of which has been attributed to another author, being so much inferior to the second. In general his plays are distinguished by their ingenious plots, moral tone, vigorous and pure style, and purity of versification.

HARTZENBUSCH, Comedias de J. Ruiz de Alarcón y Mendoza (1852); ANTONIO, Bibliotheca hispana nola (Madrid, 1783-88); LATOUR, Espagne, tradition, maeurs et litterature (1869); GUERRE Y ORBE, D. J. R. de Alarcón y Mendoza (Madrid, 1871).

VENTURA FUENTES

Antonio Ruiz de Montoya

One of the most distinguished pioneers of the original Jesuit mission in Paraguay, and a remarkable linguist; b. at Lima Peru, on 13 June, 1585, d. there 11 April, 1652. After a youth full of wild and daring pranks and adventures he entered the Society of Jesus on 1 November, 1606. In the same year he accompanied Father Diego Torres, the first provincial of Paraguay, to this mission, where he laboured for thirty years as one of its most capable and successful apostles. Father Ruiz de Montoya was one of the true type of great Spanish missionaries of that era, who, as if made of cast-iron, united a burning zeal for souls with an incredible fewness of wants and great power of work. In co-operation with Fathers Cataldino and Mazeta he founded the Reductions of Guayra, brought a number of wild tribes into the Church, and is said to have baptized personally 100,000 Indians. As head of the missions he had charge from 1620 of the "reductions" on the upper and middle course of the Paraña, on the Uruguay, and the Tape, and added thirteen further "reductions" to the twenty six already existing. When the missions of Guayra were endangered by the incursions of marauders from Brazil in search of slaves, Father Mazeta and he resolved to transport the Christian Indians, about 15,000 in number, to the Reductions in Paraguay, partly by water with the aid of seven hundred rafts and numberless canoes, and partly by land through the mazes of the primeval forest. The plan was successfully carried out in 1631 after the suffering of incredible hardships and dangers. "This expedition", says the Protestant von Ihering, "is one of the most extraordinary undertakings of this kind known in history" [Globus, LX (1891), 179]. In 1637 Montoya on behalf of the governor, of the Bishop of Paraguay, and of the heads of the orders laid a complaint before Philip IV as to the Brazilian policy of sending marauding expeditions into the neighboring regions. He obtained from the king important exemptions, privileges, and measures of protection for the Reductions (see REDUCTIONS OF PARAGUAY). Soon after his return to America Montoya died in the odor of sanctity.

He was a fine scholar in the beautiful but difficult language of the Guaraní Indians, and has left works upon it which were scarcely exceeded later. These standard works are: "Tesora de la lingua guaraní" (Madrid, 1639), a quarto of 407 pages; "Arte y vocabulario de la lingua guaraní" (Madrid, 1640), a quarto of 234 pages; "Catecismo de la lingua guaraní" (Madrid, 1648), a quarto of 336 pages. Mulhall calls Ruiz de Montoya's grammar and vocabulary "a lasting memorial of his industry and learning". The German linguist Von der Gabelentz regarded them as the very best sources for the study of the Guaraní language, while Hervas declares that the clearness and comprehensive grasp of the rules to which Montoya traced back the complicated structure and pronunciation of Guaraní are most extraordinary. All three works were repeatedly republished and revised. In 1876 Julius Platzmann, the distinguished German scholar in native American languages, issued at Leipzig an exact reprint of the first Madrid edition of this work "unique among the grammars and dictionaries of the American languages". A Latin version was edited by the German scholar Christ. Friedr. Seybold at Stuttgart in 1890-91. A collected edition of all Montoya's works was published at Vienna under the supervision of the Vicomte de Porto Seguro in 1876. Of much importance as one of the oldest authorities for the history of the Reductions of Paraguay is Montoya's work, "Conquista espiritual hecha por los religiosos de la C. de J. en las provincias del Paraguay, Paraña, Uruguay y Tape" (Madrid, 1639), in quarto; a new edition was issued at Bilbao in 1892. In addition to the works already mentioned Montoya wrote a number of ascetic treatises. Letters and various literary remains of Ruiz de Montoya are to be found in the "Memorial histor. español", XVI (Madrid, 1862), 57 sqq.; in "Litterae annuae provinc. Paraguariae" (Antwerp, 1600), and in the "Memorial sobre limites de la Repúbl. Argentina con el Paraguay" (Buenos Aires, 1867), I, appendix; II, 216-252; cf. Backer-Sommervogel, "Bibl. de la C. de Jesus", VI, 1675 sqq.

DAHLMANN, Die Sprachenkunde und die Missionen (Freiburg 1891), 84 sqq.; Conquista espiritual (Bilbao), Prologo; SALDAMANHO, Los antiquos Jesuitas del Peru (Lima, 1882), 61 sqq.; XARQUE, Vida de P. Ant. Ruiz de Montova (Saragossa, 1662); DE ANDRADE, Varones ilustres (Madrid, 1666); PLATZMANN, Verzeichniss einer Auswahl amerikan. Grammatiken, Worterbucher, etc. (Leipzig, 1876), s. vv. GUARANI and RUIZ; MULHALL, Between the Amazon and Andes (London, 1881), 248 sqq. Revista Peruana, IV, 119.

ANTHONY HUONDER

Diego Ruiz de Montoya

Theologian, b. at Seville, 1562; d. there 15 March, 1632. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1572 and was professed 22 July 1592. He taught philosophy in Granada, moral theology for one year in Baeza, and theology for about twenty years in Cordova and Seville. For a time he was rector of the College of Cordova, and represented his province, Andalusia, at the Sixth General Congregation. The last years of his life were devoted to writing. His distinguishing characteristics seem to have been humility, a retiring disposition, and integrity. Notwithstanding the fact that the Duke of Lerma promised to obtain permission from Paul V to publish his manuscripts "De Auxiliis", if he furthered his plans, he declined to advise the citizens of Seville to pay a certain tribute. Fray Miguel de San Jose considers him a most finished theologian; Merlin a wise, subtle, prudent student and faithful interpreter of the Fathers, and Kleutgen and Menendez-Pelayo think that he combined positive historic theology with scholastic, in a manner not achieved by any of the theologians who preceded him. His published works are: "Doctrine Christiana", written by command of the Bishop of Cordova, published anonymously and several times reprinted; "Commentaria ac disputationes in primam partem D. Thomae"—(a) "De Trinitate" (Lyons, 1625), his principal treatise and one of the best on this subject; (b) "De praedestinatione ac reprobatione hominum et angelorum" (Lyons, 1628); (c) "De scientia, ideis, veritate ac vita Dei" (Paris, 1629); (d) "De voluntate Dei et propriis actibus ejus" (Lyons, 1630); (e) "De providentia" (Lyons, 1631); (f) "De nominibus Dei". These are rare and much sought editions. In manuscript preserved in various libraries: "De auxiliis", two volumes classified as very good by Father Vitelleschi; "De angelic"; "Commentarii in materiam de peccatis"; "Controversiae et quaestiones theologicae"; "De beneficiis parochialibus conferendis"; "De eliminandis e republica comoediis vulgaribus"; "De statu eorum, qui petunt dimissionem in Societate Jesu"; "De causis dimittendi a Societate Jesu".

MUNOZ DE GALVEZ, Carta . . . sobre la muerte y virtudes del Padre Montoya. Uriarte says this was signed in Seville in 1632 and was written by Father Feliciano de Figuero (Catalogue. . .No. 3797). ANDRADE, Varones ilustres, VII (Bilbso, 1891), 162; MICHAEL A S. JOSEPH, Bibliogr. Crit. sacra et prof., IV (Madrid, 1742), 85; NICOLAS ANTONIO, Bibliotheca Hispana Nova, I (Matriti, 1793), 311; SOTWEL, Bibliot. scrip. societ. (Rome, 1676, 1774); HURTER, Nomenclator, I (Innsbruck, 1892), no. 265; SOMMERVOGEL, Bibliotheque, VII (l896), col. 323; Memorial del Colegio de Cordoba, I, cap. viii, p. iv, n. ii; GUlLHERMY, Menologe: Espagne, I, 433.

ANTONIO PEREZ GOYENA

Rumania

A kingdom in the Balkan Peninsula, situated between the Black Sea, the Danube, the Carpathian Mountains, and the Pruth.

I. HISTORY

The modern Rumanians are generally regarded as the descendants of the Dacians, a branch of the ancient Thracians; they dwelt north of the Danube in the territory now known as Transylvania, and formed at the beginning of the Christian era a comparatively well-organized state. Under the rule of able princes (e.g. Decebalus) they frequently threatened the Roman civilization between the Adriatic Sea and the Danube. Trajan first succeeded after several campaigns (102-06) in bringing the country under the Roman dominion: the new Roman province received the name of Dacia, and embraced the modern Transylvania, Banat, and Rumania. To replace the Dacians, a portion of whom had emigrated northwards, Trajan introduced colonists into the land from every part of the Roman Empire, especially from the neighbouring Illyrian provinces; these settlers soon converted the Dacian territories wasted by the wars into one of the most flourishing Roman provinces, which was shortly known as "Dacia felix". From the fusion of the remaining Thracians and the Roman colonists, who possessed a higher culture, issued in the course of the third and fourth centuries the Daco-Rumanian people. As early as the second century began the assaults of the Germanic tribes on the Roman Empire. After several unsuccessful attempts, the Goths occupied the Dacian province in the third century, and in 271 Emperor Aurelian formally ceded the territory to them. In the fourth century the Goths were followed by the Huns, who in similar fashion brought the Romans and Goths into subjection after several campaigns. In the fifth century came the Gepidæ, and in the sixth the Avars, who occupied Dacia for two centuries. Under the dominion of the Avars the Slavs made their appearance, settling peacefully among the inhabitants; they have left many traces of their presence in the names of places and rivers. Gradually, however, they were absorbed and Romanized, so that the Latin character of the language was preserved. The influence of the Slavs was greater on the right bank of the Danube, where they overwhelmed the Thraco-Roman population by weight of numbers, and denationalized the Finnic Bulgars who settled in the country in the seventh century. In this way the Romanic population of the Balkan Peninsula was divided by the Slavs into two sections; the one withdrew northwards to the Carpathians, where people of kindred race had settled, while the other moved southwards to the valleys of the Pindus and the Balkan Mountains, where their descendants (the modern Aromuni or Macedo-Vlachs) still maintain themselves. In the history of the Southern Rumanians the erection of the Rumano-Bulgar Empire by the brothers, Peter, Jonita, and Asen at the end of the twelfth century is especially noteworthy; this empire became disintegrated in the middle of the thirteenth century on the extinction of the Asen dynasty (see BULGARIA). The Bulgar dominion over ancient Dacia exercised a decisive influence on the ecclesiastical development of the country. Christianity had been introduced — especially into the modern Dobrudja, where there was a strong garrison — by Roman colonists and soldiers, the Latin form and liturgy being employed. In Tomi (now Constanta) existed an episcopal see, nine occupants of which between the fourth and sixth centuries are known. During the dominion of the Bulgars the ancestors of the Rumanians with their lords came under the jurisdiction of the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople, and were thus drawn into the Greek Schism. Consequently, even to-day the vast majority of the inhabitants of Rumania belong to the Orthodox Church (see below). The immigration of the Bulgars was followed by the campaigns of the Magyars, who however made no permanent settlement in the land, choosing for settlement the plain between the Danube and the Theiss. At the beginning of the tenth century the country was subjected to the repeated attacks of the Peshenegs, and in the middle of the eleventh to those of the Cumans. During the migrations and invasions of various tribes, the population of the country was strongly impregnated with Slav and other elements, and only in the wooded hills of Northwestern Moldavia and Transylvania did the original Daco-Rumanian population remain pure and unmixed. After peace had been restored, the people descended from these remote retreats, and united with the inhabitants of the plains to form the Rumanian people.

During the tenth and eleventh centuries small principalities called Banats were formed in the territory of ancient Dacia; those which extended from Transylvania northwards and westwards to the valley of the Theiss came gradually under the sway of the Magyars, while those extending eastwards and southwards from the Carpathians maintained their independence. From the latter originated the principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia. By uniting the smaller districts on both sides of the River Olt, Voivode Bassarab (died 1340) founded toward the end of the thirteenth century the Grand Banat, Little Wallachia, and successful wars against Charles I, King of Hungary, and Robert of Anjou enabled him to preserve his independence and to extend his authority to the Danube and the Black Sea. A little later (about the middle of the fourteenth century) Bogdan, Voivode of Maramaros in Transylvania, who rebelled against the suzerainty of Hungary in 1360, founded the Principality of Moldavia by overrunning the Carpathians and reducing under his sway the hilly country along the River Moldau. Both these Rumanian principalities had to contend with great difficulties from their foundation: on the one hand their independence was threatened by the neighbouring kingdoms of Hungary and Poland, while on the other domestic quarrels and a want of unity between the kindred principalities lessened their strength. But their most dangerous enemy was the Turk, who extended his conquests into the Balkan Peninsula in the middle of the fourteenth century. In wars against the Turks and vain efforts to shake off the Turkish yoke, almost the whole activity of the two principalities was exhausted for several centuries. By their unflinching defence of their religion, the ancestors of the present Rumanians protected the culture and civilization of the Christian West from the onslaught of Islam, and thus played a rôle in universal history. Several of the princes who reigned during this heroic period of Rumanian history are especially conspicuous: Mircea the Old or the Great (1386-1418) and Radul the Great (1496-1508) in Wallachia, and Alexander the Good (1400-33) and Stephen the Great (1457-1504) in Moldavia. Mircea organized his dominions and extended his frontiers to the Black Sea by seizing Dobrudja and the town of Pilistria from the Bulgars in 1391. To repel the onsets of the Turks, he formed with King Sigismund of Hungary (afterward emperor) an offensive and defensive alliance in accordance with which he participated in the ill-fated battle near Nicopolis in 1396. In 1402 he had to recognize the suzerainty of Turkey, to vacate the right bank of the Danube, and to pay a yearly tribute, in return for which the Porte guaranteed the free election of the Wallachian princes and the independent internal administration of their territory. The immediate followers of Mircea were weak princes, and disputes concerning the succession postponed the casting off of the Turkish yoke. Radul the Great, son and successor of the ex-monk Vlad I who had been appointed prince by the Turks (1481), sought by reforms in the administration and in ecclesiastical matters to mitigate the general distress and to secure greater independence from Turkey.

For Moldavia the long reign of Alexander the Good (1401-32) was a time of prosperity: he organized the finances, the administration, and the army, drew up a code of laws after Byzantine models, and increased the culture of the people by founding schools and monasteries. Alexander had on three occasions to take the oath of fealty to the King of Poland; his sons had likewise to recognize the suzerainty of Poland, and his natural son, Peter (1455-57), had in addition to pay tribute to the Turks. After a period of almost uninterrupted wars for the princely dignity, Stephen the Great (1457-1504), a grandson of Alexander, inaugurated a period of peace and splendour for Moldavia. Thanks to his valiant and well-organized army, he succeeded not only in keeping his country independent of the Turks and Poland for nearly half a century, but also increased his territory by subduing a portion of Bessarabia, organized the Church, founded a new bishopric, and built several new churches and monasteries. Under him Moldavia reached its greatest power and extent. His son Bogdan III (1504-17), in view of the superior forces of the Turks, had to engage to pay a yearly tribute, in return for which Moldavia was (like Wallachia) allowed the maintenance of the Christian faith, the free election of its princes, and independent domestic administration. In spite of these treaties, a period of bondage began for both lands after the battle of Mohács, which had brought Turkey to the height of its power. The Turks created a military zone along the Danube and the Dniester, established Turkish garrisons in important places, and compelled the princes to do personal homage to the sultan in Constantinople every three years, to bring (in addition to the tribute) presents in token of their submission, to perform military service, to maintain a troop of janizaries in their retinue, and to give relatives as hostages for their fidelity. The sultans finally arrogated to themselves the right of appointing and removing at will the vaivodes of both principalities; the princes thus became mere blind tools of the Porte, were for the most part engaged in harrying each other, and in very many instances fell by the hands of assassins. Turkey abused its power to appoint new princes at short intervals; as the princes had usually to purchase the recognition of the Porte with large sums of money, they exacted from their subjects twice or three times the amounts thus paid. The chief portions of these extortions were wrung from the peasants, who were reduced by the large landowners and the nobles (the boyars) to the condition of serfs. The nobles also became demoralized, and wasted their strength in scheming to obtain the vaivodeship. Both principalities, however, occasionally enjoyed a brief period of prosperity. Thus, Michael the Brave of Wallachia (1593-1601) succeeded in casting off the Turkish yoke, defeating an army twenty times as numerous as his own in 1595. In 1599 he occupied Transylvania and in 1600 Moldavia, and thus formed an united Rumanian Kingdom which, however, again collapsed on his assassination in 1601. The reign of Matthias Bassarab (1632-54) was also beneficient for Wallachia; he protected his boundaries from the attacks of the Turks on the Danube, restrained the previously inordinate influence of the Greeks, founded in 1652 the first Rumanian printing establishment, and had a code of laws compiled after Greek and Slav models. His example was imitated by Vasili Lupu, Vaivode of Moldavia (1632-53), who in addition endeavoured by the foundation of schools and charitable institutions to promote the culture of the land. Thus, despite the oppressive political conditions of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, became possible the existence of a flourishing ecclesiastical literature and spiritual lyrical poetry, which kept alive the national consciousness of the people. At this period were laid the enduring foundations of Rumanian culture. Of great importance also was the circumstance that the Old Slavonic language then began to be replaced by the Rumanian both in public life and in the Church.

When, towards the end of the seventeenth and the beginning of the eighteenth century, the Turkish power was broken by the victories of Austria, the influence of Austria and Russia began to make itself felt in the affairs of the two Rumanian principalities. To rid themselves of the Turkish domination, the princes turned now to one power and now to the other, but were deceived by both. To oppose these attempts the Porte ceased to appoint native Rumanian nobles to the vaivodeship as previously, appointing Greeks — especially from the Fanar district in Constantinople, who were able to offer larger sums for their appointment than the boyars; the princely dignity was thus in the strictest sense of the word leased. For the Rumanian lands thus began the gloomiest period of their history, the period of the Fanariots, which lasted from 1712 to 1821. Foreign princes succeeded one another at the shortest intervals, taking possession of the country with a numerous retinue of wards, relatives, and creditors, and reducing it to greater and greater poverty. A great portion of the land was presented to Greek monasteries, and much of its income left the land and enriched Greek monasteries throughout the East (especially Mount Athos). Meanwhile the Porte arbitrarily raised the tribute to many times its former amount. Some Greek princes formed a glorious exception, and, by introducing reforms in favour of the peasants, rendered great services to both countries; especially notable in this respect were Nicholas and Constantine Mavrocordatus in Wallachia and Gregory Ghica in Moldavia. During the Fanariot dominion Rumania was frequently the scene of the wars waged by Turkey against Austria or against Russia. In 1718 the western portion fell to Austria, but in 1739 it was recovered by Turkey. After the Turco-Russian War of 1768-74 Russia wished to occupy the Rumanian principalities; Austria opposed this and, in return for this service, the Porte ceded to Austria Upper Moldavia (the present crownland of Bucovina). Moldavia had to bear the cost of the Russo-Turkish War of 1806-12, the eastern portion of the country between the Pruth and the Dniester (Bessarabia) being ceded by Turkey to Russia. Of the Moldavia of Stephen the Great only half now remained. When Vaivode Alexander Ypsilanti, a Fanariot, utilized the princely office to promote the rebellion of the Greeks against the Turkish rule, the Porte found itself compelled to cease appointing Greeks to the princely dignity, and to revert to the old practice of naming Rumanians. Russia now began to interest itself in the principalities, though only for interested reasons; by the Treaty of Akerman it obtained that only boyars should be appointed princes. A new war having broken out between Russia and Turkey in connexion with the Greek struggle for freedom, Russia occupied the two principalities after the Peace of Adrianople (1828); the Russian Count Kisselew, who governed the territories at the head of the Russian army of occupation, regulated anew the administration and the political organization of the countries. After the Russian occupation Russia appointed as princes for life, for I Moldavia Michael Sturdza (1834-49), and for Wallachia Alexander Ghica (1834-43), who was succeeded by another favourite of the tsar, George Bibescu.

The reforms introduced under the Russians subsequently prepared the way for the gradual economic development of the territories. However, this improvement benefited almost exclusively the boyars and the great landowners, while the people remained in their former pitiable condition. These circumstances, as well as the interference of Russia in the domestic affairs of the principalities, the spread of patriotic and liberal ideas, the desire for national unity, the curtailment of the privileges of the boyars, and free institutions, finally led (owing to the example given by the French Revolution of February) to an insurrection, which was successful only in Wallachia. On 21 June, 1848, George Bibescu was forced to abdicate, a new constitution was proclaimed, and a provisional government appointed. However, Russia and Turkey occupied the principalities in common, set aside the constitution, and restored the old conditions by the Convention of Balta-Limani (1 May, 1849); at the same time the election of princes for life and the national assembly were abolished. Barbu Stirbeiu, Bibsecu's brother, was named Prince of Wallachia, and Gregory Alexander Prince of Moldavia for a period of seven years. During the Crimean War both principalities were occupied first by Russia, and then (after 1854) by Austria. The Congress of Paris rearranged their relations, setting aside the Russian suzerainty and restoring that of Turkey. A commission of the great powers which had been sent to the principalities having learned the wishes of the Rumanian people, both were given autonomy to the extent of their ancient treaty with Turkey and a constitutional government by the Convention of Paris (1858); the further wishes of the people for the union of the two territories and the nomination of a prince from one of the ruling houses of Europe were not fulfilled, the two principalities being kept separate and each electing a prince for life. In 1859, however, a personal union was effected, Colonel Alexander John Cuza being elected for Moldavia on 17 January and for Wallachia on 24 January; the double election was ratified by the Porte after some hesitation. In 1861 Cuza established, instead of the separate ministries, a common ministry and a common representative assembly, and in 1862 the union of the principalities, henceforth known as Rumania, was proclaimed. Prince Cuza introduced a series of reforms; the most important were the secularization of the Greek monasteries, the law dealing with public instruction, the codification of the laws on the basis of the Napoleonic Code, and especially the land laws of 1864, by which the peasants were given free possession of the land and the remnants of serfdom, socage and tithes, were abolished. As the chamber, which was controlled by the boyars, was particularly opposed to the last measure, Cuza abolished the chamber in 1864 and gave the country a new constitution with two chambers. Notwithstanding all his services, Cuza brought the country into a financial crisis. A conspiracy was formed against him, in which the army participated; on the night of 22 February, 1866, he was seized by the conspirators and compelled to abdicate the following morning.

After Count Philip of Flanders, brother of King Leopold of Belgium, had refused the sovereignty, the Catholic prince, Charles of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, was elected hereditary prince at the instance of Napoleon III on 14 April, 1866. On 22 May he entered Bucharest, and after some months was recognized by the Porte, although Rumania had again to recognize its obligation to pay tribute. From the beginning of his reign Charles had great difficulties to overcome; the development of the country had been prevented by centuries of foreign occupation, commerce and manufacture were to a great extent in the hands of foreigners, the land was for the most part in the power of a few great landowners, while the mass of the population were poor and burdened with heavy taxation. Notwithstanding frequent rotation in power of the political parties, a series of reforms were passed, and the army, organized after the Prussian model, made creditably efficient. When the Russo-Turkish War broke out in 1878, Rumania made a treaty with the tsar, allowing the Russian troops to march through its territory, and on 22 May, 1877, declared its independence of the Porte. At the storming of Plevna and the besieging of other places the Rumanian army rendered very important services to Russia — services for which Russia showed no gratitude. The complete independence of Rumania was recognized by the Congress of Berlin (13 July, 1878), but it was compelled to cede to Russia Bessarabia, which it had acquired in 1856, and to content itself with the less important Dobrudja. In consequence of this disappointment Rumania has since favoured Germany and Austria in its foreign policy. On 26 March, 1881, Charles had himself crowned king. The new kingdom soon began to display a successful activity in both the material and intellectual domains. The natural richness of the land was developed, the building of roads and railways promoted, and the standard of public instruction raised. Between 1882 and 1885 the independence of the Orthodox Church in Rumania from the Patriarchate of Constantinople was effected, and in 1883 the Archdiocese of Bukarest was erected for the Catholics. Thanks to its intellectual and material development and its military strength, Rumania has become an important factor in European politics. Grievous conditions, however, still prevail in the country in one connexion — the distribution of the land and real property. Almost half of the landed interest (over 47 per cent) is vested in the hands of scarcely 4200 persons, so that Rumania out rivals Southern Italy as the land of big estates with all the resulting evils. As these great landowners possess political as well as economical power, and exercise it to the detriment of the peasants, a serious rising of the peasants broke out in 1907, and could be suppressed only with the aid of the army after the proclaiming of martial law. To abolish gradually these evil conditions and to protect the peasants from the oppression of the landowners and lessees and from usury, a series of excellent agrarian reforms have been introduced since 1907 and have been in many cases already enforced.

II. PRESENT CONDITION

The area of Rumania is 50,720 sq. miles; according to the census of 1899 the population was 5,956,690 (at the beginning of 1910 the estimated population was 6,865,800). In 1899 the population included: 5,451,787 Greek Orthodox (over 91.5 per cent), 149,677 Catholics (2.5 per cent), 22,749 Protestants, 15,094 Lippovans, 5787 Armenians, 266,652 Jews, 44,732 Mohammedans, 222 of other religions. According to nationality the population was as follows: 5,489,296 Rumanians, 108,285 Austrians and Hungarians, 23,756 Turks, 20,103 Greeks, 8841 Italians, 7964 Bulgarians, 7636 Germans, 5859 foreign Jews, 11,380 of other nationalities. According to the constitution of 19 June, 1866, Rumania is a constitutional monarchy, the legislative power being vested jointly in the king and parliament. The national assembly consists of two chambers, a senate and a house of representatives. To the senate belong the adult princes of the royal house, the eight bishops of the Orthodox Church, one representative of each of the two national universities, and 110 members elected by two electoral colleges; the house of representatives consists of 183 members elected by adult Rumanians paying taxes organized into 3 electoral colleges. The bills passed by Parliament receive the force of laws only when sanctioned by the king. While according to the constitution the Greek Orthodox is the State Church, liberty in the practice of their religion is granted to all the other Churches, and the State refrains from all interference in the election and appointment of the clergy of the various denominations. State support is given only to the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church of Rumania declared itself independent of the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1859, a declaration which was not recognized by the latter until 1885. The supreme ecclesiastical authority is the Holy Synod, consisting of the two metropolitans, the six bishops, and the eight titular archpriests of Rumania; its duties are to preserve the unity of the Rumanian with the Eastern Church in dogma and the canons, to maintain ecclesiastical discipline within the territory of Rumania, and to decide all purely ecclesiastical spiritual and legal questions according to the holy canons. The choice of bishops is vested in an electoral body composed of the eight bishops, the titular archpriests, and all the Orthodox representatives and senators; the election is by secret ballot. For ecclesiastical administration the country is divided into eight eparchies (dioceses), of which the eparchies Ungro-Wallachia, with its seat at Bukarest, and Moldau, and Sucea, with its seat at Jassy, are metropolitan. The Primate of Rumania is the Metropolitan of Bukarest. For the Catholics of Rumania have been erected the Archdiocese of Bukarest and the Diocese of Jassy. The ancient Catholic Church of Rumania disappeared when the people, influenced by the Bulgars, placed themselves under the jurisdiction of the Greek Church in the ninth century and thus became involved in its schism.

The seed of the modern Catholic Church in Rumania developed in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries in consequence of the immigration of the Hungarians and Poles, and various Catholic dioceses were founded in the Middle Ages. However, the mass of the population was never won over to reunion with Rome, and the dioceses soon vanished. In 1211 King Andreas II presented to the Teutonic Order the land about Kronstadt in Transylvania, but he withdrew his donation in 1225 and entered into personal possession of the territory. Numerous Hungarians and Germans had meanwhile settled in the plain of the Danube, then occupied mostly by the pagan Cumans, and the majority of the latter were won for Christianity. For these converted Cumans the Archbishop of Gran erected the "Diocese of the Cumans", which included not only the modern Rumania, but also Bessarabia and a portion of Transylvania. Theodorich, a Dominican, was the first occupant of the see, and fixed his seat at Milcov. In 1241, however, the diocese was ravaged by the Tatars; the title alone was retained, being given to Hungarian vicars-general (even to ordinary parish priests) until 1523. To replace this see a Catholic bishopric was established in 1246 at Severin, a town on the Danube near the Hungarian frontier which had been taken from the Bulgar-Rumanian Empire of the Asens by King Andreas II in 1230 and presented to the Knights of Malta in 1247. The first bishops, Gregory (about 1246) and another Gregory (about 1382), were actual bishops, but the remaining ten occupants of the see (mentioned until 1502) were merely titular bishops, who lived mostly in Hungary. A third Catholic diocese was founded at Sereth. When the Eastern emperor, John Palæologus the Elder, made his submission to Rome in 1369, Latzco, the Rumanian Prince of Moldavia, followed his example, and asked Pope Urban V to erect a diocese at Sereth (1370). The first bishop was the Conventual, Nicholas Andrea Wassilo; he became Administrator of Halicz in 1373, and Bishop of Wilna in 1388. As the next two bishops were also coadjutors of Cracow, this see was reduced to the rank of a titular see. In consequence of the efforts for reunion of Urban V, who wished to restore the old Diocese of Milcov, another Catholic diocese was founded at Arges in 1381, and the Dominican Nicholas Antonii appointed its first incumbent. Of his sixteen successors, known until 1664, all lived outside the diocese, the title of which they added to their other titles. A fifth diocese was founded at Baja, the oldest town in Moldavia. The names of seven bishops who lived before 1523 are known; in the sixteenth century the population almost unanimously embraced Protestantism. The foundation of the Diocese of Bacau (1G07), whose occupants resided in Poland, did as little to strengthen the Catholic Church.

As the bishops of these dioceses resided almost exclusively outside their sees, the ministration to the Catholics, whose number was never very great, was undertaken by the religious orders — especially the Franciscans and Dominicans, who founded many monasteries in the territory of the present Rumania. During the time of the Reformation most of the Catholics joined either the Greek schismatics or the Protestants. The spiritual care of the few who remained faithful was undertaken by the Conventuals from Constantinople; to these friars is due the maintenance of the Catholic faith in Rumania, and the erection of a church in Bukarest (1633). When, at the beginning of the seventeenth century, an episcopal see was established at Sofia, its first occupant, Petrus a Solis (1610), was named Administrator Apostolic of Wallachia — an office also fulfilled by his successors. The most famous of these administrators was Petrus Deodatus Baksich (1641-74; from 1642 archbishop), whose report of his canonical visitation is preserved in the Archives of the Propaganda. As most of the bishops of Sofia were chosen from the Franciscan Observants, these friars gradually replaced the Conventuals as missionaries. In similar fashion the bishops of the Diocese of Marcianopolis (erected in 1643) were appointed administrators Apostolic for the Catholics of Moldavia, and the bishops of Nicopolis (1648) for the Catholics of Dobrudja. When, subsequently to 1715, the See of Sofia was left vacant, the administration of Wallachia was transferred to the Bishop of Nicopolis. During the plague of 1792-3 Bishop Paulus Dovanlia of Nicopolis (1777-1804) transferred the seat of his diocese to the Franciscan monastery in Bukarest; since then the bishops of Nicopolis have resided in Bukarest, or at Ciople in the neighbourhood. Dovanlia's successors have been chosen mostly from the Passionists, who came to Bukarest in 1781. The first was Francis Ferrari, who died of the plague in 1813. His successor, Fortunatus Ercolani (1815), became involved in a quarrel with his flock in consequence of his attitude towards the Franciscans, who had won the affection of the people, and was transferred to Cività Castellana in 1822. The next bishops were Josephus Molajoni (1822-47) and Angelo Parsi (1852-63); the latter built a new church and episcopal residence at Bukarest and introduced the Brothers of the Christian Schools and religious orders of women into the country. Parsi's successor, Joseph Pluym, became Patriarchal Vicar of Constantinople in 1869. The number of Catholics so greatly increased in the nineteenth century, owing mainly to immigration from Austria and Hungary, that a reorganization of the Catholic Church in Rumania became necessary. This was done in 1883: the territory of Rumania was separated ecclesiastically from the Diocese of Nicopolis, Bishop Ignatius Paoli (1870-85) was named Archbishop of Bukarest in 1883, and the exempt Diocese of Jassy simultaneously re-erected. (Concerning the further history and ecclesiastical statistics, see BUKAREST and JASSY.)

ABT, Die katholische Kirche in Rumanien (Würzburg, 1879); SAMUELSON, Rumania, past and present (London, 1882); RUDOW, Gesch. des rumän. Schrifttums (Wernigerode, 1892); DE MARTONNE, La Roumanie (Paris, 1900); BENGER, tr. KEANE, Rumania in 1900 (London, 1901); NETZHAMMER, Aus Rumänien (Einsiedeln, 1909); STURDZA, La terre et la race Roumaines depuis leurs origines jusqu'à nos jours (Paris, 1904); ONCIUL, Din Istoria Romanici (Bukarest, 1906); BELLESSORT, La Roumanie contemporaine (Paris, 1907); XENOPOL, Les Roumains (Paris, 1909); FORGA, Istoria biscricii Românesti (2 vols., Bukarest, 1905-09); CREANGA, Grundbesetz verteilung u. Bauernfrage in Rumänien (3 vols., Leipzig, 1907-09); LE POINTE, La Roumaine moderne (Paris, 1910); FISCHER, Die Kulturarbeit des Deutschtums in Rumanien (Hermannstadt, 1911).

JOSEPH LINS.

Karl Friedrich Rumohr

Art historian, b. at Dresden, 1785; d. there, 1843. He became a Catholic in 1804. He was blessed not only with worldly possessions, but also with a practically unquenchable thirst for knowledge, and especially with a keen sense of form and beauty, which fitted him for the critical treatment of art and social relations. Italy was frequently visited by him, and he was fond of varying life in the large cities with the stillness and loneliness of the country. Exercising a magnificent hospitality, he himself was in many places, despite his very irritable temperament, a welcome guest—even with King William IV of Prussia and Christian VIII of Denmark. In his "Italienische Forschungen" (3 vols., 182-31), he treated in masterly fashion the Umbrian-Tuscan School of painting, and prepared the way for a critical conception of art history in Italy. His residence in Italy also gave rise to interesting works on the rural condition of Central and Upper Italy. His "Drei Reisen nach Italien" appeared as a special work. As the result of searching study he wrote "Hans Holbein der Jungere in seinem Verhältnis zum deutschen Formschnittwesen", "Zur Geschichte und Theorie der Formschneidekunst", and "Geschichte der königlichen Kupferstichsammlung zu Kopenhagen". His "Novellen" ae unimportant, his "Deutsche Denkwürdigkeiten" (4 vols.), of little interest; his "Hunde-Füchsestreit" (Kynalopekomachie) and "Schule der Höflichkeit" are written in a humorous vein. The "Geist der Kochkunst" also extended his fame and popularity. King Christian VIII built a monument in his honour.

Biography by SCHULZ (Leipzig, 1844); POEL in Allg. Deutsche Biogr., XXIX.

G. GIETMANN

St. Rupert

(Alternative forms, RUPRECHT, Hrodperht, Hrodpreht, Roudbertus, Rudbertus, Robert, Ruprecht).

First Bishop of Salzburg, contemporary of Childebert III, king of the Franks (695-711), date of birth unknown; d. at Salzburg, Easter Sunday, 27 March, 718. According to an old tradition, he was a scion of the Frankish Merovingian family. The assumption of 660 as the year of his birth is merely legendary. According to the oldest short biographical notices in the "Mon. Germ. Script.", XI, 1-15, Rupert was noted for simplicity, prudence, and the fear of God; he was a lover of truth in his discourse, upright in opinion, cautious in counsel, energetic in action, far-seeing in his charity, and in all his conduct a glorious model of rectitude. While he was Bishop of Worms, the fame of his learning and piety drew many from far and wide. The report of the bishop's ability reached Duke Theodo II of Bavaria, who had placed himself at the head of the current ecclesiastical movement in Bavaria. Theodo sent Rupert messengers with the request that, he should come to Bavaria to revive, confirm, and propagate the spirit of Christianity there. Despite the work of early missionaries, Bavaria was only superficially Christian; its very Christianity was indeed to some extent Arian, while heathen customs and views were most closely interwoven with the external Christianity which it had retained. St. Rupert acceded to Theodo's request, after he had by messengers made himself familiar with the land and people of Bavaria. St. Rupert was received with great honour and ceremony by Theodo in the old residential town of Ratisbon (696). He entered immediately upon his apostolic labours, which extended from the territory of the Danube to the borders of Lower Pannonia, and upon his missionary journey came to Lorch. Thence he travelled to the lonely shores of the Wallersee, where he built a church in honour of Saint Peter, thereby laying the foundation of the present market-town of Seekirchen in the Newmarket district of Salzburg. From the Roman colony there Rupert obtained an account of the ancient Roman town of Juvavum, upon the site of which there still remained many more or less dilapidated buildings, overgrown with briars and brushwood.

Having personally verified the accuracy of this account concerning the place and position, Rupert requested Theodo, in the interests of his apostolic mission to the country, to give him the territory of Juvavum (which was still a place of considerable commerce) for the erection of a monastery and an episcopal see. The duke granted this petition, bequeathing the territory of Juvavum (the modern Salzburg), two square miles in area, to St. Rupert and his successors. At the foot of the precipice of the Monchberg, where once St. Maximus, a disciple of St. Severin, had suffered martyrdom with his companions (476), St. Rupert erected the first church in Salzburg, the Church of St. Peter, in honour of the Prince of the Apostles, as well as a monastery. Upon the lofty prominences (Nonnberg) to the southeast of the town, where the old Roman fortress once towered, he established a convent of nuns which, like the monastery of the Mönchberg, he placed under the protection and Rule of St. Benedict. To set his institutions upon a solid basis, Rupert repaired home, and returned with twelve companions besides his niece Ehrentraud (Erindruda), whom he made abbess over the Benedictine Convent of Nonnberg, while he with his twelve companions formed the first congregation of the famous Benedictine Monastery of St. Peter at Salzburg, which remains to the present day. St. Rupert thenceforth devoted himself entirely to the work of salvation and conversion which he had already begun, founding in connection therewith manny churches and monasteries—e.g., Maxglan, near Salzburg, Maximilianszelle (now Bischofshofen in Pongau), Altotting, and others. After a life of extraordinarily successful activity, he died at Salzburg, aided by the prayers of his brethren in the order; his body reposed in the St. Peterskirche until 24 Sept., 774, when his disciple and successor, Abbot-Bishop St. Virgil, had a portion of his remains removed to the cathedral. On 24 Sept., 1628, these relics were interred by Archbishop Paris von Ladron (1619-54) under the high altar of the new cathedral. Since then the town and district of Salzburg solemnize the feast of St. Rupert, Apostle of Bavaria and Carlnthia, on 24 September.

In Christian art St. Rupert is portrayed with a vessel of salt in his hand, symbolizing the universal tradition according to which Rupert inaugurated salt-mining at Salzburg; this portrayal of St. Rupert is generally found upon the coins of the Duchy of Salzburg and Carinthia. St. Rupert is also represented baptizing Duke Theodo; this scene has no historical foundation. St. Rupert was the first Abbot-Bishop of Salzburg, for, as he established his foundations after the manner of the Irish monks, he combined in his own person the dignities of abbot and bishop. A similar combination of dignities existed also in Ratisbon and Freising. This twofold character of the bishop continued in Salzburg for nearly 300 years until the separation of the dignities was effected in 987 by Archbishop Friedrich I of Salzburg, Count of Chiemgau, the twenty-first Abbot of the Monastery of St. Peter. The period of St. Rupert's activity was until very lately a matter of great discussion. Formerly the opinion was held that the end of the fifth and beginning of the sixth centuries was the age of his missionary work, but, according to the most exhaustive and reliable investigations, the late seventh and early eighth centuries formed the period of his activity. This fact is established especially by the "Breves notitiae Salzburgenses", a catalogue of the donations made to the Church of Salzburg, with notices from the ninth century. In these latter Bishop St. Virgil, whose ministry is referred to 745-84, appears as a direct disciple of St. Rupert. It is forthwith evident that the assumption of the end of the sixth and beginning of the seventh centuries as the period of Rupert's activity is extremely doubtful, even apart from the fact that this view also involves the rejection of the catalogue of the bishops of Salzburg and of Easter Sunday as the day of Rupert's death. Many churches and places bearing Rupert's name, serve as surviving memorials of his missionary activity. A successor of St. Rupert, the present scholarly Abbot of St. Peters in Salzburg, Willibald Hauthaler, has written an interesting work upon this subject entitled "Die dem hl. Rupertus Apostel von Bayern geweihten Kirchen und Kapellen" (with map, Salzburg, 1885).

ULRICH SCHMID

Rusaddir

A titular see of Mauritania Tingitana. Rusaddir is a Phoenician settlement whose name signifies a lofty cape. This city is mentioned by Ptolemy (IV, 1) and Pliny (V, 18) who call it "oppidum et portus", also by Mela (I, 33), under the corrupted form Rusicada and by the "Itinerarium Antonini". During the Middle Ages it was the Berber city of Mlila; it is now known as Melilla. In 1497 it fell into the hands of the Duke of Medina Sidonia, and in 1506 was returned to the Crown of Spain. Since then its history is a succession of famines and sieges of which the most renowned is that of 1774 and the most recent that of 1893. In 1909 it was the seat of the warfare carried on between Spain and the Rif tribes. Melilla is, after Ceuta, the most important of the Spanish fortresses or presidios on the African coast. It has about 9000 inhabitants, and is built in the form of an amphitheatre on the east slope of a steep rock 1640 feet high, bounded by abrupt cliffs, whereon is the Fort of Rosario. A free port since 1881, Melilla carries on an active commerce with the Rif. There is no record of any bishop of this see.

SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman geogr. s. v.; MULLER, Notes on Ptolemy, ed. DIDOT, I, 583; MEAKIN, The Land of the Moor (London, 1901); BARRE, Melilla et les presides espagnols in Revue francaise (1908).

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Rusicade

A titular see of Numidia. It is mentioned by Ptolemy (IV, 3), Mela (I, 33), Pliny (V, 22), "Itinerarium Antonini", the "Tabula Peutingerii'; etc. Nothing is known of its history. Situated near the mouth of the Thapsus, it served as the commercial port of Cirta and exported grain to Rome. The port was called Stora or Ustura, where under Valentinian and Valens granaries were built whose ruins are still visible. The city was known as Colonia Veneria Rusicada. It was a total ruin when rebuilt by the French as Philippeville. Philippeville is the capital of the province of the Department of Constantine (Algeria); it has 21,550 inhabitants of whom 8200 are French, 5900 foreigners, mostly Italians and Maltese, 450 Jews, and 7000 Arabs. The ancient name survives in Ras Skidda, a point of the Djebel Addouna from which juts forth the great pier. The commerce is considerable. Ruins of a theatre, museum, Christian sarcophagus, Christian inscriptions, and the remains of a basilica dedicated to Saint Digna may be found there. Six bishops of Rusicade are known: Verulus, present at the Council of Carthage (255), perhaps the martyr in the martyrology, 21 February; Victor, condemned at the Council of Cirta (305) as a traitor or betrayer of the Scriptures; Navigius whose remains and epitaph have been recovered in the church which he erected to Saint Digna in the fourth century; Faustinianus, present at the Conference of Carthage (411) with his Donatist rival, Junior; Quintilianus (?) in 425; Eusebius, exiled by Huneric in 484.

SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman geogr., s. v., MULLEN, Notes on Ptolemy, ed. DIDOT, I, 614; TOULOTTE, Geographie de l'Afrique chretienne: Numidie (Rennes and Paris, 1894), 258-63.

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Ruspe

Titular see of Byzacena in Africa, mentioned only by Ptolemy (IV, 3) and the "Tabula" Peutinger. According to the first it was on the coast between Acholla (Kasr el Abiah) and Usilla (Henshir Inshilla); the "Tabula", or map of Peutinger, states that it was six (doubtless twenty-six) miles from the latter place. It is identified with the ruins called Ksour Siad, seventeen miles from Acholla. Others believe it to be at Henshir Sbia, four miles west of Cape Kapoudia (north of the Gulf of Gabes, Tunisia), its name being preserved at Koudiat Rosfa near Ras el Louza. It seems more probable that Koudiat Rospa is itself the ancient Ruspe. Four bishops of the see are known: Stephanus, exiled by King Huneric (484); St. Fulgentius, consecrated in 508, died in 533; Felicianus, his companion in exile and successor, who assisted at the Council of Carthage (about 534); Julianus, who signed in 641 the Anti-Monothelite letter of the bishops of Byzancena to the Emperor Constantine.

SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman geogr., s. v.; MULLER, Notes on Ptolemy, ed. DIDOT, I, 622; TOULOTTE, Geographie de l'Afrique chretienne: Byzacene et Tripolitaine (Montreuil, 1894), 164-6.

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Charles Russell

(BARON RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN).

Born at Newry, Ireland, 10 November, 1832; died in London, 10 August, 1900. He was the elder son of Arthur Russell of Killowen and Margaret Mullin of Belfast. The family was in moderate circumstances, their ancestors having suffered much for the Faith in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Arthur Russell having died in 1845, the care of his large family devolved upon their talented mother and their paternal uncle, the celebrated Dr. Russell of Maynooth. Having studied at the diocesan seminary, Belfast, at a private school in Newry, and St. Vincent's College, Castleknock, Dublin, Charles Russell entered the law offices of Mr. Denvir, Newry, in 1849, and of Mr. O'Rorke, Belfast, in 1852. Admitted a solicitor in 1854, he practiced in the county courts of Down and Antrim, and became at once the champion of the Catholics who had resisted organized attempts at proselytizing by Protestants in these counties. His success was so striking that his legal friends urged him to become a barrister in London, and in 1856 he entered at Lincoln's Inn. Having followed an extensive course by close private study under the direction of Maine, Broom, and Birkbeck, he was called to the bar in 1859. His success on the northern circuit soon recalled him to London, where he became "Queen's Counsel" in 1872, and divided the mercantile business of the circuit with Lord Herschell. The increasing demand for his services may be judged by his fees which averaged $15,000 a year from 1862-72, $50,000 in the next decade, $80,000 in the third, and in 1893-4, his last year of practice, reached $150,000. His knowledge of law, business, and human character, a flexible and often passionate eloquence which derived its force from intense earnestness rather than oratorical device, marvelous dexterity in extracting the truth from witnesses, and a manifest honesty of purpose gave him a power over judge and jury which made him universally regarded as the first advocate of his age.

Though in his first years in London he had been weekly correspondent of the Dublin "Nation", an advanced Nationalist organ, he entered Parliament as a Liberal being elected, after two defeats, member for Dundalk in 1880. He generally acted with the Nationalists on Irish, and always on Catholic, questions, and, when he visited the United States in 1883, bore a flattering introduction from Mr. Parnell. Elected member for South Hackney (1885-94), he was appointed attorney-general by Mr. Gladstone in 1886, and again in 1892 on the return of the Liberals to power. He was a strenuous advocate of Home Rule in Parliament and on public platforms, and was leading advocate for Mr. Parnell at the Parnell Commission trial in 1888. His cross-examination of the witnesses of the "Times", and especially his exposure of Pigott, the author of the "Times" forgeries, made a favorable verdict inevitable. His famous eight-day speech for the defense was his greatest forensic effort. In 1893 he represented Great Britain in the Behring Sea Arbitration, his speech against the United States' contentions lasting eleven days, and was knighted for his services. Made Lord of Appeal, 1894, he was raised to the peerage for life, taking his title from his native townland of Killowen. In the same year he was appointed Lord Chief Justice of England, the first Catholic to attain that office for centuries. He won speedily the public confidence and is ranked with the most illustrious of his predecessors. He revisited the United States in 1896 as the guest of the American Bar Association and delivered a notable address on arbitration. In 1899 he represented England on the Venezuelan Boundaries Commission, and displayed all his old power of separating vital points from obscuring details. The following year he was attacked while on circit by an internal malady, and, after a few weeks illness, died piously in London, after receiving the sacraments of the Catholic Church, of which he had been always a faithful and devoted member. He was survived by his widow (Ellen, daughter of Dr. Mulholland of Belfast), whom he married in 1858, and by five sons and four daughters.

The unanimous tribute paid him by the English and American Bar and by the people and journals of the most diverse political and religious views attested that, despite his masterful character as lawyer, judge, and parliamentarian, and his stalwart loyalty to his Faith and country, he had attained a rare and widespread popularity. In him were blended many qualities not usually found together. With a keen and orderly mind, a resolute will, great capacity for work, and severe official dignity, he combined sensibility of temperament, a spirit of helpfulness and comradeship, and a dreamer's devotion to ideals. He was always ready to write and speak for educational, religious, and benevolent purposes, though such action was not calculated to forward his political ambitions. Devoted to his family, he crossed the continent on his first American trip to visit Mother Mary Baptist Russell of San Francisco (who, with two others of his sisters, had entered the Order of Mercy), and found time to write for his children and send them day by day an admirable account of his experiences. This "Diary of a Visit to the United States" has been since edited by his brother, Rev. Matthew Russell, S.J., and published (1910) by the U.S. Catholic Historical Society. His other published works include: "New Views of Ireland" (London, 1880); "The Christian Schools of England and Recent Legislation" (1883); his speech before the Parnell Commission (1888); essay on Lord Coleridge in the "North American Review" (1894), and on the legal profession in the "Strand Magazine" (1896); "Arbitration, its Origin, History, and Prospects" (London, 1896).

BARRY O'BRIEN, Life (London, 1901); personal recollections in The Times (London, 11 Aug., 1900), and files of the daily press; Irish Monthly and other magazines (Sept. and Oct., 1900); Reports of American Bar Association (31 Aug., 1900), and of the unveiling of the Lord Russell Statue (London, Jan.,1905); FOSTER, Men at the Bar; Lincoln's Inn Reg.; Burke's Peerage (1900), COKAYNE, Complete Peerage (1900).

M. KENNY

Charles William Russell

Born at Killough, Co. Down, 14 May, 1812; died at Dublin 26 Feb., 1880. He was descended from the Russells who held the barony of Killough of Quoniamstown and Ballystrew. He received his early education at Drogheda grammar school and Downpatrick, after which he entered Maynooth in 1826. After a brilliant course he was ordained on 13 June, 1835, and became one of the professors of humanities at the college. In 1842 he was chosen by Gregory XVI to be the first Vicar Apostolic of Ceylon, but he refused the dignity as also the Bishopric of Down and the Archbishopric of Armagh. Three years later he returned to Maynooth as professor of ecclesiastical history. Having published his translation of Leibnitz's "System of Theology" in 1850, he was occupied on his "Life of Cardinal Mezzofanti" which appeared in 1858. In 1857 he succeeded Dr. Renehan as President of Maynooth. His profound antiquarian learning caused him to be appointed a member of the Historical Manuscripts Commission in 1869, and in that capacity he acted as joint editor (with John Prendergast) of the eight-volume "Report on the Carte Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library" (1871) and the "Calendar of Irish State Papers during the reign of James I" (4 vols., 1872-77). He was also a frequent contributor to the "Dublin Review" which for thirty years he enriched by various papers, often writing more than one for the same number. The last of these were the two masterly articles on the sonnet (1876-77). He wrote many articles for "Chambers's Encyclopedia", and two—"Palimpsests" and "Papyrus"—for the "Encyclopedia Britannica". He contributed also to many other magazines such as the "Edinburgh Review", the "Month", and "Irish Monthly". A humbler but very popular work has been his translation of Canon Schmid's " Tales for the Young" first published in 1846. Besides his literary work and all that he accomplished for Maynooth, he exercised a very powerful influence on the leading men of his age by the charm and force of his personality. Wiseman and Newman alike counted him as an intimate friend, and the latter wrote of him: "He had perhaps more to do with my conversion than any one else". Dr. Russell lived to witness the early success of his nephew Charles who subsequently became Lord Chief Justice of England.

HEALY, Centenary History of Maynooth College (Dublin, 1895); CARLYLE in Dict. Nat. Biog,; WARD, Life and Times of Cardinal Wiseman (London, 1897).

EDWIN BURTON

Richard Russell

Bishop of Vizéu in Portugal, b. in Berkshire, 1630; d. at Vizéu, 15 Nov., 1693. He was of humble station, and when twelve years old became servant to Dr. Edward Daniel, newly appointed President of Lisbon College. Five years later, having meanwhile applied his leisure to study, he was admitted an alumnus of the college and took the oath, 14 Aug, 1647. In 1653 he went to Douai College, and thence to Paris, where he was ordained. In 1655 he returned to Lisbon as procurator, but two years later was summoned by the Chapter to England, where he spent three years as a chaplain to the Portuguese ambassador. On his return to Portugal he received the title of Secretary to the Queen, and a pension, in consideration of his services to the crown of Portugal. Shortly afterwards he was again in England on business connected with the marriage treaty of Charles II and Catharine of Braganza, and on this occasion he was elected a Canon of the English Chapter (26 June, 1661). Having declined the Bishopric of the Cape Verde Islands, Russell accompanied the Infanta to England. The English Chapter hoped that he might be consecrated bishop of a Portuguese see and that then he would return to England, resign his diocese and become head of the English clergy with episcopal powers; for the English Catholics had long been without a resident bishop, and they had had no episcopal superior at all since the death of Bishop Smith in 1655. This plan, however, came to nothing, and when Russell was persuaded to accept the see of Portalegre in 1671 he decided to remain in his diocese. He was consecrated bishop in the chapel of the English College, Lisbon, on 27 Sept., 1671. Overcoming the first opposition of his clergy to a foreign bishop, he spent ten years in zealous and apostolic labor and effected a complete reformation of the diocese. In 1682 he was transferred to the diocese of Vizéu where he spent the last eleven years of his life. His portrait is preserved at the English College, Lisbon.

KIRK IN CROFT, Historical Account of Lisbon College (London 1902), with portrait; DODD, Church History, III (Brussels vere Wolverhampton, 1737-42); SERJEANT, Account of the Chapter (London, 1853); BRADY, Episcopal Succession, III (Rome, 1877); GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s. v. Russell, Richard Fifth Douay Diary in Catholic Record Society, X (London, 1911).

EDWIN BURTON

Russia

GEOGRAPHY

Russia (Rossiiskaia Imperiia; Russkoe Gosudarstvo) comprises the greater part of Eastern Europe, and a third of Asia; its area is one-sixth of the land surface of the globe. In the reign of Alexander II the total area of the empire was 8,689,945 sq. miles, of which only 2,156,000 were in Europe. The greatest length of Russia from east to west is 6666 miles, and its greatest breadth is 2666 miles; it lies between 35º 45' and 79º N. lat., and 17º 40' and 191º E. long. (i. e., 169 W. long.). The boundaries of Russia are: on the north, the Arctic Ocean; on the west, Sweden, Norway, the Baltic Sea, Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Rumania; on the south, the Black Sea, Turkey, Persia, the Caspian Sea; Afghanistan, and China; on the east, the Pacific Ocean. Russia forms a vast, compact territory, the area of its islands being only 107,262 sq. miles, which was greatly reduced by the cession of the southern part of Sakhalin to Japan. Geographers usually divide Russia into European and Asiatic Russia, regarding the natural boundary to be the Ural Mountains, the Ural River, the Don, and the Volga; this division is based neither on natural nor on political grounds. The Ural Mountains form a chain of wooded highlands, which may be compared to the central axis of the empire rather than to a dividing barrier; moreover there is no natural boundary line between the southern extremity of these mountains and the Caspian Sea. The division between European and Asiatic Russia can best be established ethnologically, and this method is frequently used in Russian geographies.

SEAS

The coasts of Russia are washed by many seas; the Arctic Ocean, the White Sea, the Bay of Tcheskaya, the Bay of Kara, the Gulf of Obi, the Baltic Sea, the Gulfs of Bothnia, Finland, and Riga, the Black Sea, the Sea of Azof, the Caspian Sea, the Pacific Ocean, Behring Sea, the Sea of Okhotsk, and the Sea of Japan. But Russia is not destined to become a great maritime power, because for the most part the seas of Russia are in regions where navigation is impossible in winter; for periods of six months in the Arctic Ocean, and from fifteen days to one month at some points in the Black Sea. And the future of Russia as a maritime power is moreover obstructed by political difficulties; the way from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean is closed by the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles; the way from the Baltic to the Atlantic is closed by Sweden, Germany, Norway, and Denmark. The Arctic Ocean washes the extreme northern coasts of Russia, sterile, uninhabited regions, over which there hangs a winter of nine months, paralyzing the activities of life. The ice, whether fixed or floating, blocks the way of ships; these ply however in the White Sea, which is free of ice for three months of the year, and the waters of which form the Gulfs of Mezen, the Dwina, Onega, and Kandalak, the latter being the most frequented. There are but few islands in this immense extent of ice; the more important ones are the islands of Kolguet, Vaigatch, Nova Zembla, New Siberia, and the islands of Solovka, on one of which is a famous monastery founded in the fifteenth century by St. Sabbatius and the Blessed Germanus. Among the most important peninsulas may be cited that of Kola or Russian Lapland. Russia shares the possession of the Baltic Sea with Sweden, Germany, and Denmark, and its waters have been the highway of Russian commerce since the time of Peter the Great, although their shores are rugged and reefs numerous. The Gulfs of Bothnia, Finland and Riga are frozen for several months of the year, while the Gulf of Livadia is frozen for six weeks, although it sometimes remains free of ice through the whole year. Notwithstanding these natural obstacles, Russian commerce has been developed on the Baltic, the shortest route for the exportation of Russian products to European countries and America. The Baltic Sea is studded with islands, of which the following belong to Russia: the numerous Aland group, eighty of which are inhabited; the Islands of Dago, Oesel, Mohn, Wornes, and Kotlin; on the last is built the formidable fortress of Kronstadt.

CLIMATE

In European Russia the climate is severe, both in winter and summer, the rains are scanty, and the temperature is not as mild as in Western Europe. The coasts of the Baltic and the shores of the Vistula have a climate similar to that of Western Europe. European Russia presents graduated variations of climate between 40º and 70º N. lat., and also from east to west. At Nova Zembla the lowest winter temperature is 16º F., while at the south of the Crimea it rises to 56.3º in summer. The isothermal lines of European Russia are not coincident with the parallels of latitude, but diverge towards the southeast. There are places situated on the same parallel presenting considerable differences in mean temperature, e. g. Libau, 49.1º; Moscow, 39.2º; Kazan, 37.4º; Yekaterinburg, 32.9º. In the valley of the Rion in the Caucasus, cotton and sugar-cane are grown, while the tundras of the Kola Peninsula are sparsely covered with moss. In Western Russia, the cold of winter is never greater than 31º below zero, while the heat of summer is never in excess of 86º; but in Eastern Russia the thermometer falls to 40º below zero in winter, and rises to 109º in summer. European Russia may be divided into four climatic zones: the cold zone, which includes the coasts of the Arctic Ocean and their adjacent islands, and extends beyond the Arctic Circle; its winter lasts nine months, and its summer three; the cold-temperate zone, from the Arctic Circle to 61º N. lat.; its winter Lasts six months, and each of the other seasons two months; the temperate zone, extending from 61º to 48º N. lat.; each season lasts three months, the winter being longer towards the north, and summer longer towards the south; the warm zone, between 48º N. lat. and the southern frontier of Russia; the summer lasts six months, and the other three seasons two months each. European Russia is not unhealthy, although in the cold zone scurvy is frequent, and near the Gulf of Finland ailments of the throat and the respiratory organs; plica polonica infects the marshy regions of Lithuania and Russian Poland; and there is the so-called Crimean fever in the neighbourhood of the Sivash and in a region on the coast of the Black Sea.

The climate of the Caucasus is not of a uniform character; it belongs in the north to the cold-temperate zone, and in Transcaucasia to the warm zone. In the north, summer lasts six months, and the other seasons two months each. In Transcaucasia the summer lasts nine months, and the other three months of the year are like spring. Nevertheless the irregularity of the mountain system of the Caucasus produces differences of temperature in places separated by short distances. On the coast of the Black Sea between Batum and Sukhum, the temperature seldom falls below 32º; in January the temperature rises as high as 43º. Western Transcaucasia receives warm and humid winds, while the eastern part is exposed to dry winds from the north-east.

The part of Siberia that borders on the Arctic Ocean lies entirely within the cold zone; the winter lasts nine months, and the summer is like the beginning of spring in European Russia. The portion of Siberia between the Arctic Circle and 60º N. lat. has a winter that lasts six months; the region below the parallel of 60º N. lat. has a winter a little longer than the summer. In proportion to the distance from the Ural Mountains the climate of Western Siberia experiences greater extremes of temperature, the winter and the heat of summer becoming more severe; and the same is true of Eastern Siberia in relation to the Pacific Ocean. The greatest variations of temperature in Eastern Siberia are observed at Irkutsk, Yakutsk, and Verkhoyansk, where the thermometer registers at times 59.6º below zero in winter, and 49.46º in summer. In midwinter the northern extremity of Siberia resembles the polar regions; during several days the sun does not rise, and the vast plain of snow is lit up by the Aurora Borealis, while at times the region of the tundras is swept by violent snowstorms. The climate of Turkestan is similar to Siberia. Those regions are far from the sea, and have cold winters and very warm summers, a sky that is always clear, a dry atmosphere, and strong northerly and north-easterly winds. The north winds develop violent snowstorms. The summer is unbearable; in the shade, the thermometer rises to 104º, and even to 117.5º, while the ground becomes heated to 158º.

The mean yearly rainfall is estimated at from 8 to 24 inches. In general, those parts of Russia that are exposed to the North, and are covered with snow during the winter, abound in forests that preserve the humidity, in which they have an advantage over the southern part of the country. In the former, the rains are not violent, but are lasting, and moisten the earth to a considerable depth; in the South they are resolved into severe tempests, which pour down great quantities of water that are dispersed in torrents and rivers, and do not sink deep into the ground. The greatest rainfall of Russia is around the Baltic Sea (20 to 28 inches); and the least is in the Caucasus (4 to 8 inches). The advantages of the western over the eastern part of Russia are due to its greater proximity to the Atlantic Ocean, the vapours of which are carried over Europe into Russia. The mean rainfall of Western Russia is calculated at 18.3 inches; that of the north-east, 15 inches; that of the east, from 12 to 15 inches; and that of the south is still less. The months of greatest rainfall are June, July, and August. The yearly rainfall at St. Petersburg is 20 inches, there being rain on 150 days of the year. The number of days upon which rain falls diminishes considerably towards the East and South.

MINERAL RICHES

The mineral riches of Russia consist principally of salt, coal, and iron. Salt is found in the mineral state in the Governments of Orenburg, Astrakhan, Kharkoff, and Yekaterinoslaff; and as a sediment, deposited by salt waters, in the Government of Astrakhan, and in the Crimean lakes of Sakskoe, Sasyk, and Sivash. The river basin that most abounds in coal is that of the Donetz; it is 233 miles in length, and 100 in breadth, and produces every known species of fossil coal. This basin also furnishes great quantities of peat, naphtha, gold, silver, platinum, copper, tin, mercury, iron, emeralds, topazes, rubies, sapphires, amethysts, porphyry, marble, granite, graphite, asphalt, and phosphorus. The Central Ural Mountains yield malachite and jasper. There are abundant petroleum springs in the Caucasus Mountains, especially in the vicinity of Baku. In the Kolivan Mountains, which is a ramification of the Altai system, deposits of malachite are found.

ETHNOGRAPHY AND STATISTICS OF POPULATION

The ethnographical history of primitive Russia is obscure. There is record of the Anti, a people who in the fourth century inhabited the regions about the mouths of the Danube and Don, but their name is lost after that date. Constantine Porphyrogenitus and the Russian chroniclers refer to twelve tribes, collected under the general name of Russians; they are the Slovenes, Krivitches, Dregovitches, Drevilans, Polians, Duliebys, Buzhans, Tivercys, Ulitches, Radimitches, Viatics, and the Sieverians. The political cradle of Russia is the region of Kieff, where the Varangian princes formed the first Russian state. The invasions of the Tatars exercised a great influence upon the Russians; but it is a mistake to say that the Russians disappeared entirely before the Tatars and that, in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the regions evacuated by the Tatars were peopled by Little Russians from Galicia. The population of Russia has steadily increased in numbers during the last two centuries, its rapid development being partly due to the birth-rate, and partly to the conquest of vast foreign territories. In 1724 Russia had a population of 14,000,000, which had increased to 36,000,000 in 1793, to 69,000,000 in 1851, and to 128,967,694 in 1897. The census of 1897 was the first official census of Russia. Its data, however, are only relatively correct, partly on account of the great extension of the Russian Empire, partly on account of the continuous emigration within the frontiers of that country, partly because of the lack of information concerning some of the centres of population in Siberia, and partly because of the resistance of some tribes to submit to the control of European civilization. In view of the enormous excess of births over deaths, the progressive increase of the population is calculated to be 2,000,000 each year. In 1904, basing the calculation on the statistics of births, the population of Russia was 146,000,000; in 1908, 154,000,000; and in 1910, 158,000,000. The greatest increase in the population is given by the region of New Russia, that of the Baltic, and the Province of Moscow. In general, the number of births in Russia is calculated at 48 per 1000, and that of the deaths at 34 per 1000. Compared with other European states, Russia is very thinly peopled, except in a few regions; for the whole empire, it is 17.325 per sq. mile; for European Russia 65; for Poland, 214; and for Siberia, 1.35. The government in which the population appears to be most dense is that of Piotrkow, where the corresponding figures are 295 inhabitants per sq. mile; after which follow in order the Governments of Moscow (187), Podolia (184.5), and Kieff (180). In the Government of Archangel, there are 2.25 inhabitants per sq. mile, and in Yakutsk .225.

The great mass of the population consists of peasants; they form 84 per cent of the population of European Russia, a percentage greatly in excess of that of Rumania, Hungary, and Switzerland, nations that are essentially agricultural. The nobles and their servants constitute 1.5 per cent of the population; the clergy, 0.5 per cent; the citizens or merchants, 0.6 per cent; the burgesses (mieshanstvo), 10.6 per cent. The proportion of working men shows a notable increase: from 1885 to 1897 the increase in the mining centres was 91 per cent, and in the manufacturing centres 73 per cent; the population of the cities also is continually increasing. Some of these cities, as Kazan, Astrakhan, Tiflis, and Bakhtchisarai, are semi-Asiatic in character, as are also the cities of Turkestan. The cities of ancient Livonia, e. g., Riga and Reval, have the appearance of medieval German towns. The villages of Great Russia have a commercial character, and stretch along the principal roads and waterways. On the other hand the villages of Little Russia are agricultural in character. The White Russian villages are noticeable for the small number of houses they contain. With relation to sex, according to the statistics of 1905, the population of Russia has 103.2 women for each 100 men. In the villages, the corresponding proportion of women is 106.1; in the cities, it is 85.9. In 13 out of 50 of the governments of European Russia, the number of men is greater than that of the women; in 3 the numbers are equal, and in 34 the number of women is in excess of that of the men; in 12 governments the proportion is 100 men to 110 women.

With regard to religion, Christianity in various denominations is the religion of the great majority of the people. There are 123,000,000 Christians (84.3 per cent of the entire population). The majority are of the Orthodox Church, which has 102,600,000 adherents (69.9 per cent of the population, the corresponding figures for European Russia being 91,000,000 (75 per cent). Consequently among the Russians Orthodox and Russian are synonymous terms. Since the Ukase of 17 April, 1905, which proclaimed freedom of conscience, Russian orthodoxy has lost 1,000,000 of followers, through conversions to Catholicism, to Protestantism, and to Mohammedanism. The Catholics of Russia number 13,000,000 (8.9 per cent); the Protestants, 7,200,000 (4.9 per cent); other Christian denominations, 1,400,000 (1 per cent); Mohammedans, 15,900,000 (10 per cent); pagans, 700,000 (0.4 per cent). Pagans, to the number of 300,000, are to be found, not only in Siberia, but also in European Russia (Kalmucks and Samogitians). The Catholics are chiefly in Poland, where, according to the census of 1897, they constituted 74.8 per cent of the population. On the other hand, one-half of the Jews who are scattered over the earth are in Russia, the number of them in that country being estimated at from 6,000,000 to 7,000,000, all concentrated within the boundaries of fifteen governments.

From the standpoint of education, Russia does not occupy even a secondary position in Europe. In European Russia the percentage of those who know how to read and write is 22.9. The regions in which there are the least numbers of the educated are as follows: Esthonia (79 per cent); Livonia (77.7 per cent); Courland (70.9 per cent); the cities of St. Petersburg (55.1 per cent) and Moscow (40.2 per cent), and Poland (41 per cent).

Emigration, as a rule, takes place only within the boundaries of the empire. From the most remote times, the inhabitants of Novgorod founded colonies as far away as the shores of the White Sea and the Ural Mountains. Emigration to Siberia began in 1582; the first colonists of that country were the exiles, the Cossacks, fishermen, and prospectors in search of gold; and this emigration was considerably increased after the liberation of the serfs in 1861. In 1891 the Siberian Railway Company undertook the colonization of Siberia, and by opportune measures gave a great impulse to Siberian immigration. In 1889 the number of Russian emigrants to that region was between 25,000 and 40,000; in 1900 it had increased to 220,000. These emigrants, who came from Central Russia and from Little Russia, spread at first over Western Siberia, and then over Central Siberia; but later they went farther and farther towards the extreme east, a movement to which the war with Japan put a stop, but which was again taken up with greater activity when that war ended. In 1906, 200,790 emigrants passed through Cheliabinsk to Siberia, and 400,000 in 1907. A part of the emigration is directed towards the southeast of Turkestan. The first colonists arrived in the Province of Semiryetchensk in 1848, and in the Province of Sir-Daria in 1876. Emigration beyond the frontiers of Russia is very limited, amounting in numbers at the present time to from 75,000 to 100,000, who for the greater part pass through the ports of Bremen and Hamburg. From 1891 to 1906, out of every 1000 Russian emigrants, 900 went to the United States, and the majority of the others to Brazil and the Argentine Republic.

The population of Russia is very much divided linguistically, it being calculated that a hundred languages are spoken within the empire, of which forty-two are in use in the city of Tiflis alone. Russian is the official language of eighty-nine governments and provinces, but it is the predominant language in only forty-one of them. Among the dialects, Great Russian is the one that is most extensively used. The tongues of the Mongolian tribes that are subject to Russia are little developed, and are generally without a literature. The population of Russia presents a great variety of races, united by a political rule, by the community of the Russian language, and to a great extent by the Orthodox religion; it is characterized also by a great preponderance of the rural over the urban population, and by the presence of a high percentage of peoples or tribes with little culture of their own, and little aptitude for the assimilation of the culture of Europe.

SPECIAL ETHNOGRAPHY

Ethnographically the population of the Russian Empire is divided into two races, the Caucasian, which predominates, and the Mongolian. Of the total population 121,000,000, or 82.6 per cent, are Caucasians; while the Mongolian races in all Russia constitute 17 per cent of the whole population. Russians, properly so-called, constitute 87.7 per cent of the population in Western Siberia, 80 per cent in European Russia, 53.9 per cent in eastern Siberia, 8.9 per cent in central Asia, 6.7 per cent in the region of the Vistula, and 0.2 per cent in Finland. Notwithstanding the difference in types, the Russians constitute a single people, ethnographically divided into three classes, Great Russians, Little Russians, and White Russians. These three ethnographical branches are differentiated from each other by dialectical differences, domestic traditions and customs, character, and historical tradition. It is difficult to determine the zones of the three branches, or the numbers of individuals of which they consist. According to the census of 1897, there were 55,667,469 Great Russians (Velikorussi), 22,380,350 Little Russians (Malorussi), and 5,885,547 White Russians (Bielorussi). At present, there are 65,000,000 Great Russians. They occupy the central and northern parts of European Russia, their centres of population extending from the White Sea to the Caspian Sea and the Sea of Azoff, and are to be found also in Siberia and in the Caucasus. They have emigrated to Little Russia in considerable numbers; at the beginning of the nineteenth century, Kharkoff was inhabited almost entirely by Little Russians, but in 1897 Great Russians constituted 58 per cent of the population, and the Little Russians only 25 per cent. The Great Russians are active and energetic, and have great aptitude for commerce and work in general. They are regarded as the essentially Russian race, which has not only preserved its known ethnical characteristics under difficult conditions, but has assimilated with itself other races, especially of the Finnish stock. Their language is the predominant tongue of the Russian Empire. The small commerce of the cities is in their hands, as is also the commerce of the wines and fruit that come from Bessarabia, the Crimea and the Don, and the fish from the Black Sea and the Ural River.

The Little Russians inhabit the south of Russia and the basin of the middle and lower course of the Dnieper, and constitute 26.6 per cent of the total population of the empire. Their greatest masses are to be found in the Governments of Pultowa (93 per cent), Tchernigoff (85.6 per cent), Podolia (80.9 per cent), Kharkoff (80.6 per cent), Stavropol (80 per cent), Kieff (79.2 per cent), Volhynia (70.1 per cent), and Yekaterinoslaff (68.9 per cent). The Little Russians are an agricultural people, and remain in their native districts. Their emigrations extend only to the steppes of New Russia, and to the territories of the Don and of the Kuban rivers. Of recent times they have furnished a large contingent to the agricultural colonization of Siberia. From the standpoint of culture that of the Great Russians is superior to that of the Little Russians, although the intellectual level of Little Russia was much higher than that of Great Russia during the Polish domination. The musical and poetical talents of this people are very much developed and their popular literature abounds in beautiful songs. The difference between Great and Little Russians is not only anthropological, but is also one of temperament and character, the Little Russians protesting that they are not Muscovites; and to emphasize their antipathy for the other race, in the nineteenth century they attempted to give a literary development to their dialect.

The White Russians inhabit the forest and marsh region that is comprised between the Rivers Düna, Dnieper, Pripet, and Bug. They represent 7 per cent of the total population, and are scattered through the Governments of Vilna, Vitebsk, Grodno, Kovno, Minsk, Mohileff, Suwalki, and Yelisavetpol. Both physically and intellectually they are less developed Great and Little Russians. According to the Russians, the intellectual inferiority of that people is due to the despotism of Polish masters, under which they lived for several centuries to the loss of their nobility, which became Polish, and to the economic supremacy of the Jews. Accordingly, the White Russians are poor, ignorant, and superstitious. There is a great admixture of Polish and Lithuanian terms in their dialect. At the present time, however, national sentiment is awakening in the White Russians, who publish newspapers in their own language, and aspire to better their economic conditions.

Ethnographically, the Caucasians are Great and Little Russians. They are a race of warrior-merchants and agriculturists, who developed the characteristic traits of their social and domestic life in struggles with the Tatars and Turks. According to the statistics of 1905, there were 3,370,000 Cossacks in all Russia, or 2.3 per cent of the population of the empire. Those of the Don are Great Russians. They are famous for their military qualities in general, and in particular for the part that they took in the liberation of Moscow from Polish occupation in 1612, in the conquest of Siberia, and in the war of 1812. At present they devote themselves to agriculture, raising cattle, commerce, and military service, and they enjoy many exemptions and privileges. The Cossacks of the Urals are noted for their religious fanaticism. Those of the Kuban and of the Black Sea are of Little Russian origin. They are called Cossacks of "the Line", because, after the Russian conquest of the Caucasus, they built a line of fortified villages on the shores of the Kuban, to defend their new possessions against incursions of the so-called mountaineers of the Caucasus, the Tcherkesy, Tchetchency, Abkhazy, Osetiny, and Lezginy. In their life they have preserved the Little Russian customs and traditions.

Besides the Russian, properly so-called, there are a great many other races that belong politically to Russia. Among the Slav races within the Russian frontiers, the most numerous are the Poles, of whom there are 12,000,000, and who chiefly inhabit the region of the Vistula. The Bulgarians and Servians have emigrated to the region of New Russia since 1752, forming colonies of peasants. The Servians allowed themselves to be easily russianized; but the Bulgarians showed reluctance to this, and still preserve their national character. The Lithuanians live along the Vilia River and the lower course of the Niemen, at the Prussian frontier. Their number is given as 3,500,000. They come in succession under Russian, Polish, Finnish, and Jewish influence. They are fervent Catholics, and their economic conditions are prosperous. Their national sentiment, depressed for several centuries, has awakened in recent times, and nationalist Lithuanians seek to throw off Russian and Polish influence and to form a national literature. Related to the Lithuanians are the Letts (Latyshi); they are a hard-working race and have a high moral standard. Their religion is chiefly Lutheranism; a few of them are of the Orthodox Church.

To the Germanic race belong the Germans and Swedes. The Germans of Russia live on the Baltic Sea and on the western frontier, while colonies of them are to be found in European Russia and in the region of the Volga. In the Baltic region they constitute the higher classes of the population, being for the most part merchants and artisans. They own the greater portion of the land, because, after the imperial manifesto of 19 February, 1861, they freed their serfs (Letts and Esthonians), but did not divide their lands among them. There are over 100,000 of them in this region; in that of the Vistula, there are German colonists, some of whom descend from those who were called by the Polish nobility to occupy the free lands. At the present time, the Germans are devoted chiefly to industry, and have established a great many factories, especially at Lodz. There are German colonies on the steppes, which, having the authorization of the Government and special privileges, are prosperous, but which oppose effective resistance to all attempts to russianize them. The Swedes, about 400,000 in number, are concentrated in Finland, especially in the Governments of Nyland (45 per cent) and Vasa (28.8 per cent). They constitute the aristocratic and intellectual classes of Finland; but their political and literary influence, which was considerable, tends to diminish before the development of Finnish national sentiment.

The Romanic races are represented by about 1,000,000 Moldavians, and by the Wallachians, who inhabit Bessarabia and the western part of the Government of Kherson. They are all of the Orthodox religion, and as a rule are employed in wine production and gardening. They resemble the Little Russians both physically and morally. The Iranian races are represented by about 1,000,000 Armenians, part of whom inhabit the Little Caucasus; the rest are scattered about the Various cities of the Caucasus and in European Russia. They are famous for the beauty of their type and for their patriarchal habits. Families are to be found among them numbering as many as fifty individuals, who are ruled by the eldest of them. They devote themselves to agriculture and commerce, for the latter of which pursuits they have a special aptitude. They are Monophysites, and reject the Council of Chalcedon (Armenian-Gregorians), being under the jurisdiction of a katolicos who resides at Etchmiadzin. They have the greatest attachment to their language and the traditions of their mother-country. Among those who live in the Caucasus, there is a considerable literary culture. Several thousands of them are Catholics.

On the shores of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azoff there are several colonies of Greeks who devote themselves to agriculture, and especially to the production of tobacco. There are Greek colonies also in the chief centres of population of Russia, especially at Odessa and St. Petersburg.

The Jews are a scattered population, principally in the Governments of Western and Southern Russia. Their presence in Russia is due to emigrations of German Jews from Poland, and they still preserve their dialect of Hebrew German, which is the language of their Press. As elsewhere, they evince the greatest aptitude for commercial matters and the commerce and industry of Western Russia is in their hands. The severe laws that limit the civil rights of the Jews in Russia have concentrated the members of that race in the cities, and the number of workmen and of artisans among them is very great, making their struggle for existence very difficult. Large fortunes are to be found among the Russian Jews, but their masses constitute a proletariat that on various occasions has been the victim of cruel massacres. Among these Russian Jews there is the greatest devotion to the Jewish religion and the greatest racial brotherhood. The Government admits only a limited number of them to the establishments of higher education; nevertheless, in the large cities, there is a great number of Jews who exercise the liberal professions, and especially that of medicine. The number of those who devote themselves to industrial pursuits increases each year.

The Finns inhabit the regions of the Baltic Sea, the Volga, and the Ural Mountains. The Finns, properly so-called, who inhabit Finland are 2,500,000 in number. For several centuries they were under the domination of Sweden, by which country they were barred from western civilization. They are famous for their honesty, love of their country and traditions (they are Lutherans), their high intellectual level (there are scarcely any illiterate among them), the status of their women (the University of Helsingfors has six hundred women students, and the Parliament of Helsingfors has twenty-two women members), and their tenacity of character, by which they have transformed the poor soil of Finland. The progress of the Finns during the last fifty years has been considerable, but in 1910 the Government suppressed the liberty and autonomy of Finland, and possibly thereby has placed a barrier to the development of Finnish culture. The Korely, who live to the north of Lakes Ladoga and Onega, and of whom there are 210,000, are Baltic Finns; there are also small groups of them between Lake Ilmen and the Volga. They have been more amenable to russianization, and have embraced the Orthodox faith. The Esthonians occupy the southern part of the plain of the Baltic. There are 1,300,000 of them, who constitute a class of poor peasants, among whom remain many traditions and customs of paganism. They are mostly Lutherans.

The Finns of the Volga comprise the Tcheremisy, the Mordva, and the Tchuvashi. The first, to the number of 400,000, live on the banks of the Volga, in the Governments of Kazan and of Vyatka. They were converted to Christianity by the Russian missionaries, but they remain pagans at heart, and in their customs. They devote themselves to agriculture, the chase, lumber commerce, and fishing. Their villages are small, having each not more than thirty houses. They are poor but honest, theft being regarded among them as a grave offence. The Tchuvashi are 800,000 in number; they live on the right bank of the Volga, and their chief centres of population are in the Governments of Kazan, Orenburg, Simbirsk, and Saratoff. Although they are Finns, they have adopted Russian customs, and tend more and more to become russianized. From the eighteenth century the Russian missionaries have attempted to convert them to orthodoxy, and have baptized a great number of them; but the Tchuvashi preserve a basis of paganism that is revealed in their rite and in their creed. Agriculture is their favourite pursuit, but they devote themselves also to the culture of bees, and they supply the markets of St. Petersburg with poultry and eggs.

Other less important races are mentioned by Russian geographers. The total number of the various nationalities that constitute the Russian Empire is about one hundred. Their multiplicity, which transforms Russia into a true ethnographical museum, is an obstacle in the way of civilization, to the dissemination of instruction, and to the stability of the representative system.

ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISIONS

For the purposes of administration Russia is divided into six great territorial regions:

• (1) European Russia, properly so-called;
• (2) the Governments of the Vistula (Privislanskila gubernii);
• (3) the Grand duchy of Finland;
• (4) the Caucasus;
• (5) Siberia;
• (6) Central Asia.

These territories are divided into governments (gubernii) and provinces (oblasti). The governments are ruled with laws that are called "Statutes of the Governments" (Polozhenie o guberniiazh); the provinces, besides the general laws, have special laws that are made necessary by the great number of non-Russians and of the non-Orthodox who inhabit those regions. The governments are divided into districts called uiezdy, and the provinces into districts called okrugi. The number of these districts, both in the governments and provinces, varies from four to fifteen. The districts are divided into volosti, selskiia obshestva, etc. The okrugi are divided into military, judicial, scholastic, postal, etc. In European Russia there are seven gradonatchalstva, i. e., cities that have administrations independent of the governments and provinces in which they are situated: these are St. Petersburg, Moscow, Odessa, Rostoff-on-the-Don, Sebastopol, Kertch-Yenikale, and Nikolaieff. Kronstadt constitutes a separate military government.

European Russia contains fifty-nine governments and two provinces. The governments of the Vistula, consisting of the territory of the former Kingdom of Poland that was annexed to Russia (carstvo polskoe), belong to European Russia. They enjoyed a certain autonomy until the revolution of 1863 led the Russian Government to suppress all their privileges and to employ every means for their russianization. After the liberal edicts of 1905 it was hoped that autonomy would be restored to the Russian Poles; but these hopes are far from being realized. The Grand duchy of Finland, which was united to Russia in 1809 as an integral part of the empire, enjoyed a special autonomy that gave an admirable development to the culture and prosperity of that land. The Finns had a code of special laws, a diet, senate, bank, coinage, and postal service. After 1905 there was universal suffrage, and the new chamber of deputies admitted women also to its membership. In 1910, however, the Duma approved a bill relating to Finland, which, if carried into effect, would bring Finnish autonomy to an end. Finland is divided into eight governments. In the Caucasus, where the Russian population is in a minority, besides the various governments, there are provinces where special laws are in force. Siberia is divided into governments and provinces. Among the latter the Island of Sakhalin, with an area of 14,836 sq. miles, has a population of 17,900. The southern portion of this island, however, was ceded to Japan by the treaty of Portsmouth, 16-29 August, 1905. The governments and provinces of Siberia are eight in number. Asiatic Russia has provinces (oblasti) only, because the Russians constitute only a small minority of the population.

AGRICULTURE, AND CONDITION OF THE PEASANTS.

Russia is a great agricultural nation; three-quarters of its population derive their support from the soil, which furnishes the most important resources of the country. The statistics concerning agriculture date from 1877-78, and were collected by the Central Committee of Statistics. More precise information was gathered by the same committee in 1886-88, and in 1905. According to the latest of these statistics, there were in European Russia, exclusive of the Kingdom of Poland, 1,067,019,596 acres of cultivated land, besides 17,609,124 acres in the Kalmuck steppes, and 19,133,296 in the steppes of the Kirghiz. The cultivated lands are divided into three classes:

• (1) private property (274,685,426 acres);
• (2) lands granted by the government to the peasants or nadiel'nyja zemli (374,672,484 acres);
• (3) lands belonging to the treasury, the churches, monasteries, cities, and institutions (417,661,685).

A comparison of these statistics with those of 1877 shows that in 1905 the lands owned by the nobles had diminished in area by 53,851,008 acres, and those of foreign subjects by 341,679 acres. On the other hand the landed property of the peasants had increased by 20,051,428 acres, and that of the other social classes had increased proportionately. In Siberia all the land, except the southern part of the Government of Tomsk which belongs to the imperial family, is the property of the Government, for as yet only a small portion has been granted to public and private institutions.

The state lands of European Russia are distributed very irregularly. In the Governments of Archangel, Olonetz, and Vologda, the State owns from 83 to 90 per cent of the land; in the region of Tchernozom, 5 per cent, and in the Governments of Pultowa, Bessarabia, and in Esthonia less than 1 per cent. The lands granted to the peasants occupy more than half of the Governments of Orenburg, Vyatka, Ufa, Kazan, Penza, Voronezh, Samara, the Province of the Don, Vladimir, Ryazan, Kursk, Moscow, Kaluga, Kharkoff, Tchernigoff, and Pultowa. Of the lands that are private property, 52 per cent belong to the nobility, 24 per cent to the peasants, 16 per cent to the merchants, and the remainder is divided among other classes. The possessions of the nobility are chiefly in the Baltic region, Lithuania, and the Governments of Minsk, Perm, Podolia, and Kieff. In the period between 1860 and 1905 the rural property of the nobility, which had reached 213,300,000 acres, was reduced to 143,100,000 acres. The great landowners, possessing more than 2700 acres each, are chiefly in the eastern governments and in those of the Baltic. The arable lands of the Kingdom of Poland occupy an area of 30,312,168 acres of which 44.56 per cent belong to private owners, 45.58 per cent to the peasants through government concessions, 4.02 per cent to the cities, and 5.84 per cent to the churches and other institutions. The land belonging to the churches and monasteries in the whole of European Russia, including Poland, is estimated at 0.6 per cent of all the arable land of that division of the empire.

There are 591,788 rural villages in European Russia, with a total population of 81,050,300, of whom 84.5 per cent are peasants. According to statistics, 38.8 per cent of the total surface is forest; 26.2 per cent is arabic land; 19.1 per cent is land not available for cultivation; and 15.9 per cent is prairies and pasture lands. The lands unavailable for cultivation are the salt steppes, the marshes, and the tundras. In Finland these lands occupy 35.6 per cent of the country, and the proportion is still greater in Siberia and Turkestan, where the arable land is only 2 per cent.

The "extensive" and the "intensive" systems of cultivation are variously applied in Russia, according to the region. In the governments of Northern Russia (Archangel, Olonetz, Vologda, Novgorod, and in parts of Yaroslaff, Kostroma, Vyatka, and Perm) the system called podsietchnaja obtains, consisting in stripping and uprooting the forests, planting wheat on their sites for intervals of from three to nine years, and then allowing the forests to grow up again when the fertility of the soil has been exhausted. In the Governments of Kherson, Yekaterinoslaff, Taurida, Stavropol, Orenburg, the Province of the Urals, and the Province of the Don Cossacks is practised the method called zalezhnaia (Fr. jachère). This consists in cultivating the land while its productive power endures; then it is transformed into pasture, and its cultivation is not resumed for an interval of ten, twelve, or fifteen years, as occasion may require. The intensive method of agriculture obtains in the central governments of Russia, in the zone of Tchernozom, and in other governments. A field is divided into three sections; in the first, winter grain (rye, corn) is sown; in the second, a crop of summer grain is put in (wheat, barley, oats); and in the third, grass for pasture is allowed to grow; each year the crop of each section is changed for one of the other two, thus allowing each section to rest once in three years. In the regions of the Vistula and the Baltic and in the south-western part of Finland the intensive system of agriculture obtains; no portion of the land remains untilled, but the peasants sow seed and plant vegetables in alternate years, so as not to exhaust the productiveness of the soil. In several regions, especially in the Caucasus, in Daghestan, Transcaucasia, and Turkestan, a remedy is found for the aridity of the soil in irrigation by means of canals. In other regions of a marshy character the work of draining the swamps is carried on, at times by the Government, and at times by private parties. In Podlachia alone, from 1874 to 1892, there were reclaimed 6,210,000 acres of swamp lands. The same kind of work was accomplished in Siberia.

Russia is a great cereal-producing country. According to the statistics of 1908, in 73 governments (63 in Russian Europe, 1 in Transcaucasia, 4 in Siberia, and 5 in Central Asia), out of 327,642,983 acres of land, 56.2 per cent were devoted to the culture of cereals, 3.2 per cent to the culture of the potato, 13.9 per cent to the oat crop, and 26.7 per cent to artificial meadow lands. In 1908 the grain crop amounted to 48,000,000 tons; the potato crop yielded 29,000,000 tons; oats, 13,000,000 tons, and hay from artificial meadows, 47,000,000 tons. The governments that are the most productive of cereals are those of Bessarabia, Kherson, Taurida, Yekaterinoslaff, and the Province of the Don Cossacks. As a cereal-producing country, Russia is the second in the world, the United States being the first. The development of potato culture, which was introduced into Russia in 1767, is notable. The grain that Russia produces is not only sufficient to supply the home market, but also constitutes one of the chief exports. The amount of it that is exported amounts on an average to 15,000,000 tons a year. It should be noticed, however, that in proportion to the area of the empire, the grain production of Russia is not high: Germany, France, and Austria, the combined area of which countries is only one-third of that of European Russia, produce together more grain than is produced in all Russia.

There are abundant crops of other staples, also, that Russia produces; these are the flax crop, which yields 500,000 tons a year, produced in several of the governments of the north-east, north-west, and south; hemp, 400,000 tons; cotton, raised in Transcaucasia and Turkestan, especially in the Province of Ferghana, annual yield more than 170,000 tons. Tobacco was introduced into Russia in the seventeenth century; its use was prohibited by severe laws, but was allowed from the time of Peter the Great; it is cultivated in the Governments of Tchernigoff, Pultowa, Samara, Saratoff, Taurida, Bessarabia, Kuban, etc. Its annual yield is about 100,000 tons, while the lands that are devoted to its cultivation cover an area of 1,755,000 acres. The principal tobacco factories are at St. Petersburg, Moscow, Riga, Kieff, and Odessa. The culture of beets, introduced into Russia about the beginning of the nineteenth century, has been greatly developed during the last thirty years, there being now devoted to it an aggregate area of 1,485,000 acres, the greater portion of which is in the Governments of Kieff and Podolia, the annual crop amounting to 10,000 tons. Wine is not extensively produced in Russia, and is of inferior quality. The best vineyards are in the Crimea, in Kakhetia, and in the Province of the Don Cossacks. There are 729,000 acres devoted to vine culture, and the yearly product amounts to not more than 88 million gallons. The Government seeks to encourage the home production of wine by very high duties on foreign wines. The culture of vegetables and fruit is not greatly developed; market gardens thrive in the neighbourhood of the large cities, especially in the District of Rostoff, and in the Governments of Saratoff and Samara. The production of fruit is abundant in Transcaucasia and the Crimea.

According to the statistics of 1908 there were in Russia 140,656,000 head of cattle, namely, 28,723,000 horses, 42,031,000 horned cattle, 57,466,000 sheep and goats, and 12,436,000 hogs. The horned cattle are scattered over the whole of European Russia: the cattle of Siberia are of a better class, on account of the abundance of forests. There are numerous breeds of horses in Russia, and special establishments are devoted to the improvement of these breeds in the Province of the Don Cossacks and the Governments of Voronezh, Kherson, Tamboff, Pultowa, and Kharkoff. The annual product from the sheep is calculated at 120 000,000 roubles (1 rouble=52 cents U. S. A.). The best wool is produced by the flocks of the Governments of Novgorod and Voronezh, of the Volga, the Vistula, the Baltic, the Caucasus, and Turkestan. The raising of hogs is especially pursued in the Governments of Minsk and Volhynia. The chicken industry flourishes in Western and Central Russia; fowls and eggs are exported and yield an annual income of more than 70,000,000 roubles, of which 61,000,000 are for eggs. The yearly production of honey is nearly 26,000 tons, and wax 5000 tons, yielding an aggregate income of from 15,000,000 to 20,000,000 roubles. The culture of the silk-worm is being developed, chiefly in the Governments of Bessarabia, Kherson, and Taurida, and in Turkestan and the Caucasus. The yearly production of silk amounts to about 1000 tons.

The condition of the peasants, although greatly improved, is far from being prosperous, and the agrarian question is one of the gravest with which Russian statesmen have to deal. Prior to 1861, or since 1592 according to some authorities, 1649 according to others, the peasants were legally reduced to servitude (kriepostnoe pravo). They were under serfdom to the landowners, were attached to the soil, and were not allowed to change their place of residence or dispose freely of their property; they were obliged to cultivate the lands of their employers and pay a tax to the State. The pomieshshiki, or landowners, became so many little tsars, and the peasants were reduced to the condition of slaves. As a consequence there occurred the revolts of the peasants, in the seventeenth century, under Stenko Razin, and in the eighteenth century, under Pugatcheff. During the reign of Catherine II a Russian author, Radishsheff, in his "Voyage from St. Petersburg to Moscow", suggested the necessity of freeing the peasants from their servitude; the book was held to be dangerous, and its author was exiled to Siberia. Paul I in 1797 alleviated the condition of the peasants by decreeing that they should work only three days on the lands of their employers. Alexander I attempted in vain to free them: his humanitarian efforts were thwarted by the opposition of the nobles. Nicholas I entertained the same purpose, but notwithstanding his absolutism was unable to realize it; he promulgated various laws, however (1826, 1835, 1839, 1845, 1846, 1847, and 1848), by which the right of the peasants and of their communities (mir) to acquire real estate was recognized; but these laws were not executed, and the pomieshshiki pretended to be uninformed of them.

The European revolution of 1848 and the Crimean War brought an awakening of Liberal ideas in Russia, and Alexander II, as one of the first measures of his reign, abolished serfdom. The preparatory measures for this consummation were studied by a secret committee in 1857. In 1859 the committees of the nobility and of the pomieshshiki in the various provinces discussed this question of the abolition of serfdom, and the Press dealt with it in an active way, showing Russia's moral and political need to solve it. An imperial commission, established in 1859, prepared a law which, after long deliberations and frequent modifications, received the signature of the tsar, 12 Feb., 1861, and was promulgated on 5 March of the same year. The terms of this law made all peasants free, and secured to them, upon the payment of a tax established by law, the use of their habitations (dvor) and a grant of land, of which they could become owners in fee simple by pecuniary redemption. Moreover, the pomieshshiki were obliged to grant to the peasants or to the mir the lands occupied by them, conformably with a maximum or minimum established by law. On the other hand, the dvorovie, or servants, who numbered 1,500,000, in 1861 regained their freedom, with however the obligation of serving their masters for a further period of two years.

The lands were so distributed that each peasant who was entitled to share in them received, on an average, fourteen acres; on an average, because the quality of the lands was taken into account in the distribution; in the zone of the Tchernozom, the concessions were of eight acres. Moreover, the distribution of lands was very unequal, and 42.6 per cent of the peasants who participated in it received concessions that were insufficient for their needs; to this may be added that many millions of peasants were not benefited by the law, and that the annual tax to be paid to the Government by those who received portions of land became a burden. The Government therefore continued to enact laws to solve the agrarian question. The taxes were diminished in 1881, and in 1882 the Agrarian Bank was established, which helped the peasants to acquire possession of 19,000,000 acres in a few years. In 1885 the per capita tax paid by the peasants was abolished, by which the Government lost 50,000,000 roubles. Other laws, some of them promulgated as late as 1900, are directed towards the protection of the rights of the peasants. These measures, however, are insufficient. The increase in the population has greatly reduced the average holding of land, which in 1893 amounted to 6.5 acres for each peasant. The improvidence of the peasants, drink, backward methods in agriculture, and bad crops have on more than one occasion caused famine to be felt in the agricultural regions. The agrarian question, therefore, lies like an incubus on Russia, while the various parties of the Duma propose different solutions for it. The moderate parties advise directing the peasant emigration towards Siberia, dispersing the peasants in less populous governments, and imparting to them agricultural instruction; while the more advanced parties demand that the crown lands and the lands of the churches and the monasteries be divided among the peasants, or again that the great landowners be deprived of their rural possessions (socialization of lands). Until now, however, the debates that have taken place in the various dumas on this subject have led to no practical results.

STATISTICS OF COMMERCE

According to the statistics of 1908 Russia occupies the ninth place among nations as regards her merchant fleet, which including that of Finland has 6250 ships, with a gross tonnage of 1,046,195; this includes 1240 steamers with a tonnage of 500,000. Finland has 2800 ships, with a tonnage of 346,195. The ships of more than 1000 tons burden in the Russian merchant fleet number 114. Of Russian vessels, 1129 belong to the Black Sea ports and the Sea of Azoff, and 1104 to the Baltic ports. According to the statistics of the same year, there arrived at Russian ports during 1908 11,011 ships, of which 1777 were Russian, with an aggregate tonnage of 1,241,000, and 9519 foreign, aggregate tonnage 9,519,000. The chief centres of Russian maritime commerce are the ports of the Baltic, the Black Sea, and the Sea of Azof. The foreign maritime commerce of Russia is divided by tonnage as follows: England, 42 per cent; Germany, 16 per cent; Denmark, 10 per cent; Greece, 8 per cent; and Sweden and Norway, 4 per cent.

The coasting trade between small ports is reserved exclusively for Russian shipping; it has found its greatest development in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azof (36,590 ships, 15,098,000 tons), in the Caspian Sea (16,538 ships, 8,884,000 tons), and in the Baltic Sea (10,809 ships, 1,230,000 tons). This shipping carries on an average 10,000,000 tons of merchandise a year, of which 4,400,000 tons are petroleum, and 1,100,000 tons grain. The great coasting commerce between the Black and the Baltic Seas, between the ports of European Russia and those of Eastern Siberia, and between the Murman coasts (Murmanskii bereg) and the Baltic Sea, employs 212 steamships, of an aggregate tonnage of 450,000, carrying a yearly average of 270,000 tons of merchandise. The most important commercial ports of Russia are St. Petersburg, Riga, Libau, Reval, and Odessa. According to the most recent statistics, the river fleet consists of 3300 steam and 22 860 other craft, with an aggregate tonnage of 11,200,000. The yards that build this shipping are at Nizhni-Novgorod, St. Petersburg, Moscow, Perm, and in Finland. The river fleet carries a yearly average of 32,000,000 tons of merchandise, of an aggregate value of 800,000,000 roubles.

The first railway that was constructed in Russia was that of Tsarskoi Selo in 1837; in 1850, Russian railways had 666 miles of line, which had increased to 7094 miles in 1870, to 14,786 in 1880, and to 20,000 in 1890. The greater portion of these was constructed by private companies, and in 1882 13,582 of a total of 15,724 miles of railway belonged to those companies. In 1908 the railway mileage of Russia amounted to 45,132 miles, of which 35,076 were in Europe, 2078 in Finland, and 7978 in Asia. At present four-fifths of these railways belong to the State, and one-fifth to private parties. In 1909 there were 270 miles of new railways opened and the construction of 3074 miles more was determined upon. Russia has the second railway mileage of the world, being second only to the United States; but compared with the area of the empire, the railway mileage of Russia is small. The railway centre of Russia is Moscow. The Trans-Siberian Railway is the greatest enterprise of modern Russia: it has made possible the exploitation of the natural riches of Siberia, and has opened a way for the commerce of Europe with the Far East. Its construction was begun in 1891, and finished in 1903, at a cost of 850,000,000 roubles. It has a length of 5532 miles. After the war with Japan, the branch to Port Arthur became a part of the Eastern China Railway. The voyage from Europe to Shanghai, which takes forty-five days by the Suez Canal, and thirty-five days by Canada and the Pacific Ocean, is made in from eighteen to twenty days over the Trans-Siberian Railway by way of Vladivostok. The total value of the Russian railways is 5,500,000,000 roubles, and their average cost is estimated at 169,500 roubles per mile.

In foreign commerce, exports and imports, Russia occupies the seventh place among commercial nations, the imports and exports representing a value approximately of 2,000,000,000 roubles (in 1906, 800,000,000 roubles of imports, and 547,500,000 roubles of exports). This commerce to the amount of 1,545,000,000 roubles is carried on across the European frontiers; 268,000,000 roubles across Asiatic frontiers; and 83,000,000 roubles across the frontiers of Finland. Russia exports wheat, barley, oats, rye, and corn to Germany, England, Holland, Italy, France, Austria, etc.; eggs, sugar, butter, caviare, fish, fowls, petroleum, cattle, and raw minerals; and imports woollen textiles amounting to 25,000,000 roubles, worked metals, paints, and dyes, coal, silk, rubber goods, machinery, watches, tea (in 1906, 90,000 tons of this commodity were imported at a cost of 77,000,000 roubles), herrings, wines (11,000,000 roubles), lemons and oranges (4,500,000 roubles), other fruits, etc.

The internal commerce of Russia is greatly developed by the periodical markets or fairs, of which 26,000 are held in 6830 different places. The most important one of them is that of Nizhni-Novgorod, originating in the seventeenth century near the monastery of the Blessed Macarius, which was built within the Government of Nizhni-Novgorod. To that market Turks, Tatars, and Persians went in great numbers. In 1816 the fair was transferred to Novgorod, a city which, on account of its position at the confluence of the Volga and the Oka Rivers, possessed the requisites for becoming a great commercial centre; the commercial importance of the fair increased rapidly; it was visited by as many as 200,000 merchants from all parts of Russia and Siberia. The value of the merchandise brought to this market, which amounted to 32,000,000 roubles in 1817 attained a sum of 246,000,000 roubles in 1881, after which it fell to a yearly average of from 160 to 170 million roubles. The fair is held from 15 July to 25 Aug., the chief commodities being silk, cotton, linen and woollen goods, worked metals, and skins. Another important fair is that of Irbit, in the Government of Perm. This fair originated in 1643; it is held from 1 Feb. to 1 March, the value of the merchandise brought to it being estimated at 30,000,000 roubles each year. In Little Russia these fairs are frequently held; among them the most noted are those of the Epiphany, at Kharkoff, from 6 to 26 Jan. (merchandise of a value of from 11 to 13 million roubles); those of the Assumption, the Intercession of the Blessed Virgin, and the Holy Trinity, in the same city, from 15 Aug. to 1 Sept., 1 to 15 July, and 1 Oct. to 1 Nov. respectively; the fair of Kieff, from 5 to 26 Feb.; those of Kursk, Simbirsk, Menzelinsk, Ivanoffskaia etc. The growth of the railways tends to diminish the importance and volume of business of these fairs. The number of commercial establishments in Russia (statistics of 1907) is 889,746, and the number of people engaged in commerce is 1,600,000.

INDUSTRIES, AND CONDITION OF THE WORKERS

Russian industries have been greatly developed, although they are far from being in a position to supply the home demand. In 1906 there were in Russia 14,247 industrial establishments, in which there were 1,684,569 workers; in 1907 the number of those establishments had decreased to 14,190, while the workers had increased to 1,723,173. The industrial districts are those of St. Petersburg (2049 establishments, 296,109 workers), Moscow (2485 establishments, 610,402 workers), Warsaw (2978 establishments, 268,256 workers), Kieff (2791 establishments, 207,751 workers), the Volga (1768 establishments, 137,235 workers), and Kharkoff (2119 establishments, 203,424 workers). The number of women employed in these establishments increases continually, and grew from 383,782 in 1901 to 435,684 in 1906.

The metal industries are the most important. Under Peter the Great there was declared the so-called freedom of mines (gornaia svoboda), according to which the ownership of a mine was independent of that of the land under which it was found. This law was revoked by Catherine II in 1781, to the detriment of the metallurgical industries. According to the latest statistics, the number of workmen employed in these industries is 700,000, of whom more than half are employed in the extraction and working of iron. The value of the yearly output of the metallurgical industries is 300,000,000 roubles. Russia holds an important position as a gold-producing country: in 1906 Siberia, the Urals, and Finland produced 30 tons of gold. The average production of gold each year, from sand and quartz, amounts to 80,960 lb., of a value of 60,000,000 roubles. Russia occupies the fourth place among gold-producing countries. The Province of Irkutsk, in Eastern Siberia, is the chief gold region of the country, and especially the District of Olekminsk, which produces 6 tons of the metal. By the laws of 12 March, 1901, and 1 March, 1902, the prohibition that had been placed upon free commerce in gold was removed. There are 80,000 workers employed in the gold industries of the country.

Russia may be said to be the only platinum-producing country. This metal is taken from the Urals, where it was discovered in 1819, the yearly production of it amounting to 5 tons, although in 1906 the amount was 5½ tons. It is mined in the Government of Perm, giving employment to 1292 men, and is usually sold to the British at a price of 806,000 roubles per ton; when refined in England, it is sold for 1,240,000 roubles per ton. The production of silver, which from 1886 to 1890 was 16 tons a year, has decreased to 6 tons yearly. The metal is mined in the Districts of Nertchinsk and the Altai, and in the Governments of Viborg and Archangel.

Russia has produced copper since the seventeenth century, and her annual production of that metal increases continually: from 8,300 tons in 1905, it increased to 70,000 tons in 1906, and to 14,000 in 1907. There are 22 establishments devoted to the copper industry; the metal is mined chiefly in the Caucasus and in the Urals, and to a small extent in the steppes of the Kirghiz and in the Altai Mountains. Lead is usually found in Russia mixed with silver, and is obtained in the Province of Terek and the Districts of Nertchinsk and the Altai. An exact average of the yearly production of lead cannot be established; in 1890 it amounted to 800 tons; in 1895 to 400 tons; in 1904 to only 80 tons while it increased to 770 tons in 1905, and to 1000 tons in 1906. Zinc is furnished by four great establishments, situated respectively at Bendzin, Constantin, Paulina (Government of Piotrkow), and Alagir, in the Province of Terek. The production of this metal yielded 8100 tons in 1902, 14,000 tons in 1904, and 10,000 tons in 1906. Mercury was discovered in 1879 in the District of Bakhmut (Government of Yekaterinoslaff), and its yearly production amounts to 320 tons. Manganese, which is worked chiefly in the Governments of Kutais and of Yekaterinoslaff, yielded a production of 320 tons in 1898, 790 tons in 1900, and 500 tons in 1905.

Russia produces great quantities of iron. The first establishments for the working of this metal originated in the seventeenth century and were the property of the State. In 1906 the total production of iron amounted to 5,183,579 tons. There are 126 foundries which produce 2,700,000 tons of melted iron. Russia occupies the seventh place among the coal-producing countries. The first coal was mined in the reign of Peter I, but the coal industry was only developed to any extent under Catherine II, and that development continues from year to year. The production of this mineral amounted to 25,000,000 tons in 1906. Russia is exceptionally rich in petroleum. Many of its oil deposits are yet undeveloped, especially in the Governments of Kielce and Taurida, and in the Urals. The greatest supply of Russian petroleum now comes from the northern and southern slopes of the Caucasus Mountains, especially from the Government of Baku (90 per cent), from the Provinces of Terek, Kuban, and Daghestan, from the Government of Tiflis, and from the Transcaspian region. In 1907 the total production of petroleum in Russia amounted to 8,300,000 tons. The petroleum exported in 1908 represented a value of 30,000,000 roubles.

Among salt-producing countries Russia holds the fourth place, producing from mines and salt lakes a yearly average of more than 1,770,000 tons of salt, chiefly from the Governments of Yekaterinoslaff, Astrakhan, Perm, and Taurida. The textile industry holds an important place, there being 2000 factories, employing 700,000 workers, and producing fabrics valued at 800,000,000 roubles a year. Of those establishments 730 are cotton factories, which employ 437,000 workers, and produce a yearly output valued at 520,000,000 roubles. The principal establishments for the cleaning of cotton are in Turkestan and the Government of Erivan. Factories for spinning and weaving cotton first appeared in Russia during the second half of the eighteenth century; the principal ones among them at the present time are in the Governments of Vladimir, Moscow, Piotrkow, St. Petersburg, Kostroma, Terek, and Yaroslaff. The wool industry has 916 factories that produce an aggregate yearly income of nearly 170,000,000 roubles. Russia has 145 linen factories that produce a yearly income of 42,000,000 roubles. The silk industry, which was introduced at the beginning of the eighteenth century, had in 1900 200 factories (Governments of Moscow, Vladimir, and Piotrkow), and was producing a yearly income of 23,000,000 roubles.

The flour industry is an important one, there being 1400 large mills, the yearly products of which are valued at 225,000,000 roubles, besides which there are 20,000 small mills. The distillation of spirits, made free in 1863, is another important industry, there being 2480 distilleries with a yearly production of 89,100,000 gallons. There are 80 distilleries for the production of vodka, which has become a government monopoly, and the yearly product of which is 2,160,000 gallons, chiefly in the Governments of Moscow and St. Petersburg. The brewing of beer was begun in Russia more especially in the nineteenth century, and as a beer-producing country Russia occupies the sixth place, having 918 breweries with a yearly product of 162,000,000 gallons. Russia also produces sugar. In the eighteenth century it had 7 refineries. The first refinery for the production of beet sugar was established in 1802. At present there are 280 beet sugar factories and refineries, which in 1908 produced 1,300,000 tons. There are 294 oil factories, where oil is extracted from sunflower seed, linseed, and hempseed.

There are 827 workshops where industrial machinery is made, the value of their annual products being estimated at 208,000,000 roubles. Fourteen large establishments in the Governments of St. Petersburg, Livonia, Moscow, and Nizhni-Novgorod construct locomotives and railway cars, of a value of 92,000,000 roubles. The goldsmith's industry, which flourishes in the Governments of Warsaw, St. Petersburg, and Moscow, yields an annual income of 5,500,000 roubles. Electrical works, of which there are 50 in the Government of St. Petersburg, have made their appearance within recent years; their annual product is valued at 8,000,000 roubles. The paper industry is an ancient one in Russia, dating from the sixteenth century. There are at present 451 factories. The wood industry is represented in the first place by 956 saw-mills, the yearly products of which are estimated at 70,000,000 roubles; and secondly by 250 furniture factories, with a yearly output of 14,000,000 roubles. The yearly production of the 174 chemical factories in Russia is estimated at 32,000,000 roubles. Tanning, which was practised in Russia as far back as the ninth and tenth centuries, is now carried on in 641 tanneries that produce a yearly output of 55,000,000 roubles. The glass industry also is important in Russia, where it made its appearance in the seventeenth century, under the Tsar Michael Theodorovitch (212 factories, and a yearly output of 26,000,000 roubles).

The material and the moral conditions of the working people leave a great deal to be desired. The wages are low in proportion to the cost of living in Russian cities, and the law does not give the workman sufficient protection against exploitation by his employer. It may be said that there are no sanitary laws with regard to workers in factories, although this matter has been considered by various commissions, established by the Government in 1859, 1870, 1874, and 1892. Sickness and accidents are frequent among the workmen: in 1871 in 17,533 establishments, employing 1,700,000 workers, there were 24,744 accidents, of which 385 were fatal. To these may be added 23,360 injuries through accident in the mines, making a total of 48,104; these official figures seem too low to represent the facts. The insurance societies have only 600,000 workers inscribed on their lists; and in case of accident it is very difficult to obtain payment from those companies. There is want of medical assistance. The moral standard is very low. It is therefore no wonder that the working class takes an active part in revolutionary movements and furnishes a large percentage of highway robbers.

INTELLECTUAL RUSSIA

Intellectual culture is of recent date, and was first developed in Southern and Western Russia under Polish influence. The first Russian academy was established at Kieff in the seventeenth century. In Muscovite Russia intellectual culture began under Peter the Great, who gave much attention to the education of the people. Catherine II established the first school for girls. Under Alexander II a great number of schools and of establishments for higher education were opened, and this intellectual development was carried to Siberia by the foundation of the University of Tomsk under Alexander III. Higher education is represented by ten universities: St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kieff, Odessa, Kharkoff, Warsaw, Kazan, Yurieff (Dorpat), Helsingfors, and Tomsk. Two other universities are about to be established by the Government, at Saratoff and Tobolsk. In 1909 the ten universities just named were attended by 36,890 students, those having the greatest number of students being the Universities of St. Petersburg (8805), Moscow (8698), Kharkoff (4048), and Kieff (4230); on the other hand, Warsaw has only fifteen students, being boycotted by the Poles on account of the exclusive use of the Russian language. The most frequented courses are those of law (13,970 students), physics and mathematics (8778 students), and medicine (7068 students). There is a notable attendance of women (500) at the University of Helsingfors. The nine Russian universities are maintained by the State at an expense of 5,405,660 roubles a year, to which should be added other amounts of regular receipts, making a sum total of 7,684,000 roubles. The University of Helsingfors is supported by Finland at a cost of 806,700 roubles, of which 173,700 roubles are furnished by the public treasury.

Russian universities, some of which date from the eighteenth or even the seventeenth century, received their first impetus from Alexander I (1801-25), who founded the Universities of Kharkoff, Kazan, and St. Petersburg. Under Nicholas I (1825-55), they ran the risk of being closed, and were subjected to a rule of superintendence and severe discipline. In 1863 the minister Golovin introduced important reforms into the organization and administration of the universities, and conferred many privileges upon the professors and students, which privileges were limited by the law of 23 Aug., 1884. The regular professors receive a salary of 3000 roubles a year; the supplementary professors receive 2000 roubles, and the dozents 1000 roubles. The various universities have in their faculties men of superior attainments, who are an honour to science. Those institutions are distinguished also for their Liberal sentiments, which in 1905-07 degenerated into excesses, and on various occasions transformed the universities into hotbeds of political agitation.

The intellectual culture of women has its centres in the so-called "Superior Course" (Vysshie kursy) of St. Petersburg (2396 students) and of Moscow (2177 students), and in the women's medical school of St. Petersburg (1635 students). In the "Superior Courses", the greater portion of the women students take up the study of history and of philosophy. The one at St. Petersburg is maintained at a cost of 217,530 roubles a year; the corresponding one at Moscow at 153,000 roubles a year, and the women's school of medicine at a cost of 573,926 roubLes. There are many scholarships for poor students, men and women. The Russian women who frequent the "Superior Courses" are, as a rule, from eighteen to twenty-five years of age, and are distinguished by their quickness of intellect and energy of character, and also by a decrease of womanly qualities.

According to the statistics of 1907, secondary instruction for men is given in 246 gymnasia and 37 pro-gymnasia, having 2912 classes, 4668 masters, and 107,296 students; for women, in 433 gymnasia and 172 pro-gymnasia, with 5432 classes, 10,272 teachers, and 200,761 students, and in 178 Realschulen, 1590 classes, 2538 teachers, and 55,499 students. In the gymnasia, the course lasts seven years; Greek, Latin, French, and German are taught at these institutions, as also the natural sciences, history, geography, Russian literature, and the catechism. The pro-gymnasia teach the same subjects, with the exception of the dead languages. The Realschulen impart a practical education. In the gymnasia for girls, the course is six years. To the number of these schools must be added the institutes and the seminaries for the education of teachers (utchitel'skie instituty, utchitel'skija seminarii), there being 10 of the former, with 143 professors, and 1738 students; and 73 of the latter, with 909 professors, and 12,355 students.

There are in the whole of Russia, including Finland, 111,427 schools for primary instruction, attended by 6,875,765 scholars, of whom 4,691,691 are boys. To this class belong the parochial schools that were instituted 13 July, 1884, and were placed under the direct control of the Synod. The scope of these schools is chiefly religious; they teach the law of God, reading, writing, and arithmetic; some of them have only one class; some two; in the second class, when there is one, ecclesiastical and national history are taught. The remuneration received by the teachers of parochial schools is often as low as 150 roubles a year. In the schools that depend upon the Ministry of Public Instruction, the salaries of teachers are 500 or 600 roubles a year. In 1909 the ministry spent 54,000,000 roubles for the schools of primary instruction, while the Holy Synod spent 14,000,000 for the schools dependent upon it, a sum that is increased to 89,000,000 roubles by the contributions of other ministries or institutions. The primary schools nevertheless are insufficient in number, and the progressive element in Russia calls for the establishment of 500,000 additional schools. Russia has also professional schools: an institute of forestry (liesnoi institut), attended by 460 students; 142 commercial institutes, with 2775 professors and 33,397 students; 87 commercial schools, with 1040 professors and 12,510 students; and 37 professional schools and institutes, with 717 professors and 4270 students.

Among the scientific institutions, the Imperial Academy of Sciences of St. Petersburg stands in the first place. It was instituted by Peter the Great in 1724, and was opened by Catherine I in 1726, and has various museums, libraries, laboratories, and observatories. Its literary activity is intense, its numerous scientific publications already forming a vast library. There are also: the Imperial Archæographica1 Commission of St. Petersburg, famous for its splendid editions of Russian national chronicles; the Imperial Archæological Commission of St. Petersburg; the Imperial Archæological Society of Moscow, which publishes learned and artistic volumes on the sacred and profane monuments of Russia; the Society of Oriental Studies, at St. Petersburg (Vostotchnoviedienija Obshshestvo), the scientific researches of which deal especially with Siberia and China; the Society of Naturalists of St. Petersburg (Obshshestvo estestvoispytatelei), which was founded in 1868; the Society of Geographical Studies (Obshshestvo zemleviedienija), established at St. Petersburg in 1903; the Imperial Institute of Experimental Medicine; the philologico-historical societies of Odessa and of Kharkoff; the Imperial Historical Society of St. Petersburg, which has published 130 volumes of historical documents and the Russian biographical lexicon; the Archæological, Historical, and Ethnological Society of Kazan; the Society of the Friends of Ancient Literature of St. Petersburg, which has published numerous and valuable copies of ancient texts; the Historical and Ancient Literature Society, connected with the University of Moscow, whose Tchtenija (lectures) constitute the richest and most valuable historical collection of Russia; the Imperial Mineralogical Institute of St. Petersburg; the Slav Society of Moscow, which publishes the periodical "Slavianski Viek"; the Polytechnical Institute of Moscow; the Imperial Archæological Society of St. Petersburg, with classical, Oriental, Russo-Slavic, and numismatical sections; the Imperial Geographical Society of St. Petersburg, famous for its publications; the Juridical Institute of St. Petersburg; the Lazareff Institute of Moscow, famous for its learned publications on Oriental and other subjects. All of these institutions, to which many of secondary importance, existing in all Russian cities, are to be added, furnish a notable contribution to the activities of Russian science, which in reality are very considerable. These institutions are also endowed with very fine libraries.

The most important Russian library is the Imperial Public Library, which is divided into thirteen sections, and is rich in bibliographical treasures, among them the famous Codex Sinaiticus of the Bible. The second is the library of the Academy of Sciences, which is growing richer from year to year, and with which is connected the library of the Asiatic Museum of St. Petersburg, where there are many Oriental manuscripts of value. Two famous libraries at Moscow are: that of the Holy Synod, where there is a very large collection of Greek codices; and the library of the Rumianzoff Museum. In the Caucasus there are: the library of the Ecclesiastical Museum of Tiflis, which is rich in ancient Georgian codices; and the library of the monastery of Etchmiadzin, which has a valuable collection of Armenian codices.

ECONOMICS AND FINANCE

It was only towards the end of the nineteenth century that the budget began to free itself from its continuous fluctuations. In view of the disorder that obtained in its finances during that century, the Government was compelled continually to increase the compulsory acceptance of bank-notes which, from a total of 568 million roubles in 1857, increased to 1100 million roubles by 1883. To meet its obligations, it was obliged to resort to loans which, from 2537 million roubles in 1856, increased to 5424 million roubles in 1883. The Russian budget, both in receipts and in expenses, increases continually: the highest budgets, for receipts and for expenses, were those of 1905 (receipts, 2989 million roubles; expenses, 3194 million roubles); 1906 (receipts, 3423 million roubles; expenses, 3212 million roubles); and 1907 (receipts, 2195 million roubles; expenses, 2582 million roubles). The increased receipts are due to loans, and the increased expenses to the war with Japan. The expenses of the war from 1904 to 1909 amounted to 2,414,923,194 roubles. The budget that was submitted to the Duma and to the Council of the Empire for 1908 fixed the receipts at 2,478,677,241 roubles, and the expenditure at 2,631,495,495 roubles. That for 1909 fixed both the receipts and the expenditure at 2,595,049,000 roubles. Of the receipts 193,882,000 roubles are derived (Statute of 1909) from direct taxation; 523,758,000 from indirect taxation; 140,709,000 from the customs; 806,488,000 from the rights of the State (regalii); 685,670,000 from the properties and capitals of the State; and the remainder from other sources. Of the expenditure, 473,919,000 roubles are for the account of the Ministry of Marine; 393,363,000 roubles are absorbed by the payment of coupons of the Russian Rentes; 89,353,000 roubles are assigned to the Ministry of the Navy; 452,117,000 to the Ministry of Finance; 553,156,000 to the Ministry of Railways and Communications; 154,378,000 to the Ministry of the Interior; 63,937,000 to the Ministry of Public Instruction; 31,663,000 to the Holy Synod, and 71,488,000 to the Ministry of Justice. Among the direct taxes are those upon alcoholic liquors (34,172,000 roubles), upon tobacco (49,028,582 roubles), on sugar (75,541,747 roubles), and on petroleum (31,967,500 roubles). The monopoly of alcoholic drinks yields to the State the enormous sum of 542,288,341 roubles. The Government receives 36,500,000 roubles from the postal service, 21,500,000 roubles from the telegraphs, and 453,500,000 roubles from the railways. Russia has the largest budget in the world, but not in proportion to the number of its inhabitants.

A great portion of the resources of Russia is absorbed by the interest on its debt, which in 1907 amounted to 8,625,560,215 roubles. Of this sum, 3,155,641,839 roubles were on account of the railways. In 1908 the debt amounted to 8,725,523,210 roubles. During 1903-07, on account of the war with Japan, the Russian debt increased by a sum of 2,081,596,540 roubles. For the payment of its foreign Rentes, the Russian Government needs several hundred millions in gold, wherefore its financial policy tends to increase exportations, to favour home industries, and to augment the metallic supply. The law of 29 Aug., 1897, put gold into circulation in Russia; and that of 28 April, 1900, guaranteed the payment in gold of notes of credit. In 1908 the bank notes in circulation aggregated a sum of 1200 million roubles; and the gold 578,200,000 roubles, a decrease of 19,400,000 roubles from the preceding year. The principal establishment of credit in Russia is the state bank (gosudarstvennyi bank), which has 8 agencies and 107 branches. Its gold reserve in 1908 amounted to 1200 million roubles, in Russian and in foreign coin, and in bars. Its deposits in precious metals and in securities amounted to 8286 million roubles. In 1862 there were only 2 savings banks in Russia; in 1880 their number had increased to 76, and in 1890 to 1826; in 1900 to 5145, and in 1908 to 6710, with an aggregate of 6,210,238 depositors, and of 1,149,243,581 roubles of deposits. Other important banks are: the Agricultural Bank of the Nobility, the assets of which, on 1 Jan., 1909, amounted to 808,000,000 roubles; the Agricultural Bank of the peasants, which on the same date had assets of 1134 million roubles; the agricultural stock banks (akcionernye zemel'nye banki), which were established between 1871 and 1873 in the Governments of Kharkoff, Pultowa, St. Petersburg, Tula, Bessarabia, Taurida, Nizhni-Novgorod, Samara, Kieff, Vilna, Yaroslaff, Kostroma, and the Province of the Don Cossacks, the aggregate assets of which, on 1 Jan., 1909, amounted to 1164 million roubles. The first mutual credit society was established at St. Petersburg in 1864; at the present time there are 401 of them, 13 of which are at St. Petersburg. In 1909 there were 368 of these associations, with an aggregate of 208,914 members, and assets of 403 million roubles.

Insurance societies are of long standing in Russia. One of them, the Russian Fire Insurance Society, was established in 1827. In 1907 there were 13 fire insurance societies in the empire, the aggregate receipts of which in 1907 amounted to 107,000,000 roubles, as compared with 99,000,000 in 1906, and 91,000,000 in 1905. The most important of these companies is the Salamandra, which was established in 1846. Life insurance policies are issued also by the State savings banks, which in 1907 issued 1653 policies for the total sum of 3,018,929 roubles. There are 7 Russian and 3 foreign life insurance companies, the first having a combined capital of 90,000,000 roubles, and the second 20,000,000 roubles. In 1907 there were 125 insurance societies in operation in the various cities of Russia. After the law of 2 July, 1903, which provided for indemnity to workmen in case of accident at work, nine accident insurance societies appeared, at the industrial centres of Riga, Ivanovo, Warsaw, Moscow, Kieff, Odessa, St. Petersburg, Tchernomorna, and Bielostok. These societies have a combined capital of 1,700,000 roubles, but the number of workers insured is small (290,775). Besides the establishments that have been mentioned above, there are in Russia 34 commercial banks, 407 mutual credit societies, and 86 pawn offices (monts de piété). In all, there are 1502 institutions of credit in Russia.

MORALITY: STATISTICS OF CRIME

Statistics show a continual increase of criminality in Russia, due to the increase of the population, the dissemination of socialistic and of revolutionary ideas among the lower classes, the want of culture, and the lack of moral influence of the Orthodox religion. From a total of 266,261 crimes punished by the law in 1901, the figures increased to 271,360 in 1902; 292,907 in 1903; 299,968 in 1904, and 351,710 in 1905. Thefts and crimes against the person represent the greatest number of these crimes. The number of homicides increased considerably in 1905-07, and likewise offences by the Press. In 1905 there were 141,847 arrests (129,275 men). In the same year 3622 men and 720 women were condemned for homicide. The highest percentage of criminals is furnished by the peasants. In 1906 there were 111,403 arrests; in 1907, 138,501; and to 1 Jan., 1908, 160,025. In 1907 there were 903 prisons. Criminality has assumed great proportions, especially in the Caucasus and Poland, where, on account of political as well as of economic causes, outlawry has increased its numbers to a considerable extent. Political criminality has increased there to an alarming degree. In Poland in 1904-06 760 civil, military, and police employees died by violence, and 864 were wounded; 142 suffered from the explosion of bombs. In Warsaw alone, from 1904 to 1907, 236 police were killed, 179 of them in 1906. The Russian Government has answered these assaults by a multiplication of death sentences, the number of which from 1905 to the present time amounts to several thousand.

HISTORY

A. The Epoch of the Princes

Nestor, the Russian chronicler, speaks of the Drevliani, Radimitchi, Viatitchi, Severiani, and of the primitive races of Russia as of beasts, and assails their polygamy, indecency, and the roughness of their ways. A few families would collect to form a village, and a few villages would constitute a voolst governed by a prince; their attempts at cities were few and far between, and the little states, devoid of a central Government, were the prey of internal discord, and too weak to resist the attacks of external enemies. The Slavs of the south were tributaries of the Khazari; and according to Nestor, those of the Ilmen, torn by dissensions, sent messengers to the Vareghi, or Variaghi, inviting the latter to the country of the Slavs of the Ilmen, which was a land of plenty, but devoid of order and of justice. Russian historians do not agree upon the ethnological relations of the Vareghi, who, according to some authorities, were Scandinavians, and according to others, Slavs; while yet others regard them as adventurers made up of both of those races; more frequently however they are recognized as Normans. Be that as it may, the Vareghi accepted the invitation to establish themselves in the country of the Slavs of the Ilmen, and opened the era of the national history of Russia — of the Russia of the heroic period; and the region of Kieff, according to ancient chronicles, received the name of Russ.

The first to establish themselves in the territory of the Russian tribes were the three Vareghian brothers, Rurik, Sineus, and Truvor, who came with their druzhine, or bands of warriors. Rurik pitched his tents on the shores of Lake Ladoga; Sineus on the shores of the White Sea; while Truvor established himself at Isborsk. After the deaths of Sineus and Truvor, Rurik took up his abode at Novgorod, where he built a castle. Two other Vareghians, Askold and Dir, installed themselves at Kieff, and reigned over the Poliani; with their fleets of small vessels, they crossed the Bosphorus and attacked Constantinople, which city, according to the Byzantine chroniclers, owed its safety on this occasion to the intercession of Our Lady of the Blachernæ. Rurik was succeeded by Oleg, who treacherously murdered Askold and Dir, made himself master of Kieff, to which he gave the name of Mother of Russian Cities, collected a great fleet in 906 to attack Byzantium, and died in the height of his glory, leaving the kingdom to a son of Rurik, Igor. The latter turned his arms unsuccessfully against Byzantium, and died the victim of a barbarous assassination at the hands of the Drevliani in 945. The widow of Igor, Queen Olga, assumed the regency in the minority of her son Sviatoslaff, and cruelly punished the Drevliani for their crimes.

Under Prince Sviatoslaff (964-72), the Khazari were completely defeated, the Petcheneghi put the city of Kieff in danger of destruction, and the Russians, after an heroic resistance, were defeated at Silistria by the Byzantine army under Joannes I Zimiskes. On his return to Russia the Petcheneghi prepared an ambuscade for Sviatoslaff, and killed him and the survivors of his defeated army. The kingdom of Sviatoslaff was inherited by his sons Jaropolk, Oleg, and Vladimir. Jaropolk, who received the Province of Kieff, killed Oleg, who reigned over the Drevliani, and in turn was killed by Vladimir, who had inherited the Province of Novgorod. Before his conversion to Christianity, this prince gave himself up to the most unbridled dissipation. Fortunate in war, he fought successfully against the Poles, the Viatitch, the Radimitchi, the Letts, and the Petcheneghi, and owing to his military successes became the hero of Russian popular songs. His reign lasted from 972 to 1015. Upon the death of Vladimir, his dominions were divided among many heirs, and there were consequent disputes and civil wars. Two of the sons of Vladimir, the princes Boris and Gliebe, were assassinated by Sviatopolk, Prince of Turoff. Yaroslaff, Prince of Novgorod, another son of Vladimir, succeeded in avenging the death of his innocent brothers, and driving Sviatopolk from his throne, he united all Russia under his own sceptre and established his seat of government at Kieff. His reign was long and glorious. He inflicted terrible defeats upon the Petcheneghi, the Lithuanians, and the Finnish tribes, but sought in vain to take Constantinople. His far-sighted policy led him to seek intermarriages with the Kings of Poland, Norway, France, and Hungary. Kieff (adorned with its splendid Cathedral of St. Sophia) became the artistic and intellectual centre of Russia.

From 1054, however, the political conditions of Russia went from bad to worse, and the want of political unity remained a constant cause of internal weakness. In less than two centuries, according to Pogodin, there were sixty-four independent principalities, 293 princes, and 83 civil wars, to which must be added the continual incursions of the barbarians. The history of Russia during this period is a mass of discordant notices. The chief principalities of that time were Smolensk, Tehernigoff, Northern Novgorod, Ryazan, Murom, Tver, Suzdal, Rostoff, Vladimir, Yaroslaff, Pereiaslaff-Zalieski, Volhynia, Galicia, and others; and these states, upon the death of each of their respective princes, were subdivided into new fiefs. Yaroslaff was succeeded upon the throne of Kieff by his son Iziaslaff, who died in 1078. The son of Iziaslaff, Sviatopolk reigned from 1093 to 1113, during which period questions of the succession to the Principalities of Tchernigoff and Volhynia brought the horrors of civil war upon Russia. Sviatopolk was succeeded by the prudent Vladimir Monomacus (1113-25), who obtained important victories over the Polovey, Petcheneghi, and Tcherkessi. When he died he left as his testament to his sons an instruction, which is to some extent an autobiography, and which contains wise advice for government. His sons and his grandsons, however, did not profit by it, for their rivalry contributed to the decadence of Kieff, which in 1169 was besieged and taken by the armies of Rostoff, Vladimir, and Suzdal, commanded by Mstislav, son of Andrew Bogoljubski. The city was sacked and its churches profaned. In 1203 it was again sacked by the Polovcy, and Kieff ceased to be the political centre of Russia.

After the fall of Kieff, the Principalities of Suzdal, Galicia, Novgorod, and Pskof had a rapid but ephemeral development. The most famous of the princes of Suzdal was Andrew Bogoljubski (1157-74), who owed his fame to his ambition, his military enterprises, his love for the fine arts, and his attachment to the Orthodox Church. The city of Vladimir owes to him the splendid monuments that place it in the front rank of the cities of Russia from an archæological standpoint. Autocracy found in him its staunchest supporter, which, however, cost him his life, for he was assassinated by the boyars at Bogoljubovo, where he had built a monastery. His death was followed by turbulence, caused by the rivalry of the cities of Rostoff, Suzdal, and Vladimir, the last of which was victorious, and developed its power still more under Prince Vsevolod (1176-1212). Further wars of succession led in 1215 to the terrible battle of Lipetsk, in which the troops of Novgorod, Pskof, and Smolensk massacred the army of Suzdal and Murom. Their prince, George II, at the death of his brother Constantine, Prince of Vladimir, fought furiously against the Bulgarians of the Volga, and in 1220, at the confluence of the Oka with the Volga, laid the foundation of Nizhni-Novgorod.

In Galicia, Romano, Prince of Volhynia (1188-1205), assisted by the Poles, established himself at Galitch, became famous through his cruelty and his military enterprises, and died in battle against the Poles. He was succeeded by his son Daniel (1205-1266); this prince allowed the Jews, the Armenians, and the Germans to enter his dominions, and thereby greatly promoted industry and commerce. During this period the free cities of Novgorod, Pskof, and Vyatka, like the Italian republics of the Middle Ages, reached a high degree of splendour, and of economic and artistic development; but, torn by internal dissensions, their power waned, while the power of the German military order, of the Brothers of the Militia of Christ, or Sword-Bearers, and that of the Teutonic Order increased; these two orders were formed into a single society in 1237, and subjected the Letts, the Livonians, and the Finns to their influence.

B. Russia under the Tatars

After uniting all the Tatar tribes under his sceptre, Jenghiz Khan (1154-1227) extended his conquest to China, Turkestan, Great Bokhara, and the plains of Western Asia as far as the Crimea; and his successors, continuing the advance, with their hordes crossed the steppes of Southern Russia, and reached the frontiers of the Polovcy; these turned to the Russian princes for assistance. The latter responded to that appeal, and met the Asiatic hordes (1224) at the Kalka, a rivulet that flows into the Sea of Azoff. The princes Mstislav the Rash, Daniel of Galitch, and Oleg of Kursk performed prodigies of valour at the head of their troops; but the numerical superiority of the Tatars and the cowardice of the Polovcy brought defeat upon the Russians, costing them the lives of six princes and seventy boyars. In 1237, led by Baty, the Tatars returned to Russia, burned and destroyed the capital of the Bulgarians in the region of the Volga, and assailed Ryazan, whose princes opposed a desperate resistance, without however being able to save the city from pillage and ruin. Having secured the possession of Ryazan, the Tatars invaded the Principality of Suzdal (1238), and burned Suzdal, Rostoff, Yaroslaff, and many other cities and villages. The Prince of Suzdal, George II, died on the battlefield. In 1239-40, the Tatars continued their devastations through Southern Russia, took Pereiaslaff, Tchernigoff, and Kieff, sowed death and ruin broadcast, and entered Volhynia and Galicia, Novgorod alone escaping the fate of the other Russian cities. In the region of the lower course of the Volga, Baty established his residence (Sarai, the castle), which became the capital of a great Tatar empire, called the Kingdom of the Golden Horde, extending from the Urals and the Caspian Sea to the mouth of the Danube. About 1272 the Tatars of Russia embraced Mohammedanism, became its fanatical preachers, and on this account refrained from mixing with the Russians. At the death of George II his dominions, devastated and pillaged, were inherited by Yaroslaff (1238-46), who was forced to traverse the whole of Russia and Asia to pay homage to the Grand Khan of the Tatars, Oktai. He died of want in the desert, and was succeeded by his son Alexander Nevski, whose name is famous in the national history of Russia on account of his victories over the Teutonic Knights, the Swedes, and the Finns (1246-52).

Following a policy of toleration the very opposite of the Turkish policy towards Christian peoples, the Tatars respected the dynasties and the political institutions of the Russian principalities. Suzdal, Galicia, Volhynia, Tchernigoff, Polotsk, and Novgorod continued to live and to govern themselves as in the past. The Russians were not tatarized, chiefly because differences of religion raised insurmountable barriers between them and the Tatars. The khans of the Golden Horde limited themselves to requiring the external homage of the Russian princes, to acting as arbiters in their quarrels, to imposing a poll-tax, to exacting a military contingent, to reserving the right of investiture over them, and to forbidding them to carry on war without permission. This subjection of the Russians to the Tatars exercised a great influence on Russia. For several centuries the Russians had no contact with Western civilization, and were subjected more directly to the weakening influence of the Byzantine civilization. In their military, economic, and political organization the Russians adopted a great many Tartar institutions. The autocratic government of the Tatar helped to consolidate the autocracy of the Russian princes, which was derived from Byzantium. The Orthodox Russian Church grew in power under the rule of the Tatars, on account of the privileges and exemptions accorded to it. Monasteries were multiplied throughout Russia and through the donations of the faithful acquired enormous riches. On the other hand, there are Russian writers who believe that they discern Tatar influence in the condition of the women in Russia.

Besides the Tatars, in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries the Russians had to struggle in the western provinces against the aggressive ambition of the Lithuanians, the political union of which people had been established by Prince Mindvog, assassinated in 1263. The territorial expansion of the Lithuanians reached its culmination under Prince Gedimin (1315-40), who extended his conquests to Southern Russia, and subjected to his rule Grodno, Pinsk, Brest, Polotsk, Tchernigoff, Vladimir, and finally Kieff, which had entirely lost its prestige. At his death, his son Olgerd (1345-77) led his victorious armies into the territory of Novgorod, adding to his father's conquests Vitebsk, Mohileff, Bryansk, northern Novgorod, Kamenetz, and Podolia, and reached the shores of the Black Sea. He would have established his power at Moscow also, if the Teutonic Knights and the Poles had not opposed his ambitious projects. His successor Jagellon (1377-1434) married Hedwig, Queen of Poland, converted the Lithuanians to Catholicism, and established his capital at Cracow. But the conversion of the Lithuanians displeased the obstinate pagans and the members of the Orthodox Church, and these two united under the flag of Vitovt (1392-1430), upon whom Jagellon was obliged to confer the title of Grand Prince of Lithuania. Vitovt, like his predecessors, continued his conquests in Russia, and took and pillaged Smolensk. He also conceived the design of bringing the Tartar domination to an end, and in 1399 at the head of an enormous army of Lithuanians, Poles, and Russians, he gave battle to the Tatars, who routed him completely. Vitovt, however, was not disheartened. In 1410 with a large army of Poles and Lithuanians, to which 40,000 Tartars and 20,000 mercenaries were added, he assailed the army of the Teutonic Knights at Tannenberg, and, notwithstanding their desperate efforts, destroyed their power, while they left the flower of their order on the battlefield.

C. The Principality and the Grand Princes of Moscow

The name of Moscow appears for the first time in Russian chronicles in 1147. Its founder is said to have been Prince George Dolgoruki, who raised it from a humble village to a city that was destined to become the heart of the great Russian empire. In 1237 it was burned by the Tatars; but having arisen again under Prince George Danilovitch (1303-26), it began its political development. The means adopted for their aggrandizement are certainly not creditable to the princes of Moscow, who according to Rambaud, used intrigue, corruption, the purchase of consciences, servility toward the Tatars, assassination, and delation. George Danilovitch used the Tartars to destroy the power of the princes of Tver. He was assassinated in 1325 by Prince Demetrius of Tver, and Was succeeded by Ivan Kalita, who turned his efforts to transforming Moscow into the metropolis of Russia; he built the Cathedral of the Assumption (Uspenski Sobor) within the enclosure of the Kremlin; and he destroyed the power of the princely dynasty of Tver. His two sons, Simon the Superb (1340-53) and Ivan the Good-Natured (1353-59), continued the policy of their father, the former holding the Russian princes in submission and taking the title of Grand Prince of all the Russians; and the latter showing himself gentle towards his rivals and towards the Lithuanians when they attempted to encroach upon his rights; he was supported by faithful and intelligent men, among them the metropolitan Alexis, who preserved the throne for Demetrius Ivanovitch, son of Ivan. Demetrius Ivanovitch made the first decisive step towards liberating Russia from the Tartar yoke. After carrying on war with the princes of Suzdal, of Tver, and of Ryazan, he crossed the Don, with a large army and the contingents of many Russian princes subject to him, and on the plain of Kulikovo inflicted a bloody defeat upon Mamaï, Khan of the Golden Horde, who had led against the Russians an immense multitude of Tatars, Turks, Polovcy, Tcherkeesi, etc. His victory won him the epithet of Donskoi, but his success was not lasting, for the Tatars, assisted by Tokhtamitch, one of the generals of Timur, laid waste Moscow, Vladimir Mozhaisk, and Yurieff.

At the death of Demetrius the Grand Principality of Moscow and Vladimir was inherited by Vassili-Dmitrievitch (1389-1425), was extended by new conquests in the territory of Tchernigoff, Vyatka, and Novgorod, and thereafter consolidated more and more its supremacy over the Tatars, whose empire was wasting away in consequence of internal quarrels. During the reign of his successor, Vasili the Blind (1425-62), a civil war that lasted twenty years desolated the Grand Principality of Moscow, the political development of which was thereby arrested. Nevertheless Muscovite supremacy was established over Novgorod and Ryazan. From 1449 Vasili had associated with himself in the government his son Ivan who was destined to acquire the epithets of "Great" and "Consolidator of Russia". Ivan the Great (1402-1505) found the territory that he inherited at the death of his father surrounded by the Tatar conquests, the Lithuanian Empire, and Sweden. Among the first events of his reign should be mentioned the complete submission of Novgorod to his rule: the ancient and free city retained only the name of republic; in 1495 Ivan destroyed its commerce also, and reduced it to the status of a city of his dominions. At the same time Russian armies were penetrating the north of Russia, conquering the Province of Perm and the city of Vyatka, marching to the shores of the Petchora, and reaching the coast of the White Sea. The Principality of Tver was annexed to that of Moscow, as were also the cities of Bielozersk, Dmitroff, Mozhaisk, and Serpukhoff. The political unity of Russia was being consolidated in proportion as the Tatar empire of the Golden Horde crumbled. In 1480 two great armies of Russians and Tatars almost decided the fate of Russia in open battle. In 1487 the troops of Moscow entered the Tatar city of Kazan, and took its king, Alegam, prisoner to Moscow. Kazan, however, did not become Russian territory, for Ivan the Great rightly feared that a general uprising of the Mussulman Tatars would follow if he annexed it.

From 1492 Ivan turned his arms against Lithuania. The Lithuanians were supported by the Poles, the Teutonic Knights, and the Mussulman Tatars; but many princes among the vassals of the Grand Prince of Lithuania passed to the side of the Muscovites. The war was prolonged for many years, until a truce was brought about by the mediation of Pope Alexander VI and the King of Hungary in 1503. The most important event of the reign of Ivan the Great was his marriage to Sophia Palæologus, daughter of Thomas Palæologus, a brother of the last Emperor of Byzantium. This marriage was concluded by Paul II and Cardinal Bessarion, and served as the pretext for the tsars to declare themselves heirs of the Byzantine basileis, to take as their arms the two-headed eagle, and to assume the rôle of defenders and champions of the Orthodox Church. With Sophia Palæologus there went to Moscow the surviving representatives of Byzantine culture, and some Italian artists, among whom were the famous architects Aristotele Fioravanti and Pietro Antonio. Ivan the Great then entered into relations with Venice. Through the Princess Sophia, Humanism and the Renaissance flourished for a period at the court of Moscow.

Under Basil Ivanovitch (1505-33), Muscovite Russia grew by the annexation of the Republic of Pskof, the Principalities of Ryazan and Novgorod-Seversk, and the Territory of Smolensk. The political prestige of Russia increased in Europe, and Basil Ivanovitch had diplomatic relations with the pope, France, Austria, Sweden, Turkey, and Egypt. The court of Moscow displayed Asiatic luxury in its feasts. The Tatars, who had again invaded Russian territory, and had reached the walls of Moscow, were met by new campaigns against Kazan (1523 and 1524), which, however, were not successful. In 1533 Ivan IV, a son of Basil, ascended the throne. Posterity has given to him the name of "Terrible" on account of his cruelty, although noted Russian historians like Soloveff and Zabielin have sought to clear his memory and to proclaim his great services to Russia. After freeing himself from the tutelage of the boyars, who lorded it according to their pleasure, in 1547 as heir of the House of Palæologus he caused himself to be crowned at Moscow as Tsar of all the Russias, conquered Kazan (1552), and Astrakhan (1556), subjugated the Tchermisi, Mordvy, Tchiuvashi, Votiaki, Bashkiri, and Nogais; he fought with varied fortunes against the Teutonic Order in Livonia and against the Poles, and through the daring exploits of Gregory Strogonoff and of the Cossack Irmak Timotheevitch he conquered Siberia. He had the misfortune of seeing his capital burned by the Tatar Khan Devlet Ghirei, and of killing his eldest son Ivan in one of his violent excesses of rage. He died in 1584 and was succeeded by his son Feodor (1584-98), who was born the son of Ivan and Anastasia Romanoff. He married Irene, sister of Boris Godunoff, who coveted the throne, and who became the true tsar in the reign of Feodor. The young prince Demetrius, son of the seventh wife of Ivan the Terrible, was relegated to the city of Uglitch. To the advice of Boris Godunoff also were due the two most important measures of this reign, the institution of serfdom, and of the patriarchate.

To satisfy his thirst for power, Godunoff had the young brother of Feodor, the Tsarevitch Demetrius, and his relations put to death, and made the city of Uglitch pay for having given them hospitality. At the death of Feodor, Boris Godunoff, whose name was to be immortalized by the beautiful tragedy of Pushkin, placed the crown of the tsars upon his own head. He worked to introduce Western civilization into Moscow, and died in 1605. He wished to leave the crown to his son, Feodor Borisovitch; in 1603 however a man, whose identity is still shrouded in mystery, had presented himself to the court and to the Polish nobility as the son of Ivan the Terrible, the young Demetrius whom Boris Godunoff had attempted to murder, but whom his relatives had saved. With the aid of the Polish nobility, Demetrius, known to posterity as Pseudo-Demetrius, succeeded in entering Moscow, where Feodor Borisovitch and his mother paid with their lives for the short reign of Boris Godunoff. But a year later Demetrius died, the victim of a conspiracy, at the head of which was Prince Vasili Shuiski, who then ascended the throne of the tsars.

Russia then entered upon a period of troubles (smutnoe vremia) that nearly brought about its political dissolution. New false Demetriuses appeared. The serfs and the peasants, led by Bolotnikoff, menaced Moscow. The nobles wished to drive the usurper Vasili from the throne. The Poles fomented troubles, and sought to establish their supremacy at Moscow. A Polish army under the orders of the waywode John Sapieha and of Lissowski for sixteen months besieged the shrine of the Holy Trinity and St. Sergius, forty miles from Moscow. But the monks defended themselves so resolutely that they compelled the enemy to raise the siege. Tsar Vasili Shuiski called the Swedes to his assistance, but the King of Poland, Sigismund III, casting aside all pretence, entered upon the conquest of Russia. The inhabitants of Moscow revolted, and compelled Shuiski to abdicate (1610). Menaced from many quarters, they elected Vladislaff, son of Sigismund, to be their tsar, on condition that he would adopt the Orthodox religion. The Polish troops, commanded by the hetman Tolkiewski, entered Moscow. But soon a popular revolt that cost thousands of lives obliged the Polish army to shut itself up in the Kremlin and to set fire to the capital. Sigismund was victorious: Smolensk, after a heroic defence, fell into his hands, and the Tsar Vasili Shuiski died at Warsaw. Russia seemed destined to disappear as a political entity. The people, however, saved her: a butcher of Nizhni-Novgorod instigated his fellow-citizens to give their wealth and their sons to free their country from the foreigner; and the Russian monks and bishops were ardent supporters of this struggle for the defence of Russian orthodoxy and of the power of the tsars. A Russian army was formed at Yaroslaff, and under the command of Prince Demetrius Pozharski marched against Moscow, where the Polish troops, decimated by hunger, capitulated at the moment when Sigismund was drawing near with an army to assist them (1612). A great national assembly convened at Moscow, and elected Michael Romanoff tsar. He was a son of the metropolitan Filarete, who was held a prisoner at Marienburg by the Poles.

Under the new tsar (1613-45), Russia strove to heal its wounds. With Sweden in 1617 the peace of Stolbovo was concluded; but the Poles continued their hostilities, and Vladislaff was ready to march on Moscow. In 1618 however a truce was concluded. Filarete then returned to Moscow, where he became the counsellor of his son, and was associated with him in the empire. At the death of Sigismund III (1632), Vladislaff, having ascended the throne of Poland as Wladislaw IV, took up arms against Russia once more. The war, which was fought with varied fortunes, terminated in the truce of Deulin, by the terms of which Wladislaw recognized Michael Romanoff as tsar. The successor of Michael was Alexis Mikhailovitch (1645-76). His first action was directed against Poland, which, by its political and religious persecution of the Orthodox of Little Russia, had lost the good will of the Cossacks and of the lower classes. A Cossack leader, Bogdan Khelmnicki, raised the banner of revolt, and after several battles the tsar also took up arms in 1654. The Russian armies marched against the Poles, and in a short time invaded the whole of Little Russia and Lithuania. A treaty of peace which was concluded in 1667 made Russia mistress of Kieff, Smolensk, and the right bank of the Dnieper, but re-established Polish rule in Lithuania. This peace was made necessary by the Cossacks, who, unwilling to submit to authority, menaced the interior tranquillity of Russia. One of them, Stenko Razin, put himself at the head of a large band of Cossacks of the Don, passed to the region of the Volga, caused peasants, Tatars, Tchiuvashi, Mordvy, and Tchermisi to revolt, and desolated eastern Russia. His hordes were routed by George Bariatinski near Simbirsk, and he was decapitated at Moscow in 1670. Under the Tsar Feodor Alexievitch (1672-82) the Ukraine and the territory of the Zaporoghi Cossacks definitively became Russian possessions, by the treaty of 1681 with Turkey.

D. Reforms of Peter the Great

Modern Russia and its political greatness as a European state really begin with Peter the Great. Without him Russia would probably have remained an Asiatic power. Peter I the Great was the son of Alexis Mikhailovitch and his second wife Natalia Naryshkin. He was proclaimed tsar at the age of nine years, and his youth was threatened by the gravest perils. The ambitious Sophia, daughter of Alexis Mikhailovitch and his first wife, Maria Miloslavska, taking advantage of the minority of Peter, succeeded, by intrigue and cunning beyond her age, in holding the regency of the empire for seven years (1682-89), until she was driven from the throne and locked up in the Devici monastery, while her favourites and partisans died on the scaffold or in exile. Sole and absolute sovereign, Peter the Great wished to begin his reign with some great victory. Accordingly, he rapidly built a fleet, with which he compelled the capitulation of Azoff in 1696. This splendid success gave him great prestige. In 1697 he undertook a journey to Western Europe, where he visited Holland, England, and Austria, becoming a mechanic, visiting industrial establishments, and taking workmen and engineers into his employ, while at the same time he busied himself with politics. This voyage to Europe had disastrous effects upon internal order in Russia, for the clergy and the lower classes, with superstitious terror, believed that it would establish foreign influence in Russia, that is to say, would destroy the ancient religious customs of the land. The lower classes considered it sacrilegious to shave off the beard, just as the raskolniki, who were very numerous, regarded it as a crime to use tobacco. Both of these customs Peter the Great had brought to Russia; reports were spread that he was not of royal birth, but was the child of adultery, and that he was the Antichrist who was to be born in those times. Peter the Great returned to Moscow, and quenched the revolution in blood, causing a thousand people to be put to death amid tortures in a single week, and not hesitating to wield the axe himself to decapitate rebels. Two other military revolts, that of the Don Cossacks (1706) and the Cossacks of the Ukraine, which was brought about by the hetman Mazeppa, who had allied himself to Charles XII of Sweden, were crushed by Peter's generals.

The conquest of the Baltic led Peter the Great to make war on Sweden. The Russian troops were defeated in 1700 under the walls of Narva; but in. 1701 Prince Seremeteff inflicted a severe defeat upon the Swedish general Slipenbach, near Ehresfer, and a more severe one in 1702 near Hümmelsdorf, after which he took the fortress of Nienschantz which the Swedes had built at the mouth of the Neva. Narva fell into the hands of Peter the Great in 1704. In 1708 Charles XII of Sweden invaded Russia at the head of an army of 43,000 veterans, and took the way to Moscow through Lithuania; but a most severe winter and the want of provisions decimated his troops. On 8 July, 1709, under the walls of Pultowa, a Russian army of 60,000 men attacked the Swedes, who were reduced to extremes by hunger and sickness. Both sides fought heroically, but the Swedish army was destroyed and Charles XII was compelled to seek refuge in Turkey. By this victory, which has remained famous in history, Russia raised her flag on the shores of the Baltic, while Sweden fell from the rank of a great European power.

Crowned with the halo of victory, Peter the Great displayed greater energy in his purpose to combine Western civilization with the ancient Russian life, preserving however those Russian customs that seemed to him to be useful to his empire. For example, the serfdom of the agricultural classes was sanctioned by laws, and all the peasants were bound to fixed residence and to per capita taxation. The inhabitants of the cities were divided into guilds, according to trades or professions; foreigners were authorized to carry on commerce and to devote themselves to the industries in Russia; women were taken from their isolation and from the retirement of the terem; he instituted the directing senate to take the place of the ancient duma of the boyars; the provincial administration was reorganized; many abuses of the bureaucracy were rooted out; the army received a European organization, and was increased to 210,000 men; the ancient organization of the Russian Church was destroyed by the institution of the Holy Synod; religious tolerance was established; commerce and industry were developed; a great number of schools and printing-houses were founded; and at the mouth of the Neva he built his capital, St. Petersburg, the "window opened towards the West"; the head of Russia, as Moscow is its heart. And in order to reduce so many reforms to practice in the face of the hostility, sometimes open, sometimes covert, of his subjects, Peter the Great used all the resources of his iron will, all the arms that autocracy placed in his hands, not excluding violence and cruelty.

The work of these reforms did not take the mind of the great reformer from his military enterprises. In 1711 he crossed the Dniester at the head of 30,000 men, bent on the conquest of Constantinople; but an army of 200,000 Turks and Tatars on the banks of the Pruth compelled him to abandon his ambitious dream and to restore Azoff to Turkey. In 1713 the Russian fleet, under the direction of Admiral Apraxin and of Peter the Great himself, took possession of Helsingfors and Abo in Finland, and drew near to Stockholm. After a pause of a few years, war with Sweden was renewed in 1719 and continued until the peace of Nystad put an end to it in 1721, securing to Russia the possession of Livonia, Esthonia, Ingermanland, a part of Finland, and a part of Karelia. In the following year Russian troops marched to the frontier of Persia, invaded Daghestan, Ghilan, and Mazandaran, and took possession of Derbent.

But the military and political successes of Peter the Great were embittered by domestic tragedies. His first wife, Eudocia Lapukhina, was opposed to the reforms, and was therefore compelled to lock herself up in the Pokrovski monastery at Suzdal. The son of Eudocia, Alexis, held to his mother's ideas, and hated his father's reforms. He left Russia while Peter the Great was travelling in the West, and sought refuge at Vienna and Naples. Having been discovered, he returned to St. Petersburg, where his father subjected him to torture, and thereby discovered that Alexis and his mother were the soul of a conspiracy to destroy Peter's work. Eudocia was beaten with rods; the counsellors and partisans of Alexis died amid the most dreadful sufferings; and Alexis himself, having been subjected to torture several times, died in consequence, or was executed, in 1718. By his ukase in 1723, Peter the Great declared Catherine empress. She was a native of Livonia who, after being the mistress of Sheremeteff and Menshikoff, had become the mistress of Peter, who had married her in 1712. The great reformer died in 1725. However historians may differ in their opinions of him, Peter was certainly the founder of modern Russia.

E. The Successors of Peter the Great

The brief reigns of Catherine I (1725-27) and of Peter II Alexeievitch, son of Alexis and Charlotte of Brunswick, offer nothing of interest, except the struggle for political influence between the Menshikoffs and the Dolgorukis. At the death of Peter II, Anna Ivanovna, Duchess of Courland, became Empress of Russia, and an attempt by the aristocracy to establish a supreme council to limit the autocratic power cost the lives of its authors, among whom were several of the Dolgoruki. The empress surrounded herself with Germans; and among them, a Courlander of low extraction, named Biren, became very influential. On his account the reign of Anna Ivanovna received the name of Bironovshshina. Very many nobles paid with their lives for the antipathy they felt towards the new regime, and measures of public finance reduced the peasants to extreme poverty, while Anna indulged in unheard-of luxury, and her court distinguished itself for its immorality and dissipation. At the death of Anna in 1740 the regency passed to Anna Leopoldovna of Mecklenburg, who continued the German regime and gave to Elizabeth, daughter of Peter the Great, timely occasion to drive her from the throne and to imprison her with her husband and her children at Kholmogory, while Elizabeth proclaimed herself Empress of all the Russias. Elizabeth Petrovna (1756-1762), notwithstanding her dissolute habits, continued the traditions of her father: the senate was re-established; industry was developed; great impulse was given to commerce; the severity of corporal punishment was mitigated; the University of Moscow was established; St. Petersburg was embellished with splendid buildings designed by the Italian architect Rastrelli; the Academy of Sciences, founded by Peter the Great and Catherine I, began its period of fruitful literary work; while the Russian armies conquered southern Finland and weakened the power of Prussia, which suffered the disasters of Grossjägernsdorf (1757) and Kunersdorf (1759). In 1760 the armies of Elizabeth made their triumphal entrance into Berlin.

Elizabeth was succeeded by Peter III, a son of Anna Petrovna and Charles Frederick, Duke of Holstein. His reign was very short, for his ambitious consort, Princess Sophia of Anhalt-Zerbst, who became celebrated under the name of Catherine II, compelled him to abdicate, leaving her to reign alone in 1762. The first great events of her government were the war with the Turks and the partition of Poland. Against the Turks, Catherine sent Prince Galitzin, who in 1769 near Chotin defeated a Turkish army three times larger than his own. In the following year (1770), Rumiantzeff obtained a still more decisive victory at Kagul, where with 17,000 Russians he defeated a Turkish army of 150,000 men. In 1771 Prince Dolgoruki took possession of the whole of the Crimea, from which he drove the Turks. At the same time, the Russian Baltic fleet annihilated the Turkish fleet in the roads of Chios and in the port of Tchesme. Hostilities were resumed in 1772, and culminated in the treaty of Kutchuk-Kainardii (1774), by which the independence of the Tatars of the Crimea was recognized, while Azoff, Kinburn, and the strongholds of the peninsula were ceded to Russia, which received a war indemnity of 4,500,000 roubles. The treaty of 15 Jan., 1772, between Russia and Prussia sanctioned the iniquitous division of Poland, which was desired by Frederick II and was hastened by the policy of the Polish nobility and, to a great extent, of the clergy. By this division Russia added to her dominions White Russia (Polotsk, Vitebsk, Orsha, Mohileff, Mstislavl, and Gomel), with 1,600,000 inhabitants; Austria received eastern Galicia and Ruthenia (or Red Russia), with 2,500,000 inhabitants; and Prussia received the provinces of western Prussia (except Thorn and Danzig), with 900,000 inhabitants.

To these victories and conquests Catherine added her efforts to give to Russia a good internal government: she established a commission, a species of national representation of the different peoples of Russia, to frame a new code of laws (1766-68); she suppressed the revolt of Emilius Pugatcheff, a Raskolnik Cossack, who, pretending to be Peter III, escaped from his butchers, carried fire and sword through the region of the Volga, stirred the serfs and the Cossacks to revolt, and massacred many nobles (1773); by a ukase in 1775 she divided Russia into fifty governments, and the governments into districts; she reorganized the administration of justice, and established a better apportionment of the rights and privileges of the various social classes; she secularized the property of the clergy, and founded at Moscow the Vospitatelnyi dom for orphans, gave efficient aid to the literary movement of her age, and became famous also as a writer; she corresponded with learned Europeans (especially with the French Encyclopædists), promoted the arts, and enriched the museums. Meanwhile skilful generals, among whom was Catherine's favourite, Potemkin, added new glories to the military history of Russia. Gustavus III of Sweden, notwithstanding the naval victory of Svenska-Sund (9 July, 1790), was unable to take land from Russia. Rumiantzeff, Potemkin, Suvaroff, and Soltikoff, one after another, defeated the Turkish armies, took Otchakoff and Ismail by assault, and compelled Turkey, at the Peace of Jassy (1792), to make new cessions of territory (Otchakoff and the coast between the Bug and the Dnieper) and to grant independence to the principalities of the Danube.

Under Catherine II there took place the third Partition of Poland, which the heroism of Kosciuszko was not able to avert. By this partition Russia added Volhynia, Podolia, Little Russia, and the remainder of Lithuania to her empire (1795). Catherine died 17 Nov., 1796, at the age of 67 years. Thanks to her policy and to the victories of her generals she had greatly increased the territory of Russia, extending its frontiers to the Niemen, the Dniester, and the Black Sea. Paul I (1796-1801) at first followed a policy of peace; he introduced wise economic reforms, and re-established the principle of succession to the throne in the male line. But the French Revolution compelled him to enter an alliance with Turkey, England, and Austria against France. The Russian troops, under the orders of Rimsky-Korsakoff, entered Switzerland, and under Suvaroff they marched into upper Italy. The campaign was not a successful one for the Russians, but their retreat under Suvaroff through the Alps, where they were shut in by the French armies (1799), has remained famous. Paul I was assassinated by a palace conspiracy on the night of 23-24 March, 1801, and Alexander I (1801-25) ascended the throne. The new emperor took part in the epic struggle of Europe against Napoleon. On 2 Dec., 1805, was fought the battle of Austerlitz, which cost Russia the flower of her army and very nearly the life of Alexander himself. On 6 Feb., 1807, at Eylau, the Russian troops under Bennigsen, after a bloody battle in which they lost 26,000 men killed and wounded, were compelled to retreat. On 25 April, 1807, Russia and Prussia signed the convention of Bartenstein, by which those two powers became allied against France; and on 14 June of the same year the decisive defeat of Bennigsen at Friedland led Alexander to conclude with Napoleon the treaty of Tilsit, which was ratified 12 Oct., 1808, at Erfurt. At peace with France, Russia turned her arms against Turkey, whose armies were defeated at Batynia by Kamenski (1810), and at Slobodsia by Kutuzoff (1811). The congress of Bukarest (1812) insured to Russia the possession of Bessarabia. At the same time Russia was at war with Persia.

The Polish question and the Russian national sentiment, which was excited to a high degree against the French, brought about the great war between Russia and France, a war that led to the ruin of the Napoleonic empire. The French army, consisting of 600,000 men of the various European nationalities, crossed the Russian frontiers, entered Vilna, and on 18 Aug., 1812, fought the Russians in a bloody battle at Smolensk. The battle of Borodino was fought on 7 Sept., and cost the Russians 40,000 men, while the French lost 30,000. On 14 Sept. Napoleon entered Moscow to the sound of the Marseillaise. The city was set on fire. On the other hand an exceptionally severe winter set in. After a stay of thirty-five days at Moscow, Napoleon began the retreat, during which he was obliged to defend himself, not only against the regular Russian troops, but also against the Cossacks and the peasants in search of booty. Between 26 and 29 Nov., on the right bank of the Beresina, near Studienka, 40,000 men of the Grand Army held 140,000 Russians in check, and with Napoleon succeeded in making a safe retreat. On 30 Dec., after Homeric struggles, Marshal Ney recrossed the Niemen with the remnant of the army. The Grand Army of Napoleon had left 330,000 men killed and wounded in Russia. Russia had repelled the invader from her soil, and on 28 Feb., 1813, allied herself to Prussia by the Treaty of Kalish.

The military genius of Napoleon and his victories were unable to save his throne. On 31 March, 1814, Alexander I and the allied armies entered Paris. The Congress of Vienna (1815) placed the Kingdom of Poland again under the sceptre of the Tsars, and withdrew that unhappy nation from the number of the free peoples. Its autonomy, however, remained to it under Alexander I, who also organized Finland as an independent grand duchy. That prince had a mind that was open to Liberal ideas, which found a convinced promoter in the minister Speransky (1806-12); but the intrigues of Speransky's enemies undermined the influence that he exercised with Alexander, and his place was taken by Araktcheyeff, a man whose name in Russia is synonymous with blind reaction and ferocity. The reformist policy of Speransky ceased, and measures of the severest intolerance were adopted in politics, and even in the sciences and literature. Alexander I was becoming more and more of a mystic, when death overtook him at Taganrog on 1 Dec., 1825. The popular imagination transformed him into a legendary hero, into a sovereign who, to expiate his faults, adopted the garb of a muzhik, and lived and died unknown among his most humble subjects.

Alexander was succeeded on 24 Dec., 1825, by Nicholas I, third son of Paul I. The beginning of his reign was marked by a revolution that broke out in December, and brought to its authors the name of Dekabristi or Decembrists. The most cultured and eminent men of Russia were engaged in this conspiracy, among them Pestel, Ryleeff, Muravieff-Apostol, and Bestuzheff-Riumin, who sought to establish a constitutional regime. Nicholas was most severe. The Decembrists ended their lives in Siberia or on the scaffold. They are regarded as the most illustrious martyrs of liberty in Russia. In his domestic policy Nicholas I continued the work of his predecessors with regard to the codification of the Russian laws. In 1830 there appeared the "Complete Collection of Russian Laws"; in 1838 the "Collection of Laws in Force", and in 1845 the penal code. The work of canal-making was continued, and the first railways in Russia were built; but every literary or political manifestation of Liberal ideas found in Nicholas I a fierce and inexorable adversary.

In his foreign policy Nicholas continued the war with Persia, which by the treaty of 22 Feb., 1828, was compelled to cede the Provinces of Erivan and Nakhitchevan, to pay a war indemnity, and to grant commercial concessions. The Russian fleet, together with the French and the English fleets, took part in the Battle of Navarino (20 Oct., 1827), in which the Turkish fleet was destroyed, and by which the independence of Greece was established. Russia continued the war against Turkey in 1828 and 1829, until the Treaty of Adrianople (1829) secured to her the gains which she expected from her victories: the acquisition of Turkish territory and commercial advantages. After a series of military expeditions, the Khan of Khiva finally became a vassal of the tsar (1854). The Polish insurrection of 1830, which was desired by the people rather than by the cultured and leading classes, put Poland and Lithuania at the mercy of fire and sword in 1830 and 1831, and cost Poland her autonomy, brought on her the policy of russianization, and led to the exile of thousands of victims to Siberia. Austria and Germany gave to Russia their moral support in her severe repression of the Polish revolution, which on the other hand found many sympathizers in France. Nicholas I was the most determined enemy of the European revolution of 1848. In 1849 the Russian army suppressed the Hungarian revolution, and saved the throne of Francis Joseph. In 1853 the question of the Holy Places, the antagonism of France and Russia in the East, and the ambition of Nicholas for a Russian protectorate over all the Orthodox states of the Balkans brought about the war between Russia and Turkey, and in 1854 the Crimean War. Turkey, England, and France, and later Piedmont allied themselves against Russia. The allied fleets burned or bombarded the maritime strongholds of Russia, and in 1854 the allied armies invaded the Crimea, where on 20 Sept. the battle of the Alma opened to them the way to Sebastopol. The Russians had prepared to make a desperate defence of that city, under one of the most daring and talented generals of the Russia of our day, Todleben. But the fortunes of the Crimean campaign now appeared disastrous for Russia. Nicholas I was heartbroken by it, and unable to withstand the blow that it dealt to his pride, he died of a broken heart 3 March, 1855, while the star of Russian power in the East waned.

The first care of his successor, Alexander II (1855-1881), was to bring the Crimean War to an honourable termination, and to prevent the political and economic ruin of Russia. Sebastopol had fallen on 8 Sept., 1855. The war had cost Russia 250,000 men, and the Government had not funds to continue it. The Congress of Paris, on 25 Feb., 1856, obliged Russia to accept terms of peace by which all the efforts and sacrifices of Peter I, Catherine II, and Alexander I to establish their power at Constantinople came to naught. The Black Sea was opened to all nations, and Russia was refused the protectorate over Christians in the East. Alexander II understood that, to remedy the evil results of the Crimean War, it was necessary to establish great social reforms, and to curtail the power and limit the abuses of the bureaucracy. On 19 Feb., 1861, an imperial decree proclaimed the end of the serfdom of the rural classes, and restored to freedom 23,000,000 serfs. Important reforms were introduced into the administration of justice and that of the provincial governments; corporal punishment was abolished; the censorship of the Press was made less severe; foreigners were granted the same privileges enjoyed by Russians, and the privileges of the universities that Nicholas I had abolished were restored. By all of which Alexander II acquired the good will of his people, who gave to him the title of Tsar Liberator. Other reforms were intended to mitigate the painful conditions of the Poles, whom the iron hand of Nicholas I had despoiled of their autonomy. But the imprudence of the Nationalist parties provoked the new Polish insurrection of 1863, which, notwithstanding the pacific remonstrances of France Austria, and England, brought its deathblow to Polish free government, cost Poland thousands of victims, and transformed that land into a field open to all the abuses of russianization. The Polish language was officially replaced by the Russian. Finland on the contrary was confirmed in all its privileges by Alexander II, who was exceptionally favourable to the German nobility of the Baltic provinces.

During the reign of Alexander II, Russia took an active part in the affairs of Asia and Europe. The Russian troops continued their slow, but persevering, invasion of Asia. The Kirghiz and the Turkomans became the vassals of Russia; the Khanates of Khokand and Samarkand were annexed to Russian territory, while those of Khiva and Bokhara were declared vassals; the influence of Russia over Persia was firmly established; the treaty of Tientsin (1858), and that of Peking (1860), secured to Russia the possession of all the left bank and of part of the right bank of the Amur; in all, 800,000 sq. miles. In 1867 Russia sold her American possessions to the United States. In 1875 Japan ceded the island of Sakhalin.

In Europe, under the guidance of the imperial chancellor, Prince Alexander Gortchakoff, Russia recognized the unity of Italy, and remained indifferent to the aggrandizement of Prussia and the crushing of France in 1870. On 21 Jan., 1871, she recognized the German Empire. As the price of her neutrality, Russia demanded the abrogation of the clause of the treaty of 1856 which limited her military power on the Black Sea. A convention with Turkey (18 March, 1872) stipulated that Russia and Turkey could erect fortifications on the coasts of the Black Sea, and maintain fleets on its waters. The insurrection of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the war of Servia and Montenegro against Turkey (1876), the Bulgarian massacres (1875), and the victory, and later the defeat, of the Servian army at Djunis (1876) provoked a new crisis in the affairs of the East. Russia took up arms again in defence of the Slavs of the Balkans. In April, 1878, the Russian armies crossed the Pruth and entered Rumania. The war was a bloody one. The Turkish generals, Suleiman Pasha, Osman Pasha, and Mukhtar Pasha, fought with great bravery; but the tenacity of the Russians, their enthusiasm for a war that seemed sacred to them, from the national and from the religious point of view, and the valour and military genius of the Russian generals, especially of Todleben and Skobeleff, triumphed. The most important episodes of the campaign were the repeated battles in the Shipka Pass (16 Aug.-17 Sept.) and the taking of Plevna (10 Dec.), when the Russians themselves expressed their admiration of the heroism of Osman Pasha and his troops. The Rumanians, Servians, and Montenegrins fought beside the Russians, and with equal valour. From victory to victory the Russians marched with rapid strides along the road to Constantinople, and established themselves at San Stefano. Russia's ideal would have been attained if England had not stood in her way. On 3 March, 1878, the Russian ambassador, Ignatieff, signed with the Sublime Porte the Treaty of San Stefano, by which the Balkan States were organized. Russia received a war indemnity of 310,000,000 roubles, the Armenian districts of Batum, Kars, Ardahan, and Bayazid, and the part of Bessarabia that was united to the Danubian Principalities in 1856. But the advantages that Russia obtained by the Treaty of San Stefano were revoked in great measure by the Treaty of Berlin (13 July, 1878). The map of the Balkans was remodelled so as to make Russia lose the influence that she had acquired over the Balkan States by her victories, while she saw the appearance in the East of a dangerous competitor, Austria, who had become the protector, and later the master, of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Russia surrendered Bayazid, and the course of the Danube from the Iron Gates to the Black Sea was declared neutral and closed to ships of war.

The victories obtained over the Turks had not been sufficient to destroy the germs of revolution in Russia, fomented by the Nihulists. Alexander II was preparing to give a constitution to his people when the Nihilist plot of 13 March, 1881, put a tragic end to his life. He was succeeded by his son, Alexander III (1881-94). The constitutional projects of Alexander II were entirely abandoned; the counsellors of the tsar, and especially Ignatieff and Katkoff, bitter enemies of Liberalism, induced the emperor to give to the principle of autocracy his strongest sanction. This reign was marked by the terrible massacres of the Jews in 1881 and 1882; by the disorders of the universities in 1882 and 1887, which led the government to subject the universities to severe supervision; by the rigorous censorship of the Press; by the promulgation of a collection of laws that were intended to complete the work of liberation of the serfs and to better the economic condition of the rural classes and lastly, by the great economic and military development of Russia. The work of russianization was continued with activity, even with ferocity. The Caucasus lost its administrative autonomy; cruel and inhuman laws were framed against the Poles; the Jews were reduced to despair and hunger; the German Protestants of the Baltic provinces were treated like the Poles; and the autonomy of Finland lacked little of being destroyed by force.

Alexander III continued with the greatest success the Russian invasion of Asia. Russian territory, notwithstanding the opposition of England, grew at the expense of Afghanistan, China, and Korea; the building of the Trans-Caspian Railway opened to Russia the strategic ways of Persia, Afghanistan, and India; the Trans-Siberian Railway was to endow Russia with an open sea, and to open a way of communication between Moscow and the Pacific Ocean. The influence of Russia in the Balkans waned under Alexander III. The severity of the court of St. Petersburg towards Prince Alexander of Battenberg, and towards the national sentiment of the Bulgarians, and the tenacity with which Stambuloff conducted the campaign against the Russian policy in his country, greatly diminished the gratitude and good will of the Bulgarians towards Russia. The most important event in the foreign relations of Russia during the reign of Alexander III was the understanding with France. Russia at first leaned towards Germany; but after the German conventions with Austria (1879 and 1882) and the formation of the Triple Alliance, she turned to France; for her friendly relations with this power Russia had also financial reasons, because she needed funds for the construction of her railways, especially the Trans-Siberian; and as the money market of Berlin had been closed to Russia by Bismarck, the French had lent her, in the years 1887, 1889, 1890, and 1891, more than 3,000,000,000 francs. In 1891 the French fleet, commanded by Admiral Gervais, visited Kronstadt, where the French sailors were received with an enthusiastic welcome. In June, 1893, a commercial treaty created more intimate relations between the two powers.

F. The Reign of Nicholas II

The successor of Alexander III is Nicholas II, born 6 May, 1868, and married 14 Nov., 1894, to the daughter of Louis IV, Grand Duke of Hesse, the Empress Alexandra Feodorovna. The reign of Nicholas II has been unfortunate for Russia. He was crowned at Moscow in May, 1896, in the presence of delegates of nearly all the civilized nations and of a special mission of the Holy See, at the head of which was Cardinal Agliardi; and a few days after his coronation, on the occasion of a feast given in his honour, a thousand people were crushed to death by crowding. In 1898 a convention between China and Russia placed Port Arthur under the control of the latter power for a space of twenty-five years, granted the right to connect that port with the Trans-Siberian Railway, and secured to the Russians a free way to the Pacific Ocean. By this convention Russia took a preponderant position in the Far East, and already contemplated the conquest of Korea, to the detriment of Japan. In 1896 China had already granted to Russia the right of way for the prolongation of the Trans-Siberian Railway as far as Mukden. The domestic policy, thanks especially to the inspirations of de Plehve and of Constantini Pobiedonostseff, was one of fierce repression and russianization. It was intended to crush the Polish element and to deprive Finland of its autonomy. To carry out this policy, General Bobrikoff was appointed governor of Finland. He fell in 1898 a victim of the exasperated patriotism of a student. The Jews especially were made objects of legal as well as illegal persecutions, which led to the massacres of Gomel and Kishineff in 1903. This policy of russianization brought about a renewal of the activities of the terrorists, who in 1901 and 1902 murdered the ministers of public instruction, Bogoliepoff and Sipiagin, and in 1904 de Plehve.

In 1899 at the initiative of Nicholas II the conference of the Hague was convoked, to consider the question of disarmament and the maintenance of universal peace. How commercial this initiative was, Russia herself soon showed, for in 1904 she broke off diplomatic negotiations with Japan. The Japanese demanded that Russia should evacuate Manchuria and give up her project of conquering Korea. The war was fought with equal valour by both combatants on land and sea; but the Russians lost Port Arthur, were driven from Korea, and saw their fleet annihilated at Tsushima. Russia could have continued her disastrous war, but the growth of the revolution at home compelled her to consent to the proposals of peace that were made by President Roosevelt of the United States. On 16 Aug., 1905, there was concluded at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, U. S., a peace that was ratified on 1 Oct. of the same year. Meanwhile Russia was in the throes of the revolution, in Jan., 1905, the troops fired upon thousands of workmen who were making a demonstration and there were several hundred victims. In February the Grand Duke Sergius was torn to fragments by a bomb. A man-of-war of the Black Sea fleet mutinied: a military revolt broke out at Viborg. The tsar, to stop the revolutionary flood, in October granted a constitution by an imperial decree in which he proclaimed liberty of conscience, of the Press, and of association, re-established the ancient privileges of Finland, and promised to alleviate the conditions of the non-Russian subjects of the empire.

On 27 April, 1906, the Duma, which consisted in great part of Liberal members, was opened. It lasted two months. The right of suffrage was limited; nevertheless, the second Duma, which lasted a hundred days, had a revolutionist and socialist majority. The government reformed the electoral laws, and in that way was able to secure the election of a Duma that was more in accord with its wishes, containing among its members forty-two priests and two bishops of the Orthodox Church. Notwithstanding the proclamation of liberty of conscience and of the Press, there was a return to the oH policy, recourse being had to the most severe methods of repression to put down revolutionary movements and the ferocious banditism of Poland and the Caucasus. Exceptional laws against the Poles and Finns were revived.

From 1907 to 1911 the Russian Government, though constitutional in appearance, has endeavoured to strengthen its autocratic regime and to render illusory all its promises of constitutional liberty. During this period, the reins of government were in the strong and energetic hands of Peter Arkadevitch Stolypin, born at Srednikovo near Moscow, 1862, and governor of Saratoff in 1906. Appointed to the Ministry of the Interior 26 April, 1906, and premier on 8 July, 1906, he applied himself with unshaken purpose to re-establish internal order in Russia. In the beginning he seemed to be animated by Liberal sentiments, but pressure from the court party and on the other hand the crimes of the Terrorists led him to ally himself with that faction of the Duma which opposed the constitution as harmful to the solidarity of Russia. In internal politics he sought to limit the powers of the Duma, to maintain in all their vigour the laws against the Jews, to crush the obstinacy of the Finns by transforming the Government of Viborg into a Russian province and impeding in every way the Diet of Helsingfors, to suppress the Polish national movement by limiting the number of Polish deputies in the Zemstva of western Russia, and by dividing administratively the Province of Chelm from the Kingdom of Poland. In foreign politics Russia has suffered from its defeat in the war with Japan. The annexation of Bosnia and Herzogovina came near precipitating a conflict between Austria and Russia, almost involving all the Slavs of the Balkan states, but Austria's military superiority, in addition to the support of the German Emperor, induced Russian diplomacy to moderate its demands. In the meantime, Russia has been preoccupied in reorganizing its own military and naval forces, in efficaciously directing colonizations in Siberia, in penetrating tentatively into Persia, and in agitating its own political propaganda in the Austrian provinces of Galicia and Bukovina. The revolution seemed to have been suppressed when, in Sept., 1911, Stolypin, in the Imperial Theatre of Kieff, fell under the dagger of a Jewish lawyer called Bogroff. He expired exclaiming that he was always ready to die for the tsar. The tsar selected as his successor Kokovtzoff, an economist of European fame, who entertains the same political ideas as Stolypin and continues his methods of government.

Geography and Statistics: — BUHLE, Versuch einer kritischen Literatur der russichen Geschichte (Moscow, 1810); Russkaja istoritcheskaja bibliografija (Russian Historical Bibliography) (St. Petersburg, 1861-72), 77; BESTUZHEFF-RIUMIN, Quellen und Litteratur zur russichen Geschichte von der ältesten Zeit bis 1825 (Mitau, 1876); IKONNIKOFF, Opyt russkoi istoriografii (Essay on Russian Historiography), t. I (1-2) (Kieff, 1891); t. II (1-2) (Kieff, 1908), a monumental work, of incalculable bibliographical value.
HEYM, Versuch einer vollständigen geographisch-topographischen Encyklopädie des russischen Reichs (Göttingen, 1796); VSEVOLOJSKIJ, Dictionnaire géographique-historique de I'empire de Russie (2 vols., St. Petersburg, 1833); SEMENOFF, Dictionnaire géographique et statistique de l'empire de Russie (5 vols., St. Petersburg, 1863-1873); KEUCK AND STACKELBURG, Ortsverzeichniss von Russland (Leipzig, 1903); STRAHLENBERG, Description historique de l'empire russien (2 vols., Amsterdam, 1757); BÜSCHING, Neue Beschreibung des russischen Reichs (Hamburg, 1763); D'ANVILLE, L'empire de Russie (Paris, 1772); GEORGI, Beschreibung aller Nationen des russischen Reichs (3 vols., St. Petersburg, 1776-77); SONNTAG, Das russische Reich (2 vols., Riga, 1791-1792); COMEIRAS, Tableau général de la Russie moderne (2 vols., Paris, 1807); DE RAYMOND, Tableau historique, géographique, militaire et moral de l'empire de Russie (2 vols., Paris, 1812); SCHÄFFER, Beschreibung des russischen Reichs (Berlin, 1812); VON BRÖMSEN, Russland und das russische Reich (2 vols., Berlin, 1819); HASSEL, Vollständige und neueste Erdbeschreibung des russischen Reichs in Europa (Weimar, 1821); BULGARIN, Russland in historischer, statistischer, geographischer und litterarischer Beziehung (3 vols, Riga, 1839-41); POSSART, Das Kaiserthum Russland (Stuttgart, 1840); OLDEKOP, Geographie des russischen Reichs (St. Petersburg, 1842); VON REDEN, Das Kaiserreich Russland: statistischgeschichtliche Darstellung (Berlin, 1843); REYNELL, Russia as it is (London, 1854); LE DUC, La Russie contemporaine (Paris 1854); VÖLTER, Das Kaiserthum Russland in Europa, Asien und Amerika (Esslingen, 1855); SCHNITZLER, L'Empire des Tzars (Paris 1856); JOURDIER, Des forces productives, destructives et improductives de la Russie (Paris, 1860); BUSCHEN, Bevölkerung des russischen Kaiserreichs (Gotha, 1862); PAULY, Description ethnographique des peuples de la Russie (St. Petersburg, 1862); WAHL, The Land of the Czar (London, 1875); ROSKOSCHNY, Russland: Land und Leute (Leipzig, 2 vols., 1882-83); PYPIN, Istorija russkoi etnografii (St. Petersburg, 4 vols., 1891-1892); BIGELOW, The Borderland of Czar and Kaiser (London. 1895); KOWALEWSKY, La Russie à la fin du XIX siècle (Paris, 1900); SEMENOFF AND LAMANSKY, Polnoe geografitcheskoe opisanie nashego otestchestva (Complete geographical description of our country) (16 vols., St. Petersburg, 1899-1907); KUPCZANKO, Russland in Zahlen (Leipzig, 1902); BONMARIAGE, La Russie d'Europe: topographie, relief, géologie, hydrologie, climatologie, régions naturelles (Brussels, 1903); DRAGE, Russian Affairs (London, 1904): SCHLESINGER, Russland im XX. Jahrhundert (Berlin, 1908); BOUSTEDT, Das russische Reich in Europa und Asien (Berlin, 1910); works on the geography of the Russian Empire by JANSON (St. Petersburg, 1878); by VORNECKIJ (St. Petersburg, 1905); ELISIEEFF (Moscow, 1905), JANTCHIN (Moscow, 1905), LIMBERT (St. Petersburg, 1906), BIELOKH (St. Petersburg, 1907), BARANOFF (St. Petersburg, 1907), SPIRIDONOFF (St. Petersburg, 1907), MATTCHENKO (Kieff, 1907). and TIMKHOVSKIJ (Moscow, 1908).

Commerce, Industry, Agriculture and Finance: — MARBAULT, Essai sur le commerce de Russie (Amsterdam, 1777); FREIBE, Ueber Russlands Handel, Industrie und Produkte (3 vols., St. Petersburg, 1796--98); PELTCHINSKY, De l'état des forces industrielles de la Russie (St. Petersburg, 1834); DEDE, Der Handel des russischen Reichs (Mitau, 1844); STEINHAUS, Russlands industrielle und commercielle Verhältnisse (Leipzig, 1852); TEGOBORSKI, Etudes sur les forces productives de la Russie (4 vols., Paris, 1852--55); ARISTOFF, Promyshlennost drevnei Rusi (The commerce of Ancient Russia) (St. Petersburg, 1866); MATTHÄI, Der auswärtige Handel Russlands (St. Petersburg, 1874); IDEM, Die Industrie Russlands in ihrer bisherigen Entwickelung und gegenwärtigen Zustande (2 vols., Leipzig, 1872--73); GROTHE, Die Hauptmomente der wirthschaftlichen Entwickelung Russlands (Berlin, 1884); KOWALEVSKY, The Industries of Russia (5 vols., St. Petersburg, 1893); TUGAN-BARANOWSKY, Geschichte der russischen Fabrik (Berlin, 1900); WITTSCHEWSKY, Russlands Handels, Zoll und Industriepotitik von Peter dem Grossen bis auf die Gegenwart (Berlin, 1905); ZWEIG, Die russische Handels-Politik seit 1877 (Leipzig, 1906); LANWICK, L'industrie dans la Russie méridionale, sa situation, son avenir (Brussels, 1907); SVIATLOVSKIJ, Professionalnoe dvizhenie v Rossii (Professional movement in Russia) (St. Petersburg, 1907); RUBINOFF, Russia's Wheat Trade (Washington, 1908); IDEM, Russian Wheat end Wheat Flour in European Markets (Washington, 1908); LOVJAGIN, Otetchestvoviedienie: prirodnyja uslovija, narodnoe khozjaistvo, duhovnaja kultura i gosudarstvennyi stroj rossiiskoi imperii (Notes of the fatherland: natural Conditions, national economy, intellectual culture, and political constitution of the Russian Empire) (St. Petersburg, 1901); MOREFF, Otcherk kommertcheskoi geografii i khozjaistvennoi statistiki Rossii (Essay on Russian commercial geography and economic statistics) (St. Petersburg, 1907); SOBOLEFF, Kommertcheskaja geografija Rossii (Moscow, 1907); STORCH, Der Bauernstand in Russland (St. Petersburg, 1850); Etudes sur la question de l'abolition du servage en Rassie (Paris, 1859); VON HAXTHAUSEN, Die landliche Verfassung Russlands (Leipzig, 1866); VON WURSTEMBERGER, Die gegenwärtiger Agrarverhältnisse Russlands (Leipzig, 1873); VON KEUSSLER, Zur Geschichte und Kritik des bäuerlichen Gemeindebesitzes in Russland (2 Vols., Riga, 1876, 1882--83); SEMENOFF, Krestjane v carstvovanie imperatricy Ekateriny II (The peasants during the reign of Catharine II) (2 vols., St. Petersburg, 1881, 1901--03); YERMOLOFF, Mémoire sur la production agricole de la Russie (St. Petersburg, 1878); SEMENOFF, Osvobozhdenie krestjan (The emancipation of the Russian peasants) (3 vols., St. Petersburg, 1889--1892); STEPNIAK, Der russische Bauer (Stuttgart, 1893); SIMKHOVITCH, Die Feldgemeinschaft in Russland (Jena, 1898); KATCHOROVSKIJ, Russkaja obshshina (The Russian mir) (Moscow, 1906); BRAUDE, Zur Agrarbewegung in Russland (Leipzig, 1907); MASSLOFF, Die Agrarfrage in Russland (Stuttgart, 1907); LJASHSHENKO, Otcherki agrarnoj evoljucii Rossii (Essays on the agrarian evolution of Russia) (St. Petersburg, 1908); MEYENDORFF, Otcherki pozemelnago zakonodatestva (Essay on the agrarian legislation of Russia) (St. Petersburg, 1909).

HAGEMEISTER, Rozyskanija o finansakh drevnei Rossii (Researches on the finances of ancient Russia) (St. Petersburg, 1833); WOLOWSKI, Les finances de la Russie (Paris, 1864); RAFFALOVITCH, Les finances de la Russie depuis la dernière guerre d'Orient (Paris, 1883); LE CLERCQ, Les finances de l'empire de Russie (Amsterdam, 1886); KRÜGER, Russlands Finanzlage (Berlin, 1887); RAFFALOVITCH, Les finances de la Russie 1887--1889 (Paris, 1889); SKALKOWSKY, Les ministres des finances de la Russie (1802--1890) (Paris, 1891); HOSKIER, Les finances de la Russie (Paris, 1892); MOOS, Die Finanzen Russlands (Berlin, 1896); MIGULIN, Russkij gosudarstvennyi kredit (Public credit in Russia) (3 Vols., Kharkoff, 1899--1907); DE BLOCH, Les finances de la Russie au XIX ^e siècle (2 vols., Paris, 1899); GOLOVIN, Russlands Finanzpolitik und die Aufgaben der Zukunft (Leipzig, 1900); DAVIDSON, Die Finanzwirtschaft Russlands (Leipzig, 1902); FRIEDMANN, Die russischen Finanzen (Berlin, 1906).

Army and Navy: — VON PLOTHO, Ueber die Entstehung, die Fortschritte und die gegenwärtige Verfassung der russischen Armee (Berlin, 1811); TANSKI, Tableau statistique, politique et moral du système militaire de la Russie (Paris, 1833); VON HAXTHAUSEN, Die Kriegsmacht Russlands in ihrer historischen, statistischen, ethnographischen und politischen Beziehung (Berlin,1852); Fr. tr. (Berlin, 1853); BRIX, Geschichte der alten russischen Heereseinrichtungen (Berlin, 1867); VON SARAUW, Die russische Heeresmacht (Leipzig, 1875); WEIL, Les forces militaires de la Russie (2 vols., Paris, 1880); VON DRYGALSKI, Die russische Armee in Kreig und Frieden (Berlin, 1882); VON STEIN, Geschichte des russischen Heeres (Hanover, 1885); DRYGALSKI, Beiträge zur Orientierung über die Entwicklungsgeschichte der russischen Armee von ihren Anfängen bis auf die neueste Zeit (Berlin, 1892); IDEM, Russland, Das Heer (Berlin, 1898); MOURIN, Essai historique sur l'armée russe (Paris, 1899); DRYGALSKI, Die Organisation der russischen Armee (Leipzig, 1902); CLARKE, Russia's Sea Power, Past and Present; or, the Rise of the Russian Navy (London, 1898); BRIDGE, History of the Russian Fleet During the Reign of Peter the Great (London, 1899); JANE, The Imperial Russian Navy, Its Past, Present, and Future (London, 1899); OGORODNIKOFF, Istoritcheskij obzor razvitjia i diejatel'nosti morskogo ministerstva, za sto liet ego sushshestvovanja (1802--1902) (An historical essay on the progress and work of the ministry of the Russian navy during the first century of its existence) (St. Petersburg, 1902); KLADO, Die russische Seemacht (Berlin, 1905).

Customs, and Morality in Russia: — MICHALO, De moribus Tartarorum, Lithuanorum et Moschorum (Basle, 1615); I. C. M. D., The ancient and present staete of Muscowy (London, 1698); ALGAROTTI, Saggio di lettere sopra la Russia (Paris, 1763); MEINERS, Vergleichung des ältern, und neuen Russlands (2 vols., Leipzig, 1798); DE RECHBERG, Les peuples de la Russie (2 Vols., Paris, 1812--13); Russland, oder Sitten der Bewohner der sämmtlichen Provinzen dieses Reichs (Schweidnitz, 1828); DUPRÉ DE ST. MAURE, Observations sur les mœurs et les usages russes (3 vols., Paris, 1829); Ger. tr. (2 vols., Leipzig, 1830); Russlands inneres Leben (3 vols., Brunswick, 1846); TURGENIEFF, La Russie et les Russes (3 vols., Paris, 1847); VON HAXTHAUSEN, Etudes sur la sitution intérieure, la vie nationale, et les institutions rurales de la Russie (Hanover, 1847--48; 3 vols., Berlin, 1853): DOLGOROUKOFF La vérité sur la Russie (Paris, 1860); LESTRELLN, Les paysans russes, leurs usages, mœurs, caractère (Paris, 1861); GRENVILLE--MURRAY, The Russians of To-Day (Leipzig, 1878); LEROY-BEAULIEU, L'empire des Tzars et les Russes (3 vols., Paris, 1881, 1882, 1889); Ger. tr. (Berlin, 1884--90); KOVALEVSKY, Modern Customs end Ancient Laws of Russia (London, 1891); HEHN, De moribus Ruthenorum (Stuttgart, 1892); BRANDES, Charakterbilder aus Leben, Politik, Sitten Russlands (Leipzig, 1896); VON BRÜGGEN, Das heutige Russland (Leipzig, 1902); POINSARD, La Russie: le peuple et le gouvernement (Paris, 1904); ANFITEATROFF, Die Frau in den gesellschaftlichen Kreisen Russlands (Geneva, 1905); STERN, Geschichte der öffentlichen Sittlichkeit in Russland (2 vols., Berlin, 1908); HAUMANT, La culture française en Russie (Paris, 1910); SCHLESINGER, Land und Leute in Russland (Berlin, 1909).

Form of Government and Political lnstitutions: — DE MÜNNICH, Ebauche pour donner une idée de la forme du gouvernement de l'empire de Russie (Copenhagen, 1774); PURGOLD, De diversis imperii rossici ordinibus eorumque juribus atque obligationibus (Halle, 1786); HUPEL, Versuch die Staatsverfassung des russischen Reichs darzustellen (2 vols., Riga, 1791--93); PELTSCHINSKI, Système de législation, d'administration, et de politique de la Russie en 1844 (Paris, 1845); WALCKER, Die gegenwärtige Lage Russlands (Leipzig, 1873); KOVALEWSKY, Le régime économique de la Russie (Paris, 1898); KORF, Istorija russkoi gosudarstvennosti (History of the form of government in Russia) (St. Petersburg, 1908); MUKHANOFF AND NABOKOFF, Pervaja gosudarstvennaja duma (The first Imperial Duma) (3 vols., St. Petersburg, 1907); SALKIND, Die russische Reichsduma, ihre Geschäftsordnung mit den Geschäftsordnungen anderer Volksvertretungen (Vienna, 1909); CHASLES, Le Parlement russe: son organisation, ses rapports avec l'empereur (Paris, 1910).

General Political History of Russia; Collections of Documents; Chronicles and Manuals of General History; Ancient History; Monographs: — Rerum moscovitarum auctores varii: unum in corpus nunc primum congesti (Frankfort, 1600); SCHETELIG, Rerum russicarum scriptores aliquot (Hamburg, 1768); WICHMANN, Sammlung bisher ungedruckter kleiner Schriften zur älteren Geschichte und Kenntniss des russischen Reichs (Berlin, 1820); STARCZEWSKI, Historiœ ruthenici scriptores exteri sœculi XVI (2 vols., Berlin, 1841--42); TURGENIEFF, Historica Russiœ monumenta (Scripta varia e secreto archivo Vaticano) (St. Petersburg, 1842); THEINER, Monuments historiques relatifs aux règnes d'Alexis Mikhailovitch, Féodor III et Pierre le Grand (Rome, 1859); BODENSTÄDT, Beiträge zur Kenntniss des Staats- und Volkslebens in seiner historischen Entwickelung (2 vols., Leipzig, 1862); Documents servent à éclaircir l'histoire des provinces orientales de la Russie et de la Pologne (St. Petersburg, 1865); MENAGIOS, Répertoire des traités, conventions et autres actes principaux de la Russie avec les puissances étrangères depuis 1474 jusqu'à nos jours (Paris, 1874); MARTENS, Recueil des Traités et conventions conclus par la Russie avec les puissances étrangères (15 vols., St. Petersburg, 1874--1909); the numerous publications of the IMPERIAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY and of the ARCHEOGRAPHIC COMMISSION of St. Petersburg, and the tchtenja (lectures) of the SOCIETY OF RUSSIAN HISTORY AND ANTIQUITIES of Moscow; REUTENFELS, De rebus moschoviticis ad magnum Etruriœ ducem Cosmum tertium (Padua, 1680); LACOMBE, Histoire des révolutions de l'empire de Russie (Amsterdam, 1760); Ger. tr. (Leipzig, 1761); continued by JOACHIM (Halle, 1764); LOMONOSOFF, Histoire de la Russie depuis l'origine de la nation jusqu'à la mort du grand-duc Jaroslaw I (2 vols., Paris, 1769); SCHMIDT, Versuch einer neuen Einleitung in die russische Geschichte (2 vols., Riga, 1773--74); WAGNER, Geschichte des russischen Reiches von den ältesten bis auf die neuesten Zeiten (6 vols., Hamburg, 1810); SHSHERBATOFF, Russische Geschichte von den ältesten Zeiten (2 vols., Danzig, 1779); LEVESQUE, Histoire de Russie (5 vols., Paris, 1782); LE CLERC, Histoire physique, morale, civile, et politique de la Russie ancienne (3 vols., Paris, 1783--84); MERKEL, Geschichte des russischen Reichs (3 vols., Leipzig, 1795); LESUR, Des progrès de la puissance russe depuis son origine jusqu'au commencement du XIX siècle (Paris, 1812); EWERS, Geschichte der Russen (Dorpat, 1816); KARAMSIN, Histoire de l'empire russe (11 vols., Paris, 1819--26; 10 vols., Riga, 1820--33; 12 vols., Athens, 1856--59); WICKMANN, Chronologische Uebersicht de russischen Geschichte von der Geburt Peters des Grossen bis auf die neuesten Zeiten (2 vols., Leipzig, 1821--25); DE SÉGUR, Histoire de la Russie et de Pierre le Grand (Paris, 1829); STRAHL, Geschichte des russischen Staates (2 vols., Hamburg, 1832--39); HERRMANN, Geschichte des russischen Staates (4 vols., Hamburg, 1846-49); USTRIALOFF, Die Geschichte Russlands (2 vols., Stuttgart, 1840--43); DE CAULAINCOURT, Das russische Reich (Leipzig, 1854); Histoire pittoresque, dramatique, el caricaturale de la Sainte-Russie (Paris, 1854); DE GEREBTZOFF, Essai sur l'histoire de la civilisation en Russie (Paris, 1858); KOSTOMAROFF, Russische Geschichte in Biographien (Leipzig, 1888); KLEINSCHMIDT, Russlands Geschichte und Politik dargestellt in der Geschichte des russischen hohen Adels (Cassel, 1877); RAMBAUD, Histoire de la Russie (Paris, 1884, 1900); Ger. tr. (Berlin, 1886); VON GOLOWIN, Die geschichtliche Entwickelung des russischen Volkes (Leipzig, 1887); BRÜCKNER, Geschichte Russlands bis zum Ende des X VIII. Jahrhunderts (Gotha, 1896); KLEINSCHMIDT, Drei Jahrhunderte russischer Geschichte (Berlin, 1898); MUNRO, The Rise of the Russian Empire (London, 1899); MORFILL, A History of Russia from the Birth of Peter the Great to the Death of Alexander II (London, 1902); SKRINE, The Expansion of Russia (Cambridge, 1903); WALISZEWSKI, Les origines de la Russie moderne (Paris, 1904); PANTENIUS, Geschichte Russlands von der Entstehung des russischen Reiches bis zur Gegenwart (Leipzig, 1908); FRÄHN, Ibn-Foszlan's und anderer Araber Berichte über die Russen alterer Zeit (St. Petersburg, 1823); SCHÖLZER, Russiche Annalen in ihrer slavonischen Grundsprache (3 vols., Göttingen, 1802--09); the Chronicle of Nestor has been translated into French also, by LOUIS PARIS (2 vols., Paris, 1834-35), and by LÉGER (Paris, 1884); and into Latin by MIKLOSICH (Vienna, 1860); SCROETTGENIUS, De originibus russicis dissertationes (Leipzig, 1731); POTOCKI, Histoire primitive des peuples de la Russie (St. Petersburg, 1802); LEHRBERG, Untersuchungen zur Erläuterung der älteren Geschichte Russlands (St. Petersburg, 1816); EWERS, Studien zur gründlichen Kenntniss der Vorzeit Russlands (Dorpat, 1830); SCHLOEZER, Les premiers habitants de la Russie (Paris, 1846); KRUG, Forschungen in der älteren Geschichte Russlands (2 vols., St. Petersburg, 1848); THOMSON, The Origin of the Russian State (Oxford, 1877); ZABIELIN, Istorija russkoi zhizni s drevnieishikh vremen (History of Russian Life from the Remotest Times) (Moscow, 1908).

On the Varangians: — HELSINGIUS, De Varegis (Upsala, 1734); BIOERNER, Schediasma historico-geographicum de Varegis, heroibus scandianis el primis Russiœ dynastis (Stockholm, 1743); KRAHMER, Die Urheimath der Russen in Europa (Moscow, 1862); GRDEONOS, Varjagi i Rus (2 vols., St. Petersburg, 1876).

Invasions of the Tatars: — HAMMER-PURGSTALL, Geschichte der goldenen Horde, das ist, der Mongolen in Russland (2 vols., Budapest, 1840); EXEMPLARSKIJ, Les grands-princes de la Russie septentrionale durant la période tatare depuis 1238 jusqu'à 1505 (2 vols., St. Petersburg, 1889), in Russian.

Monographs: — GONSIOROVSKIJ, Boleslav Jurij II, kujaz vsej Maloj Rusi (Boleslaw George II, Prince of all Little Russia) (St. Petersburg, 1907); NOWAKOWSKI, De Demetrio I, Magnœ Russiœ duce, Ivani filio (Berlin, 1839); PIERLING, La Russie et l'Orient: mariage d'un tzar au Vatican: Ivan III et Sophie Paléologue (Paris, 1891); ODERBORNIUS, Johannis Basilidis Magni Moscoviœ ducis vita (Wittenberg, 1585); WALISZEWSKI, Ivan le Terrible (Paris, 1904); IDEM, La crise révolutionnaire (Paris, 1906); La légende de la vie et de la mort de Démétrius l'imposteur (Amsterdam, 1606; Moscow, 1839); CLAMPI, Esame critico dei documenti inediti della storia di Demetrio di Ivan Vasiljevitch (Florence, 1827); MÉRIMÉE, Les faux Démétrius (Paris, 1853); LORENTZ, Der falsche Demetrius (Berlin, 1862); HIRSCEBERG, Dymitr Samoswaniec (Lemberg, 1898); PANTENIUS, Der falsche Demetrius (Bielefeld, 1904); SUVORIN, O Dimitrii Samozvancie (St. Petersburg, 1906); HIRSCHBERG, Marina Mñiszchówna (Lemberg, 1906); SOKOLOFF, Rossija pod skiptrom doma Romanovykh (Russia under the Sceptre of the House of Romanoff) (St. Petersburg, 1891); BAIN, The First Romanoffs: a History of Muscovite Civilization and the Rise of Modern Russia under Peter the Great (London, 1905); WALISZEWSKI, Le berceau d'une dynastie: les premiers Romanov (Paris, 1909); BERCK, Carstvovanie Carja Mikhaila Romanova (The reign of Michael Romanoff) (2 vols., St. Petersburg, 1832); IDEM, Carstvovanie Carja Aleksieja Mikhailovitch (St. Petersburg, 1830); GALITZIN, La Russie du XVII siècle dans ses rapports avec l'Europe occidentale (Paris, 1855); IDEM, La rébellion de Stenko-Razin contre le grand duc de Moscovie (Paris, 1856); SHSHEBALSKIJ, La régence de la tzarine Sophie (Karlsruhe, 1857); NESTESURANOI (JEAN ROUSSET), Mémoires du règne de Pierre le Grand, empereur de Russie (4 vols., Amsterdam, 1725--26); The History of the Life of Peter the Great, Emperor of All Russia (London, 1740); DR MAUVILLON, Histoire de Pierre I ^er surnommé le Grand (Amsterdam, 1742); CATIFORO, Vita de Pietro il Grande imperatore della Russia (Venice, 1748); GORDON, The History of Peter the Great (2 vols., Aberdeen, 1755); VOLTAIRE, Histoire de Russie sous Pierre le Grand (1759); CLAUDIUS, Peter der Grosse (Leipzig, 1805); BERGMANN, Peter der Grosse als Mensch und Regent (6 vols., Königsberg, Riga, Mitau, 1823--29); PELZ, Geschichte Peters des Grossen (Leipzig, 1848); DE VILLEBOIS, Mémoires secrets pour servir à l'histoire de la cour de Russie sous les règnes de Pierre le Grand et de Catherine I ^ere (Paris, 1853); USTRJALOFF, Istorija carstvovanija Petra Velikago (History of the reign of Peter the Great) (3 vols., St. Petersburg, 1858); GOLOVIN, Histoire de Pierre appelé le Grand (Leipzig, 1861); BRÜCKNER, Peter der Grosse (Berlin, 1879); SCHUYLER, Peter the Great, Emperor of Russia (2 vols., London, 1884); WALISZEWSKI, Pierre le Grand, l'éducation, l'homme, l'oeuvre (Paris, 1897); TCHISTJAKOFF, Istorija Vetra Pelikago (History of Peter the Great) (St. Petersburg, 1903); KNJAZHKOFF, Otcherki iz istorii Petra Velikago i ego vremeni (Essays on the History of Peter the Great and on his Times) (Moscow, 1909); ROUSSET, Mémoires du règne de Catherine, impératrice de toute la Russie (Amsterdam, 1728); MOTTLEY, The History of the Life and Reign of the Empress Catharine (2 vols., London, 1744); WALISZEWSKI, L'Héritage de Pierre le Grand (1725--1741) (Paris, 1900); BARTHOLD, Anna Johannovna (Leipzig, 1836); DE MAUVILLON, Histoire de la vie, du règne, et du détronement d'ivan III, empereur de Russie (London, 1766); BAIN, The Daughter of Peter the Great (Westminster, 1899); WALISZEWSKI, La dernière des Romanov, Elizabeth I ^ere impératrice de Russie (Paris, 1902); MOLLOY, The Russian Court in the Eighteenth Century (2 vols., London, 1905); LAVEAUX, Histoire de Pierre III empereur de Russie (3 vols., Paris, 1799); DE SALDERN, Histoire de la vie de Pierre III, empereur de toutes les Russies (Frankfort, 1802); SCHUMACHER, Geschichte der Thronensetzung und des Todes Peter des Dritten (Hamburg, 1858); BAIN, Peter III, Emperor of Russia (Westminster, 1902); CASTERA, Vie de Catherine II impératice de Russie (2 vols., Paris, 1797); tr. (3 vols., London, 1798); TOOKE, The Life of Katherine II, Empress of Russia (3 vols., London, 1800); Fr. tr. (Paris, 1801); BRÜCKNER, Katherine die Zweite (Berlin, 1883); BILDASOFF, Istorija Ekateriny vtoroi (History of Catharine II) (2 vols., St. Petersburg and London, 1890, 1895); Ger. tr. (4 vols., Berlin, 1891--93); WALISZEWSKI, Le roman d'une impératrice: Catherine II de Russie (Paris, 1893); IDEM, Autour d'un trône: Catherine II de Russie (Paris, 1894); DE LARIVIÉRE, Catherine la Grande d'après sa correspondance (Paris, 1895); SCHILDER, Imp. Pavel pervyi (The Emperor Paul I) (St. Petersburg, 1901); GOLOVKINE, La cour et le règne de Paul I ^er (Paris, 1905); MORANE, Paul I ^er de Russie (Paris, 1907); RAPPOPORT, The Course of the Romanovs (London, 1907); RABBE, Histoire d'Alexandre I ^er, empereur de toutes les Russies (2 vols., Paris, 1826); SCHNITZLER, Histoire intime de la Russie sous Alexandre et Nicholas I ^er (Paris, 1847); JOYNEVILLE, Life and Times of Alexander I, Emperor of All the Russias (3 vols., London, 1875); SCHILDER, Imperator Aleksandr Pervyj ego zhizn i carstvovani (The Emperor Alexander I, His Life and his Reign) (4 vols., St., Petersburg, 1897--98); SCHIEMANN, Kaiser Alexander I und die Ergebnisse seiner Lebensarbeit (Berlin, 1904); GOLOVINE, La Russie sous Nicholas I ^er (Leipzig, 1845); LACROIX, Histoire de la vie et du règne de Nicolas I ^er, empereur de Russie (Paris, 1864); SCHILDER, Imperator Nikolaj pervyi, ego zhizn i carstvovanie (2 vols., St. Petersburg, 1903); GOLOVIN, Russland unter Alexander II (Leipzig, 1870); KOSMA, La Russie et l'oeuvre d'Alexandre II (Paris, 1882); JOYNEVILLE, Life of Alexander II, Emperor of All the Russias (London, 1883); TATISHSHEFF, Imp. Alexander II, ego zhizn i carstvovanie (2 vols., St. Petersburg, 1903); SAMSON, Russland unter Alexander III (Leipzig, 1891); FLOURENS, Alexandre III, sa vie, son œuvre (Paris, 1894); NOTOVITCH, L'empereur Nicolas II et la politique russe (Paris, 1895); LEUDET, Nicolas II intime (Paris, 1898); PRINCE U., Leben und Thaten Nikolaus II (Berlin, 1910); LÖFFLER, Der russisch-japanische Krieg (Leipzig, 1907); TRAPANI, La guerra russo-giapponese (Rome, 1908); BOUJAC, La guerre russo-japonaise (Rome, 1908); CULMANN, Etude sur les caractères généraux de la guerre em Extrème-Orient (Paris, 1909); From the literary point of view, the best history of Russia in the Russian language is the Istorija gosudarstva rossiiskago (12 vols., St. Petersburg, 1897); from the standpoint of biography the best is that of KOSTOMAROFF, Russkaja istorija v jizneopisanijakh eja glavniejshikh diejatelej(2vols., St. Petersburg, 1903--07); but for the wealth of its documentation and for the interest of its recital, none is as good as the Istorija Rossii s drevniejshikh vremen (History of Russia Since the Remotest Ages) (2nd ed., 29 vols., St. Petersburg); unfortunately it is brought down only to the end of the seventeenth century.

A. PALMIERI

The Religion of Russia

A. The Origin of Russian Christianity

There are two theories in regard to the early Christianity of Russia; according to one of them, Russia was Catholic from the times when she embraced Christianity until the twelfth century; the other holds that Russia was always Orthodox, i. e., an adherent of the Greek schism, from the time when Christian missionaries first crossed her frontiers. The first of these theories is held by Catholics, whose arguments were condensed and developed by Vizzardelli ("Dissertatio de origine christianæ religionis in Russia", Rome 1826), and, more amply, by Father Verdière, S.J. ("Origines catholiques de l'Eglise russe jusqu'au XII ^e siècle", Paris, 1856). Russian Orthodox writers unanimously reject the conclusions that Verdière demonstrated in the form of theses, which, to us, appear to be without solid foundations. The history of Russian Christianity dates from the ninth century; by which it is not implied that Christianity was entirely unknown to the Russians before that period, for the merchants of Kieff were in frequent communication with Constantinople: one of the quarters of the flourishing metropolis, St. Mamante, was inhabited by them, and there is no doubt that there were Christians among them. On the other hand, some nucleus of Christianity must have existed at Kieff before Photius, as he himself relates in his encyclical letter to the Patriarchs of the East, sent a bishop and missionaries to that city. On account of this action, Photius is considered to have introduced Christianity into Russia. His testimony is repudiated by Catholic writers, who claim for St. Ignatius the glory and the initiative of this evangelical mission to Russia. There are no valid arguments, however, to throw doubt upon the authenticity of the information that has been handed down by Photius, as is proved in the present writer's work "La conversione dei Russi al cristianesimo, e la testimonianza di Fozio", in "Studii religiosi", t. I, 1901, pp. 133-61.

According to the national chronicler Nestor, many Russians were Christians in 945, and had at Kieff the Church of St. Elias ("La chronique de Nestor", t. I, Paris, 1834, p. 65). In 955 Olga, widow of Igor, went to Constantinople, where she was baptized by the Patriarch Poliutus (956-70), and, loaded with rich gifts that she received from Constantine Porphyrogenitus (912-59), she returned to Kieff, and devoted herself to the conversion of her fellow-countrymen. The schism between the Churches of the East and of the West was not yet accomplished; and therefore Olga, who received in baptism the name of Helen, is venerated as a saint also by the United Ruthenians. Western chroniclers relate that Olga sent an embassy to the Emperor Otto I, to ask for Latin missionaries, and that Otto charged Adaldag, Bishop of Bremen, to satisfy that request. Adaldag consecrated as bishop of the Russians Libutius, a monk of the Convent of St. Albano, who died before entering Russia. He was succeeded by Adalbertus, a monk of the convent of St. Maximinus, at Trier. The Russians, however, received the Latin bishop badly, killed several of his companions, and constrained him to return to Germany. It may be observed that Assemani and Karamzin do not admit that Latin missionaries came to Russia with Adalbertus.

The efforts of Olga to convert her son Sviatoslaff to Christianity were unsuccessful. Vladimir, son of Sviatoslaff, has the glory of having established Christianity as the official State religion in Russia. According to the legend, Vladimir received Mohammedan, Latin, and Greek legates, who urged him to adopt their respective religions. The Greeks finally triumphed. Vladimir marched with an army towards the Taurida, and in 998 took Kherson; then he sent ambassadors to the Emperors Basilius and Constantine, asking for the hand of their sister Anna, which he obtained on condition that he would become a Christian. He was baptized by the Bishop of Kherson, who, according to Russian chroniclers, made Vladimir read a profession of faith that was hostile to the "corrupt" doctrine of the Latins. Thereafter, taking with him the relics of Pope St. Clement and of that pope's disciple, Phebus, as well as sacred vessels and images, Vladimir returned to Kieff, accompanied by his consort, and by some Greek missionaries. Once there he caused the idol of Perun to be thrown into the Dnieper, and on the site that it occupied built a Christian church, also commanding that all his subjects, without distinction of age, should be baptized. The inhabitants of Kieff yielded before his threats; but those of Novgorod resisted and suffered severe treatment. The Russians were baptized, but they did not receive Christian instruction and education; the ancient beliefs and habits of Paganism endured, and survived for many centuries; consequently the moral influence of Christianity was not efficiently exercised upon the Russian people. Vladimir erected a church in honour of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, under the direction of Grecian artists. Thanks to his solicitude, the Russian Church was endowed with a hierarchy, a metropolitan, bishops, and priests. At first this hierarchy was Greek; the metropolitans were appointed and consecrated by the Patriarch of Constantinople, went to Russia as foreigners, and remained such. They succeeded, however, in inspiring the Russians with hatred for the Latin Church. The metropolitans Leontius (dead in 1004), George (1072), Ivan II (dead in 1089), and Nicephorus I (1103-21) wrote the first polemical works of Russian literature against the Latins.

B. Catholicism in Russia, from the Twelfth Century to the Council of Florence

Although the Russian Church in its earliest periods was completely dominated by the clergy of Constantinople who made the schism, the relations between Russian princes and the Holy See, begun under Vladimir, subsisted for several centuries. Russian documents testify that Vladimir in 991 sent an embassy to Rome, and that three embassies went from Rome to Kieff, sent by John XV (985-96), and by Sylvester II (999-1003). A German chronicler, Dithmar, relates that a Saxon missionary, consecrated archbishop by the Archbishop of Magdeburg, went to Russia, where he preached the Gospel, and was killed with eighteen of his companions on 14 Feb., 1002. At about that time Reinbert, Bishop of Kolberg, went to Russia with the daughter of Boleslaus the Intrepid, bride of Sviatopolk, the son of Vladimir. He strove to diffuse Catholicism in Russia, and died a prisoner. Other missionaries continued their Apostolic efforts; but Russia was already lost to Catholicism. The Metropolitan Nicephorus I (1103-21) regarded the Latin Church as schismatic, and reproached it with a long list of errors. Russian canonical documents of the twelfth century refer to the Latins as pagans, and prohibit all relations with them. The most virulent calumnies against the Roman Church were inserted in the "Kormtchaia kniga"; and Russian metropolitans down to Isidor (1437) had no relations with the Holy See.

This does not mean to say, however, that the Catholic Church neglected Russia as a field for its apostolate; for the popes always tried to lead her back to the centre of unity, and to enter into relations with her princes. The prince Iziaslaff Yaroslavitch (1054-68; 1069-73; 1076-78) sent his son to Gregory VII, asking the assistance of that pontiff, and promising to make Russia a vassal of the Holy See. Gregory answered him by letter of 17 April, 1075. Under the Grand Duke Vsevolod Yaroslavitch (1078-93) there was established the feast of the translation of the relics of St. Nicholas of Bari, approved by Urban II (1088-99), who in 1091 sent to the same prince Bishop Teodoro, with relics. In 1080 the antipope Clement III sent a letter to the Metropolitan Ivan II (dead in 1089), proposing to the latter the union of the Russian Church; Ivan answered, however, enumerating the heresies of the Latins (Marcovitch attributes this letter to the Metropolitan Ivan IV, who, according to Golubinsky, died in 1166). Clement III (1187-91) sent a letter to the Grand Prince Vsevolod and to the Metropolitan Nicephorus II (1182-97), inviting them to take part in the Crusade, but in vain. Innocent III (1198-1216) sent two legations to the princes of Russia, exhorting them to be reunited to Rome. Under Honorius III (1216-1227) St. Hyacinth, with other religious of the Order of St. Dominic, preached the Catholic faith in southern Russia, and founded a convent at Kieff, while a religious of the same order in 1232 was appointed bishop of that city, out of which, however, the Dominicans were driven in 1233. Another letter of Honorius III, and one of Gregory IX (1227-41) encouraged the Russians of Pskof to realize their intention of embracing Catholicism. All of these efforts were in vain, it was only in Galicia that the solicitude of the popes was attended with some favourable results. Innocent IV (1243-54) had continuous relations with the Grand Prince Daniel Romanovitch (1229-64), who hoped for the assistance of the West to throw off the Tatar yoke; the pope's nuncio to the King of Poland in 1254 crowned the grand prince as king at the city of Dorogtchin. But through dissension among the princes of the West the assistance that the pope promised to Daniel was not given, and in 1256 the latter repudiated his union with Rome. The same pope made efforts to convert to Catholicism the national hero, Alexander Nevski, whose father had abjured the errors of the schism before the pontifical legate Giovanni da Pian Carpino. In 1248 Innocent IV wrote to the Prince Alexander Nevski, exhorting the latter to embrace Catholicism; and in another letter the same pope asserts that the conversion of that prince took place. Russian writers however are unanimous in considering their national hero a champion of the Orthodox faith, who refused to submit to Rome.

Under John XXII (1316-34) Catholicism was propagated in Lithuania, where it had its martyrs. Gedimin (1315-45), although a pagan, wrote a letter to John XXII, declaring that Franciscans and Dominicans were authorized to preach in his principality. Paganism was firmly rooted in the people, and in 1332 fourteen Franciscans were massacred at Vilna. In 1323 the same pope re-established the Latin Diocese of Kieff, to which he appointed a Dominican. Catholicism became preponderant in Lithuania, when Hedwig, Queen of Poland, married Jagello, and the two states were united into a single kingdom. Jagello embraced Catholicism in 1386, called Polish priests to Lithuania, and, like Vladimir the Great, resorted to violence to convert his subjects. Many Russians were converted to Catholicism, and Vilna became the see of a Latin bishop.

In 1436 the Russian Church, which was still dependent upon Constantinople, had as metropolitan Isidor (1436-41), a Greek, native of Thessalonica, and staunch adherent of the cause of the union. This prelate on 8 Sept., 1437, with Avraam, Bishop of Suzdal, and many clergymen and laymen, went to the Council of Florence, where he ardently defended the union; and by a Brief of 17 Aug., 1438, Eugene IV named him legate a latere for Lithuania, Livonia, and Russia. Avraam of Suzdal, however, was not a partizan of the union; and leaving Isidor, returned alone to Russia. Isidor sent an encyclical letter to the Russians (5 March, 1440), extolling the union that had been concluded at Florence. Upon his return to Moscow, however, Prince Vasili Vasilevitch convened a council, condemned the work of the metropolitan, and imprisoned the latter in the Monastery of the Miracles (Tchudoff); but Isidor succeeded in making his escape, and found asylum in Italy. Wherefore, Russia did not accept the decree of union of the Council of Florence; on the contrary, she drew from it arguments to proclaim the superiority of her Orthodox faith over the pliant faith of the Greeks, and to prepare the way for her religious autonomy.

C. Catholicism in Russia from the Council of Florence to the Present Time

Isidor resigned the Metropolitan See of Kieff about 1458, and in the same year Pius II appointed Gregor the Bulgarian, who was a disciple and companion of the former metropolitan, and who, according to the historian Golubinski, remained united to Rome until 1470, after which he became Orthodox, and died in 1472. Among his successors who were friendly to the union were Mikhail Drucki (1475-80), Semion (1481-88), Jonah Glezna (1492-94), Makap (1495-97), and Josef Soltan, who in 1500 wrote a letter to Alexander VI asking for papal confirmation of his metropolitan dignity. At the death of Josef II, which according to Stroeff was in 1519, the Metropolitanate of Kieff became again wholly Orthodox.

After the Council of Florence, the fanaticism of the Russians in regard to the Latin Church increased. The Latins were not even considered citizens. They were not allowed to build churches in Russian cities. The popes, however, did not cease their efforts to effect a reconciliation between Russia and the Roman See. An event that should have hastened the attainment of that end served only to widen the breach between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. There lived at Rome under the tutelage of the popes and the spiritual guidance of Cardinal Bessarion the Greek Princess Zoe, daughter of Thomas Palæologus, Despot of Morea; and Paul II, wishing ardently to induce the Russians to join the princes of the West in a crusade against the Turks, proposed to offer the hand of Zoe to Ivan Vasilevitch III (1462-1505); but death overtook him before he was able to bring about the realization of his purpose. Sixtus IV (1471-84) continued the policy of his predecessor. Ivan III received the proposal with enthusiasm. On 12 Nov., 1472 Zoe with a numerous suite arrived at Moscow, and the Metropolitan Philip I (1464-73) united her in marriage with Ivan. But the hopes of union to which this marriage had given rise vanished. Ivan would not hear the propositions of the Bishop Antonio, who as legate of the Holy See had accompanied Zoe; while the latter passed over to the schism. Ivan III and the Russians thought only of drawing profit from the good will of the popes. The grand prince, having married a princess of the imperial house of Palæologus, formulated claims to the throne of Byzantium; while the Russians began to regard Moscow as the third Rome, which should inherit the prerogatives of the first and of the second.

Several embassies of Leo X and of Clement VII to the Prince Basil Ivanovitch (1505-33) were without favourable results for the union. Julius III and Pius IV invited Ivan the Terrible to send delegates to the Council of Trent; while Pius V in his turn invited him to join a crusade against the Turks but Sigismund, King of Poland, and Maximilian II, Emperor of Germany, prevented the legates of the pope from crossing the Russian frontiers, or rendered their missions fruitless. In 1580 Ivan the Terrible, menaced by the victorious arms of Báthori, King of Poland (1576-86), and of the Swedes, sent to Gregory XIII an embassy at the head of which was Leontius Tchevrigin. The Holy See, although placing little faith in the promises of the tsar, sent to Moscow one of the most eminent men of his day, the Jesuit Antonio Possevino, who, on 22 Feb., 1582, had a theological disputation with the tsar. Possevino was well received at the Court of Moscow, but his apostolic efforts were without result. He returned on 15 March, 1582, in company with Jacob Molvianinoff, legate of the tsar, and bearer of a letter to Gregory XIII. In that letter Ivan the Terrible did not refer to the union. Possevino had relations also with the successor of Ivan, Feodor Ivanovitch, and with Constantine II, Prince of Ostrog, the great champion of Orthodoxy in the sixteenth century; always, however, with unfavourable results. The advent of the False Demetrius and his marriage with the heiress of the Waywodes of Sandomir gave hopes that Russia would see a Catholic dynasty on its throne. Demetrius, indeed, had been converted to Catholicism in 1604, and had entered into relations with the Holy See, which, through its nuncios in Poland, proceeded to confirm him in the Catholic faith, and to maintain his devotion to the Roman Church. Demetrius gave to the Holy See the happiest hopes for the conversion of Russia; but through a conspiracy on 27 May, 1606 he lost the crown and his life. Fanatical Russian writers charge the popes with responsibility for the turbulence that followed the advent to the throne of the False Demetrius; but the letters of the Roman pontiffs refute that calumny decisively.

In 1675 the Tsar Alexis (1645-76) sent, as ambassador to Clement X, General Paul Menesius, a Catholic. The object of this embassy was to promote an alliance of the Christian princes against the Turks. The Russian legate was received with great distinction. No happy results, however, attended his mission from a religious point of view. During the reign of Alexis, strenuous efforts were made to draw Russia towards Catholicism by a famous Croatian missionary, George Krizhanitch, a student of the Propaganda, on whose life and works Professor Bielokuroff recently wrote several valuable volumes rich in documents. Krizhanitch is regarded as one of the pioneers of Panslavism; but his efforts to bring Russia to the Catholic Church cost him, in 1661, an exile to Siberia, whence he was unable to return to Moscow until 1676, after the death of Alexis.

In 1684 the Jesuit Father Schmidt established himself at Moscow as chaplain to the embassy from Vienna. In 1685 another Jesuit, Father Albert Debois was the bearer of a letter from Innocent XI to the Tsar; and in 1687 Father Giovanni Vota, also of the Society of Jesus, advocated at Moscow the need of Russia to unite herself to the Church of Rome. The Emperor of Germany, Leopold I (1657-1705), obtained permission for the Jesuits to open a school at Moscow, where they established a house. Their work would have been very favourable for the Church, for under the influence of Catholic theology a band of learned Orthodox theologians, led by the hiqumeno Sylvester Medvedeff, supported certain Latin doctrines, especially the Epiklesis. Unfortunately however two fanatical Greek monks, Joannikius and Sophronius Likhudes, excited the fanaticism of the Russians against the Latins at Moscow, and when Peter the Great freed himself of the tutelage of his sister Sophia in 1689, the Jesuits were expelled from Moscow. The schismatic Patriarch Joachim, a man actuated by hatred for foreigners, and in particular for Catholics, had much to do with that expulsion. The reforms of Peter the Great did not better the condition of Catholicism in Russia. In the first years of his reign he showed deference to the Catholic Church; he granted permission to the Catholics in 1691 to build a church at Moscow, and to summon Jesuits for its service; in 1707 he sent an embassy to Clement XI, to induce that pontiff not to recognize Stanislaus Leszczynski as King of Poland, to which dignity the latter had been elected by the Diet of Warsaw on 12 July, 1704; he promised the pope to promulgate a constitution that would establish, in favour of Catholicism, the freedom of worship that had been promised, but never maintained. During his sojourn at Paris in 1717 he received from various doctors of the Sorbonne a scheme for the union, to which he caused Theophanus Prokopovitch and Stepan Gavorski to reply in 1718. In order to captivate the Russians, the doctors of the Sorbonne had worked Gallican ideas into that scheme, regarding the primacy of the pope and his authority.

Peter the Great, however, was inimical to Catholicism. His religious views were influenced by Prokopovitch, a man of great learning, but a courtier by nature, and a bitter enemy of the Roman Church. Peter the Great revealed his anti-Catholic hatred when, at Polotsk in 1705, he killed with his own hand the Basilian Theophanus Kolbieczynski, as also by many other measures; he caused the most offensive calumnies against Catholicism to be disseminated in Russia; he expelled the Jesuits in 1719; he issued ukases to draw Catholics to Orthodoxy, and to prevent the children of mixed marriages from being Catholics; and finally, he celebrated in 1722 and in 1725 monstrous orgies as parodies of the conclave, casting ridicule on the pope and the Roman court.

From the time of Peter the Great to Alexander I, the history of Catholicism in Russia is a continuous struggle against Russian legislation: laws that embarrassed the action of Catholicism in Russia that favoured the apostasy of Catholics, and reduced the Catholic clergy to impotence were multiplied each year, and constituted a Neronian code. In 1727, to put a stop to Catholic propaganda in the Government of Smolensk, Catholic priests were prohibited from entering that province, or, having entered it, were prohibited from occupying themselves with religious matters; the nobility was forbidden to leave the Orthodox communion, to have Catholic teachers, to go to foreign countries, or to marry Catholic women. In 1735 the Empress Anna Ivanovna prohibited Catholic propaganda among Orthodox Russians under the severest penalties. Illustrious converts, like Alexei Ladygenski and Mikhail Galitzin, were treated with the most inhuman barbarity on account of their conversion. In 1747 the government expelled from Astrakhan the Capuchins who were making many conversions to Catholicism among the Armenians.

Under Catharine II (1762-96) the condition of Catholics became worse than before, notwithstanding the ukases of religious tolerance that the empress promulgated. The ukase of 22 July, 1763 authorized the Catholics to build chapels and churches of stone. Another ukase of 23 Feb., 1769 promulgated the ecclesiastical constitution of the Catholics. This constitution established two parishes, at St. Petersburg and Moscow, and placed them in charge of the Reformed Franciscans and the Capuchins. It provided that the number of parishes should not be greater than nine; and it strictly prohibited Catholic priests, residing in Russia, from proselytizing among Orthodox Russians.

The first dismemberment of Poland (1772) brought a strong body of Catholics to Russia, and Catharine II proposed to make of them a national Church, independent of Rome. Unfortunately an ambitious Polish bishop, Stanislaus Siestrzencewicz, entered into her views, and a ukase of 23 May, 1774 established the Diocese of White Russia, with its episcopal see at Mohileff, its first bishop being Siestrzencewicz, Vicar-General of Vilna. This personage is judged variously by historians. Pierling, Zalenski, and Markovitch treat him as an ambitious man who sought to become patriarch of all the Catholics in Russia, and who in his heart hated the Roman See. Godlewski on the contrary is inclined to excuse him, and to believe that the difficult conditions of Catholicism in Russia, possibly led him to adopt measures that appear to have been injurious to Catholic interests. According to Markovitch, during his long episcopate (1774-1826), Siestrzencewicz was the scourge of the Catholic Church of both rites in Russia. By her manifestos of 1779 Catharine II began the systematic destruction of the religious orders, withdrawing them from the authority of their religious superiors, and putting them under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Mohileff. The latter in 1782 was raised to the archiepiscopal dignity, and in 1784 received the pallium from the Apostolic Legate, Mgr. Giovanni Andrea Archetti, Archbishop of Chalcedon. He assumed episcopal jurisdiction over all the Catholics of the Russian Empire, and acted as if he were independent of the Holy See.

The sound principles of Catholicism, however, were maintained and propagated by the Jesuits who, suppressed by the Holy See and exiled from the Catholic nations, found an asylum and the centre of their future revival in Russia. In 1779 Catharine II invited the Jesuits to exercise their ministry in White Russia, and in 1786 they had in Russia six colleges and 178 members. Their number increased so much that Pius VII re-established their order for Russia, where it returned to life under Father Gruber. In 1801 the society had 262 members, and 347 in 1811. The Jesuits retained a lively gratitude for the hospitality that they had received in Russia, and worked with zeal to convert it to Catholicism.

The Second and Third Partitions of Poland (1793-94) considerably increased the number of Catholics in Russia; Catharine II promised them the free exercise of their religion, their rights of property and those of their Church, and their complete independence of the civil power. These promises were deceptive, as was shown by the destruction of the Ruthenian Church, accomplished by her order. The Catholics of the Latin Rite also soon had cause to remember that they were under the domination of implacable enemies. The Catholics had awaited the death of Catharine and the advent to the throne of Paul I (1796-1801), to better their condition. In 1797 Archbishop Lorenzo Litta, legate a latere of the Holy See, arrived at St. Petersburg, where he was received with great honours. The Catholics who had been exiled to Siberia were recalled; the Sees of Lutzk, Vilna, Kamenetz, Minsk, and Samogitia (the ancient Diocese of Livonia) were created; the archiepiscopal See of Mohileff was declared metropolitan, which it still is; and the government granted an indemnity to the clergy for the property that had been taken from them. In 1802 the number of the faithful amounted to 1,635,490, of adults alone. Paul I showed a special predilection for the Jesuits, and reposed great confidence in Father Gruber; he called them to St. Petersburg, where he authorized them to open schools and seminaries, while he obtained from Pius VII a Brief (7 March, 1801), re-establishing the society in Russia.

Under Alexander I diplomatic relations were established between the Holy See and the Russian Government. In 1802 a Russian legation was established at Rome, while Pius VII on his part named an Apostolic nuncio to St. Petersburg, Mgr. Arezzo, Archbishop of Seleucia. The affairs of the Catholic Church in Russia were to be administered by the Roman Catholic Ecclesiastical College, created in imitation of the Synod of St. Petersburg. This college had been approved by Alexander I, through his ukase of 21 Nov., 1801. Siestrzencewicz of course was selected as its president; and the Russian Government, in its Note of 13 Dec., 1803, asked of the Holy See such powers for him as would have rendered him independent. The Sovereign Pontiff opposed a determined resistance to these demands, and the Ecclesiastical College was henceforward merely a name. In 1804 Mgr. Arezzi, the Apostolic nuncio, in view of the disagreements between the Russian Government and the Holy See, left St. Petersburg; whereupon Siestrzencewicz had a free hand, and devoted himself to discrediting Catholicism by proposing as bishops of the vacant sees men who were corrupt or allied to the government, by persecuting the religious orders, by granting divorces arbitrarily, by favouring the English Bible Society, and finally, by surrounding himself with assistants of evil mind and heart. Diplomatic relations between the Holy See and Russia were resumed in 1815. The Russian plenipotentiary, Baron de Tuyll, had colloquies with Cardinal della Somaglia in regard to the union of the two Churches, which, however, were without result, for the Russian Government declared that the union was impossible so long as the Holy See wished to impose its dogmatic teachings and its disciplinary practices upon the Russians. Meanwhile, Siestrzencewicz made use of the renewal of relations between Rome and St. Petersburg to seek through the Russian Government new favours and concessions, e. g. the nomination of episcopal candidates by the tsar, the title of Primate, matrimonial dispensations, etc. In other words, it was a question of imitating the canonical legislation of the Orthodox Church, and of harnessing Catholicism to the car of the State. The Holy See merely granted to the Metropolitan of Mohileff the honorary title of primate, without any additional jurisdiction, and authorized a small number of priests to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation with oil blessed by the bishop. The various efforts of the Russian Government to establish a primate, with patriarchal, almost I independent powers in Russia were always thwarted by the determined resistance of the Holy See.

The most painful occurrence in the history of Catholicism during the reign of Alexander I was the expulsion of the Jesuits from Russia, the pretext for which was the conversion of Prince Alexander Galitzin to the Catholic faith. The Jesuits were expelled from St. Petersburg during the night of 22-23 Dec., 1815, and the Catholic parish church of St. Catharine was given to the Dominicans. The Jesuits were relegated to Polotsk; later, however, by the ukase of 25 March, 1820, they were exiled from Russian territory. On the other hand, as many nobles of the former Polish provinces, subjects of Russia, sent their children abroad to be educated by the Jesuits, the government provided that young Catholics should not leave Russia. In the last years of his reign Alexander I showed more sympathy for Catholicism, and the relations of the Holy See with the Russian Government were cordial during the pontificate of Leo XII and the sojourn of the Chevalier Italinski at Rome as Russian minister. The Holy See obtained the concession that the Russian Government would pay to the Datary 1000 scudi for the Bulls of Catholic archbishops in Russia, and 800 scudi for those of bishops; Alexander I also allowed a Catholic chapel to be erected at the imperial residence of Tsarskoye Selo, and gave 40,000 roubles for its construction. He proposed to visit Rome, and, according to an unauthenticated historical report, to abjure Orthodoxy. There are Catholic writers who affirm that Alexander I and his consort became Catholics; but there is no documentary evidence in support of this.

The reign of Nicholas I was a long period of persecution and suffering for Catholics in Russia. In 1826 the Holy See sent Mgr. Bernetti to St. Petersburg, to be present at the coronation. He was well received by the tsar, and thereafter wrote optimistically to Rome. Soon, however, the trials of the Catholics began. By two ukases in 1828 the admission of novices in the religious orders, and of clerics in the seminaries, was made very difficult, if not quite impossible; and in the following year all the novitiates were closed. In 1830 other ukases encouraged divorce among Catholics, prohibited Catholic religious propaganda among the Orthodox, the hearing the confessions of foreigners, and changes of residence among the clergy.

The Polish insurrection of 1830 and 1831 intensified the persecution against the Latin Catholics. In 1832 the Russian Government asked of the "Roman Ecclesiastical College" that the number of convents be diminished. Of 300 monasteries in the Diocese of Mohileff 202 were closed; while the administrator of that diocese, Bishop Szczyt, who had opposed this reduction was sent to Siberia. In the same year the publication of Papal Bulls in Russia was prohibited. In June and September, 1832 respectively the Holy See addressed two notes to the Russian Government, lamenting the disabilities to which Catholics were subjected in Russia, and the innovations which had been introduced into ecclesiastical discipline. The government blamed the Polish revolutionists for its severity. On 9 June, 1832, yielding to the Russian Government, Gregory XVI addressed his Encyclical to the Polish clergy, urging obedience to the civil power in civil matters. The encyclical aroused great discontent among the Poles, and did not deter the Russian Government from its purpose of annihilating Catholicism. The Government directed its blows against Catholics, more especially by laws concerning mixed marriages, by preventing Catholic priests from ministering to the United Catholics, and by calling to the episcopal sees men who were devoted to its policy, e. g. Mgr. Pawlowski, who was named Archbishop of Mohileff in 1841. The Holy See could no longer remain silent in the presence of this violence, and in his Allocution to the solemn Consistory of 22 July, 1842, Gregory XVI called the attention of the Catholic world to the painful oppression to which Catholicism was subjected in Russia; and his protests were more serious and energetic, when in 1845, upon the occasion of the visit of the tsar to Rome, he had an interview with the latter which resulted in the concordat of 3 Aug., 1847, by which there were established in Russia an archbishopric and six episcopal sees, and in Poland, the same number of dioceses that had been established by the Bull of Pius VII of 30 June, 1818. The concordat repealed several iniquitous laws that had been promulgated against Catholics, placed the seminaries and the ecclesiastical academy of St. Petersburg under the jurisdiction of the ordinary, and recognized to a somewhat greater degree the authority of the Holy See over the bishops. The Tsar Nicholas, by a letter of 15 Nov., 1847, ratified the concordat of 3 Aug., which, like so many other Russian laws, was destined to remain a dead Letter. Obstacles were placed to the determination of the boundaries of dioceses; 21 convents were suppressed by a ukase of 18 July, 1850; while Catholics were prohibited from restoring their churches and from building new ones; from preaching sermons that had not previously been approved by the government, and from refuting the calumnies of the Press against Catholicism. It is not necessary for us to recur to the authority of Catholic writers, like Lescœur, to prove how odious this violence was; we may be satisfied with a mere glance at the immense collection of laws and governmental measures concerning the Catholic Church, from the times of Peter and of Ivan Alexeievitch to 1867 ("Zakonopolozhenija i pravitelstvennyia rasporjazhenija do rimsko-kato litcheskoi cerkvi v Rossii otnosjachtchijasja so vremeni carstvovanija Tzarei Petra i Ioanna Aleksieevitchei, 1669-1867", Vienna, 1868). It is not without reason that a Catholic writer has said that the laws of Nicholas I against Catholicism constitute a Neronian code.

The first years of the reign of Alexander II were not marked by anti-Catholic violence. The Russian Government promised the Holy See that the concordat would be scrupulously observed, and in 1856 the episcopal sees of Russia and Poland were filled. Soon however there was a return to the methods of Nicholas I, notwithstanding the fact that Pius IX wrote to the tsar, imploring liberty for Catholics of both rites in Russia. In another letter, addressed in 1861 to Mgr. Fialkowski, Archbishop of Warsaw, Pius IX referred to the continual efforts of the Holy See to safeguard the existence of Catholicism in Russia, and to the difficulties that were opposed to all measures of his and of his predecessors in that connection. Encouraged by the words of the pope, the Polish bishops presented a memorandum to the representative of the emperor at Warsaw, asking for the abrogation of the laws that oppressed Catholics and destroyed their liberty. A similar memorandum was presented to the tsar by the Archbishop of Mohileff and the bishops of Russia. Upon the basis of these memoranda, the government accused the Catholic clergy of promoting the spirit of revolution and of plotting revolts against the tsar. Most painful occurrences ensued; the soldiery was not restrained from profaning the churches and the Holy Eucharist, from wounding defenceless women, or from treating Warsaw as a city taken by storm. One hundred and sixty priests, and among them the vicar capitular Bialobrzeski, were taken prisoners, and several of them were exiled to Siberia. Mgr. Deckert, coadjutor of the Archbishop Fialkowski, died of the sufferings that these events caused him. The condition of the Poles were becoming intolerable, and Catholicism suffered proportionately. Amid the general indifference of Europe, one voice, that of Pius IX, was raised, firm and energetic, in favour of an oppressed people and of a persecuted faith. On 12 March, 1863, in his Allocution to the Consistory, and on 22 April, 1863, in a letter to the tsar, Pius IX demanded that justice and equity be no longer violated. The tsar Alexander II wrote to the pope expressing regrets that the Polish clergy should ally itself with the authors of civil disorder and should disturb the public peace.

The Polish revolution of 1863 furnished the government with a pretext for inhumanity towards the Catholic clergy, both regular and secular. There is no doubt that some priests and religious, moved by patriotic ardour, committed the error of taking part in an insurrection which was opposed by the more cultured and reasonable portion of the nation. The Russian Government, however, did not take pains to punish only the guilty, but dealt with all the Catholic clergy alike. In 1863 the Archbishop of Warsaw, Mgr. Felinski, was confined at Yaroslaff, as was his coadjutor Mgr. Rzaewuski at Astrakhan in 1865; while their successors, the canons Szczygielski and Domagolski, were exiled to Siberia in 1867. Mgr. Krasinski, Archbishop of Vilna, was confined at Vyatka. Several priests in 1863 were either hanged or shot, as implicated in the revolt, while others were sent to the interior of Russia, or were deported to Siberia. The Poles and the Catholics in their distress received consolation only from Pius IX, who distinguished between the right of a government to punish an unjust revolt and the right of subjects to profess their Faith freely. In the encyclical "Ubi Urbaniano" of 30 July, 1864, addressed to the bishops of Russia and Poland, he enumerated the grievous evils that the Russian Government had inflicted on Catholicism.

The letters and the protests of the pope however were of little avail. On 8 Nov., 1864 the government suppressed the convents and religious orders of Russian Poland; and a ukase of 16 Nov., 1866 abolished the concordat of 1847. Another ukase, on 22 May, 1867, made the "Roman Catholic College" the intermediary between the Catholic bishops of Russia and the Holy See. Unfortunately some prelates allowed themselves to be led astray by the promises or by the threats of the Russian Government, which sought the ruin of Catholicism in Russia through the establishment of a Polish national church. We may cite Mgr. Staniewski, administrator of the Diocese of Mohileff, Mgr. Constance Lubienski, Bishop of Augustowo, who nobly expiated his mistake, and died in exile at Dünaburg; and Mgr. Sosnowski, administrator of the Diocese of Lublin. A series of curious revelations and documents, concerning the incredible abuses of Russian legislation against Catholicism, is contained in the work "Das polnisch-russische Staatskirchenrecht auf Grund der neuesten Bestimmungen und praktischer Erfahrungen systematisch erzählt von einem Priester", Posen, 1892.

Under Alexander III (1881-94) negotiations between the Holy See and the Russian Government were renewed, and Russia maintained a legation at the Vatican. In 1882 Archbishop Felinski was recalled from exile, and, instead of his See of Warsaw, received the title of Archbishop of Tarsus. The See of Warsaw was given to Mgr. Vincent Theophilus Popiel, who had energetically resisted the efforts of the Russian Government to establish an independent ecclesiastical college for the government of the Catholic Church in Russia. A new concordat was concluded in 1882, but its clauses were nullified by new laws. It should not be forgotten that, during the entire reign of Alexander II, the religious policy of Russia was inspired by Konstantin Pobiedonostseff, Procurator General of the Holy Synod, who, for political rather than religious motives, was a fierce adversary of Catholicism. The Catholic clergy continued to endure the severest oppression, abandoned to the caprices of the police, greatly reduced in numbers, and trammelled by a thousand obstacles in the exercise of its apostolic ministry. This condition of things was prolonged into the reign of Nicholas II, during which Pobiedonostseff exercised his dictatorship until 1905.

After the war with Japan, however, and in consequence of internal political troubles, Nicholas II promulgated the constitution in 1905, and published the edict of religious toleration. Two years of liberty were sufficient to reveal the great vitality of Catholicism in Russia, for the number of conversions to the Catholic faith, in so short a lapse of time, amounted to 500,000, including over 300,000 Uniate Catholics whom the Russian Government had compelled to declare themselves Orthodox; 100,000 of these, known in Russian as Obstinates (uporstvujushshie) had not received the sacraments for more than thirty years, during which time they frequented no church, in order not to be reckoned among the Orthodox. The Catholic clergy developed the greatest activity in social and educational work, in the Press, and in the awakening of Christian piety; and the reactionary party of the Orthodox Church, centred in the Synod, cried out against the danger, and called for new laws to protect Orthodoxy against the assaults of militant Catholicism. These protests and lamentations were heard; the laws relating to liberty of conscience were submitted to revision, abolished, or modified; the government refused to recognize as legitimate the conversions to Catholicism of the former Uniate Catholics; the priests who baptized children of mixed marriages were punished with fines and imprisonment; the parochial schools were closed; the confraternities and the Catholic social organizations were dissolved, and the former severity against the Catholic Press was resumed. The government directed its action especially against the re-establishment of the United Church in Russia, and in 1911 closed two Russo-Catholic chapels that had been erected at St. Petersburg and Moscow. Denunciations against a zealous Jesuit, Father Werczynski, who had established himself at Moscow in 1903, and had converted a thousand Russians to Catholicism, furnished the government with pretexts for renewed severity: Father Werczynski was exiled; the suffragan Bishop of Mohileff, Mgr. Denisewicz, was deposed (1911) without the previous consent of the Holy See, and was deprived of his stipend; and another most zealous prelate, Baron von. Ropp, Bishop of Vilna, was obliged to resign his see and to retire to the Government of Perm.

Nevertheless Catholicism continues to exercise a great influence upon the cultured classes of Russia, a fact due in great measure to Vladimir Soloveff, the greatest of Russian philosophers, who has rightly been called the Russian Newman; and from these classes there have always been conversions that have brought to the fold of the Catholic Church noble and exalted souls, as, for example, Princess Narishkin, Princess Bariatinski, Princess Volkonski, Countess Nesselrode, Miss Ushakova, Prince Gagarin, Prince Galitzin, Count Shuvaloff, and many others. Khomiakoff, the legislator and apostle of Slavophilism, said that if liberty of conscience were established in Russia the upper and the cultured classes would embrace Catholicism, which seems to be justified by the facts.

D. Statistics of the Catholic Dioceses of Russia

The basis for the diocesan and clerical statistics of Russia is furnished by the very useful "Elenchi omnium Ecclesiarum et universi cleri" which is published every year by the various dioceses as an appendix to the "Directorium divini officii". These "Elenchi" are useful not only for their statistics but also for their historical data, because they sometimes contain documents and historical notes concerning the dioceses. From the ecclesiastical point of view, the Catholic dioceses of Russia are divided into two classes: the dioceses of the Kingdom of Poland, and those of Russia.

The Kingdom of Poland, or Russian Poland, has seven sees:

• (1) Archdiocese of Warsaw;
• (2) Diocese of Kielce;
• (3) Diocese of Lublin (with administration of Podlachia);
• (4) Diocese of Plock;
• (5) Diocese of Sandomir;
• (6) Diocese of Sejny and Augustowo;
• (7) Diocese of Wladislaw.

In Russia there are:

• (1) Archdiocese of Mohileff (with administration of Minsk);
• (2) Diocese of Lutzk, Zhitomir, and Kamenetz;
• (3) Diocese of Samogitia;
• (4) Diocese of Tiraspol;
• (5) Diocese of Vilna.

These are all treated under separate heads. In 1866 the Russian Government suppressed the Diocese of Podlachia in Poland, and Minsk and Kamenetz in Russia; the Holy See, however, did not sanction these arbitrary acts, and therefore the three dioceses in question exist canonically, although they have no bishops, and have been incorporated into other dioceses. There are in the Russian Empire more than 13,000,000 Catholics, of whom more than 5,000,000 are in Russia; there are approximately 2900 parishes, 3300 churches, 2000 chapels, and 4600 priests. According to the illustrative tables of Father Urban, S.J., there may be reckoned an average of more than 3000 Catholics for each priest. In some dioceses, as for example in Podlachia, there is 1 priest for each 4800 Catholics; and in the Diocese of Minsk 1 priest for each 4670 Catholics. The division into parishes is irregular, and some of the parishes have a very large population; that of Holy Cross at Lodz has a population of 142,000 Catholics with only 10 priests; and Praga, near Warsaw, has 82,000 Catholics, with only 4 priests. In Siberia the parishes have an enormous extent. According to the convention between the Holy See and the Government, the diocesan bishops should have 22 auxiliaries: 3 for the metropolitanate of Mohileff; 3 for the Diocese of Kovno; 3 for Lutzk, Zhitomir, and Kamenetz; 3 for Vilna; 2 for Tiraspol; 2 for Warsaw; and 1 each for Kielce, Lublin, Wladislaw, Sandomir, Plock, and Sejny and Augustowo. Unfortunately however the convention is not observed by the Russian Government: in 1911 there were only four suffragan bishops; and it should be added that the dioceses remain vacant for long periods. The Diocese of Vilna has been vacant since 1905. There follows consequently great disorganization and many abuses in the ecclesiastical administration, which cannot be remedied for lack of competent authority.

Each diocese has its cathedral and its collegiate chapters. A ukase of 1865 fixed 12 as the number of canons of a cathedral. Each diocese has also its consistory; and to the twelve diocesan consistories, should be added the consistories of Kalish, Piotrkow, and Pultusk. The consistories are composed of "Officers", "vice-officers", assessors, visitors of monasteries, and also lay members in the Russian dioceses. The efforts of the Russian Government to make autonomous the consistories of the various dioceses and the ecclesiastical college at St. Petersburg have failed, for the Catholic hierarchy in Russia, taught by experience, remains faithful to the Roman See, and accepts no innovations contrary to Catholic canon law.

E. Religious Orders

In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries there were in Russian Poland many monasteries, and several thousand religious of the various orders. Among the latter the Jesuits and the Piarists (founded by St. Joseph Calasanctius) distinguished themselves by their services to education; but the iniquitous laws of Catharine II and Nicholas I, and the measures adopted by the Russian Government in 1864 after the Polish insurrection, almost extirpated Western monachism from Russia. In 1864 it was provided that the monasteries of Russia should be divided into two classes, those approved kind recognized by the state, and those not approved or recognized. The monasteries of the first of these two classes were allowed to have novices, and to be inhabited each by 14 religious; those of the second class were allowed to remain in existence until the number of religious in each should be reduced to 7, when the monastery was to be suppressed. The opening of the novitiates of the recognized monasteries was deferred to the time when the non-approved monasteries should have ceased to exist. The number of the Paulist monks of the monastery of Czenstochowa was fixed at twenty-four. Even these restrictive laws, however, were not observed. Only three or four of the recognized monasteries were allowed to receive novices, and the members of religious orders were prohibited from having relations with their religious superiors outside of Russia. It is therefore not astonishing that the religious orders should have nearly disappeared from that country. The Sisters of Charity alone have been able to develop their organization; and, as elsewhere, they have won the admiration of all, even of the Orthodox.

The greater part of the religious are in Russian Poland. The Archdiocese of Warsaw has a Capuchin monastery at Nowe Miasto, with 15 religious, and the convents of the Visitation (14 religious), the Perpetual Adoration (13 religious), and the Sisters of the Immaculate Conception (36 religious). The Sisters of Charity, 382 in number, have under their charge there 34 hospitals or philanthropic institutions. In 1905 the Redemptorists, five in number, had established themselves at Warsaw; but the Russian Government expelled them in 1910. There are remnants of the old orders that were suppressed in 1864, but their number is reduced from year to year.

The Diocese of Wladislaw has the celebrated monastery of Czenstochowa, belonging to a congregation of cenobites called Paulists (from St. Paul I the hermit). There are about forty religious, priests and laymen, in the convent. A grievous crime that was committed in the convent in 1909 led the diocesan authorities to adopt the severest measures for the re-establishment of religious discipline there. In the same diocese there are two convents of Friars Minor, at Kolo and at Wladislaw, with 10 religious; one convent of Dominican Tertiaries, at Przyrów, with 12 religious; and one convent of Franciscan Tertiaries, with 13 religious, at Wielun. There are 49 Sisters of Charity, who have charge of 13 philanthropic establishments. In the Diocese of Plock there are: a convent of Carmelites, at Obory, with 6 religious; a monastery of Felician Sisters, at Przasnysz, with 9 religious; and 5 charitable institutions, in the care of the Sisters of Charity.

In the Diocese of Sejny, besides a Benedictine monastery, with 10 religious, there are two hospitals and one asylum, under the care of 13 Sisters of Charity.

In the Diocese of Sandomir there is a Franciscan convent for women, with 13 religious; and 6 charitable institutions, under the care of 29 Sisters of Charity.

The Diocese of Kielce has 35 Sisters of Charity, and that of Lublin 44. who are in charge of 8 charitable establishments.

In the Archdiocese of Mohileff there are no convents, properly so called. At St. Petersburg and Moscow there live some Dominicans of different nationalities, and it is by priests of that order that the French parishes of those two cities are served. In 1907 eight Franciscan Sisters, Missionaries of Mary, established themselves at St. Petersburg with the consent of the government. They direct a house of work. There are also in the archdiocese a few Sisters of French and of Polish congregations.

The Diocese of Vilna has a Benedictine monastery at Vilna, with 6 religious, and a Franciscan monastery, with 3 religious, at Slonim. In the Diocese of Kovno there is: a Franciscan monastery, with 3 religious, at Kretinga; one Benedictine monastery at Kovno, with 9 religious; and a convent of Sisters of St. Catharine, with 9 religious, at Kroki. At Zaslaff, in the Diocese of Lutzk, Zhitomir, and Kamenetz, the Franciscans have a monastery with 4 resident religious; and there are about 10 religious of various other orders scattered throughout the diocese. There are no religious in the Diocese of Tiraspol.

In all, therefore, of the 13,000,000 Catholics in Russia, 150 men and 550 women are religious, and of the women 450 are Sisters of Charity. The Catholic Church in Russia, therefore, is deprived of an important part of its militia, and there is small hope that religious life will flourish in that country. The small monasteries that remain depend on the bishops, and have, instead of provincials, visitors who are chosen from among the secular clergy. The several attempts of the Polish religious of Galicia (Augustinians, Franciscans, Bernardists, Piarists, Redemptorists) and others to establish themselves in Russia since 1905 have been futile.

F. Moral and Intellectual Life of the Catholic Clergy in Russia

From the moral and intellectual points of view, in Russia, as in all Orthodox countries, the Catholic clergy is very superior to that of other denominations, according to the confession even of the Orthodox writers themselves. Any shortcomings which may occur in the lives of the Catholic clergy arise out of circumstances beyond the control of the ecclesiastical authority. The Holy See cannot exercise in Russia a more efficacious vigilance than it exercises in other countries; but even if it were in a position to do so, it would find an obstacle to its efforts in the laws of the country. On the other hand, the clergy is too scattered, its work too great, and the civil offices imposed upon it by the bureaucracy too arduous. Nevertheless, in the difficult circumstances in which it is placed, its zeal has succeeded in working marvels, in holding its fold firmly bound to the Faith, and in conciliating the esteem of the Orthodox and the affection of Catholics. The generosity of the Catholics, especially Poles and Lithuanians, is considerable, and therefore the financial circumstances of the Catholic clergy are of the best, notwithstanding the fact that the stipends which it receives from the Russian Government are exceedingly small: parish priests receive from 230 to 600 roubles a year, and canons have the same stipend. The people are very pious, and their pilgrimages to the sanctuaries are frequent. At the Feast of the Assumption, the sanctuary of Czenstochowa is visited at times by as many as 1,000,000 pilgrims. The sanctuary of Our Lady of Ostrabrama, at Vilna, is also a centre of many pilgrimages, and the streets that lead to it are always crowded with people on their knees.

The Catholic clergy in Russia is unable to contribute efficiently to the propagation of the Faith, for its zeal is trammelled by very severe laws. In 1908-1911 many priests were fined, imprisoned, and even exiled for having baptized children of mixed marriages; nevertheless the clergy contributes in some measure to the work of the union. There had been hopes of restoring the Uniate Church in Russia through the agency of three or four Russian priests who were converted to Catholicism; and two chapels of the Slav Rite sprang up, at St. Petersburg and Moscow. In 1911, however, the Russian Government closed the two chapels, and forbade the exercise of their ministry by the converted priests, one of whom returned to the schism.

The Catholic clergy, and Catholics in general, abstain from taking part in polities; but they do a great deal for the moral and intellectual development of their fellow-countrymen. The Poles are the staunchest supporters of Catholicism and Polish nationalism in Russia. The Lithuanian clergy has taken a very active part in the awakening of Lithuanian nationalism, the restoration of the Lithuanian language to the churches of Lithuania, and the development of Lithuanian literature. From these points of view, therefore, both the Polish and Lithuanian clergy have rendered great service to their respective nationalities. It is to be regretted, however, that there should frequently arise at Vilna, between the Polish and the Lithuanian clergy, disputes that are at variance with Catholic interests. The intellectual development of the clergy, as yet, is not all that might be desired. The seminaries, in all that concerns the admission of young men, are at the mercy of the government, which, possibly, prevents the more desirable youths from entering those establishments. For the rest, the course of studies in those seminaries is not very complete. At present, however, an intellectual and moral reform in these establishments is being sought: a considerable number of Catholic priests go to foreign countries to complete their studies in Catholic universities, and upon their return to Russia teach in the seminaries. The Catholic Press, also, which had been kept at a low standard by the Russian censorship, has improved greatly of recent times. In 1909 the seminary of Wladislaw began the publication of the "Duchowni Kaplan", a monthly periodical that is on a level with the most learned Catholic publications of Europe. Other Catholic periodicals are published at Warsaw, Vilna, Sandomir, etc., and seek to neutralize the anticatholic propaganda, and the propaganda of atheism, which latter has its centre at Warsaw, where it publishes its organ the "Mysl Nepolegla" (Independent Thought).

The chief centre of Catholic study in Russia is the Roman Catholic Ecclesiastical Academy of St. Petersburg, established in 1833, in place of the seminary of Vilna, which was considered the university of the Catholic clergy in Russia. The academy has a rector, an inspector, a spiritual director, 15 professors, and a librarian. The dioceses send to this establishment their best students, who after a course of four years receive the Degree of Master of Theology. It has 60 students. Among its professors mention should be made of Mikhail Godlewski, author of important publications on the history of Catholicism in Russia; and Stanislaus Trzeciak, the author of an important work on the literature and religion of the Jews at the time of Christ ("Literatura i religija u zydów za czasów Chrystusa Pana", Warsaw, 1911).

The sect of the Mariavites is treated in the article POLAND.

THE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF RUSSIA

Russian writers ordinarily divide the history of their national church into five periods. The first, from 989 to 1237, was the period of the diffusion of Christianity in Russia. Christianity was spread slowly, but the want of culture among the people caused pagan superstitions to be maintained under the external appearances of Christian rites. The conditions of the lower clergy, both as to culture and to apostolic spirit, were wretched. Monastic life began to flourish in Russia, when the monk Anton, coming from Mount Athos in 1051, established himself in a grotto near Kieff, and collecting about him various followers, among them the famous Blessed Theodosius Petcherski, laid the foundation of the great monastery called Kievo-Petcherskaja. This monastery became a focus of culture in the development of Russia, and is rightly considered a national monument of that country. Monasticism was so generally spread in the twelfth century that in the city of Kieff alone there were seventeen monasteries.

During this first period the Russian Church was totally dependent upon the Church of Constantinople, and was governed by the Metropolitans of Kieff, the list of which opens with Leo (dead in 1004) and closes with the Metropolitan Josef in 1237. According to Golubinski this first list contains twenty-four names. Some of them, Mikhail, Ilarion, Ivan II, Ephraim, and Konstantin were placed upon the calendar of the saints. One of the most famous saints of this first epoch was St. Cyril of Turoff.

The second period, from 1237, in which year begin the Mongolian invasions and the progressive development of the power of northern Russia extends to 1461, when Orthodox Russia was divided into two metropolitanates. During this period, Russia was governed by the Metropolitans of all Russia, the list of whom begins with Cyril III (1242-49), and closes with St. Gona (1448-61). Among these metropolitans, St. Pioter (1308-26), St. Alexei (1354-78), and St. Gona (1448-61) were raised to the honours of the altar of the Russian Church. The latter fought against the Tatars; while several Russian princes suffered martyrdom for their Faith and were canonized. Some few missionaries attempted to spread Christianity among the Tatars. In 1329 two Russian monks, Sergei and Germanus, founded the famous monastery of Balaam, on an islet of Lake Ladoga. In the second half of the fourteenth century St. Stephen, Bishop of Perm (died 1396), preached Christianity to the Zyriani. The efforts of the Russians, however, to win Lithuania over to the schism were not crowned with success. During this period, there were eighteen eparchies in Russia. The Russian bishops gradually leaned towards Moscow, which had aspirations to spiritual supremacy. The moral and intellectual conditions of the clergy were very low. Towards the latter end of the fourteenth century, there arose the heresy of the Strigolniki, who rejected the hierarchy. Monasticism attained its highest development, there appearing 180 new monasteries. St. Sergei Radonejski (dead in 1392), a saint whom popular legends represent as endowed with supernatural powers, became the legislator of the new monasticism. At Sergievo, 40 miles from Moscow, he founded the celebrated monastery of the Most Holy Trinity, a great religious and national monument of Russia. The monasteries at this epoch contained possibly 300 religious.

The third period is from 1461 to 1589, when the Russian Church was divided into the two metropolitanates of Moscow and Kieff. The former was bounded by the frontiers of Great Russia, and was strictly Russian and Orthodox. That of Kieff attempted to assimilate the culture of the West, and developed great literary activity. In the metropolis of Moscow, Tihon of Vyatka (dead in 1612) worked for the conversion of the Voguli and of the Ostiaki of of the Government of Perm. The monks of the monastery of Solovka evangelized the Lopari, in which efforts the Blessed Theodoretus (dead in 1577) and the Blessed Tihon Petchengski (1495-1583) distinguished themselves. In the work of the conversion to Christianity of the Tatars of Kazan, the higumeno George (Gurij) Rugotin became famous. He died 4 Dec., 1563, and was canonized by the Russian Church; so also was the archimandrite Barsonofius (dead in 1576, and Germanus (died 1567). Other Russian monks devoted their energies to the conversion of the pagans of Astrakhan and of the Caucasus.

The Russian Church became more and more separated from the Greek Church, and towards the end of the fifteenth century refused to receive Greek metropolitans and bishops. Among the metropolitans of this time, Macarius (1542-63), and the energetic Philippus II, who was slain by order of Ivan the Terrible in 1473, were distinguished by the extent of their learning. In the Metropolitanate of Moscow there were ten eparchates. The clergy was very numerous, and many of its members, unable to subsist in the villages, lived a vagabond life at Moscow, to the detriment of discipline. With a view to reforming the clergy there was convened at Moscow in 1551 the famous Council of the Hundred Chapters (Stoglav). Monasticism spread more and more. From the fifteenth to the seventeenth century there appeared three hundred new monasteries, which accumulated enormous wealth. The Blessed Nil Sorski (1433-1508) made himself the champion of a reform among the monks, which implied on their part the renunciation of all real property and seclusion in the monasteries. His doctrines found numerous adversaries, among whom was the Blessed Josef of Volock (1440-1515). Many monks and ascetics of this time were venerated as saints. Among the more famous of these, were Alexander Svirski (dead in 1533) and Daniel of Pereiaslaff (died 1540). The want of religious instruction favoured superstition and the germination of heresies. In the fifteenth century there broke out, at Novgorod and its surroundings, the heresy of the Judaizers (zhidovstvujushshie), against which the Archbishop Gennadius (a saint who died in 1505) and the Blessed Josef of Volock struggled with much energy. In the sixteenth century Matwei Baksin and Theodosius Kosoi taught rationalist doctrines, abjuring the sacraments and ecclesiastical government, which evoked refutations and anathemas from Maxim the Greek, and from the monk Zinovii Otenski. The Protestants established themselves at Moscow.

There were fifteen metropolitans of Kieff, from Gregor the Bulgarian (1458-73), who, according to Golubinski, after embracing the union, returned to the Orthodox Church, to Onisiphorus Dievotchak (1579-89), who was succeeded by Mikhail Ragosa — the latter having embraced the Union. The Orthodox of the metropolitanate, after the Union of Brest, fanatically opposed the progress of the Unionists. Russian writers mention with praise, among these champions of Orthodoxy against the Union, Prince Andrei Kurbski and Prince Konstantin of Ostrog. The followers of Orthodoxy also established confraternities for the printing and dissemination of polemical works, and to oppose Catholic influence through the schools. For want of bishops and priests of their own, members of the Orthodox Church passed over to the Union. In 1620, however, Theophanus, Patriarch of Jerusalem, consecrated Job Borecki Metropolitan of Kieff, and six members of the Orthodox Church as bishops respectively of Polotsk, Vladimir, Lutzk, Przemysl, Chelm, and Pinsk; and thus the Orthodox hierarchy was reestablished. In the domain of theology the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were prolific of works, written by Orthodox theologians, to combat the arguments of the Catholics and Uniates. The most salient personality of the Orthodox hierarchy of Kieff during this period was the Metropolitan Peter Moghila (died 1646).

The fourth period of the Russian Church is that of the Patriarchate of Moscow (1589-1700). The Patriarchate of Moscow was created in 1589 by Jeremias II, Patriarch of Constantinople. The first patriarch was Job (1589-1605); he was succeeded by Ignatei (1605-06), Hermogenes (1606-11), Filarete Romanoff (1619-33), Joshaphat (1634-40), Josef (1642-52), Nikon (1652-66), Joshaphat (1667-72), Pitirim (1672-73), Joachim Saveloff (1674-90), and Adrian (1690-1700). Among the most famous of these mention should be made of Filarete and Joachim, bitter enemies of Catholicism; and of Nikon, who with uncurbed energy upheld the rights of his Church against the usurpations of the civil power, on which account he was deposed in 1666. The patriarchs formed at Moscow a court, which, especially under Filarete Romanoff, was a rival of that of the tsars, both as to wealth and authority, and which for these reasons was suppressed by the tsars. The patriarchs exercised superintendence over the metropolitans and over the bishops, the number of whom was increased and diminished by turns. After the establishment of the patriarchate, Novgorod, Kazan, Rostoff, and Kruticki became metropolitanates, and Suzdal, Ryazan, Tver, Vologda, and Smolensk were made archiepiscopal sees. The number of dioceses was fixed at eight. In 1620 Siberia was given an episcopal see at Tobolsk. In 1682 the Tsar Feodor Alexeievitch proposed the establishment of 12 metropolitanates and 72 dioceses; but a council of bishops reduced the latter number to 34, later to 22, and thereafter to 14. There was a lack of funds for the support of the new dioceses, and at the end of the seventeenth century the patriarchate of Moscow had 13 metropolitanates, 7 archbishoprics, and 2 dioceses.

Meanwhile the tsars, seeing the growth of the influence and power of the Church under the rule of the patriarchs, adopted the policy of diminishing the prerogatives of the clergy. The Tsar Alexis Mikhailovitch published a statute (ulozhenie) which prohibited the further acquisition of property by the clergy. The judicial position of the clergy received another blow by the promulgation of the so-called monastyrskij prikaz (monasterial ordinance). The clergy received this diminutio capitis with evident displeasure; and when Nikon, Metropolitan of Novgorod, was raised to the patriarchal dignity in 1652, protests were redoubled, and the conflict between the patriarch and the tsar became acute. The bishops, who were partisans of the tsar, had the support of the Greek hierarchy. The Council of Moscow, to please the tsar, deposed the patriarch, who died after a long captivity, at Bielo-ozero, in 1681. With the death of Nikon the Russian Church was yoked to the chariot of the State. Peter the Great found that the patriarchate was useless, and in fact an obstacle in the way of the realization of his purposes; and accordingly, at the death of Adrian in 1700, he suppressed it. The Patriarchate of Moscow had succeeded in unifying the Orthodox Church of Russia. After the convention of 1686 between Russia and Poland, which made the tsars of Moscow masters of Kieff and Little Russia, the Patriarch Joachim named Gedeon Tchetvertinski metropolitan of Kieff, and in 1687 Dionysius, Patriarch of Constantinople, recognized the dependency of the Metropolitanate of Kieff upon the Patriarchate of Moscow.

In the seventeenth century under the Patriarch Nikon a great schism broke out in the Orthodox Church, called the Schism of the Old Believers. The liturgical books in use in the Russian Church were replete with errors. Their correction was an urgent necessity, and had been undertaken in the sixteenth century. The fanatics opposed this "corruption" of the sacred texts, and Maxim the Greek, who had worked upon it, paid for his participation in the work with a long imprisonment. Under Nikon in 1654 a council held at Moscow recognized the necessity of the reform in question. Accordingly the liturgical books were corrected, but many Russians, influenced by the monks, refused to accept the corrected versions. It began to be rumoured that Antichrist, personified by the pope, had in view the destruction of the Orthodox Russian Church, through the Latin Catholics of western Russia. But a council held at Moscow in 1666 approved the reform of Nikon, and pronounced its anathema against those who had not accepted his decisions. Anathemas, were however, like the severity of the government, without effect against these deserters from the official Church. The monks who were averse to the reform withdrew to solitary places, and founded clandestine monasteries, among which those of Vyg, Starodub, and Vyatka became famous. The more violent schismatics were burnt alive or decapitated. But persecutions invigorated the schism, called in Russian raskio, whence the name of its adherents, Raskolniki.

The fifth, called the synodal, period begins with 1700, and extends to the present time. At the death of Adrian (1700), Stepan Tavorski, Metropolitan of Ryazan, and a learned theologian, was appointed patriarchal vicar, and charged to reform the entire constitution of the Russian Church. Tavorski found an excellent co-operator in Theophanus Prokopovitch, who was Bishop of Pskof in 1718, and who, although educated at Lemberg, Cracow, and Rome, and according to some, a convert to Catholicism, nourished a bitter hatred for Catholics. Peter the Great gave to Prokopovitch the task of preparing the "Ecclesiastical Regulations" which became the Magna Carta of the Russian Church. This code was finished in 1720. It is divided into three parts, concerning respectively the functions of the synod, the matters put under its jurisdiction, and the duties of its members. The synod was solemnly opened on 14 Feb., 1721. By the "Ecclesiastical Regulations", the tsar is the supreme judge of the ecclesiastical college. His representative in that capacity was a layman, who in a document of 1722 is called the eye of the tsar. This functionary, bearing the title of Ober-Prokuror, was to be chosen preferably from the military class.

The synod in the early period of its existence had ten members, besides the president, and maintained its ecclesiastical character. After the death of Peter the Great, however, that ecclesiastical character was lost by degrees, and the synod became a vast political bureaucracy. The bishops were at the mercy of the procurators-general, who at times, as in the case of Prince Sharkhovski, regarded the synod as a political institution, and sometimes maltreated the prelates who formed that body. There were procurators-general who made public profession of atheism, as Tchebysheff (1768-74), or of rationalism, as Prince A. Golycin (1803). The Russian Church suffered humiliation under the lay rule of the synod (see the important work of Blagovidoff, an ex-professor of the Ecclesiastical Academy of Kazan, on "The Procurators of the Holy Synod"). In 1881 there was called to the government of the synod Konstantin Pobiedonostseff, a man of great culture but of reactionary ideas, who wished to unite all the religions professed in Russia in the Orthodox Church. The epoch of Pobiedonostseff was one of complete thraldom for the Russian Church. His dictatorship however came to an end in 1905, when the edict of toleration was promulgated. The Liberal Russian clergy attacked the synod and the anti-canonical constitution of the Russian Church in the Press, and demanded the reestablishment of the patriarchate. The Government proposed the convocation of a great national synod, to return its liberties to the Church of Russia and to give it a new constitution, but this purpose was frustrated by the friction between the "white" (secular) and the "black" (regular) clergy, by the triumph of the revolutionary parties, and by the outbreak of the revolution. The synod continued to exercise its deleterious authority under various procurators: Prince Obolenski, Izvolski, Lukianoff (a mental specialist), and finally, in 1911, Carolus Viadimirovitch Sabler, a former associate of Pobiedonostseff, but a man of broader and more liberal ideas.

Other changes were made in the eparchies. When the synod was established, there were 18 eparchies and 2 vicariates in Russia; in 1764, the number of the former had increased to 29, and to 36 at the beginning of the nineteenth century; which latter number was increased under Nicholas I, and became 65 in our day. The eparchies are ruled by metropolitans (St. Petersburg, Moscow, and Kieff), archbishops, and bishops. According to the most recent statistics, there were 133 Russian bishops, including the bishop-vicars of the eparchies, and the bishops without a charge. In regard to the moral character of the Russian episcopate, and concerning the various institutions of the Russian dioceses, see the present writer's work "La Chiesa russa", pp. 105-160. The Russian clergy, which is divided into two castes, the "white" clergy, or seculars, and the "black" clergy, or regulars, has not acquired, among the Russians, the moral prestige that the Catholic clergy has acquired in Catholic countries. According to the latest statistics, there are in the "white" clergy 45,000 priests, 2400 archpriests, 15,000 deacons, and 44,000 singers, while there are 60,000 churches and chapels in the country. This clergy exercises its ministry over more than 90 millions of Orthodox faithful; but it is rendered incapable of accomplishing its mission by poverty, want of education, the lack of sound vocations, the oppression of the Government, contempt and social isolation, family cares, and not infrequently by drink. Only in the cities are there to be found priests of culture and in comfortable circumstances; those who work in the rural parishes are deserving of pity and compassion.

In the eighteenth century, the "black" clergy suffered vicissitudes that greatly reduced the number of monasteries and monks. Peter the Great especially and Anna Ivanovna treated the monks with the greatest severity. Nevertheless the "black" clergy preserved the moral and economic superiority in Russia; bishops, rectors, and inspectors of academies and seminaries are taken from the ranks of the "black" clergy, and the monasteries still possess immense riches. According to the most recent statistics there are 298 monasteries that are recognized and subsidized by the Government, while there are 154 not subsidized (zastatnij). There were 9317 monks and 8266 novices. There were 400 religious houses of women, inhabited by 12,652 nuns and 40,275 novices. Many of these religious houses are of the Russian Sisters of Charity, who maintain 184 hospitals, and 148 asylums. The life of the regular clergy, except in a few monasteries of strict observance, is very lax.

The Orthodox clergy receives its education in the ecclesiastical schools, preparatory for the seminaries (dukhovnyja utchilishsha) of which there are 185, with 1302 instructors, and which are maintained at an expense to the state of 6,153,353 roubles yearly; in the ecclesiastical seminaries, of which there are 57, with 866 instructors and 20,500 students; and also in the ecclesiastical academies of St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kieff, and Kazan, in which there are 120 instructors and 862 students; these academies possess very valuable libraries, and have professors of great scientific merit. The seminaries both morally or intellectually are in a wretched condition; from these seminaries the moral and intellectual shortcomings of the Russian clergy are derived, their students, as a rule, entering the priesthood without the least vocation. In 1906-08 these institutions became hotbeds of revolutionists, and even of anarchists. The ecclesiastical sciences are cultivated in the academies, which publish periodicals of great merit as the "Khristianskoe Tchtenie" (Christian Reading) at St. Petersburg; the "Bogoslovski Viestnik" (Theological Messenger) at Sergievsk Posad; the "Trudy" (Works) of the Ecclesiastical Academy of Kieff, and the "Pravoslavnyi Sobesiednik" at Kazan. Other important periodicals are the "Strannik" (St. Petersburg Traveller), the "Tcherkovnij Viestnik" (Ecclesiastical Messenger), the "Cerkovnija Viedomosti" (Ecclesiastical News), the organ of the synod at St. Petersburg; "Dushepoleznoe Tchtenie" (Edifying Reading), at Moscow, and the "Khristianin" (The Christian), at Sergievsk Posad. Among the most famous professors of the ecclesiastical academies of the present day, mention should be made of the great exegete Nikolai Glubokovski, the canonists Zaozerski and Berdnikoff, the historian Znamenski, etc. The most famous of them all, at present, is the archpriest Malinovski. A comprehensive study on the Russian seminaries and academies may be found in the work "La Chiesa russa", pp. 541-679.

The educating influence of the Russian clergy upon the people is very slight. On the other hand the bureaucracy would suppress any effort of the clergy to give to the people a higher sense of its rights. The clergy maintains a great many elementary schools, the number of which was much increased in the time of Pobiedonostseff. These establishments are divided into schools of two classes, and schools of one class; of the former there are 672, with 77,000 students of both sexes; while there are 25,425 one-class schools, with 1,400,000 students of both sexes; and in addition 13,650 schools in which reading is taught, with 436,000 pupils. There are 426 secondary schools, with 22,300 students, the yearly maintenance of which costs a sum of 17,000,000 roubles.

The apostolic work of the Russian clergy has small result. The internal missions are against the Raskolniki, the mystic and the rationalist sects, the Mohammedans, the Catholics, the Lutherans, and the Jews. The missionaries direct their efforts towards the conversion of dissidents to Orthodoxy rather by the assistance of the police and by human means than by a supernatural spirit and by convincing arguments. All efforts, not excluding deportation to Siberia, have failed to secure the conversion of the Raskolniki, who since 1905 have enjoyed a certain liberty, and at the present time maintain a great propaganda. Their number is estimated at 15,000,000. Among Catholics and Lutherans the Russian missions are without effect; in fact since 1905 many of the Orthodox have embraced Catholicism or Lutheranism. For three centuries Russian missionaries have worked for the conversion of the Mohammedan Tatars; but the trivial nature of the propaganda among that people was shown in 1905, when 500,000 Christian Tatars returned to the faith of Islam.

The foreign missions of Russia are in North and South America, Japan, Corea, and Persia. In North America the efforts of the Orthodox missionaries are directed to the conversion of the Uniate Ruthenians who emigrate to that continent. In other countries their efforts are almost without result, with the exception of Japan, where Ivan Kasatkin, who is now an archbishop, and who went to those islands in 1860, succeeded in establishing a Japanese branch of the Orthodox Church, Which numbers about 30,000 adherents and about 40 native priests (cf. "La Chiesa russa", pp. 397-539).

The Church of Russia is the support and strength of Orthodoxy, which, counting Russians, Greeks, and Rumanians, has more than 110 millions of adherents. The conversion of Russia to Catholicism, therefore, would end the Eastern Schism. But the hour of a reconciliation between the East and the West is yet far distant, however much desired by Catholics and also by Russians, such as Vladimir Soloveff. There is no doubt that among the cultured classes of Russia there are to be found persons who desire this union, and who readily recognize the defects of their national Church; but there is no movement towards union with Catholicism. As a rule, the cultured classes of Russia are contaminated with the poison of infidelity; while the lower classes are slaves of superstition or ignorance, and most attached to the formalities of their rite. They are the easy prey of the rationalist or mystic Russian sects. Possibly Russia would have been Catholic if, after the Union of Brest, politics and human passions had not rendered the condition of the Uniates most unhappy, and placed obstacles in the way of the development of the Ruthenian clergy. But it is useless to lament the past; and every effort should be made that the latent religious forces of Russia may some day find their full development in union with Catholicism under a single shepherd.

THE RELIGION OF RUSSIA: Catholicism; Orthodox Church; Protestantism:--

EUCÆIUS, Aulœum Dunaidum, continens seriem ac successiones archiepiscoporum Rigensium in Livonia (Wittenberg, 1564); POSSEVINUS, Lettera alla Duchessa di Mantova sopra le cose pertinenti alla religone cattolica, le quali desiderava intendere di Livonia, di Suetia, et di Transilvania (Mantua, 1580); IDEM, Livoniœ commentarius (Riga, 1852); BELLETTUS, Visitationis apostolicœ sanctœ Ecclesiœ Vendensis et Livoniœ, constitutiones (Vilna, 1611); OKOLSKI, Russia florida rosis et lilius (Lemberg, 1646); IDEM, Chioviensium et Czernichoviensium episcoporum ordo et numerus (Lemberg, 1646; Cracow, 1853); KOJALOWICZ, Miscellanea rerum ad statum ecclesiasticum in magno Lithuaniœ ducatu pertinentium (Vilna, 1650); SCARIN, Dissertatio historica de Sancto Henrico, Fennorum Apostolo (Abo, 1737); ORLOWSKI, Defensa biskupstva ij dyecezyi kiowskiej (Lemberg, 1748); FRIESIUS, De episcopatu kioviensi cuius sedes olim fuit Kioviœ, nunc vero Zytomiriœ in Ukraina eiusque prœsulibus brevis commentatio (Warsaw, 1763); CZARNEWSKI, De Semgalliœ episcopatu nec non de episcopis Semgalliœ seu Selburgensibus (Mitau, 1790); MACIEJOWSKI, Essai historique sur l'Eglise chrêtienne primitive des deux rites chez les Slaves (Leipzig, 1840); THEINER, Die neuesten Zustände der katholischen Kirche beider ritus in Polen und Russland (Augsburg, 1841); SZANTYR, Zbior wiadomosci o kosciele i religii katolickiej w cesarstwie rossyiskiem (Collection of Data on the Catholic Church and the Catholic Religion in the Russian Empire) (Posen, 1843); TOLSTOI, Le catholicism romain en Russie (2 vols., Paris, 1863-64); LESCŒUR, L'Eglise catholique et le gouvernement russe (Paris, 1903); RÖTTINGER, Leiden und Verfolgungen der katholischen kirche in Russland und Polen (Ratisbon, 1844); KRASINSKI, Histoire religeuse des peuples slaves (Paris, 1853); LESCŒUR, Le schisme moscovite et la Pologne catholique (Paris, 1859); IDEM, L'Eglise catholique en Pologne sous le gouvernement russe (Paris, 1860); IDEM, L'Eglise catholique et le gouvernement russe (Paris, 1903); GAGARIN, Tendances catholiques dans la société russe (Paris, 1860); SLECZKOWSKI, Wiadomosci niektóre do dziejöw kosciola katolickiego w polsko-rossyiskikh prowincyakh od rozbioru Polski az do najnowszuch czasów (Jaslo, 1861); TOLSTOI, Le catholicisme romain en Russie (2 vols., Paris, 1863-64); PIERLING, Rome et Demetrius d'après des documents nouveaux (Paris, 1878); IDEM, Antonii Possevini missio moscovitica ex annuis litteris S. J. excerpta et adnotationibus illustrata (Paris, 1882); IDEM, Rome et Moscou (1883); IDEM, Un nonce du Pape en Moscovie (Paris, 1884); IDEM, Le Saint-Siège, la Pologne, et Moscou (Paris, 1885); IDEM, Papes et Tzars (Paris, 1890); IDEM, Lettre de Dmitri, dit le faux, à Clément VIII (Paris, 1898); IDEM, Les relations diplomatiques entre le Saint-Siège et la Russie (24 vols., Paris, 1890-1907); SERPIGNY, Un arbitrage pontifical au XVI siècle (Possevin) (Paris, 1886); VANNUTELLI, La Russia e la Chiesa cattolica (Rome, 1895); HILDEBRAND Sveriges ställning till Antonio Possevinos fredsemdling mellan Polen och Russland (Stockholm, 1897); MARCOVITCH, Roma ed i Papi (2 vols., Zagabria, 1902); ABRAHAM, Powstanie organizacyi koaciola lacinskiego na Rusi (Lemberg, 1904); CARYKOFF, Posolstvo v Rim i sluzhba v Moskvie Pavla Menezija (The Embassy to Rome, and the Acts of Paolo Menesio at Moscow) (St. Petersburg, 1906).

CHYTRÆUS, De Russorum religione (Leipzig, 1586); PRYTZ, Utrum Moscovitœ sint christiani (Stockholm, 1620); SCHWABE, De religione ritibusque ecclesiasticis moscovitarum (Jena, 1665); VON OPPENBUSCH, Religio Moscovitarum (Strasburg, 1667); WAHRMUND, La religion ancienne et moderne des Moscovites (Cologne, 1698); KROOK, Exercitatio historico-theologica de statu Ecclesiœ et religionis moscoviticœ (Leipzig, 1722); FENERLIN, Dissertatio historica de religione Ruthenorum hadierna (Göttingen, 1745); BELLERMANN, Kurzer Abriss der russischen. Kirche (Erfurt, 1788); STRAHL, Zustand der griechisch-russischen, Kirche in ältester und neuester Zeit (Tübingen, 1823); IDEM, Geschichte der Gründung und Ausbreitung der christlichen Lehre unter den Völkern, des ganzen russischen Reiches (Halle, 1827); IDEM, Beyträge zur russischen Kirchengesch (Halle, 1827); IDEM, Geschichte der russischen Kirche (Halle, 1830); MURAVEFF, Istorija rossiiskoi cerkvi (History of the Russian Church) (St. Petersburg, 1845); Ger. tr. (Karlsruhe, 1857); PHILARÈTE, Istorija russkoi cerkvi (Tchernigoff, 1862); Ger. tr. (Frankfort, 1872); BOISSARD, L'Eglise de Russie (2 vols., Paris, 1867); HEARD, The Russian Church (London, 1887); FRANK, Russisches Christentum (Paderborn, 1889); VANNUTELLI, Studio religioso sopra la Russia (2 vols., Rome, 1892); RUNKEVITCH, Istorija russkoi cerkvi pod upravlemiem sv. synoda (History of the Russian Church under the Government of the Holy Synod) (St. Petersburg, 1900); DENISOFF, Pravoslavnye monastyri rossiiskoi imperii (The Orthodox Monasteries of the Russian Empire) (Moscow, 1908). The most complete history of the Russian Church is that of the Metropolitan MACARIUS, Istorija russkoi cerkvi (12 vols., St. Petersburg, 1883-1903). A complete bibliography of the Orthodox Russian Church is to be found in PALMIERI, La Chiesa russa (Florence, 1908), and IDEM, Theologia dogmatica orthodoxa, I (Florence, 1911).

SEMLER, De primis initiis christianœ religionis inter Russos (Halle, 1762); Dissertatio de origine christianœ religionis in Russia (Rome, 1826); GOETZ, Staat und Kirche in Altrussland (Berlin, 1908); BOTCHKAREFF, Stoglav i istorija sobora (The Council of the Hundred Chapters and its History) (Jukhnoff, 1906); KAPTEREFF, Kharakter otnoshenii Rossii ko pravoslavnomu vostoku v XVI i XVII stolietijakh (Nature of the Relations of Russia with the Orthodox East in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries) (Moscow, 1885); BACMEISTER, Beyträge zur Lebensgeschichte des Patriarchen Nikon (Riga, 1788); HÜBBENET, Istoritcheskoe izsliedovanie diela patriarkha Nikona (Historical Researches on the Case of the Patriarch Nikon) (2 vols., St. Petersburg, 1882-84); PALMER, The Patriarch and the Tsar (London, 1871), 73, 76; KAPTEREFF, Patriarkh Nikon i car Aleksiej Mikhailovitch (Sergievo, 1909); BLAGOVIDOFF, Ober-prokurory Svj. Synoda v XVIII i v pervoi polovinie XIX stoljetija (The Procurators General of the Holy Synod in the eighteenth and the first part of the nineteenth centuries) (Kazan, 1900); TITLINOFF, Pravitelstvo imperatricy Anny Joannovny v ego otnoshenjiakh k dielam pravoslavnoi cerkv (The Government of the Empress Anna Joannovna and her relations with the Orthodox Church) (Vilna, 1905); THEINER, Die Staatskirche Russlands im J. 1839 (Schaffhausen, 1844); GOLOVINE, Mémoires d'un prêtre russe ou la Russie religeuse (Paris, 1849); LENZ, De Duchoborzis (Dorpat, 1829); IGNACE, ARCHBISHOP OF VORONEZH, Istorija o reaskolakh v cerkvi rossiiskoi (History of the sects of the Russian Church) (St. Petersburg, 1849); Le raskol: essai historique et critique sur les sectes religieuses en Russie (St. Petersburg, 1859); ORLOF, Quelques réflexions sur les sectes religieuses en Russie (Paris, 1858, 1882); PFIZMAIER, Die Gottesmenschen. und Skopzen in Russland (Vienna, 1883); IDEM, Die Gefühlsdichtungen der Chlysten (Vienna, 1885); VON GERBEL, EMBACH, Russische Sektirer (Heilbr nn, 1883); TSAKNI, La Russie sectaire (Paris, 1887); DALTON, Der Stundismus in Russland (Gütersloh, 1896); GEHRING, Grundzüge zur Geschichte der russischen Sekten (Leipzig, 1898); IDEM, Die Sekten der russischen Kirche (Leipzig, 1898); BOROZDIN, Protopop Avvakum (St. Petersburg, 1898); GRASS, Die geheime heilige Schrift der Skopzen (Leipzig, 1904); IDEM, Die russischen Sekten (Leipzig, 1905); SÉVÉRAC, La secte russe des hommes de Dieu (Paris, 1906); ANDERSON, Staroobrjadtchestvo i sektantsvo (The Old Believers and the Russian Sectarians) (St. Petersburg, 1908). The best historical works on the Russian Raskol are those of SMIRNOFF (St. Petersburg, 1882); IVANOVSKIJ (Kazan, 1905); and PLOTNIKOFF (St. Petersburg, 1905).

BÜSCHING, Geschichte der evangelisch-lutherischen Gemeinen im russischen Reich (2 vols., Altona, 1766); GROTS, Beytrag zur Geschichte der evang.-lutherischen Kirchen in Russland (1772); JUNGBLUT, Die Gründung der evangelisch-luterischen Kirchen in Russland (St. Petersburg, 1855); FROMMANN, Die evangelische Kirche im Russland (Berlin, 1868); HUNNIUS, Die evangelisch-lutherische Kirche Russlands (Leipzig, 1877); DALTON, Beyträge zur Geschichte der evangelischen Kirche in Russland (Gotha, 1887, 1889, 1905); CVIETAEFF, Protestanty i protestantsvo v Rossii (Moscow, 1890); DALTON, Zur Geschichte der evangelischen Kirche in Russland (Leipzig, 1903); EGGERS, Die evangelisch-lutherischen Gemeinden. in Russland (St. Petersburg, 1909); GERNET, Geschichte der allerhöchst bestätigten Unterstützungskasse für evangelisch-lutherische Gemeinden in Russland (St. Petersburg, 1909).

A. PALMIERI.

Russian Language and Literature

The subject will be treated under the following heads, viz.

I. RUSSIAN LANGUAGE;

II. ANCIENT POPULAR LITERATURE;

III. FIRST MONUMENTS OF RUSSIAN LITERATURE;

IV. LITERATURE FROM THE ELEVENTH TO THE THIRTEENTH CENTURIES;

V. LITERATURE FROM THE FOURTEENTH TO THE SIXTEENTH CENTURIES;

VI. LITERATURE OF LITTLE RUSSIA AND GREAT RUSSIA IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY;

VII. RUSSIAN LITERATURE OF THE TIME OF PETER THE GREAT;

VIII. LITERATURE OF RUSSIA IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY;

IX. LITERATURE OF RUSSIA IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY;

X. CONTEMPORARY RUSSIAN LITERATURE.

I. RUSSIAN LANGUAGE

Russian is a Slav language belonging to the Indo-European family. The dispersion of the Slav tribes in prehistoric times resulted in the formation of various Slav dialects, of which Shafarik counted twelve, although other writers recognize only six or seven. The Slav dialects are divided into the South-Eastern dialects and the Western dialects. To the former, which culminate in the Bulgarian, belongs the Russian, or rather the three Russian dialects of Great Russia, Little Russia, and White Russia. Russian has many affinities with the Bulgarian and Servian languages, because Russia received her primitive literature from the Bulgarians and Servians. The absence of documents, however, makes it impossible to define with precision the character of the primitive language of Russia, or rather the relations between that language and the Russian of literature. According to Sreznevski and Lavroff, the similarity between the two languages was almost complete, and consisted in turns of expression rather than in grammatical forms. Before the thirteenth century, the literary, ecclesiastical, and administrative language was one. But in the fourteenth century the ecclesiastical language began to differ from the literary language and this difference grew considerably in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The Palæoslavic or ecclesiastical language, however, varied little in either case from the language of the people. In time Russian underwent local changes of form that gave rise to the dialects of Kieff, Novgorod, Vladimir, and Moscow. The Vareghi, the Greeks, the Tatars, the Lithuanians, and the Poles left traces of their political domination on the language of Russia, and in the time of Peter the Great many words were added from German, French, and English. The question of the primitive language of Russia is connected with the ethnological question, and in the nineteenth century gave rise to lengthy and spirited polemics which, however, led to no definite results. A leading work for the study of this controversy is Buslaeff's "Historical Grammar of the Russian Language" (1858). Political and nationalist questions also enter into the philological researches concerning the primitive language of Russia. The Ruthenians, or Little Russians, claim that their language was the original Russian, and therefore that primitive Russian literature should rather be called Ruthenian. On the other hand Sobolevski and the nationalists of Great Russia declare that the present Ruthenian is not the primitive language of Kieff. This philological controversy between the nationalists of Little Russia and those of Great Russia has not yet terminated.

II. ANCIENT POPULAR LITERATURE

From its earliest history Russia has possessed a literature that was handed down by tradition from generation to generation. It was not before the seventeenth century that this literature took a written form. The collection of Russian proverbs was begun: in the eighteenth century Daniloff published the first collection of Russian byline: at the end of the same century and at the beginning of the nineteenth, Tchulkoff, Popoff, and Macaroff published the first collections of popular songs. Upon this literature, which conveys so much information on the religious, civil, and social life of primitive Russia, great light was thrown by the studies of Kalaidovitch, Snegireff, Sakharoff, Kirieevski, Bielinski, Athanasieff, Kostomoroff, Maikoff, Buslaeff, Bezsonoff, and Vselovski. The popular Russian songs are divided into several classes. There are the mystic or ritual songs (obriadnyia piesni), which were sung in the sacred games, and on other solemn occasions; they contain many memories of the ancient pagan feasts, celebrating the glories of Dazh-Bog (the sun-god), of Koliada (traced by Russian writers to the Latin Calendœ), and of Ovsen. Others, illustrating the promiscuity of pagan tradition, celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ (sviatotchnyja piesni); others relate to the spring feasts (vesnianki), or accompany the dance (khorovodnyja). To this same class belong the nuptial songs (svadebnyja), the kupal'skija (literally, songs of the baths), the rusal'nyja, in honour of the Rusalke, a term that probably served to designate the souls of the departed.

The byline are the most beautiful treasures of this popular literature, of which they form the heroic cycle. The term byline is derived from the verb byl (it was), and etymologically signifies the recital of that which happened in times gone by. They tell of the deeds of the legendary heroes of primitive Russia. History, legend, and mythology together furnish the matter of these epic songs. In them the Russian heroes are called bogatyr, a name that some believe to be derived from Bog (God), as if they were demigods; others believe that the term is derived from Tatar or Mongolian; and yet others from the Sanskrit (bhaga, force, happiness). The heroes who are immortalized in the byline belong to the epoch of Vladimir the Great, or to more ancient times, and partake of a mythological character. These heroes, who act together with those of the time of Vladimir the Great, but nevertheless are endowed with a mythological character, are Sviatogor, Mikula Selianinovitch, Volga Sviatoslavitch, Sukhman Odikhmantévitch, and Don Ivanovitch; the historians of Russian literature designate them by the epithet of starshie ("ancient heroes"). The "young heroes" (mladshie) belong historically to the epoch of Vladimir; their names are Elia Muromec, Dobrynja Nikititch, Alesha Popovitch, Solovei Budimirovitch, etc. Kieff is so to speak, their geographical centre, and Vladimir their star. In the Russian chronicles they are mentioned between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries. Elia of Murom lived at the end of the twelfth century, and his remains rest in the grotto of the sanctuary of Petcherskaia at Kieff. They combat the monsters that assail Russia from within or from without, that is, paganism and thieves among the first, and the Petchenegi, the Polovcy, and the Chozari among the second. The historical, philological, and poetical importance of these ancient monuments of literature is very great. Other byline of later date, more commonly called historical songs, refer to the Tatar invasions, to the period of Ivan the Terrible, and also to that of Peter the Great. The songs and legends of Little Russia are called dumy (elegies, ballads), and celebrate the struggles of the Cossacks and Little Russians against the Turks or Tatars and the Poles, and the union of Little Russia with Great Russia. The songs that refer to domestic life are called bytovyja piesni. They sing the popular feasts and games, and the sad as well as happy events of domestic life, while they preserve many traces of paganism. The best collections of them are those of Tchulkoff (St. Petersburg, 1770-74); Novikoff (Moscow, 1780-81); and Sakharoff (St. Petersburg, 1838-39).

To popular literature belong the fanciful novels called skazki, which resemble somewhat the stories of the Fates. Their protagonists are strange beings created by the ardent popular fancy, Baba-Iaga, serpents with six or twelve heads, stags, horses, etc. The forces of nature are personified. At times the mythological element predominates in them entirely; and again it is blended with Christianity. The oldest novels are characterized by their simplicity and by the repose of their recital. Some of them, like the one entitled "The Judgment of Shemjaka", are satirical compositions. Others are derived from Western novels, especially the Italian. The proverbs also belong to popular literature. They are called poslovicy, and are very abundant, the first complete collection of them having been made by D. Kniazhevitch in 1822. They are the spontaneous product of the wisdom, caustic spirit, and rudimentary culture of the Russian people, and reflect the various historical ages of Russia. Some of them date from pagan times, others emanate from the people's knowledge of Holy Scripture, and others originate in the events that produced the greatest impressions on the popular imagination. To popular literature belong also the enigmas or riddles (zagadki), collected by Khudiakoff (Moscow, 1861) and by Sadovinikoff (St. Petersburg, 1876); the incantations (zagovory), the conjurations (zakliatia), and the lullabies (platchi), which are most useful for the study of Russian folk-lore and primitive Russian life.

III. FIRST MONUMENTS OF RUSSIAN LITERATURE

The first written literature of Russia is coincident with the conversion of Russia to Christianity. Bulgaria was the first Slav educator of Russia, and the first translations of the Scriptures and the liturgies were Bulgarian. The most ancient monument of Russian literature, and at the same time of the ecclesiastical Palæoslavic language common to the primitive Slav Christians, is the Gospel called "Ostromirovo", written at Novgorod in 1056-57 by the Deacon Gregor, by order of Ostromir, first magistrate (posadnik) of the city. This valuable document was published by Vostokoff in 1843. Ancient Russian literature is of an eminently religious character. The greater portion of its monuments are sermons, homilies, letters, lives of saints, pilgrimages; even the profane works, as chronicles and voyages, have a religious tone. On the other hand, owing to the fact that the Russians received their Christianity from Byzantium, their literature was openly Byzantine in character, the early Russians either translating the Byzantine works, or being inspired by the spirit of those works, and writing as if they were Byzantines. Primitive Russian literature, however, was subject also to other influences. The Slav influence was due to the Bulgarians and Servians, who, until the fifteenth century, gave many cultured men to Russia, e. g., the Metropolitan Cyprian and Gregor Camblak. Greek influence lasted a longer time, and flourished in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

Russian literature in the beginning consisted of translations from the Greek and of original works. Its development was very slow, because the prices of codices were very high. The copying of books was considered not only a useful contribution to culture, but a supernatural work. The Princess of Polotsk, St. Euphrosyne (twelfth century), copied books, a work to which monks, and even bishops, devoted themselves. Russian monks were wont to go to Constantinople, or to Mount Athos, and there to become amanuenses and enrich the first Russian libraries by their work. The first books that were translated were those of the Holy Scriptures that were most used by the people (Psalms, the Gospels, Proverbs, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach). There were also collections of extracts from the Holy Scriptures, called Paremii. The translation of all the books of the Holy Scriptures in a single codex was made in 1499, by order of Gennadius Gonzoff, Archbishop of Novgorod (1484-1504).

Simultaneously with the Holy Scriptures, the writings of the Fathers of the Church were greatly in vogue, especially those of St. John Chrysostom. Highly esteemed also were the doctrinal explanations of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, the canons of St. Basil, the homilies of St. Theodore the Studite, the discourses of St. Athanasius against Arianism, the discourses of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, the "Klimax" of St. John Climacus, and the works of St. Isaac the Syrian, St. Ephraem the Syrian, and St. John Damascene. Until the seventeenth century, the theological writings of St. John Damascene were the sources of Russian Orthodox theology. The great popularity of the works of the Fathers gave rise to the formation of collections of extracts from their discourses, and to annotated copies, with explanations, for the study of their writings, called sborniki, of which there are several: "Zlatoust", a collection of moral sermons and homilies (112), mostly from St. John Chrysostom; "Margarit", another collection from St. John Chrysostom, included in the monologue of the Metropolitan Macarius, and published for the first time at Ostrog in 1596; "Izmaragd", a collection of sermons and homilies from St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. Ephraem, St. Gregory the Great, and St. Cyril of Alexandria; "Andriatis", a collection of the homilies recited by St. John Chrysostom at Antioch; "Zlataia ciep" (golden chain), a collection of discourses on the moral virtues, taken from the Fathers of the Church and from Russian writers; the "Ptchely" (bees), a collection of the literary flowers of St. Maximus the Confessor. The famous "Sbornik" of Sviatoslaff Yaroslaffitch, Prince of Tchernigoff, which was translated in Bulgaria from the Greek, for the Tsar Simeon, in 1073, also has texts from the Fathers and from profane writers.

The Greek synaxaria, the Patereka of Sinai and Jerusalem, translated in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and the "Patericon" of the Petcherskaia Shrine of Kieff, which is very valuable for the study of primitive Russian hagiology, are of a sacro-historical character. The Greek synaxaria took in Russian the name of Prologos. Collections of discourses in honour of the feasts of Our Lord, of the Blessed Virgin, and of the saints received the name of "Torzhestvenniki". An historical compendium of the Old Testament, called "Palei", from palaia diatheke, dates from the earliest times of Russian Christianity. The oldest codices of the "Palei" are of the fourteenth century, but their origin is much older. To sacred and profane literature belong the so-called chronographoi, collections and transformations of writings of Byzantine chroniclers, especially of Malala, Amartolos, Manasses, and Zonaras, as also the Slav version of the "Christian Topography" of Cosmas Indicopleustes.

Partly to sacro-profane and partly to profane literature belong many novels and stories translated from Byzantine, Servian, and Bulgarian writings, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. One of the most famous novels, taken from the literature of Constantinople, is the history of Barlaam and Josaphat. At the end of the sixteenth century, the influence of Polish literature helped to spread in Russia two works that were much in vogue in the West, the "Gesta Romanorum", and the "Speculum Magnum." The apocryphal books of the Old Testament (story of Adam and Eve; story of the Tree of the Cross; story of the Just Enoch, etc.), and those of the New Testament (story of Aphroditian on the miracles in Persia; dispute of Christ with the Devil; conversation of Adam and Lazarus in Limbo, etc.) were also widely disseminated in the literature of that time. There were also translated into Palæorussian the "Elucidarium sive dialogus de summa totius religionis christianæ", attributed to Honorius of Autun by Migne; books of magic and books of astrology ("Gromnik", "Molnianik", "Koliadnik", etc). Under the influence of this literature, religious songs were created that became very popular with the people (Dukhovnye stikhi). These little poems or songs treat of the most varied subjects, and it is very difficult to divide them into different classes. They are of a moral and religious character, referring to the Creation, to St. Michael the Archangel, to the sufferings of the damned, to the birth or passion of Jesus Christ, to the Russian saints, etc. And beside these poetical productions sprang up the hagiological legends, of which the best known refer to St. Nicholas of Myra, St. Parasceve, and St. Cassian. The deep researches of Arkhangelski and Sobolevski throw a great deal of light on the Russian versions of the Fathers and of the Byzantine writings.

IV. LITERATURE FROM THE ELEVENTH TO THE THIRTEENTH CENTURIES

Russian literature, properly so called, from the period of the advent of Christianity in Russia to the time of Peter the Great, comprises discourses, instructions, and letters that are intended to infuse Christian sentiments, and to draw the people from pagan practices; polemical works, directed at first against the Latins, and later against the first Russian heresies; lives of saints, chronicles, and historical Works, pilgrimages and voyages, and juridical monuments. There is almost a total absence of poetry. The first centres of culture were Kieff and Novgorod; in the sixteenth century, Moscow. Among the writers who left a name for sacred eloquence in the period from the eleventh to the thirteenth centuries, mention is made of Luke Zhidiata, Archbishop of Novgorod (1035-59), whose discourse is a brief recapitulation of the truths of the Faith; St. Hilarion, Metropolitan of Kieff in 1051, whose discourses contain very valuable data for the early history of Russian Christianity; the Blessed Theodosius Petcherski, who wrote discourses for the people and the monks; Nicephorus, Metropolitan of Kieff (1104-20), whose discourses and letters, written in Greek were translated later into Russian; Cyril of Turoff (1171-82), a brilliant writer who, on account of his natural and vigorous eloquence, resembling that of St. John Chrysostom, is called the Chrysostom of Russia. His discourses, homilies, writings on monastic life, and prayers are among the most important monuments of the ancient ecclesiastical literature of Russia.

The polemics against the Latins found almost their only exponents among the Greeks who in the beginning governed the Russian dioceses. Leontius, metropolitan (992-1008), wrote against the Arians; George, metropolitan (1065-73), wrote a "Dispute with a Latin", in which the various pretended innovations of the Roman Church are attacked; Ivan II (1186-89) is the author of a letter to Clement III, in which the Latins are reproved only on account of the insertion of the Filioque in the Creed. The letter on the Faith of the Vareghi (or Variazhskoi vierie), which by some is attributed, although without strong arguments, to St. Theodosius Petcherski, is believed by some to be of Russian origin. Among the first Russian hagiologists mention should be made of Jacob, a monk of the Petcherskaia hermitage, who wrote an account of the martyrdom of Sts. Boris and Glieba, and the panegyric of St. Vladimir; of Nestor, the most famous of the ancient Russian writers, a monk of the hermitage of Kieff, who died in 1114. He is the author of the lives of Boris and Glieba of the Blessed Theodosius, and of a chronicle ("Lietopis") The original of the chronicle of Nestor has not come down to us; the most ancient copy of it is that of the monk Lawrence, made in 1377 for Demetrius Constantinovitch, Prince of Suzdal. Nestor was not the first Russian chronicler. Other chroniclers, whose names and works have not been handed down to our times, wrote before him at Novgorod. The national and literary importance of the chronicle of Nestor is very great. The Russians rightly consider it as an epic history, warm with the love of country. It finishes with the year 1110, but was continued by other writers, under various names, as "Chronicle of Kieff", "Chronicle of Volhynia", "Chronicle of Suzdal", etc. They are of an eminently religious character, and abound in texts from the Scriptures and in ascetic considerations.

Another important work in which the Russian national sentiment predominates is the journey of the higumeno Daniel (thirteenth century) to the Holy Places: before the Holy Sepulchre he prays "for all the land of Russia". Anthony, Archbishop of Novgorod, visited Constantinople four years after the taking of that city by the Latins (1204), and left a short but very important description of its churches and monasteries.

To profane literature belong the "Testament" Vladimir Monomachus, written in 1099, in which its author gives a recital of his enterprises; and the celebrated account of the battle of Igor ("Slovo" or "Polku Igorevie"), which was found in 1795 in the library of Count Musin Pushkin. It is the only poetical work of the Russia of the princes, and relates the military expedition of Igor Sviatoslavitch, Prince of Novgorod-Sieverski, against the Polovcy (1185). It is characterized by the grandeur of its poetical sentiment, the beauty of its descriptions, and love of country. In the twelfth century was written the discourse of Daniel Zatotchnik (Captivus), who, imprisoned in the Government of Olonetz, writes to a prince to ask for his liberty, making a great display of his learning. Among the juridical monuments of that age we may cite the "Russkaia Pravda" (Russian code) of Prince Yaroslaff I, and the Greek Nomocanon, translated in the earliest times of Russian Christianity, and qualified with the epithet of Kormtchaia kniga, corresponding to the Greek pedalion. To the nomocanon were added the "Ecclesiastical Regulations" ("Cerkovnye ustavy") of Vladimir and Yaroslaff, which however are not of those princes, at least in the form in which they have been transmitted to us in codices of the thirteenth century. The monasteries were centres of the literary culture of Russia in the eleventh and twelfth centuries; and the Greco-Russian clergy laboured for the diffusion of it. From the Greek clergy came the polemical works, and the hatred of the Latins that became fixed in the hearts of the Russian people. The first Greek polemics who lived in Russia spread the most absurd calumnies against the Latins, and anathematized as heretical the most simple liturgical customs: the Metropolitan George enumerated twenty-seven points of divergence between the Greeks and Latins. The thirteenth century is very poor from the standpoint of literature. The Tatar invasions stopped the progress of culture, and prevented intellectual work. Among the literary monuments of that century are cited a letter of Simon, Bishop of Vladimir (1215-26), to Polycarp, a monk of the Petcherskaia hermitage; the life of Abraham of Smolensk, a most important historical document; the sermons of Serapion, Bishop of Vladimir (1274-75), and a synodal and canonical decision of Cyril II, Metropolitan of Kieff (1243-80), which is inserted in the Kormtchaia kniga.

V. LITERATURE FROM THE FOURTEENTH TO THE SIXTEENTH CENTURIES

In the period from the fourteenth to the sixteenth centuries, literary culture, paralyzed by Tatar oppression in the region of Kieff, continued to flourish at Novgorod and Pskof, and from there was carried to other centres, viz., Vladimir, Rostoff, Murom, Yaroslaff, Tver, Ryazan, and finally Moscow, which received the name of the Third Rome. In the fourteenth century sacred sermons were written by various authors, among whom were Peter, Metropolitan of Moscow; Alexei, another metropolitan of Moscow (1293-1377) who, in a codex of the Gospel which he transcribed, corrected the ancient Slav version in many points, by the Greek original; Matvei, Bishop of Sarai; the metropolitan Cyprian (1376-1406), a Servian by birth, who also left various letters and translated the Psalter, the Missal (Sluzhebnik), the Nomocanon, etc.; the Blessed Cyril, founder of the monastery of Bielozero, the author of several letters to the sons of Prince Demetrius Donskoi; Basil, Archbishop of Novgorod (1331-1352), who wrote a letter to Feodor, Bishop of Tver, to convince him of the existence of a terrestrial paradise. Brief descriptions of Constantinople and its churches in the fourteenth century were left by Stephen, a monk of Novgorod, by Ignatius, a deacon of Smolensk, and by Alexandr D'jak ("judge", "magistrate"). Among the novels special mention should be made of the "Zadonshina", written by Sofronio or Sofonio of Ryazan, an epic story that relates the military acts of Prince Demetrius Donskoi, who vanquished the Tatars at Kulikovo (1380).

In the fifteenth century the beginning of heresies in Russian Christianity, which originated in the decadence of monastic asceticism as well as in the gross ignorance of the clergy and laity, opened up new fields to Russian religious polemics. Photius, Metropolitan of Moscow (1410-31) and Gregor Camblak, Metropolitan of Kieff (1416) composed letters and moral sermons; Gennadius, Archbishop of Novgorod (1485-1504), wrote against the sect of the Judaizers, which originated in that city about 1471; the higumeno Josef Sanin of Polotsk assailed the same sect in his tedious work "Prosvietitel" ("the illuminator"). Nil Sorski (1433-1508), founder of a hermitage on the banks of the Sora River, is the author of writings that were directed towards the reformation of the ideals and the life of Russian monasticism. Among the travellers of this period Zosimus, hiero-deacon of the hermitage of St. Sergius, and a merchant, Basil, left accounts of their pilgrimages to the Holy Land. Simeon, hiero-monk of Suzdal, accompanied Isidore, Metropolitan of Moscow, to the Council of Florence, and left an interesting recital of his voyage to Italy, and a short but important account of the council, which is one of the monuments of the Russian polemics against the Latins. Anthony Nikitin, a merchant of Tver, went to India through Persia in 1466, returned to his country in 1472, and in the account of his travels gave important information on the religious beliefs of the people of India. In historical literature, besides the valuable sketch of the Council of Florence, there should be mentioned the account of the foundation and the taking of Constantinople, which was very popular among the Russians.

The sixteenth century, as Porfiréff rightly states, was one of criticism and restoration. Its literature, always eminently religious, proposed to revive the ancient customs, and the ancient traditions, and to restore religion and the family. The most famous and most learned champion of these reforms was Maximus the Greek, born at Arta, in Albania, and educated in Italy. He entered monastic life on Mount Athos, and in 1518 repaired to Russia, where he took an active part in the religious life of the country, and in the correction of the liturgical books; he suffered a painful imprisonment in various monasteries, from 1525 to 1553, and died at the hermitage of St. Sergius in 1556. A most learned theologian, he wrote polemical works against the Gentiles, the Jews, the Judaizers, the Mohammedans, and the Latins, especially in opposition to the supremacy of the pope and to the Filioque; he combatted astrology, and wrote short works and discourses on moral subjects. Among the Russian prelates of the sixteenth century, Daniel, elected Metropolitan of Moscow in 1522, acquired fame. He was the author of sixteen discourses that prove him to have read assiduously, and to have had a profound knowledge of patristic literature. The most important monument of the literature of the sixteenth century is the "Domostroi", attributed to Sylvester, a priest who was the contemporary of Ivan the Terrible; Sylvester was, however, the compiler rather than the author of the work. It is a book of a moral character, in which are propounded the rules for living according to the precepts of the Faith and Christian piety, the duties of man as a member of the family, and the way to govern the home well and to care for domestic economy. The "Domostroi", therefore, is a compendium of the duties of a Christian man, and at the same time a true picture of the social and domestic organization of Russia in the sixteenth century. Another great work, which had remained unpublished until now but which the Archæographical Commission of St. Petersburg is now bringing to light, is the "Tchet'y Minei" of the Metropolitan Macarius of Moscow (1542-64). From the beginnings of its literature, Russia possessed lives of saints, the number which increased from century to century. The Metropolitan Macarius collected into a vast work the lives of all the saints of the Greco-Russian Church, adding panegyrics and discourses in their honour, and also whole books of Scripture, with commentaries, writings of the Fathers, and synaxaria, so that his menologies are almost a complete répertoire of the ancient literature of Russia, rather than a simple hagiological collection. To the same century belong the hagiological legends, which are lives of the saints, or episodes in them, embellished by popular fancy, examples of which are the legends of the Tsarevitch Peter (thirteenth century), of St. Mercurius, of Martha and Mary, of Prince Peter of Murom, and of his consort, Febronia.

Prince Andrew Kurbski, a warm defender of the Orthodox Church, translated the dialectics and the Pege gnoseos of St. John Damascene, and wrote a brief history of the Council of Florence and a history of Ivan the Terrible, with whom he was in correspondence; these letters are preserved to our day. An important work of religious polemics was written by the monk Zinovii of Otna, who refuted the heretical and Judaistic doctrines of Kosoi. The title of the work is "Istiny pokazanie" (demonstration of the truth), and it consists of fifty-six chapters. Of the sixteenth century there are also two small works, written in refutation of Protestantism, which at that time was beginning to spread in Russia. Among the Russian pilgrims who visited the Holy Places and who wrote an account of their travels the most distinguished are Trifon Korobeinikoff and George Grekoff, who went to Jerusalem in 1583.

VI. LITERATURE OF LITTLE RUSSIA AND GREAT RUSSIA IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY

The seventeenth century witnessed the Renaissance of Little Russia, which became the instructor of Great Russia. Under Catholic and Polish influence Little Russia drew near to the West, assimilated Western science, and modelled its schools upon those of the Latins. The "Union" of Brest in 1596 gave an efficient impulse to Orthodox culture. Confraternities were established to open schools and printing-offices for the publication and dissemination of polemical works; among them those of Lemberg, Vilna, and Kieff were famous. Scholastic theology and philosophy entered into and dominated the Russian academies and seminaries. Latin became the official language in the teaching of theology. Peter Mogilas, Metropolitan of Kieff, transformed into a superior school of theology the school established by the Confraternity of the Church of the Apparition of the Lord. The works of St. Thomas Aquinas exercised a great influence on Orthodox theology, and in the academy of Kieff the Immaculate Conception was upheld. The literature of the religious polemics against the Latins, to which the Union of Brest gave rise, is very rich. In 1597 was published the "Ekthesis", or Orthodox history of the Union of Brest; Kristofor Bronski, under the pseudonym of Filalete, wrote the "Apokrisis" against Peter Skarga, and later the "Perestroga" (admonishment). Meletius Smotricki, Archbishop of Polotsk (died 1633), wrote the "Threnos" and other works of religious polemic, and finally embraced Catholicism; in 1622 Zacharias Kopystenski wrote the "Palinodia", the most important work in this polemical literature. The writings of Meletius Smotricki in defence of Catholicism, which he had on other occasions so strenuously opposed, were confuted by Andrew Muzkilovski, by Job Borecki, Metropolitan of Kieff, and by Gelasius Diplic. Joannikius Galiatovski, rector of the academy of Kieff (died 1688), wrote several works against the Catholics, one of them against the Filioque, confuted the Hebrews in his work "The True Messias", and also wrote several works in refutation of the Koran. Another polemic against the Latins was Lazarus Baranovitch, Archbishop of Tchernigoff (died 1694); in a work that was directed against the Jesuit Boyme, he opposed the supremacy of the pope and the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son.

The first Orthodox catechisms appeared in the seventeenth century, written by Laurence Zizanii and by Peter Mogilas; the latter, in the work Lithos (attributed to him), defends the Orthodox Church against the charge of Protestantism; he is considered to be the author of the famous Orthodox Confession of the Eastern Church, approved by the special Council of Jassy in 1643. Among the preachers whom the sacred orators of the East sought to imitate, mention may again be made of Joannikius Galiatovski, who wrote a treatise on the art of oratory, entitled "Kliutch razumienia"; Anthony Radivilovski, higumeno of the hermitage of Kieff; and Lazarus Baranovitch. In 1591 there was published at Lemberg the first Slavo-Greek grammar; Lawrence Zizanii wrote a Slav grammar in 1596, and the grammar of Meletius Smotricki was published in 1619. Zizanii added a small Slav dictionary to his grammar, but the first Slavo-Russian lexicon was published by Berynda, hiero-monk of Kieff, in 1627. Western influence is revealed also in the poetry of the academy of Kieff. Besides the sacred cantata, the "Mysteries" were introduced to the schools and colleges; these "Mysteries" were sacred plays, modelled upon those of the Jesuit colleges. Among the historical works of Little Russia, mention should be made of the "Synopsis" of the history of Russia by Innocent Gizel, Archimandrite of Kieff, the "Enegesis" or history of the school of Kieff, and the"Paterikon" of the Petcherskaia hermitage by Sylvester Kossoff, Metropolitan of Kieff (died 1657).

From Kieff Western culture was carried to Moscow, to which city masters and learned men of Little Russia were called to organize schools, compose works, and print books; but they did not receive a friendly welcome. Their orthodoxy was suspected; the more so since several of the most illustrious theologians of Kieff admitted with the Latins the dogmatic truth of the Immaculate Conception, and the efficacy of the words of consecration alone to effect Transubstantiation. The suspicion against the purity of their theological teachings became so strong that the Russians turned to the Greeks for masters. In 1685 the Greek school was established at Moscow, and in time took the name of Greco-Slav-Latin Academy. Its first masters were the Greek hieromonks Joannikius and Sophronius Likhudes, who had studied in Italy, and who taught Greek literature at Moscow from 1685 to 1694. They wrote many polemical works against the Latins, against Protestants, and against the theologians of Little Russia who leaned towards the Latins, especially against Sylvester Medviedeff. In ecclesiastical literature the most distinguished authors were Epiphanius Slavinecki, the first of Russian bibliographers; Arsenius Sukhanoff, author of "A Voyage to the Holy Land" ("Proskynitarion"); Simon Polocki (of Polotsk), author of one of the first systematic treatises on Orthodox theology ("Vienec viery"), and also of sermons that are highly prized, of sacred poems, and of sacred plays; St. Demetrius of Rostoff (1651-1709), one of the most illustrious bishops of the Russian Church, a theologian, historian, poet, polemic, and hagiologist. He was the author of two Orthodox catechisms, of a very strong work against the Raskolniki ("Rozysk"), of a diary of his life, the "Tcheti minei" (menologies), a work upon which he spent twenty years; many sacred discourses that are appreciated for the simplicity of their style and for their depth of religious sentiment, and, finally, of several sacred plays, one of the most interesting of which is the "Birthday".

Epiphanius Slavinecki and an unnamed priest of Orel were also distinguished as sacred orators. The former rendered a great service to Patristic literature by translating into Russian a great many of the writings of the Fathers (St. Justin, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Basil, and St. John Damascene). One of his scholars, Eutimius, wrote a polemical work, called "Osten", against the theories of Sylvester Medviedeff, who sided with the Latins in the question of the Epiklesis. Against the Raskolniki, besides St. Demetrius of Rostoff, there wrote Simeon of Polotsk in 1666 ("Zhely pravlenija"); in 1682 the Patriarch of Moscow, Jacob ("Uviet dukhovnii"); likewise, the Metropolitan of Siberia, Ignatius, and George Krizhanitch. The latter, who was a student of the Greek College of St. Athanasius at Rome (1640), became famous on account of his theories of the cause of the schism between East and West, which he attributed to politics and the antagonism between Greeks and Latins, due to Panslavist ideas and political doctrines. The Learned Sergius Bielokuroff devoted four volumes to the life and works of Krizhanitch. In the seventeenth century there began to be published the first Greco-Latin lexicons, and also the first scientific books, arithmetics and geographies. Historical literature is represented by the chronicle of the Patriarch Nicomachus, which is brought down to 1631; by the chronicle called "Voskresenski", after the monastery where it was written, of which the relation finishes with the year 1560; and by several special chronicles, as the account of the siege of the Shrine of St. Sergius by the Poles in 1610, by Abraham Polycin, and by others of the diak Feodor Griboiedoff, of the deacon Timothy Kamevevitch Rvovski, of Andrew Lyzloff, a priest of Smolensk, and of Sergius Kubasoff.

VII. RUSSIAN LITERATURE OF THE TIME OF PETER THE GREAT

Under Peter the Great there began a new period in Russian literature. The foundation of St. Petersburg put Russia in more direct contact with the West. Peter the Great, by violence and absolutism, dragged Russia out of her isolation, and directed her upon a new way. A new and more simple alphabet took the place of the old Slav alphabet, the new characters being adapted from the Latin. The first book that was printed with the new characters is a treatise on geometry (1708). In arithmetical books, Arabic figures were substituted for the Slav letters that represented numerals (1703). Schools of navigation, of military science, and of medicine were established. Peter the Great determined to establish an academy of sciences at St. Petersburg, and Catherine I carried out his project in 1726. Many foreign books were translated into Russian, and the most intelligent students were sent to foreign countries to complete their studies. Russian literature lost its ecclesiastical character and assumed a lay form; and in ecclesiastical literature itself there was effected a transformation towards the modern, due to the reforms of Peter the Great.

The first period of this new literature begins with Peter the Great, and closes with Lomonosoff and Sumarokoff. In the realm of sacred literature there became famous Stephen Javorski (1658-1723), patriarchal vicar and Metropolitan of Ryazan, and Theophanus Procopovitch, Archbishop of Novgorod. (1681-1736). The former, in his "Kamen viery" (Rock of Faith), wrote a most learned refutation of Protestantism, taking much from Bellarmine; the second, who was the author of the "Ecclesiastical Regulations" of Peter the Great, wrote a voluminous course of Orthodox theology in Latin, and acquired fame as a man of letters and orator. In profane literature the influence of the French entirely predominated. There began the period of the new Russian poetry, the rules of which were propounded by Tredianovski (1703-69), who translated into Russian the "Ars Poetica" of Horace, and the work bearing the same title by Boileau. Prince Antiochus Dmitrievitch (1708-44), a Rumanian in the service of Russia, inaugurated the era of classicism in Russian poetry with his satires, which are often servile imitations of Horace, Juvenal, and Boileau. Michael Vasilevitch Lomonosoff (1711-65) deserves to be called the Peter the Great of Russian literature on account of his versatility, of the multiplicity of his works, and of his great literary influence: he wrote a treatise on Russian poetry (1739), on rhetoric (1748), on grammar (1755); he composed an epic poem on Peter the Great, two tragedies (Tamira and Salim, and Damofonte); he translated the Psalms into verse and wrote lyric poems, among which the ode to the Empress Elizabeth has remained famous. Alexander Petrovitch Sumarokoff composed many tragedies, some of them with Russian subjects (Yaropolk and Dimisa, Vysheslaff, Demetrius, Mstislav); he founded the national Russian drama, wrote the comedies "Opekun" (The Tutor), and "Likhoimec" (The Concussionist), composed satires, and in 1759 established the first Russian literary periodical, the "Trudoliubivaia Ptchela" (The Working Bee).

Among the prose writers, Ivan Pososhkoff (1670-1725), in his "Zavieshanie otetcheskoe" (testament of the Fatherland), shows the necessity of well-ordered reforms in Russia, and in his book on poverty and wealth ("Kniga o skudosti i bogatstvie") he develops in an original way his theories on political and social economy. Basil Nikititch Tatishsheff (1685-1750) gathered the chronicles, the synaxaria, and the historical documents, and subjecting them to critical analysis, wrote the "History of Russia". The academician Schlötzer spent forty years elucidating the origin and the historical problems of the primitive national chronicles of Russia. In 1728 the Academy of Sciences began the publication of the "S. Petersburgskija Viedomosti", under the direction of the academician Müller, who in 1755 also founded the first scientific-literary periodical, called the "Ezhemiesatchnyja sotchinenia".

VIII. LITERATURE OF RUSSIA IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY

During the reign of Catherine II French influence upon Russian literature became greater instead of decreasing. The writings of the French Encyclopedists and materialist philosophy became popular; Voltaire and Rousseau were much esteemed, and Catherine II became entirely imbued with a Voltairean spirit. She did not limit herself to favouring scientific institutions, and to creating new ones, but aspired to literary laurels. She wrote spelling-books,, stories for children, letters on education, comedies, newspaper articles, and several volumes of memoirs in French, in which, with a cynical simplicity of style, she relates some of the ugliest episodes of her unchaste life. During her reign many literary publications were established. The empress herself did not disdain to contribute to the "Vsiakaja vsiatchina" (General Miscellany). Dionysius Ivanovitch Fonvizin (1744-92) wrote comedies which, like the "Brigadier", and the "Nedorosl" (Pupil), became popular in Russia. Gabriel Romanovitch Derzhavin (1743-1816), of Tatar origin, assimilated the classical and modern Literatures, and as a lyric poet sought to rise to the height of Horace and Pindar. His encomiastic odes are an apotheosis of the reign of Catherine II. In his religious songs, with his "Ode to God" (1784), which the Russians regard as the most beautiful monument of their national poetry, he perhaps attains sublimity of inspiration. His moral and philosophical odes and his Anacreontic verses reveal in him a great poetical genius. His tragedies "Pozharski", "Tiemnji" and "Euprassia" do not join dramatic quality to their elegance of form. Mikhail Matveievitch Kheraskoff, of Wallachian origin, by his poems "Rossiada" and "Vladimir", which have been forgotten, deserves the title of the Virgil or the Homer of Russia. Ippolit Feodorovitch Bogdanovitch (1743-1803), in his poem "Dushenka", imitated La Fontaine's "Amours de Psyché et de Cupidon". Basil Ivanovitch Maikoff (1728-78) distinguished himself as a writer of comic poetry; Kniazhnin (1742-91) wrote tragedies and comedies; "Iabeda" (The Calumny), a comedy by Kapnist (1757-1828), was also among the plays that became popular.

The scientific movement was greatly promoted by the Academy of Sciences of St. Petersburg, by the University of Moscow, and by the Russian Academy, which was opened in 1783. Among those who distinguished themselves in historical work or in the study of the social and political conditions of Russia were Shsherbatoff (1733-90), who wrote six volumes of a "History of Russia"; Boltin (1735-92), whose learned volumes of "Observations on the History of Russia", edited by Leclerc, were much praised by Soloveff; Radishsheff (1749-1802), whose "Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow", describing the miseries of the peasants and the abuses of the Russian bureaucracy cost its author an exile of ten years in Siberia. The archpriest of Moscow, Alekseieff, wrote the first ecclesiastical encyclopedia, while the Bishop Damascenus Rudneeff, who died in 1795, published his "Russian Library", which contains an account of Russian literature, from its origin to the eighteenth century. Tchulkoff and Mikhail Popoff collected the monuments of the popular literature of their country.

IX. LITERATURE OF RUSSIA IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY

In the nineteenth century, Russian literature freed itself little by little from the yoke of foreign imitation, perfected the language, making it a most adequate means for the expression of the highest conceptions of the mind and the most delicate affections of the heart, and through a number of men of genius, won a place of honour in the history of universal literature. The merit of this transformation, of this new direction of Russian thought, is in great measure due to Nikolai Mikhailovitch Karamzin (1766-1826), who acquired a great fame in his country through his letters on travels that he made in Europe, his novels, and the part that he took in the establishment of the periodicals "Moskovski Zhurnal" and the "Viestnik Europy" (Courier of Europe). But his greatest claim to glory is the "Istorija gosudarstva rossiiskago" (History of the Russian Empire), a masterpiece of style, exposition, and eloquence, which contributed more than anything else to the formation of Russian prose. Historical criticism may find more to say of this work, but the literary merit of it will never be eclipsed. The work formed a literary school, to which belong Ivan Ivanovitch Dmitrieff (1760-1837), an exponent of elegance in poetry, author of poetical stories, satires, and fables; and Izmailoff, who became famous through his "Journey in Southern Russia" etc. In the realm of dramatic poetry, there became famous Ozeroff, by his tragedy "Œdipus in Athens" (1804); "Fingal" (1805); "Dmitri Donskoi" (1807), and "Polissena" (1809); the most noted satirists were Gortchakoff and Nakhimoff. But the greatest poetical glory of this period was Vassili Andreievitch Zhukovski (1783-1852), the master of romanticism in Russia, author of the Russian national hymn "Bozhe, carja Khrani", and an indefatigable translator of Homer, Schiller, Goethe, Bürger, Uhland, Rükkert, Byron, and Scott. His elegies are full of passion and sentiment; his ballads, imitations of the German, became popular; they reveal in him a vivid poetical imagination.

Ivan Andreievitch Kryloff (1768-1844) owes his celebrity rather to his comedies than to his fables, which, it is true, are imitations of La Fontaine, but are written with so much simplicity, elegance, and richness of style, with such variety of rhythm and expression, that they form a veritable literary jewel, the value of which can be appreciated only by those who have a thorough knowledge of Russian. His comedies, "Modnaja lavka" (The Custom Shop) and "Urok dotchkam" (A Lesson to Girls), are of less literary merit. As a writer of comedy, Alexander Sergeievitch Griboiedoff (1790-1829) rose to the pinnacle of the art in a play that is the masterpiece of Russian theatrical composition, "Gore ot uma" (The Misfortune of Having Talent), a work which is full of pessimism on the social conditions of Russia and civilization generally; many of its verses have become proverbs.

The epoch of Nicholas I, which was one of fierce absolutism, was nevertheless one of glory in the development of Russian literature. Russian genius being oppressed, withdrew within itself, and revealed to the world the treasures of the æsthetic sentiments of the Russian soul. Among the greatest poets of this period there stands pre-eminent Alexander Pushkin (1799-1837), whose career was brought to an end in a duel, when his genius was at its height. Melchior Vogüé rightly considers him one of the greatest poets that ever lived. He began his literary career at the age of fifteen, when he was a student in the lyceum of Tsarskoye Selo. His first lyric poems bear the date of 1814, and are a revelation of his genius. He adopted Byron and Zhukovski for his models. Among those lyric poems his invective against the calumniators of Russia ("K klevetnikam Rossii"), written in 1831, is famous. Of his epic works we may cite the famous "Rusalka, the Prisoner of the Caucasus" ("Kavkazski pliennik") in 1821; the "Fountain of Bakhtchiserai" (1822-23); the "Tzigani" (1824); "Poltava" (1828), one of Pushkin's most perfect poems, written in glorification of Peter the Great; "Eugene Oniegin" (1823-31), an original imitation of Byron's "Childe Harold", admirable on account of the freshness of its inspiration and of its exquisite versification; and finally "The Hussar" (1833). Among his romances, three became popular at once, the "Dubrovski (1832-33), "The Daughter of the Captain" (1833-36), and "Pikovaja dama" (The Queen of Spades), a work that is admirable on account of the subtility of its psychological analysis. In the realm of dramatic poetry Pushkin gave to his country a great masterpiece, the tragedy "Boris Godunoff" (1825-31), and in that of drama, "Skupoi rycar" (The Avaricious Knight), "Mozart and Saléry", and "Rusalka". Among his works in prose, mention should be made of the "Outlines of the History of Peter the Great", and of the "History of the Sedition of Pugatcheff". Pushkin was the first great original poet of Russia, and the one who excelled in classic style. At the same time he was the author of a school that has among its members Ivan Ivanovitch Kozloff, author of two most touching poems, "Tchernec" (The Monk) and "Natalia Dolgorukaja"; Delvin (1798-1831); Jazykoff (1803-46), and Eugene Baratynski (1800-44).

Nikolai Vassilievitch Gogol (1808-52), a native of Little Russia, was another genius of the Russian literature of the nineteenth century. His comedy, "The Reviser", published in 1836, is one of the masterpieces of the Russian theatre, a true portrait of the malversations of the bureaucracy. Among his romances and novels, he acquired merited fame through "Taras Bul'ba", an historical romance of Southern Russia, "The Dispute between Ivan Ivanovitch and Ivan Nikiforovitch", "The Portrait", "The Arabesques", "Koliaska" (The Calash), "Zapiski sumasshedshago" (Memoirs of a Madman), and lastly "Mertvyja dushi" (The Dead Souls), in two parts, a masterpiece in the romantic literature of Russia, which makes its author the rival of Cervantes and Lesage. It is a suggestive and faithful picture of Russian society: a vast theatre in which the most varied types of the Russian people are in action. Mikhail Yurievitch Lermontoff (1814-41) is also of the school of Pushkin and Byron. He was one of the most delicate lyric poets of modern Russia, whose lyric poetry, tinged with sadness, touches the deepest chords of the heart, and exhibits the soft melody of the literary language of Russia in its fullness. The most famous of his epic poems are "The Demon", which is based upon a Georgian legend, and in which the beauties of the Caucasus are described in admirable verses "Ismail Bey"; "Khadzhi-Abrek, the Boyard Orsha", an episode of the times of Ivan the Terrible; "Mcyr", a legend of the Caucasus. Lermontoff is the author of the very popular romance "Geroi nashego vremeni" (A Hero of our Times), which reveals him as one of the masters of Russian prose, and as having a profound knowledge of the human heart. He died at the age of twenty-seven years, and like Pushkin, in the plenitude of his intellectual activity. Alexei Vasilievitch Kolcoff (1809-42) also distinguished himself as a lyric poet of the school of Pushkin and Lermontoff. He was the poet of the peasants and of nature, and the inventor of a special kind of poems (Dumy), in which a question to be resolved is proposed and is answered. Other poets who also were ornaments of Russian literature, although they did not attain the height of those already mentioned, were Odoevski, Count Sollogub, Marlinski, Weltmann, Polevoi, and Kukolnik, a prolific writer of historic dramas.

History, philology, and critical studies had a period of growing prosperity during the reign of Nicholas I. Pogodin, Butkoff, Ivanoff, Venelin, Grigor'eff, and Muravieff worked to defend the Russian chronicles against the charge of lack of authenticity, to throw light on the origin of the Russian nation, and to investigate the historical past of Russia and the various European nations. In the study of the ancient Slav language, and of the primitive literature of Russia, and in the collection of ancient texts, fundamental works that are yet esteemed were written by Kalaidovitch, Vostokoff, Undolski, Kliutchareff, Maximovitch, Certeleff, Snegireff, Sakharoff, and Bodianski. This class of studies were greatly promoted by the Society of Russian History and Antiquities, established at Moscow in 1814 and still flourishing. Eugene Bolkhovitinoff, Metropolitan of Kieff, prepared two historical lexicons of the clerical and lay writers of Russia; Polevoi, Shevyreff, and Nikitenko wrote histories of Russian literature; while Prince A. Viazemski, Nadezhdin, and especially Bessarion Grigorievitch Bielinski (1810-48) were the chief literary critics. Literary and scientific progress was assisted by the periodicals "Viestnik Evropy", "Russki Viestnik", "Syn Otetchestva" (The Son of the Fatherland), "Sievernaja Ptchela" (The Bee of the North), "Russki Invalid", and "Otetchestvennyja zapiski" (Memoirs of the Fatherland).

During the reign of Alexander II the literary genius of Russia continued to shine brightly, and to assume always a more national character, although the influence of foreign writers, especially of Dickens, George Sand, and Balzac, was felt. There appeared the school of Slavophils, the most illustrious representatives of which are the two Kireievski (Ivan and Peter), Khomiakoff, Valueff, Konstantin and Ivan Aksakoff, Kosheleff, Elagin, Tiuttcheff, Grigorieff, Strakhoff, and Danilevski. This school was dominated by a spirit of stingy patriotism; it invaded the domain of theology, preached the superiority of Orthodoxy over Catholicism, and in the person of their theological legislator, Alexei Khomiakoff, a genial poet, historian, and philosopher, it proclaimed that Orthodoxy is the expression of the religious ideal of Christianity. The religious and political paradoxes of the Slavophils found their opponents in the school of the Occidentalists (Zapadniki). The philosopher Tchaadaeff, in his philosophical letters published in 1836, wrote of Russian barbarity, and proclaimed Catholicism to be the only means of bringing Russia into the civilization of the nations of the West.

The most illustrious representatives of this school, which had not many followers, were Hercen (1812-70), who became one of the leaders of Nihilism; the poet Ogareff, Granovski, Soloveff, Kavelin, Kalatchoff, and Pavloff, illustrious names in the realms of Russian history and Russian philosophy.

The most famous writer of the time of Alexander II was Ivan Sergeievitch Turgenieff (1818-83), the magician of Russian prose. As a poet his title to fame rests on the poems "Parasha", "Yakoff Pasynkoff", "Rudin", "Faust", "Asja", "A Nest of Nobles". In 1862 he published one of the most famous of Russian novels, "Otcy i dieti" (Fathers and Sons). Among the other novels of Turgenieff, the most successful were "Zapiski Okhotnika" (Memoirs of a Huntsman), rich in admirable descriptions of nature; "Dym" (Smoke); "Nov" (Virgin Soil); and among his stories: "Lear of the Steppe", "Waters of Spring", "The Brigadier", "The Dream", "The Story of Father Alexis", "The Song of Triumphant Love", "The Desperado" etc. He enriched Russian literature with several plays, among which the most beautiful is called "Zavtraku predvoditelja" (The Collation with the Marshal of the Nobility). Ivan Alexandrovitch Gontcharoff (1812-91) acquired no less fame as a novelist through his novels "Obyknovennaja istorija" (A Simple Story), "Oblomoff", which personifies the want of initiative and semi-fatalism of the Russian character, and "Obryff" (The Precipice), which was considered a decadent production. Greater fame was acquired by Feodor Mikhailovitch Dostoievski (1822-81), whose first novel, "Biednye liudi" (Poor People), published in 1846, made its author famous, at once, by the depth of its psychological analysis. After four years of a most painful imprisonment and exile to Siberia, he wrote the "Zapiski iz Mertvago Doma" (Memoirs of the House of the Dead), in which he describes the tortures of the exiles with a most effective vigour of style; the famous novel "Prestuplenie Nakazanie" (Crime and Punishment), a psychological masterpiece, "The Idiot", "Biezy" (The Possessed), and "The Brothers Karamazoff".

To romantic literature also belong Dimitri Vassilievitch Grigorovitch, an imitator of George Sand, and a faithful portrayer of the sufferings of the lower classes, in his romances and novels, among which we will mention "Derevnia" (The Village), "Anthony Goremyka", "The Valley of Smiedoff", "The Fishermen", and "The Colonists". In other novels he described the life and condition of the middle and higher classes, as in "Neudavshaajasja zhizn" (An Uneventful Life), "Suslikoff the Kapelmeister", "The School of Hospitality", etc. The naturalist school was represented by Alexei Teofilaktovitch Pisemski (1820-81). In the novel "Bojarshshina" (The Time of the Boyars), he preached free love: the censorship prohibited the circulation of the book. In another novel, "Tiufiak" (The Plaster), his realism goes beyond that of Zola. His best novel is "Tysjatcha dush" (A Thousand Souls), a gloomy but faithful picture of the corruption of Russian society, which is portrayed also in his novel "Vzgalamutchennoe More" (Tempestuous Sea); his novel "Liudi sokorovykh godoff" (Men of Forty Years) deals with the agrarian question. His play "Gorkaja sudhina" (Bitter Destiny) places him in a high position among Russian dramatists. Other writers proposed to scourge the corrupters of society, to pierce them with the arrows of their satire. They form a literary school known in Russia as oblitchitel naja (accusing, refuting). The master of this school was Mikhail Evgrafovitch Saltykoff (1826-88), better known by the pseudonym of Shshedrin. The characters in his novels recall those of Gogol, but his pessimism is much more bitter and exaggerated. Among the best-known of his novels and other writings are "Protivorietckia" (Contradictions), "Gubernskie otcherki" (Sketches of Government Personages), "Tashkency" (The Lords of Tashkend), and "The Brothers Golovieff", a novel that is considered the best work of Saltykoff, but is displeasing on account of the cynicism of its characters. Other writers worked with the same end of laying bare the moral and social defects of the Russian people; the most famous among them are Pomialovski (1835-63), whose novel "Otcherki bursy" is famous; it describes in dark colours the methods of education that obtain in the ecclesiastical seminaries of Russia; A. Sliepcoff, author of the novel "Trudnoe Vremja" (Difficult Times); A. Mikhailoff, the pseudonym of Scheller, who wrote the novels "Gnilyja bolota" (Putrid Swamps), and "The Life of Shupoff"; Zasodimski; Bazhin; Thedoroff; Staniukovitch; and Girs. More moderate in their criticism of Russian society were the novelists Boborykin, Markoff, Nemirovitch-Dantchenko, and Terpigoreff (better known by his pseudonym of Atava), Saloff, Akhsharumoff, Leikin, Kliushnikoff, Lieskoff, Krestovski, Prince Meshsherki, Markevitch, Avsieensko, Golovin, and Avenarius.

The most noted authors of lyric and satirical poetry were: Nikolai Alexeievitch Nekrasoff (1821-76), whose muse, as he himself wrote, was one of sobs and pains, the muse of the hungry and the mendicant; of his songs, there became famous "Moroz Krasnyi Noz" (Red-nosed Frost), a personification of the Russian winter, "Troika", and "The Sons of the Peasants"; in his poems he has a predilection for popular types; A. Pleshsheeff, who to his lyric poems added beautiful translations of the principal German and English lyric poets; Kurotchkin, who translated Béranger, and Minaeff. The most noted of the dramatists was Alexander Nicolaevitch Ostrovski (1823-86), whose theatrical compositions, admirable for the richness of their language, are partly original, and partly imitations of Shakespeare and Goldoni. The best known one is "Groza" (The Tempest), which describes the dissolution of the Russian family; it was written in 1860. Two of his comedies that obtained great success are "We will agree among ourselves", and "Each one in his place". The number of his theatrical works is very great. Another among the best of Russian dramatists was A. Palm (1822-85), author of the drama "Alexis Slobodin", and of the comedies "Staryi barin" (The Old Lord), and "Our Friend Nekliuzheff". Mention should be made also of A. Potiekhin, N. Tchernysheff, N. Soloveff, Sukhovo-Kobylin, Sollogub, Diakonoff, Ustrialoff, Mann, Diatchenko, Shpazhinski, and Kryloff. Women also distinguished themselves in the literary life of the nineteenth century. The best known among those who wrote poetry and novels were Elizabeth Kulmann, Countess Rostoptchina, N. Khboshshinska (1825-89), who under the pseudonym of Krestovski wrote many novels to describe provincial life; Sokhanska (1825-84), who under the pseudonym of Kokhanovska acquired celebrity through her novels "After Dinner Among the Guests" and "Provincial Portrait Gallery".

Among the writers who became distinguished in the realm of historical fiction were N. Kostomaroff, whose story "The Son" (1865) presents a vigorous picture of the agrarian revolt of Stenko Razin; Count Alexi Tolstoi (1817-75) achieved fame with his novel "Prince Serebrany", and his trilogy "Ivan the Terrible" (1858), "Tsar Feodor Ivanovitch" (1868), and "Tsar Boris" (1869); G. Danilevski, author of the novels "Mirovitch" (1879), "The Fire of Moscow" (1885-86), and "Tchernyi god" (The Black Year); Mordovceff, whose novels "Demetrius the Tsarevitch" and "Fall of Poland" deal with the history of Little Russia; Karnovitch, Salias-de-Tournemir, Mei (1822-62), author of several historical dramas based upon the primitive history of Russia; and finally Averkieff. Among the lyric poets who did not treat of the social conditions of their country, who loved their art for its own sake, the most famous are A. Tolstoi, an imitator of Dante, Heine, and Goethe; Maikoff, a passionate admirer of ancient Rome, the struggle of which with Christianity he essayed to depict in his tragedy "Dva mira" (Two Worlds); A. Feth, author of light poems and madrigals; Polonski, whose poem "Kuznievitch-Muzykant" (The Musical Cricket) became popular, and whose poetry is distinguished by the beauty of its style and the harmony of its verse; Zhadovski, Shsherbin, Herbel, Weinberg, and Nadsohn.

X. CONTEMPORARY RUSSIAN LITERATURE

The literature from the death of Alexander II to the present day is essentially one of novels. The novel, in view of the severity of Russian censorship, seems to be the most adequate literary channel for the diffusion of political, social, and moral theories. The most salient character of all the writers of the reign of Alexander II, and of more recent times by the force of his genius and the sharpness of his psychological analysis, was Count Lyeff (Leo) Tolstoi, born at Yasnaja Poliana, 28 Aug., 1828; died at Astapovo, 20 Nov., 1910. He inaugurated his literary career by the publication of his autobiographical memoirs, which appeared in the "Sovremennik" of St. Petersburg in 1852; they are a masterpiece of psychological analysis of the mind of a child. This work was followed by "Adolescence", "Youth"," The Cossacks", and "Recollections of Sebastopol", all of which are filled with horror of the sights he beheld at Sebastopol. But the masterpieces among his novels are "War and Peace", a powerful romance that for all its apparent confusion and disorder is an epic and imposing picture of the Napoleonic war in Russia; "Anna Karenina", a profound analysis of the feminine soul that, led astray by passion, forgets dignity and family for adultery, and finds its punishment in its sin; "Resurrection", a novel that is a study of the rehabilitation of the culprit. There is also the play "The Power of Darkness", strong in its vigour and dramatization. And yet this genius, who made Russian literature popular all over the world, attained religious, ethical, and political nihilism: in the "Kreutzer Sonata" he preaches the abjection of woman; "The Gospels" is a criticism of dogmatic theology, while "My Religion", "The Church and the State", and "The Theories of the Apostles" strip Christian revelation from its base, and forswear the Divinity of Jesus Christ, His Church, and His sacraments; in the book "What is Art?", he disparages the most illustrious intellects of the human race; his work "The Kingdom of God Is within you" preaches non-resistance to evil. Political and religious conceptions took Tolstoi out of his orbit, and transformed him into a visionary, an incendiary, so to speak, of all institutions, Divine and human.

Among the other modern novelists, mention should be made of: A. Novodvorski, author of "Ni pavy, Ni Vorony" (Neither Peacock nor Crow), and of other stories; B. Garshin, who in his principal novels is sometimes a follower of Tolstoi and sometimes of Turgenieff. Those works are "Tchetyre dnja" (The Four Days), "Trus" (The Coward), "Krasnyj cvietok" (The Red Flower), "Attalea princeps", "Vstrietcha" (The Encounter), and "Nadezhda Nikolaevna"; I. Yasinski was famous under the pseudonym of Maxim Bielinski; his most important works are "The City of the Dead", and "The Guiding Star"; M. Alboff; K. Barantchevitch; A. Ertel; Matchtet; Korolenko, a beautiful story-teller, who reminds his readers of Dostoievski and Tolstoi in his novels "The Dream of Macarius" (a fantastic story), "The Sketches of a Tourist in Siberia", "Easter Night," "The Old Music Player", and "S dvukh storon" (Two Points of View); Ignatius Potapenko, who views life in the light of optimism, and not with the pessimism so much in vogue among Russian writers; one of his novels, "Sviatoe iskusstvo", describes the Bohemia of the students of St. Petersburg; Demetrius Mamin, under the pseudonym of Siberian, describes the customs of Western Siberia; and finally Prince Galitzin. Among novelists of the new school are Anton Pavlovitch Tchehoff (1860-1904), whose novel "Skutchnaja istorija" had a great success. He is without a superior in the narrative of his novels; the heroes of his stories are always morally corrupt, and of distracted minds. Alexei Maksimovitch Pieshkoff, better known by the pseudonym of Maxim Gorky (born 1869); he is the novelist of the beggars and the populace, whose works contain pages of nauseating naturalism, and shameful immorality. Vincent Smidlvski, born at Tula, 1867; under the pseudonym of Veresaeff he came to celebrity through his work "Zapiski vratcha" (Memoirs of a Doctor), which elicited violent recriminations in the medical profession. One of the most famous of the Russian writers of the present day is Leonid Andreeff, born at Orel in 1881. He is the novelist of the degenerate. His novels "The Red Laughter", "The Thought", "The Cloud", "Silence", etc. are to be condemned from every point of view, religious and moral, and the Russian religious press has blamed him for them in vehement language.

Among writers of the present day mention should be made of Sofija Ivanovna Smirnova, who wrote the novels "Salt of the Earth" and "Force of Character"; Valentine Dmitrieva, writer of stories; Olga Andreevna Shapir, who wrote "Without Love", and "Tinsel"; Lydja Veselitskaja, Alexandra Shabelskaja, Anastasia Verbickaja, who wrote "The History of a Life". Among those who achieved fame as lyric poets are Simon Frug (of Jewish origin), Nikolai Maksimovitch Vilenkin, famous under the pseudonym of Minski, Dimitri Merezhkovski, whose poems have the defect of too much rhetorical effort; Alexei Apukhtin, Konstantin Rozanoff, Arsenius Golenishsheff-Kutuzoff, Sergei Andreevski, etc. These poets, however, are not original; their works recall too much the great poets who preceded them. The fiction of Russia generally uses, as a channel of publication, the literary periodicals, among which some that were famous in the nineteenth century have now disappeared, as the "Sovremennik" (The Contemporary), the "Otetchestvennyja Zapiski", and the "Moskvitjanin". The best-known of those that are yet published are the "Viestnik Evropy", and the "Pycck mysl".

The historical literature of Russia in the second half of the nineteenth century furnishes illustrious names. Sergei Soloveff is the author of a "History of Russia", in thirty volumes, which begins with the most ancient times, and terminates with the reign of Alexander I; it is a work of greater historical than literary merit; Zabielin devoted his studies by preference to the Russia of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; A. Nikitski wrote on the historical past of Novgorod and Pskof; Kostomaroff wrote on Little Russia; the historical monographs of this author are held in high esteem, as also his "History of Russia", composed of biographical narratives. Pypin devoted his researches to the reign of Alexander I; Shsapoff studied the social and educational development of Russia; Brückner dealt with the life of Peter the Great; Bestuzheff-Riumin wrote a classic history of Russia, and Biblasoff a life of Catharine II. We cannot name the great number of historians who, like Ilovaiski, Lambin, Kliutchevski, Golubinski, etc. have thrown light on the history of Russia, but we cannot omit to mention the Imperial Historical Society of St. Petersburg, the Archeographic Commission, and the Society of Russian History and Antiquity of Moscow, which, with hundreds of learned publications, and especially of the Russian chronicles, have greatly facilitated the task of the student. Yushkevitch, Yakushkin, Metlinski, Ribnikoff, Khudiakoff, and Barsoff distinguished themselves in the collection of ancient Russian literary documents, upon which light was thrown by Buslaeff, Miller, Stasoff, Maikoff, Kolosoff, Rozoff, Dashkevitch, Vselovski, and above all Sreznevski, who for several years edited the "Izviestija", and the "Utchenyja Zapiski" of St. Petersburg (Academy of Sciences). Buslaeff, with his "Historical Chrestomathy", wove together the literary annals of Russia. Pekarski related the scientific and literary transactions of Peter the Great, Pypin and Porfireff wrote full and classic histories of the literature of Russia. Special works on the greatest Russian writers are so numerous that the "Bibliography of the Russian Literature of the Nineteenth Century", ed. Mezier, St. Petersburg, 1902, devotes 650 octavo pages to the titles of those works alone.

In philosophy Russian works until now have not been original. They have been produced under the supreme influence of German philosophy, inspired by Kant, Hegel, and Schelling. Positivism, Materialism, and Spiritualism have succeeded each other without developing originality. Galitch, professor of philosophy at St. Petersburg (died 1848), was an atheist; Davidoff (died 1862) reduced philosophy to psychology alone. The philosophy of Schelling influenced even ecclesiastical writers, as Skvorcoff and the archimandrite Theophanus Avseneff. Orest. Novicki is a convinced partisan of the system of Fichte; he was a professor of the University of Kieff. Hegelianism, however, was the most popular of all, and was at once accepted by the Occidentalists Stankevitch, Granovski, Bielinski, and Ogareff, and by the Slavophiles Kirieevski, Khomjakoff, Samarin, and Aksakoff. Between 1859 and 1873 Professor Gogocki of the ecclesiastical academy of Kieff published his philosophical dictionary. The materialist theories of Moleschott and Büchner were defended by M. Antonovitch and D. Pisareff, and refuted by Yurkevitch, Strakhoff, Kudriavceff, Samarin, and Viadislaveff. Darwinism found defenders in Timiriazeff. and Famincyn, and opponents in Troicki, Dokutchaeff, Guseff, Popoff, and Strakhoff. The Positivism of Comte was upheld by de Roberti and Mikhailovski. The most original philosophers of Russia were: Kavelin (1818-85), who dealt more especially with psychological problems, an historian and profound psychologist, to whom Russia owes the establishment of the "Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii", a periodical devoted to philosophy, which is held in very high esteem; Kudriavceff-Platonoff, who excels in religious philosophy, and whose studies in apologetics are admirable for their vigour and power of argument; Vladimir Soloveff, an ardent defender of Catholic principles in Russia, and a spiritual philosopher, the most eminent that Russia has produced. His extensive treatise on ethics, "Opravdanie dobra" (Justification of the Good), is a masterpiece of speculation; Prince Troubetzkoi, a follower of Soloveff; and finally, Nesmieloff, professor of the ecclesiastical academy of Kazan, whose work "The Science of Man" gives to him the first place among the Christian philosophers of Russia at the present time.

OTTO, Lehrbuch der russischen, Litteratur (Leipzig, 1837); POLEVOI, Otcherki russkoi literatury (Essays on Russian Literature) (2 vols., St. Petersburg, 1839); NEVEROFF, Blick auf die Geschichte der russischen Literatur (Riga, 1840); JORDAN, Geschichte der russischen Literatur (Leipzig, 1846); SHEVIREFF, Istorija russkoi literatury (4 vols., Moscow, 1858-60); MINZLOFF, Beiträge zur Kenntniss der poetischen und wissenschaftlichen Literatur Russlands (Berlin, 1854); PÉTROFF, Tableau de la littéature russe depuis ses origines jusqu'à nos jours (Paris, 1872); HONEGGER, Russische Literatur und Kultur (Leipzig, 1880); WISKOWATOFF, Geschichte der russischen Literatur (Dorpat, 1881); HALLER, Geschichte der russischen Literatur (Riga, 1882); SMITH, Russisk Literaturhistorie (Copenhagen, 1882); VON REINHOLDT, Geschichte der russischen Literatur (Leipzig, 1885); MAIKOFF, Otcherki iz istorii russkoi literatury XVII i XVIII stoliettii (Essay on the History of the Russian Literature of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries) (St. Petersburg, 1889); WALISZEWSKI, Littérature russe (Paris, 1900); tr. (London, 1900); WOLYNSKIJ, Die russische Literatur der Gegenwart (Berlin, 1902); PETROFF, Russlands Dichter und Schriftsteller (Halle, 1905); BRÜCKNER, Geschichte der russischen Literatur (Leipzig, 1005); tr. (London, 1908). The best histories of Russian literature in Russian are those of PYPIN Istorija russkoi literatury (4 vols., St. Petersburg, 1908-1910) PORFIREFF, Istorija russkoi slovesnosti (4 vols., Kazan, 1898, 1904, 1907); POLEVOI (12 vols., St. Petersburg, 1903).

Monographs: — WOELFFING, Stricturœ de statu scientiarum et artium in imperio russico (Tübingen, 1766); KÖNIG, Literarische Bilder aus Russland (Berlin, 1840); VAKCEL, Quadros da litteratura, das sciencias e artes na Russia (Funchal, 1868); COURRIÈRE, Histoire de la littéature contemporaine en Russie (Paris, 1875); EVSTRAFIEFF, Novaja russkaja literatura (St. Petersburg, 1877); PALANDER, Uebersicht der neueren russischen Literatur (Tavastehus, 1880); ZABEL, Literarische Streifzüge durch Russland (Berlin, 1885); STRAKHOFF, Iz istorii literaturnago nihilisma (St. Petersburg, 1890); BAUER, Naturalismus, Nihilismus, Idealismus in der russischen Dichtung (Berlin, 1890); SKABITCHEVSKIJ, Istorija noviejshej russkoi literatury (History of Contemporary Russian Literature) (St. Petersburg, 1891); SOLOVEFF, Otcherki po istorii russkoi literatury XIX vieka (St. Petersburg, 1902); VENGEROFF, Kritiko-biografitcheskij slovar russkih pisatelej (Critico-Biographical Dictionary of Russian Writers) (7 vols, St. Petersburg, 1889-1903); DOBRYV, Biografii russkih pisatelej (Biographies of the Russian Writers) (St. Petersburg, 1900); OSSIP-LOURIÉ, La psychologie des romanciers russes du XIX siècle (Paris, 1905); SIPOVSKIJ, Istorija novoi russkoi literatury (History of the New Russian Literature) (St. Petersburg, 1907); SAVODNIK, Otcherki po istorii russkoi literatury XIX vieka (Essays on the History of the Russian Literature of the nineteenth century) (Moscow, 1908).

POKROVSKIJ, Nikolaj Vasilevitch Gogol (Moscow, 1908); FLACH, Un grand poète russe: Alexandre Pouchkine (Paris, 1894); DUCHESNE, Michel Jouriévitch Lermontov; sa vie et ses œuvres (Paris, 1910); POKROVSKIJ, Ivan Alexandrovitch Gontcharoff (Moscow, 1907); BRANDES, Dostojewski: ein Essay (Berlin, 1889); SAITSCHIK, Die Weltanschauung Dostojewski's und Tolstoi's (Leipzig, 1893); HOFFMANN, Eine biographische Studie (Berlin, 1899); MÜLLER, Dostojewski, Ein Charakterbild (Munich, 1903); LOYGREE, Un homme de génie; Th.-M. Dostojewski (Lyons, 1904); POKROVSKIJ, Theodor Mikhailovitch Dostoevskij (Moscow, 1908); ZAVITNEVITCH, Aleksiej Stepanovitch Khomjakoff (2 vols., Kieff, 1902); LÖWENTHAL, Anton Schehoff (Moscow, 1906); POKROVSKIJ, Anton Pavlovitch Tchehoff (Moscow, 1907); ERNST, Leo Tolstoi und der slavische Roman (Berlin, 1889); MEREZHKOVSKIJ, Tolstoi i Dostojevskij (St. Petersburg, 1901-02); Ger. tr. (Leipzig, 1903); BERNEKER, Graf Leo Tolstoj (Leipzig, 1901); ZABEL, L. N. Tolstoi (Leipzig, 1901); BITOVT, Graf. L. Totstoj v literaturie i iskusstve (Count L. Tolstoi in literature and in art) (Moscow, 1903); CROSBY, Tolstoi and His Message (New York, 1903); BIRJUKOFF, Leo N. Tolstoi: Biographie und Memoiren (Vienna, 1906); LÜBBEN, Leo Tolstoi: der Führer von Jung-Russland (Berlin, 1907); STAUB, Graf L. N. Tolstois Leben und Werke (Kempten, 1908); MAUDE, The Life of Tolstoi (2 vols., London, 1908-10); PERSKY, Tolstoi intime (Paris, 1909); ISAEFF, Graf N. Tolstoi kak myslitel (Count N. Tolstoi as a thinker) (St. Petersburg, 1911); GLAGAU, Die russische Literatur und Ivan Turgueniev (Berlin, 1872); JOUSSOUPOFF, Ivan Tourguéniev et l'esprit de son temps (Paris, 1883); ZABEL, Ivan Tourguéniev (Leipzig, 1884); KÜHNEMANN, Tourguenev und Tolstoi (Berlin, 1893); BORKOVSKIJ, Tourgeniev (Berlin, 1903); GUTJAHR, Ivan S. Turgenev (Jurev, 1907); SPLETTSTÖSSER, Maxim Gorki: eine Studie über die Ursachen seiner Popularität (Charlottenburg, 1904); OSTWALD, Maxim Gorki (Berlin, 1904); USTHAL, Maxim Gorki (Berlin, 1904); MEINCKE, Maxim Gorki, Seine Persönlichkeit und seine Schriften (Hamburg, 1908); BARANOFF, Leonid Andreev, kak khudozhnik i myslitel (Leonidas Andreeff, as an artist and as a thinker) (Kieff, 1907); REJSNER, L. Andreev i ego socialnaja ide ologija (Leonidas Andreeff and his social ideology) (St. Petersburg, 1909); MARTYNOFF AND SNEGIREFF, Russkaja starina v pamjatnikakh cerkovnago igrazhdanskago zodtchestva (Russian antiquity in the monuments of civil and religious architecture) (Moscow, 1851-57); ROVINSKIJ, Istorija russkikh shkolikonopisanija do konca XVII C (History of the Russian schools of iconography to the end of the seventeenth century) (St. Petersburg, 1856); PETROFF, Sbornik materialov dija istorii imp. akademii khudozhestv (Collection of materials for the history of the Imperial Academy of Arts) (St. Petersburg, 1864-66); VIOLLET LE DUC, L'art russe, ses origines, ses éléments constitutifs, son apogée, son avenir (Paris, 1877); HASSELBLATT, Historischer Ueberblick der Entwickelung des kaiserlich-russischen Akademie der Künste (St. Petersburg, 1886); PRAKHOFF, Kiev, skie pamjatniki vizantiisko-russkago isskistva (The Russo-Byzantine monuments of arts at Kieff) (Moscow, 1887); BULGAKOFF, Nashi khudozhniki (Our Artists) (St. Petersburg, 1890); PAVLINOFF, Drevnosti jaroslavskija i rostovskija (The Antiquities of Yaroslaff and Rostoff) (Moscow, 1892); IDEM, Istorija russkoj arkhitektury (Moscow, 1894).

EVDOKIMOFF, Russkaja zhivopis v XVIII viekie (Russian Painting in the eighteenth century) (St. Petersburg, 1902); WRANGEL, Podrobnyi illjustrirovannyi Katalog vystavski russkoi portretnoj zivopisi za 150 liet (Complete and illustrated catalogue of the Expositions of Russian portraits from 1700 to 1850) (St. Petersburg, 1902); ROVINSKIJ, Obozrienie ikonopisanija v Rossii do konca XVII vieka (Sketch of the painting of icons in Russia to the end of the seventeenth century) (St. Petersburg, 1903); USPENSKIJ, Carskie ikonopiscy v XVII v. (The Imperial painters of icons in the seventeenth century) (St. Petersburg, 1906).

A. PALMIERI

St. Rusticus of Narbonne

Born either at Marseilles or at Narbonnaise, Gaul; died 26 Oct., 461. According to biographers, Rusticus is the one to whom St. Jerome (about 411) addressed a letter, commending him to imitate the virtues of St. Exuperius of Toulouse and to follow the advice of Procule, then Bishop of Marseilles. When he had completed his education in Gaul, Rusticus went to Rome, where he soon gained a reputation as a public speaker, but he wished to embrace the contemplative life. He wrote to St. Jerome, who advised him to continue his studies. Thus Rusticus entered the monastery of St. Vincent of Lérins. He was ordained at Marseilles, and on 3 Oct., 430 (or 427) was consecrated Bishop of Narbonne. With all his zeal, he could not prevent the progress of the Arian heresy which the Goths were spreading abroad. The siege of Narbonne by the Goths and dissensions among the Catholics so disheartened him that he wrote to St. Leo, renouncing the bishoporic, but St. Leo dissuaded him. He then endeavoured to consolidate the Catholics. In 444-448, he built the church in Narbonne; in 451, he assisted at the convocation of forty-four bishops of Gaul and approved St. Leo's letter to Flavian, concerning Nestorianism; he was present also at the Council of Arles, with thirteen bishops, to decide the debate between Theodore, Bishop of Fréjus, and the Abbey of Lérins. A letter from Ravennius, Bishop of Arles, sent to Rusticus, proves the high esteem in which he was held. His letters are lost, with the exception of the one to St. Jerome and two others to St. Leo, written either in 452 or 458. His feast is celebrated on 20 October.

JOSEPH DEDIEU

Book of Ruth

One of the proto-canonical writings of the Old Testament, which derives its name from the heroine of its exquisitely beautiful story.

I. CONTENTS

The incidents related in the first part of the Book of Ruth (i-iv, 17) are briefly as follows. In the time of the judges, a famine arose in the land of Israel, in consequence of which Elimelech with Noemi and their two sons emigrated from Bethlehem of Juda to the land of Moab. After Elimelech's death Mahalon and Chelion, his two sons, married Moabite wives, and not long after died without children. Noemi, deprived now of her husband and children, left Moab for Bethlehem. On her journey thither she dissuaded her daughters-in-law from going with her. One of them, however, named Ruth, accompanied Noemi to Bethlehem. The barley harvest had just begun and Ruth, to relieve Noemi's and her own poverty, went to glean in the field of Booz, a rich man of the place. She met with the greatest kindness, and following Noemi's advice, she made known to Booz, as the near kinsman of Elimelech, her claim to marriage. After a nearer kinsman had solemnly renounced his prior right, Booz married Ruth who bore him Obed, the grandfather of David. The second part of the book (iv, 18-22) consists in a brief genealogy which connects the line of David through Booz with Phares, one of the sons of Juda.

II. PLACE IN THE CANON

In the series of the sacred writings of the Old Testament, the short Book of Ruth occupies two different principal places. The Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the English Versions give it immediately after the Book of Judges. The Hebrew Bible, on the contrary, reckons it among the Hagiographa or third chief part of the Old Testament. Of these two places, the latter is most likely the original one. It is attested to by all the data of Jewish tradition, namely, the oldest enumeration of the Hagiographa in the Talmudic treatise "Baba Bathra", all the Hebrew MSS. whether Spanish or German, the printed editions of the Hebrew Bible, and the testimony of St. Jerome in his Preface to the Book of Daniel, according to which eleven books are included by the Hebrews in the Hagiographa. The presence of the Book of Ruth after that of Judges in the Septuagint, whence it passed into the Vulgate and the English Versions, is easily explained by the systematic arrangement of the historical books of the Old Testament in that ancient Greek Version. As the episode of Ruth is connected with the period of the judges by its opening words "in the days. . .when the judges ruled", its narrative was made to follow the Book of Judges as a sort of complement to it. The same place assigned to it in the lists of St. Melito, Origen, St. Jerome (Prol. Galeatus), is traceable to the arrangement of the inspired writings of the Old Testament in the Septuagint, inasmuch as these lists bespeak in various ways the influence of the nomenclature and grouping of the sacred books in that Version, and consequently should not be regarded as conforming strictly to the arrangement of those books in the Hebrew Canon. It has indeed been asserted that the Book of Ruth is really a third appendix to the Book of Judges and was, therefore, originally placed in immediate connection with the two narratives which are even now appended to this latter book (Judges, xvii-xviii; xix-xxi); but this view is not probable owing to the differences between these two works with respect to style, tone, subject, etc.

III. PURPOSE

As the precise object of the Book of Ruth is not expressly given either in the book itself or in authentic tradition, scholars are greatly at variance concerning it. According to many, who lay special stress on the genealogy of David in the second part of the book, the chief aim of the author is to throw light upon the origin of David, the great King of Israel and royal ancestor of the Messias. Had this, however, been the main purpose of the writer, it seems that he should have given it greater prominence in his work. Besides, the genealogy at the close of the book is but loosely connected with the preceding contents, so it is not improbably an appendix added to that book by a later hand. According to others, the principal aim of the author was to narrate how, in opposition to Deut., xxiii, 3, which forbids the reception of Moabites into Yahweh's assembly, the Moabitess Ruth was incorporated with Yahweh's people, and eventually became the ancestress of the founder of the Hebrew monarchy. But this second opinion is hardly more probable than the foregoing. Had the Book of Ruth been written in such full and distinct view of the Deuteronomic prohibition as is affirmed by the second opinion, it is most likely that its author would have placed a direct reference to that legislative enactment on Noemi's lips when she endeavoured to dissuade her daughters-in-law from accompanying her to Juda, or particularly when she received from Ruth the protestation that henceforth Noemi's God would be her God. Several recent scholars have regarded this short book as a kind of protest against Nehemias's and Esdras's efforts to suppress intermarriage with women of foreign birth. But this is plainly an inference not from the contents of the book, but from an assumed late date for its composition, an inference therefore no less uncertain than that date itself. Others finally, and indeed with greater probability, have maintained that the author's chief purpose was to tell an edifying story as an example to his own age and an interesting sketch of the past, effecting this by recording the exemplary conduct of his various personages who act as simple, kindly, God-fearing people ought to act in Israel.

IV. HISTORICAL CHARACTER

The charming Book of Ruth is no mere "idyll" or "poetical fiction". It is plain that the Jews of old regarded its contents as historical, since they included its narrative in the Septuagint within the prophetic histories (Josue- Kings). The fact that Josephus in framing his account of the Jewish Antiquities utilizes the data of the Book of Ruth in exactly the same manner as he does those of the historical books of the Old Testament shows that this inspired writing was then considered as no mere fiction. Again, the mention by St. Matthew of several personages of the episode of Ruth (Booz, Ruth, Obed), among the actual ancestors of Christ (Matt., i, 5), points in the same direction. Intrinsic data agree with these testimonies of ancient tradition. The book records the intermarriage of an Israelite with a Moabitess, which shows that its narrative does not belong to the region of the poetical. The historical character of the work is also confirmed by the friendly intercourse between David and the King of Moab which is described in I Kings, xxii, 3, 4; by the writer's distinct reference to a Jewish custom as obsolete (Ruth, iv 7), etc.

In view of this concordant, extrinsic and intrinsic, evidence, little importance is attached by scholars generally to the grounds which certain critics have put forth to disprove the historical character of the Book of Ruth. It is rightly felt, for instance, that the symbolical meaning of the names of several persons in the narrative (Noemi, Mahalon, Chelion) is not a conclusive argument that they have been fictitiously accommodated to the characters in the episode, and more than the similar symbolical meaning of the proper names of well known and full historical personages mentioned in Israel's annals (Saul, David, Samuel, etc.). It is rightly felt likewise that the striking appropriateness of the words put on the lips of certain personages to the general purpose of edification apparent in the Book of Ruth does not necessarily disprove the historical character of the work, since this is also noticeable in other books of Holy Writ which are undoubtedly historical. Finally, it is readily seen that however great the contrast may appear between the general tone of simplicity, repose, purity, etc., of the characters delineated in the episode of Ruth, and the opposite features of the figures which are drawn in the Book of Judges, both writings describe actual events in one and the same period of Jewish history; for all we know, the beautiful scenes of domestic life connected in the Book of Ruth with the period of the judges may have truly occurred during the long intervals of peace which are repeatedly mentioned in the Book of Judges.

V. AUTHOR AND DATE OF COMPOSITION

The Book of Ruth is anonymous, for the name which it bears as its title has never been regarded otherwise than that of the chief actor in the events recorded. In an ancient Beraitha to the Talmudic treatise "Baba Bathra" (Babylonian Talmud, c. i), it is definitely stated that "Samuel wrote his book, Judges, and Ruth"; but this ascription of Ruth to Samuel is groundless and hence almost universally rejected at the present day. The name of the author of the book of Ruth is unknown, and so is also the precise date of its composition. The work, however, was most likely written before the Babylonian exile. On the one hand, there is nothing in its contents that would compel one to bring down its origin to a later date; and, on the other hand, the comparative purity of its style stamps it as a pre-exilic composition. The numerous critics who hold a different view overrate the importance of its isolated Aramaisms which are best accounted for by the use of a spoken patois plainly independent of the actual developments of literary Hebrew. They also make too much of the place occupied by the Book of Ruth among the Hagiographa, for, as can be easily realized, the admission of a writing into this third division of the Hebrew Canon is not necessarily contemporary with its origin. But, while the internal data supplied by the Book of Ruth thus point to its pre-exilic origin, they remain indecisive with regard to the precise date to which its composition should be referred, as clearly appears from the conflicting inferences which have been drawn from them by recent Catholic scholars.

Commentaries.--Catholic: CLAIR (Paris, 1878); VON HUMMELAUER (Paris, 1888); FILLION (Paris, 1889); VIGOUROUX (Paris, 1901); CRAMPONI. Protestant: WRIGHT (London, 1864); KEIL (Leipzig, 1874): BERTHEAU (Leipzig, 1883); OETTLE (Nordlingen, 1889); BERTHOLET (Freiburg, 1898); NOWACK (Goettingen, 1902).

FRANCIS E. GIGOT

Ruthenian Rite

There is, properly speaking, no separate and distinct rite for the Ruthenians, but inasmuch as the name is often used for the modifications which the Ruthenians have introduced in the Byzantine or Greek Rite as used by them, a brief description is proper. These modifications have come about in two ways. In the first place, the ancient Slavonic missals used in Russia and in Little Russia (Ruthenia) differed in many instances from the Greek as used at Constantinople, and the correction of these differences by the Pariarch Nikon gave rise to the Old Ritualists (see RASKOLNIKS). When, therefore, the Ruthenians came into union with the Holy See in 1595, they brought with them in their liturgical books several of the usages and formulae which Nikon afterwards corrected at Moscow in the Orthodox Church. Where these differences presented no denial or contradiction of the faith the Holy See allowed them to remain, just as they have allowed the rites of many religious orders. In the second place, after the union had become a fixed fact, numbers of the Polish Latin clergy and laity seemed to find in the Greek ceremonies and forms of language some apparent contradictions of the faith as more fully elaborated in the Roman Rite. This seemed to them to indicate a lack of unity of the faith, and the Greek Ruthenian clergy in the Synod of Zamosc (1720) made a number of changes in the Byzantine Rite, particularly that of the Mass, so as more clearly to express the unity and identity of their faith with that of their brethren of the Roman Rite. These changes are sometimes bitterly spoken of by Russian authors as "latinizing", and the majority of them were probably unnecessary. When we consider that the Melchites, Rumanians, and Italo-Greeks have kept the old forms thus unchanged, it does not seem that they were required in order to express the complete unity of the faith. Nevertheless they were sufficient to cause them to be spoken of as the Ruthenian Rite, as distinguished from the older form of the Byzantine Rite (See CONSTANTINOPLE, RITE OF; GREEK CATHOLICS IN AMERICA; GREEK CHURCH).

The chief modifications introduced were the addition of the Filioque (i ot Syna) to the Creed, and the commemoration of "the holy universal Chief Bishop N. the Pope of Rome", in the Ektene and in the general commemoration at the Great Entrance; while the emphasis laid on the Epiklesis (invocation) may be said to also constitute a difference from the Orthodox Rite. The addition of the Filioque is not required even in Italy, for at Rome the Creed is still said in Greek without it; but there it is simply an ancient custom and no indication of any difference in doctrine. As to the prayers for the pope, the various Orthodox Churches of Russia and Eastern Europe have never hesitated to change the Byzantine liturgy in order to insert prayers for the Holy Synod, imperial family, etc., even carrying them out to great length. The Ruthenians however differ from the other Greek Catholic nationalities and from the Orthodox churches in many other peculiarities of rite.

In the Proskomide of the Divine Liturgy the Ruthenians are allowed to prepare for Mass with one altar-bread (prosphora) or with three, or even with the dry Agnetz (the square Greek host) if no prosphorae can be had, instead of requiring five prosphorae. Then too the Ruthenian priest may omit the full number of particles to be placed on the paten, and may place only one for the various ranks he is required to commemorate, or in exceptional cases where there are no particles "the priest may celebrate with the Agnetz alone" (Decretum Syn. Leopoliensis, p. 83). The number of the saints to be commemorated has also been cut down to a few principal names. When the Mass of the Catechumens or public part of the Divine Liturgy begins, the Royal Doors of the Iconostasis are thrown wide open and continue so during the entire Mass. There are no rubrics directing them to be open and shut during the service, nor is there any veil to be drawn. Formerly this was the practise in the old Slavonic Churches and Missals, and is still followed in the Court Church until after the Great Entrance is completed. The custom of reverencing during the singing of the Edinorodny Syne (Filius unigenitus) and the Creed at the word voheloviechshasia (Homo factus est) and the addition of the i ot Syna (Filioque) were adopted to conform to the practice of the Roman Rite. The same may be said of the practice of covering the chalice while on the altar, and this in turn has made the ripidia or fans disappear as altar utensils. In the prayer of contrition before communion the Ruthenian priest strikes his breast three times as in the Roman Rite. Among the special modifications in the Liturgy by the Ruthenians is the order of the antiphons. The three week-day antiphons, Psalms xci, xcii, xciv, are introduced directly into the text of the Missal, while on Sundays in their stead (when there is no feast-day having special antiphons) Psalms lxv, lxvi, and xciv take their place. The Typika, Psalms cii and cxlv, as well as the Blazhenni (beatitudes) are not said except in monasteries and monastic churches. At the recital of the Creed the priest holds up the aër without moving it to and fro. Just before the ante-communion prayer the priest performs an ablution of the tips of his fingers. The Ruthenians do not add hot water to the chalice after the Fraction, as all other Greeks do, for this was abolished by the Synod of Zamosc (tit. iii, sec. iv). They have also abolished the use of the sponge in purifying the paten and chalice, and use instead the finger for the paten and a veil on the chalice. A final ablution is introduced, and the holy vessels remain on the altar until the Mass is finished, instead of being carried to the side altar (prothesis) as in the Byzantine Rite. The absence of the deacon or deacons in the Ruthenian Mass will be particularly noticed, for that is the rule except in cases of cathedral Masses or pontifical Masses, corresponding to the usages of the Roman solemn high Mass, and then the deacon is usually a priest who reverts to his former order. The diaconate among the Ruthenians is now chiefly a grade to the priesthood, and not a permanent order for parochial work. There is no distribution of the antidoron or blessed bread at the end of Mass in the Ruthenian Rite. Nor do they have the custom of giving communion (by a tiny drop from the chalice) to infants and children under four years, as in the Russian Orthodox Church. The clergy among the Ruthenians usually follow the Roman rule and are shaven, unlike the general rule among the Greek clergy of other countries, whether Catholic or Orthodox. They do not wear the kamilafka or straight cylindrical Greek biretta, but have invented for themseoves a round headpiece or crown, something like the mitre of a Greek bishop, and they also wear the close-fitting cassock of the Roman Rite, instead of the loose robe with flowing sleeves used by the Greeks of other countries.

BOCIAN, "De modificationibus apud Ruthenos subintroductis" in "Chrysostomika" (Rome, 1908); 929-69; KHOINATSKI, "Zapadno-Russkaya Tserkovnaya Unia v yeya Bogosluzhenii i Obriadakh" (Kieff, 1871); PELESZ, "Geschicte der Union", II (Vienna, 1880); Liturgia Sv. Ioanna Zlatoustaho" (Zolkeieff, 1906).

ANDREW J. SHIPMAN

Ruthenians

(Ruthenian and Russian: Rusin, plural Rusini)

A Slavic people from Southern Russia, Galicia and Bukowina in Austria, and North-eastern Hungary. They are also called in Russian, Malorossiani, Little Russians (in allusion to their stature), and in the Hungarian dialect of their own language, Russniaks. They occupy in Russia the provinces or governments of Lublin (Poland), Volhynia, Podolia, Kieff, Tehernigoff, Kharkoff, and Poltava, in Russia, and number now about 18,000,000. In Austria they occupy the whole of Eastern Galicia and Bukowina, and in Hungary the northern and north-eastern counties of Hungary: Szepes, Saros, Abauj, Zemplin, Ung, Maramaros, and Bereg, and amount to about 4,500,000 more. The Ruthenians along the borderland of the ancient Kingdom of Poland and the present boundary separating Austria from Russia proper are also called Ukrainians (u, at or near, and krai, the border or land composing the border), from the Ukraine, comprising the vast steppes or plains of Southern Russia extending into Galicia. In the Austro-Hungarian Empire the Ruthenians are separated from one another by the Carpathian Mountains, which leave one division of them in Galicia and the other in Hungary. The Ruthenians or Little Russians in Russia and Bukowina belong to the Greek Orthodox Church, whilst those of Galicia and Hungary are Greek Catholics in unity with the Holy See. For this reason the word Ruthenian has been generally used to indicate those of the race who are Catholics, and Little Russian those who are Greek Orthodox, although the terms are usually considered as fairly interchangeable. It must be remembered that in the Russian and Ruthenian languages (unlike in English) there are two words which are often indiscriminately translated as Russia, but which have quite different meanings. One is Russ, which is the generic word denoting an abstract fatherland and all who speak a Russo-Slavic tongue, who are of Russo-Slavic race and who profess the Greek-Slavonic Rite; it is of wide and comprehensive meaning. The other word is Rossia, which is a word of restricted meaning and refers only to the actual Russian Empire and its subjects, as constituted to-day. The former word Russ may be applied to a land or people very much as our own word "Anglo-Saxon" is to English or Americans. It not only includes those who live in the Russian Empire, but millions outside of it, who are of similar race or kin, but who are not politically, religiously, or governmentally united with those within the empire. From the word Russ we get the derivative Russky, which may therefore be translated in English as "Ruthenian" as well as "Russian", since it is older than the present Russian Empire. From Rossia we have the derivative Rossiisky, which can never be translated otherwise than by "Russian", pertaining to or a native of the Russian Empire. Indeed the word "Ruthene" or "Ruthenian" seems to have been an attempt to put the word Rusin into a Latinized form, and the medieval Latin word Ruthenia was often used as a term for Russia itself before it grew so great as it is to-day.

The name Ruthenian (Rutheni) is found for the first time in the old Polish annalist, Martinus Gallus, who wrote towards the end of the eleventh and the beginning of the twelfth century; he uses this name as one already well known. The Danish historian, Saxo Grammaticus (1203), also uses it to describe the Slavs living near the Baltic Sea. These Slavs were already converted to Christianity and the name was probably used to distinguish them from the pagans. The term Ruthenian was well known in the eleventh century and its origin seems to be considerably older. It is said to have really originated in the southern part of Gaul in the time of Charlemagne. When the Huns overran Europe in the fifth century, they subdued the Slavic tribes with whom they came in contact and made them a part of their victorious army. Under Attila's leadership they pressed still farther west, devastating everything in their path, and penetrated into Northern Italy and the south-eastern part of Gaul. In the great battle at Châlons the Christian armies overcame them; a portion of the Huns' forces was slaughtered, but other portions were divided and scattered in small detachments throughout the country, and the greater part of these were the Slavs who had been made captive and forced to join the army. After the death of Charlemagne they had settled largely throughout the land, and their names are still retained in various Latin names of places, as Rouerge (Provincia Ruthenorum), Rodez (Segdunum Rutheni), and Auvergne (Augusta Ruthenorum). As these Slavic tribes furnished the name for the Latin writers of Italy and France, this same word was also used later in describing them in their native land, where descriptions came to be written by western writers who first came in contact with them. Indeed the word "Ruthenian" is considerably older than the word "Russian", in describing Slavic nationality; for the term Russia (Rossia), indicating the political state and government, did not come into use until the fourteenth or fifteenth century.

The Ruthenians may well claim to be the original Russians. Theirs was the land where Sts. Cyril and Methodius converted the Slavic peoples, and that land, with Kieff as the centre, became the starting point of Greco-Slavic Christianity, and for centuries that centre was the religious and political capital of the present Russia. Great Russia was then merely a conglomerate, of Swedish, Finnish, and Slavic tribes, and although it has since become great and has subdued its weaker brethren, it does not represent the historic race as does the Ruthenian in the south. They were never so thoroughly under the rule of the conquering Tatar as the Great Russians of Moscow, Vladimir, and Kazan. Besides, Little Russia was separated from Great Russia and was for nearly five centuries subject to Poland and Lithuania. Yet Great Russia has become in Russia the norm of Russian nationality, and has succeeded largely in suppressing and arresting the development of the Little Russians within the empire. It is no wonder that the old dreams of Mazeppa, Chmielnicki, and Shevchenko of Little Russia, independent both of Russia and Poland, have found a lodgment in the hearts of the Southern Russians; the same feeling has gained ground among the Ruthenians of Galicia and Hungary, surrounded as they are by the German, Polish, and Hungarian peoples. However, the milder and more equitable rule of Austria-Hungary has prevented direct political agitation, although there is occasional trouble. The resultant of such forces among the Ruthenians of Galicia and Hungary has been the formation of political parties, which they have brought to America with them. These may be divided into three large groups: the Ukraintzi, those who believe in and foster the development of the Ruthenians along their own lines, quite independent of Russia, the Poles or the Germans, and who actually look forward to the independence of Little Russia, almost analogous to the Home Rulers of Ireland; the Moscophiles, those who look to present Russia as the norm of the Russo-Slavic race and who are partisans of Panslavism; these may be likened to the Unionists of Ireland, in order to round out the comparison; the Ugro-Russki, Hungarian Ruthenians, who while objecting to Hungary, and particular phases of Hungarian rule, have no idea of losing their own peculiar nationality by taking present Russia as their standard; they hold themselves aloof from both the other parties, the ideas of the Ukraintzi being particularly distasteful to them. (See GREEK CATHOLICS IN AMERICA.) In Russia all political agitation for Little Russia and for Little Russian customs and peculiarities is prohibited; it is only since 1905 that newspapers and other publications in the Little Russian language have been permitted. It was Little Russia which united with the Holy See in 1595, in the great reunion of the Greek Church; and it was in Little Russia where the pressure of the Russian Government was brought to bear in 1795, 1839, and 1875, whereby the Greek Catholics of Little Russia were utterly wiped out and some 7,000,000 of the Uniats there were compelled, partly by force and partly by deception, to become part of the Greek Orthodox Church.

In some indefinable manner the Ruthenian or Little Russian speech is considered as leading away from Russian unity, whether of State or Church; the prompt return of a quarter of a million of Little Russians to Catholicism in 1905-06, at the time of the decree of toleration, perhaps lends countenance to the belief in Russian minds. The Ruthenian language is very close to the Russian and both are descendants of the ancient Slavonic tongue which is still used in the Mass and in the liturgical books. The Ruthenian, however, in the form of its words, is much nearer the Church Slavonic than the modern Russian language is. Still it does not differ much from the modern Russian or the so-called Great Russian language; it bears somewhat the same relation to the latter as the Lowland Scotch does to English or the Plattdeutsch to German. The Ruthenians in Austria-Hungary and the Little Russians in Russia use the Russian alphabet and write their language in almost the same orthography as the Great Russian, but in many cases they pronounce it differently. It is almost like the case of an Englishman and a Frenchman who write the word science exactly alike, but each pronounces it in a different manner. Many words are unlike in Ruthenian and Russian, for example, bachiti, to see, in Ruthenian, becomes videt in Russian; pershy, first, in Ruthenian, is pervy in Russian. All this tends to differentiate the two languages, or extreme dialects, as they might be called. In late years a recession of the Russian alphabet in Galicia and Bukowina has provoked much dissension. For the purpose of more closely accommodating the Russian alphabet to the Ruthenian, they added two new letters and rejected three old ones, then spelled all the Ruthenian or Little Russian words exactly as they are pronounced. This "phonetic" alphabet differentiates the Ruthenian more than ever from the Russian. It has divided Ruthenian writers into two great camps: the "etymological", which retains the old system of spelling, and the "phonetic", which advocates the new system. It has even been made a basis of political action, and the phonetic system of orthography is still strongly opposed, partly because it was an Austrian governmental measure and partly because it is regarded as an effort to detach the Ruthenians from the rest of the Russian race and in a measure to Polonize them. The phonetic system of writing has never been adopted among the Hungarian Ruthenians, and it is only within the last two or three years that anyone has dared to use it in Little Russian publications issued in the Russian Empire. Yet in many parts of Hungary the Ruthenian language is printed in Roman letters so as to reach those who are not acquainted with the Russian alphabet. The language question has led to many debates in the Austrian parliament and has been taken up by many Ruthenian magazines and reviews. The Ruthenians have also brought their language and political difficulties with them to America (see GREEK CATHOLICS IN AMERICA, under subtitle Ruthenian Greek Catholics), where they encounter them as obstacles to racial progress. Not only in history but in literature have the Ruthenians or Little Russians held an honourable place. Their chief city, Kieff, was the capital of the country before Moscow was founded in the middle of the twelfth century. A portion of them led the wild, stirring life of the Cossacks, painted in Gogol's romance of "Taras Bulba"; their revolt under Chmielnicki in 1648 is pictured by Sienkiewicz in his historical romance "With Fire and Sword"; that of half a century later under Mazeppa is made known to most of us by Byron's verse. They had free printing presses for secular as well as religious literature in the sixteenth century; still many of their best writers, such as Gogol, have used the Great Russian language even when their themes were Little Russian, just as so much of the text of Scott's Scotch novels is pure English. The Ruthenian language, however, has been employed by authors of international repute, the greatest of whom is the poet Shevehenko. Other authors of widening reputation have followed in the present century, and some like Gowda have transferred their literary efforts to American soil.

The Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church in Austria-Hungary is represented by one province in Galicia, Austria, and three dioceses in Hungary. The former is composed of the Greek Archdiocese of Lemberg with the two subordinate dioceses of Przemysl and Stanislau. In Hungary there are the separate dioceses of Eperies and Munkacs in the north and the Diocese of Kreutz (Crisium, Krizevac) in the south. These northern two are subject to the Latin Archbishop of Gran, and the southern one to the Latin Archbishop of Agram. The Ruthenian immigration to America comes almost wholly from these dioceses, and their efforts and progress in solidly establishing themselves in the United States and Canada have been described. They have built many fine and flourishing churches, have established schools and now have a bishop here of their own rite (see GREEK CATHOLICS IN AMERICA). Some of them are becoming wealthy, and in some places in Pennsylvania are reckoned as a factor in American politics. Nevertheless, they have been subjected in America to strenuous proselyting, both on the part of the Russian Orthodox mission churches, which preach Panslavism in its most alluring forms, and which are at times bitterly hostile to Catholicism (see GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AMERICA, under Russian Orthodox), and on the part of various Protestant missionary activities, which have succeeded in establishing in many localities "independent" Ruthenian communities apparently practising the Greek Rite in connexion with the Presbyterian, Baptist, and other churches. Much has been effected by both proselyting parties because of a lack of a suitable Ruthenian Catholic press and literature, and of sufficient priests. For instance, there is a Protestant catechism using the name of the Catholic Church and teaching the seven sacraments, and there are Protestant so-called evangelical missionaries who use vestments, candles, censers, crucifixes, and holy water, with apparently all the Greek Catholic ritual, having even the official Greek Catholic mass-books on the altar. The Russian Orthodox clergy find the task even easier, for they appeal to the Slavic national feeling and adopt the usual religious practices of the Greek Catholic clergy, and are thus enabled to win over many an immigrant by offering sympathy in a strange land.

HRUSZEWSKI, Gesch. des Ukrainischen (Ruthenischen) Volkes (Leipzig, 1906); ROMANCZUK, Die Ruthenen u. ihre Gegner in Galizien, (Vienna, 1902); JANDAUREK, Das Königreich Galizien u. Lodomeriem, u. das Herzogthum Bukowina (Vienna, 1884); PELESZ, Gesch. der Union, I (Vienna, 1878); SEMBRATOWICZ, Das Zarenthum im Kampfe mit der Civilisation (Vienna, 1905); FRANZOS, Aus Halb-Asien; Culturbilder aus Galizien, der Bukowina u. Süd Russland (Berlin, 1878); Charities, XIII (New York, Dec., 1904); The Messenger, XLII, Sept.-Dec. (New York, 1904); GRUSHEVSKY, Istoria Ukraini-Rusi (Lemberg, 1904-11).

ANDREW J. SHIPMAN.

Henry Rutter

( vere BANISTER)

Born 26 Feb., 1755; died 17 September, 1838, near Dodding Green, Westmoreland. He was the son of Adam Banister of Hesketh Bank and Agnes, daughter of Richard Butler, of Mawdesley (Lancashire). On 26 Sept., 1768, he went to Douai College, where he found his uncle, Rev. Robert Banister. In May, 1781, he became professor at St. Omer's College for the secular clergy. On the English mission, he served several places in the north before his appointment in 1817 to Yealand (Lancashire), where he remained till Jan., 1834. The rest of his life was spent at Dodding Green. The "Orthodox Journal" (VII, 223) gives a sympathetic notice of this sterling priest, characterized by his old-world learning and solid piety. Rutter wrote an "Evangelical Harmony", re-edited (1857) by Husenbeth. His other works, chiefly scriptural exegeses and devotional translations, are enumerated and described by Gillow. The "Answer to Dr. Southey" (the poet-laureate) is a contribution to the controversy provoked by Southey's "Book of the Church," (1824), in which Charles Butler (q.v.) was the Catholic protagonist.

PATRICK RYAN

Ruvo and Bitonto

(RUBENSIS ET BITUNTINENSIS)

Diocese in the Province of Bari, Aquileia, Southern Italy. Ruvo, the ancient Rubi, situated on a calcareous hill, contains a fine Norman cathedral of the eleventh century. Outside of the city are the ruins of a more ancient cathedral, possibly of the late fourth or early fifth century. According to a legend St. Peter preached the Faith here and appointed to the see as its first bishop St. Cletus, later pope. We read also of a St. Procopius, Bishop of Ruvo, of unknown date; Bishop Joannes, spoken of in 493, is the first prelate of the city known with certainty; of the others mention may be made of Pietro Ruggieri (1759-1804); Bishop Anderano (about 734) belonged either to Bitonto or Bisignano; Arnolfo (1087), the first undoubted Bishop of Bitonto; Enrico Minutolo (1382), later cardinal; Cornelio Musso (1544), a Conventual, distinguished at the Council of Trent; Fabrizio Carafa (1622), founder of a literary academy; Alessandro Crescenti (1652), later cardinal. In 1818 the Diocese of Ruvo, which comprised only the commune of Ruvo, was united æque principaliter to the See of Bitonto, which included only the commune of Bitonto. It has a fine cathedral with four rows of beautiful marble columns. The chief historic events relating to the dioceses are the capture of Ruvo in 1503 by Gonsalvo di Cordova, who defeated the French, and the battle of Bitonto (1734) in which the Austrians were defeated by the Spaniards. The united dioceses contain 25,000 inhabitants, a Franciscan friary, 7 houses of religious, 3 of which are enclosed, 2 having hospitals attached, and 2 others charitable establishments.

CAPPELLETTI, Le Chiese d'Italia, XVI (Venice, 1857).

U. BENIGNI

Blessed John Ruysbroeck

Surnamed the Admirable Doctor, and the Divine Doctor, undoubtedly the foremost of the Flemish mystics, b. at Ruysbroeck, near Brussels, 1293; d. at Groenendael, 2 Dec., 1381. He was blessed with a devout mother, who trained him from infancy in the ways of piety and holiness. Of his father we know nothing; John's only family name, van Ruysbroeck, is taken from his native hamlet. At the age of eleven he forsook his mother, departing without leave or warning, to place himself under the guidance and tuition of his uncle, John Hinckaert, a saintly priest and a canon of St. Gudule's, Brussels, who with a fellow-canon of like mind, Francis van Coudenberg, was following a manner of life modelled on the simplicity and fervour of Apostolic days. This uncle provided for Ruysbroeck's education with a view to the priesthood. In due course, Blessed John was presented with a prebend in St. Gudule's, and ordained in 1317. His mother had followed him to Brussels, entered a Béguinage there, and made a happy end shortly before his ordination. For twenty-six years Ruysbroeck continued to lead, together with his uncle Hinckaert and van Coudenberg, a life of extreme austerity and retirement. At that time the Brethren of the Free Spirit were causing considerable trouble in the Netherlands, and one of them, a woman named Bloemardinne, was particularly active in Brussels, propagating her false tenets chiefly by means of popular pamphlets. In defence of the Faith Ruysbroeck responded with pamphlets also written in the native tongue. Nothing of these treatises remains; but the effect of the controversy was so far permanent with Ruysbroeck that his later writings bear constant reference, direct and indirect, to the heresies, especially the false mysticism, of the day, and he composed always in the idiom of the country, chiefly with a view to counteracting the mischief of the heretical writings scattered broadcast among the people in their own tongue.

The desire for a more retired life, and possibly also the persecution which followed Ruysbroeck's attack on Bloemardinne, induced the three friends to quit Brussels in 1343, for the hermitage of Groenendael, in the neighbouring forest of Soignes, which was made over to them by John III, Duke of Brabant. But here so many disciples joined the little company that it was found expedient to organize into a duly-authorized religious body. The hermitage was erected into a community of canons regular, 13 March, 1349, and eventually it became the motherhouse of a congregation, which bore its name of Groenendael. Francis van Coudenberg was appointed first provost, and Blessed John Ruysbroeck prior. John Hinckaert refrained from making the canonical profession lest the discipline of the house should suffer from the exemptions required by the infirmities of his old age; he dwelt, therefore, in a cell outside the cloister, and there a few years later happily passed away. This period, from his religious profession (1349) to his death (1381), was the most active and fruitful of Ruysbroeck's career. To his own community his life and words were a constant source of inspiration and encouragement. His fame as a man of God, as a sublime contemplative and a skilled director of souls, spread beyond the bounds of Flanders and Brabant to Holland, Germany, and France. All sorts and conditions of men sought his aid and counsel. His writings were eagerly caught up and rapidly multiplied, especially in the cloisters of the Netherlands and Germany; early in the fifteenth century they are to be found also in England. Among the more famous visitors to Groenendael mention is made of Tauler, but though the German preacher certainly knew and appreciated his writings, it is not established that he ever actually saw Ruysbroeck. Gerard Groote in particular venerated him as a father and loved him as a friend. And through Groote, Ruysbroeck's influence helped to mould the spirit of the Windesheim School, which in the next generation found its most famous exponent in Thomas a Kempis. Just now strenuous efforts are being made to discover authentic Flemish MSS. of Blessed John Ruysbroeck's works; but up to the present the standard edition is the Latin version of Surius, all imperfect and probably incomplete as this is. Of the various treatises here preserved, the best-known and the most characteristic is that entitled "The Spiritual Espousals". It is divided into three books, treating respectively of the active, the interior, and the contemplative life; and each book is subdivided into four parts working out the text; Ecce Sponsus venit, exite obviam ei, as follows: (1) Ecce, the work of the vision, man must turn his eyes to God; (2) Sponsus venit, the divers comings of the Bridegroom; (3) exite, the soul going forth along the paths of virtue; and finally (4) the embrace of the soul and the heavenly Spouse.

Literally, Ruysbroeck wrote as the spirit moved him. He loved to wander and meditate in the solitude of the forest adjoining the cloister; he was accustomed to carry a tablet with him, and on this to jot down his thoughts as he felt inspired so to do. Late in life he was able to declare that he had never committed aught to writing save by the motion of the Holy Ghost. In no one of his treatises do we find anything like a complete or detailed account of his system; perhaps, it would be correct to say that he himself was not conscious of elaborating any system. In his dogmatic writings he is emphatically a faithful son of the Catholic Church, explaining, illustrating, and enforcing her traditional teachings with remarkable force and lucidity; this fact alone is quite sufficient to dispose of the contention, still cherished in certain quarters, that Ruysbroeck was a forerunner of the Reformation, etc. In his ascetic works, his favourite virtues are detachment, humility, and charity; he loves to dwell on such themes as flight from the world, meditation upon the Life, especially the Passion of Christ, abandonment to the Divine Will, and an intense personal love of God. But naturally it is in his mystical writings that the peculiar genius of Ruysbroeck shines forth. Yet here again it is the manner rather than the matter that is new, and it is especially in the freshness, originality, boldness, variety, detail, and truth of his imagery and comparisons that the individuality of Ruysbroeck stands out. Students of mysticism from the pages of the Areopagite onwards will scarcely discover anything for which they cannot recall a parallel elsewhere. But there are many who maintain that Blessed John stands alone, unrivalled, in his grasp of what we may term the metaphysics of mysticism, in the delicateness and sureness of his touch when describing the phenomena and progress of the mystic union, and in the combined beauty, simplicity, and loftiness of his language and style.

In common with most of the German mystics Ruysbroeck starts from God and comes down to man, and thence rises again to God, showing how the two are so closely united as to become one. But here he is careful to protest: "There where I assert that we are one in God, I must be understood in this sense that we are one in love, not in essence and nature." Despite this declaration, however, and other similar saving clauses scattered over his pages, some of Ruysbroeck's expressions are certainly rather unusual and startling. The sublimity of his subject-matter was such that it could scarcely be otherwise. His devoted friend, Gerard Groote, a trained theologian, confessed to a feeling of uneasiness over certain of his phrases and passages, and begged him to change or modify them for the sake at least of the weak. Later on, Jean Gerson and then Bossuet both professed to find traces of unconscious pantheism in his works. But as an offset to these we may mention the enthusiastic commendations of his contemporaries, Groote, Tauler, a Kempis, Scoenhoven, and in subsequent times of the Franciscan van Herp, the Carthusians Denys and Surius, the Carmelite Thomas of Jesus, the Benedictine Louis de Blois, and the Jesuit Lessius. In our own days Ernest Hello and especially Maeterlinck have done much to make his writings known and even popular. And at present, particularly since his beatification, there is a strong revival of interest in all that concerns Ruysbroeck in his native Belgium.

A word of warning is needed against the assumption of some writers who would exalt the genius of Ruysbroeck by dwelling on what they term his illiteracy and ignorance. As a matter of fact the works of Blessed John manifest a mastery of the sacred sciences, and a considerable acquaintaince even with the natural science of his day. His adaptation of the slender resources of his native tongue to the exact expression of his own unusual experiences and ideas is admirable beyond praise; and though his verse is not of the best, his prose writings are vigorous and chaste, and evidence not only the intellect of a metaphysician, but the soul also of a true and tender poet.

Blessed John's relics were carefully preserved and his memory honoured as that of a saint. When Groenendael Priory was suppressed by Joseph II in 1783, his relics were transferred to St. Gudule's, Brussels, where, however, they were lost during the French Revolution. A long and oft-interrupted series of attempts to secure official acknowledgement of his heroic virtues from Rome was crowned at length by a Decree, 1 Dec., 1908, confirming to him under the title of "Blessed" his cultus ab immemorabili tempore. And the Office of the Beatus has been granted to the clergy of Mechlin and to the Canons Regular of the Lateran. No authentic portrait of Ruysbroeck is known to exist; but the traditional picture represents him in the canonical habit, seated in the forest with his writing tablet on his knee, as he was in fact found one day by the brethren—rapt in ecstasy and enveloped in flames, which encircle without consuming the tree under which he is resting.

ARTHUR, The Founders of the New Devotion (London, 1905); BAILLIE, Reflections from the Mirror of a Mystic (London, 1905); SCULLY, Life of Bl. John Ruysbroeck (London, 1910); STODDART, Ruysbroeck and the Mystics by Maurice Maeterlinck (London, 1894); UNDERHILL, Mysticism (London, 1911); AUGER, Etudes sur les Mystiques des Pays-Bas au moyen age in Acad. Roy. de Belg., tom. xlvi; AUGER, De doctrina et meritis Joannis van Ruysbroeck (Louvain, 1892); BOURGIGNON, Le b. Jean Rusbrok (Liege, 1910); ENGELHARDT, Richard von St. Victor und Joannes Rusbroek (Erlangen, 1838); FOFI, Vita e Dottrine del B. G. Rusbrochio (Rome, 1909); GERSON, Opera (Antwerp, 1708); GRUBE, Gerhard Groot und seine Stiftungen (Cologne, 1883); HELLO, Ruysbroeck l'Admirable (Paris, 1902); MAETERLINCK, L'ornement des noces spirituelles de Ruysbroeck l'Admirable (Brussels, 1908); MIERLO, articles in Dietsche Warande en Belfort, Feb.-Nov. (Antwerp, 1910); MULLER, Jan van Ruysbroeck, Van den VII Trappen (Brussels, 1911); PENNOTTUS, Ordinis canonicorum historia tripartita (Cologne, 1630); POMERIUS, in Bollandists, tom. IV; SURIUS, Opera (Cologne, 1692); THOMAS A KEMPIS, Opera (Freiburg, 1901); ULLMANN, Reformatoren vor der Reformation (Hamburg, 1842); VREESE, Jean de Ruysbroeck (Brussels, 1909); Processus, anno 1624. . .de vita et miraculis Ruysbrochii, in Mechlin archives; Decretum Mechlin confirmationis cultus (Rome, 1909).

VINCENT SCULLY

John Ruysch

Astronomer, cartographer, and painter, born at Utrecht about 1460; died at Cologne, 1533. Little is known of his early life. He became a secular priest, but joined the Benedictine Order in the monastery of St. Martin's at Cologne, where he made his profession in 1492. He devoted himself to the study of astronomy and painting, in which art he acquired much skill. He gave proof of his talent by decorating the refectory of the monastery with artistic designs, representing the lunar month and the signs of the zodiac. He went to Rome about 1508 and received a post in the pontifical palace. While here he published his famous map of the world entitled "Nova et universalior orbis cogniti tabula". It contains in particular the new Spanish and Portuguese discoveries in America. He assisted Raphael in his great paintings at the Vatican. Leaving Rome he journeyed to Portugal, where he became known to the king, who esteemed him highly on account of his knowledge of astronomy and cosmography, and made him astronomer to the fleet. He finally returned to Cologne and spent his last years in the monastery of his profession. He possessed considerable mechanical skill, and left a number of astronomical instruments of his own construction. He was also the author of the "Admonitiones ad spiritualia trahentes", which he wrote in 1494, and of a treatise on the mixing of colours and on painting on canvas.

Notes HOLTHAUSEN, Chronicon Breve Sti Martini apud Ubios (about 1556); HARTZHEIM, Bibliotheca Coloniensis (1746)

HENRY M. BROCK

Father Abram J. Ryan

The poet-priest of the South, born at Norfolk, Virginia, 15 August, 1839; died at Louisville, Kentucky, 22 April, 1886. He inherited from his parents, in its most poetic and religious form, the strange witchery of the Irish temper. Fitted for the priesthood by a nature at once mystic and spiritual, be was ordained just before the beginning of the Civil War, entered the Confederate army as a chaplain, and served in this capacity until the end of the war. In the hour of defeat he won the heart of the entire South by his "Conquered Banner," whose exquisite measure was taken, as he told a friend, from one of the Gregorian hymns. The Marseillaise, as a hymn of victory, never more profoundly stirred the heart of France than did this hymn of defeat the hearts of those to whom it was addressed. It was read or sung in every Southern household, and thus became the apotheosis of the "Lost Cause". While much of his later war poetry was notable in its time, his first effort, which fixed his fame, was his finest production. The only other themes upon which he sang were those inspired by religious feeling. Among his poems of that class are to be found bits of the most weird and exquisite imagery. Within the limits of the Southern Confederacy and the Catholic Church in the United States, no poet was more popular. After the war he exercised the ministry in New Orleans, and was editor of "The Star," a Catholic weekly; later he founded "The Banner of the South" in Augusta, Georgia, a religious and political weekly; then he retired to Mobile. In 1880 he lectured in several Northern cities. As a pulpit orator and lecturer, he was always interesting and occasionally brilliant. As a man he had a subtle, fascinating nature, full of magnetism when he saw fit to exert it; as a priest, he was full of tenderness, gentleness, and courage. In the midst of pestilence he had no fear of death or disease. Even when he was young his feeble body gave him the appearance of age, and with all this there was the dreamy mysticism of the poet so manifest in the flesh as to impart to his personality something which marked him off from all other men. His "Poems, Patriotic, Religious, and Miscellaneous" have reached dozens of printings.

HANNIS TAYLOR

Patrick John Ryan

Sixth Bishop and second Archbishop of Philadelphia, b. At Thurles, County Tipperary, Ireland, 20 February, 1831; d. At Philadelphia; 11 February, 1911. His early education was received at the school of the Christian Brothers in his native town. In his twelfth year he entered the select school of Mr. J. L. Naughton, Richmond Street, Dublin, where he began his Classical studies. In 1844, while a pupil at Mr. Naughton's school, he headed a delegation of students, and in their name made an address to Daniel O'Connell, then a prisoner in Richmond Bridewell Prison. It is said that the great Liberator complimented the young speaker, and predicted a brilliant future for him. In 1847 he was adopted for the Diocese of St. Louis in the United States by Archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick and entered St. Patrick's College, Carlow. In 1852 he finished his course and was advanced to deacon's orders, but being too young to be ordained priest, he set out for St. Louis with Rev. Patrick Feehan, a subject of the same diocese, and afterward Archbishop of Chicago, and on his arrival was appointed to teach in the Diocesan Seminary at Carondelet. On account of his exceptional ability as a public speaker, Archbishop Kenrick permitted. the young deacon to preach frequently in the cathedral. His fame went forth at once, and he drew large audiences, made up not only of the regular members of the congregation, but of the most prominent people of all denominations from various parts of the city and more distant points. On 8 September, 1853, by special dispensation, he was ordained priest and was appointed assistant rector at the cathedral. He served there as assistant and as rector until 1861, when he was appointed to build the Church of the Annunciation at St. Louis. Having completed this task promptly and successfully, he was transferred to the rectorship of St. John's parish, at St. Louis. During all these years he was noted for his zeal in the work of the ministry, for his faithfulness in attending the military prisoners in Gratiot Street Prison during the Civil War, for the frequency and effectiveness of his sermons, and for the large number of converts, many of them persons of note, who by his influence were brought into the Church.

In 1866 he attended the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore as one of Archbishop Kenrick's theologians, and was one of three priests chosen to preach on that occasion, the others being Archbishop John Lancaster Spalding, and the late Rev. Isaac Hecker, C.S.P. In 1868 he spent a year in Europe with Archbishop Kenrick. His fame as an orator had preceded him, and he received calls from all sides. At Rome, at the request of Pope Pius IX, he delivered the English Lenten course for that year. Archbishop Kenrick appointed him vicar-general and administrator of the diocese, during his attendance at the Vatican Council. On 14 February, 1872, he was consecrated titular Bishop of Tricomia, and Coadjutor Bishop of St. Louis with right of succession. After serving faithfully and successfully in this capacity for twelve years, he was made titular Archbishop of Salamis on 6 January, 1884.

In the meantime the See of Philadelphia had become vacant by the death of Archbishop Wood, and on 8 June, 1884, Archbishop Ryan was appointed to succeed him. During his reign in Philadelphia the Church grew rapidly, as can be seen by the following table:

• Churches — 127 in 1884; 297 in 1911
• Priests — 260 in 1884; 582 in 1911
• Nuns — 1020 in 1884; 2565 in 1911
• Schools — 59 in 1884; 141 in 1911
• Pupils — 22,000 in 1884; 66,612 in 1911
• Orphans supported — 998 in 1884; 3,230 in 1911
• Catholic population — 300,000 in 1884; 525,000 in 1911

During that time also the Roman Catholic High School for Boys, which was endowed by Mr. Thomas Cahill, was built, and put in operation; high school centres for girls taught by the different communities were established; a new central high school for girls was partly endowed and begun; St. Francis' Industrial School for Boys was endowed and successfully operated, the Philadelphia Protectory for Boys was erected: it has since been enlarged, at a cost of over half a million dollars and with capacity for six hundred; St. Joseph's Home for Working Boys was founded; a new foundling asylum and maternity hospital was built; a new St. Vincent's Home for younger orphan children was purchased with the archbishop's Golden Jubilee Fund of $200,000; a third Home for the Aged was erected; a Memorial Library Building, dedicated to the Archbishop, was begun at St. Charles' Seminary, Overbrook; and the three Catholic hospitals of the city doubled their capacity. The extent of the archbishop's zeal is shown by his care for the emigrants who came into the diocese during his time. In 1884 there were very few foreign churches in the diocese; now there are 20 for the Italians, 23 for the Poles, 18 for the Greeks, 15 for the Slovacs, 6 for the Lithuanians, and several for other nationalities.

The archbishop took special interest in the Indians and negroes. He established two congregations for the latter in Philadelphia, and invited the Holy Ghost Fathers to build their college and mother-house at Cornwells, near the city. Under his direction Mother Katharine Drexel founded the Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament, who devote themselves entirely to the Indians and negroes, with their mother-house, novitiate and orphan asylum at Cornwells and several convents and schools in the West and South. Another proof of this interest is found in the archbishop's attendance at the Lake Mohonk conferences, and at the meetings of the U. S. Indian Commission, to which he had been appointed by President Roosevelt. By his prudence and tact he removed much prejudice against the Church, and obtained special privileges for Catholics in public institutions. His great reputation as an orator brought him invitations to speak, not only at the most important ecclesiastical functions, but also on secular occasions. In addition to his monthly sermons, in St. Louis on the first Sunday, and in Philadelphia on the second, he preached frequently at the laying of corner-stones, at the consecration of bishops, and churches, and at funerals. Some of the more remarkable instances were the dedication of St. Patrick's Cathedral, New York, the conferring of the pallium on Archbishop Corrigan, and his funeral sermon; the consecration and funeral of Archbishop Hennessy of Dubuque, and the funeral of Archbishop Kenrick of St. Louis. He addressed the St. Louis Legislature twice; opened the St. Louis University on two occasions; spoke before the Committee of the United States Senate on Indian affairs; opened the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia in 1900, and was the principal speaker at the McKinley Memorial service in Philadelphia, after the president's assassination.

He lectured on various occasions, the most important of his lectures probably being on "What Catholics do not believe", St. Louis, 1877, and on "Agnosticism", Philadelphia, 1894. He received the degree of Doctor of Laws from the University of St. Louis and from the University of Pennsylvania. Under his guidance the Catholic "Standard and Times" of Philadelphia, his official organ, obtained a reputation unexcelled in Catholic journalism; and under his editorial direction the "American Catholic Quarterly Review" preserved and extended the reputation which it had already made as a leading exponent of Catholic thought. The celebrations of the Silver Jubilee of the archbishop in the episcopacy, 1897, and of his Golden Jubilee in the priesthood, 1903, proved the esteem in which he was held by the whole community, irrespective of creed, because the whole city rejoiced; while his death showed how universally he was loved, for the whole city wept. The archbishop was best known as an orator and a wit. He was adorned most by strong faith and piety, by great meekness and humility, and by a prudence that was far-reaching and admirable. He has left no published works except some lectures. These are: "Modern Religious Skepticism"; "What Catholics do not Believe"; "Christian Civilization", and "Agnosticism": all are published by the Catholic Truth Society of San Francisco as well as by similar organizations in this country and London. There is a fifth lecture on "Religion and the Fine Arts".

O'HANLON, Life and Scenery in Missouri (Dublin, 1890); COWLEY, The Episcopal Silver Jubilee of the Most Rererend Patrick John Ryan, D.D., LL.D. (Philadelphia, 1897); KIRLIN, Life of Most Rev. P.J. Ryan, D.D., LL.D. (Philadelphia, 1903); TURNER, The Late Archbishop Ryan in The Catholic World (April, 1911); HALVEY, Bas Le Mor Mor Cluidh, Personal Reminiscences of Archbishop Ryan in Good Counsel Magazine (Philadelphia, March, 1911).

JAMES P. TURNER

Henry Ignatius Dudley Ryder

English Oratorian priest and controversialist, b. 3 Jan., 1837; d. at Edgbaston, Birmingham, 7 Oct., 1907; was the eldest son of George Dudley Ryder, one of the numerous clergymen of the Established Church of England who followed in the steps of Newman. He was received into the Catholic Church at Rome in 1846. The grandfather, Henry Dudley Ryder, a son of the first Lord Harrowby, was a prominent Evangelical in the early years of the last century, and was the first of the party to be raised to the episcopate. He was successively Bishop of Gloucester and Lichfield and Coventry. His kneeling statue by Chantrey will be remembered by all visitors of Lichfield cathedral. Newman, in his "Apologia", speaks of the veneration in which he held Bishop Ryder. George Ryder married Sophia, a daughter of the Rev. John Sargent. The three other Misses Sargent married respectively Samuel Wilberforce, who became Bishop, first of Oxford, and then of Winchester; Henry Wilberforce; and Henry Edward Manning, the future cardinal and Archbishop of Westminster.

Father Ryder's lifelong connection with Newman and the Oratory began as a private pupil, when he was about twelve years old. The only interruption was a year at the English College at Rome and a few months at the Catholic University at Dublin, of which Newman was rector, before he began in December, 1856, his Oratorian novitiate. In 1863 he was ordained priest. After Cardinal Newman's death he was elected superior of the Birmingham Oratory and held this office till his health gave way. He was the last survivor of "my dearest brothers of this House, the Priests of the Birmingham Oratory" to whom Newman dedicated his "Apologia". His grave is with theirs and Cardinal Newman's at Rednal, a small country house belonging to the Birmingham Oratory, about seven miles from Birmingham. His life was uneventful. He cared little for notoriety or even fame. Once only did he push himself forward, and then it was to incur obloquy rather than applause. This was in 1867-8, when he attacked W. G. Ward, at that time editor of "The Dublin Review", and a leading spirit among an influential section of English Catholics who were singularly intolerant towards those who differed from them. Ward seemed to think of the pope as unceasingly exercising his very highest prerogative. All doctrinal instructions contained in papal documents, such as encyclicals and the like were infallible utterances. The Syllabus, together with all the documents which it quotes, was certainly infallible. So also, most probably, were the doctrinal Decrees of the Index and the Holy Office, when sanctioned by the pope and promulgated by his order. These opinions were put forward not tentatively, but as the only possible ones for a loyal Catholic. In other words, the doctrine of Infallibility was caricatured by its would-be defender in almost exactly the same way that it was caricatured a few years later by the Old Catholic Schulte (see FESSLER). Against these extravagances Ryder delivered his protest in three pamphlets, remarkable both for their literary style and the theological knowledge they displayed. He earned for his reward, as he himself in later years expressed it, "the prophet's portion of stones"; but time has shown that he was mainly in the right; within a very few years his opponent had to retract many of his more pronounced opinions in deference to the teaching of Roman theologians. It should be added that Ryder fully believed in the doctrine of Papal Infallibility before it was defined

His literary output was small. Apart from a number of articles in American and English magazines, he published "Idealism in Theology, a Review of Dr. Ward's scheme of Dogmatic Authority" (London, 1867); "A letter to W.G. Ward on his theory of Infallible Instruction" (London, 1868); "Postscriptum to Letter, etc." (London, 1868); "A critique upon Mr. Foulkes' Letter" (London, 1869); "Catholic Controversy", a reply to Littledale's "Plain Reasons" (London, 1880); "Poems Original and Translated" (Dublin, 1882). There is besides "Essays of the Rev. H. I. D. Ryder, edited by Francis Bacchus" (London, 1911). "His literary ideal", writes Mr. Wilfrid Ward, "was so high; his self-criticism so unsparing, that much which might have secured him a wider reputation was set aside. Quantify was sacrificed in preference to letting the world see anything which he himself felt to fall short of his own high standard in quality."

WILFRID WARD, Father Ignatius Ryder in The Dublin Review (January, 1898), republished in IDEM, Ten Personal Studies (London, 1908); CHAPMAN, Dr. Ryder's Essays in the Dublin Review (April, 1911).

J.F. BACCHUS

Theodore James Ryken

Known as Brother Francis Xavier, founder of the Xaverian Brothers. b. at Elshout, North Brabant, Holland, 30 August, 1797, d. at Bruges, 1871. His parents, who were devout Catholics, died while he was yet a child, and a pious uncle reared him. Even in youth he loved works of charity and zeal, and at nineteen he became a catechist. At twenty-five he became secretary to a well-known convert, M. Le Sage-ten-Broek, and acted in that capacity for four years, until cholera broke out at Groningen. While helping to nurse the patients, he caught the infection, and came near to death. In 1826 he made a pilgrimage to Rome, and Leo XII gave him a medal in commemoration. He made a second visit in 1838, and had an audience with Gregory XVI. In 1827 he entered a Trappist monastery in Germany but, as his confessor told him that God had other designs for him, his stay was short. Ryken came to America in 1831, and remained for three years. His observations in the United States convinced him that Catholic teachers were needed, and, returning to Europe, he planned to establish a teaching institute. In 1837 he returned to America and obtained written approval from seven bishops. Thereupon he asked permission from Bishop Boussen, of Bruges, to found a congregation. The bishop consented, but, before the actual foundation, required Ryken to pass a year's novitiate, which he fulfilled with the Redemptorists.

The Xaverian Brothers (q. v.) were established at Bruges in 1839 The beginning was hard, the founder having, with two or three companions, to struggle against disheartening obstacles. Courage and energy prevailed, and after a few years came brighter days. Brother Francis pronounced the vows of religion in 1846. In 1860, after holding the office of Superior General of the Xaverians for twenty-seven years, he was relieved of his duties on account of failing strength. At the time of his death the Xaverians were firmly settled in Belgium, England, and the United States. In Ryken's character the conspicuous traits were optimistic faith, rigor towards self, and zeal for the observance of the rule.

BROTHER FRANCIS XAVIER (Theodore James Ryken): A Life Sketch (Baltimore, 1904); VAN TOURNHOUT, Fragments from the History of the Xaverian Brothers (Baltimore, 1911).

BROTHER ISIDORE

Manoel de Sa

Portuguese theologian and exegete, b. at Villa do Conde (Province Entre-Minho-e-Douro), 1530; d. at Arona (Italy), 30 Dec., 1596. He distinguished himself as a student at the University of Coimbra, and at the age of fifteen joined the Society of Jesus. He soon afterward taught philosophy, first at Coimbra, and next at Gandia, where he also acted as tutor to St. Francis Borgia, then Duke of Gandia. In 1557, he became one of the early professors of the Roman College, and commented for two years on the prophecies of Osee and the "Summa" of St. Thomas. Exhausted by his labours, he discontinued his lectures, and visited the houses of the Society in Tuscany. Restored to health, he returned to the Roman College, where he filled the chair of exegesis, and found time to give missions in various places, preaching with an eloquence truly apostolic. His reputation for scholarship induced Pius V to appoint him as a member of the commission in charge of preparing the authentic edition of the Septuagint. This did not prevent him from continuing his apostolic labours and from founding several houses of his order in Upper Italy. After residing for a time at Genoa, he withdrew to the professed house of Arona (Diocese of Milan), where he died. His exegetical works are: "Scholia in Quatuor Evangelia" (Antwerp, 1596), and "Notationes in totam Scripturam Sacram" (Antwerp, 1598), both of which passed thrrough several editions. However short, Sa's annotations clearly set forth the literal sense of Holy Writ, and bespeak a solid erudition, despite a few inaccuracies which have been sharply rebuked by Protestant critics. His theological treatise entitled "Aphorismi Confessariorum ex Doctorum sententiis collecti" (Venice, 1595), however remarkable, was censured in 1603, apparently because the Master of the Sacred Palace treated some of its maxims as contrary to opinions commonly received among theologians, but it was later corrected and has recently removed from the Roman Index (1900). Sa's life of John of Texeda, the Capuchin confessor of St. Francis Borgia, when Duke of Gandia, has not been published.

DE BACKER, Biblioth. des Ecrivains de la Compagnie de Jésus (Liège, 1853); HURTER, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1907).

FRANCIS E. GIGOT

Angel de Saavedra Remírez de Baquedano

Spanish poet and statesman, b. at Cordova, 10 March, 1791; d. at Madrid, 22 June, 1865. He was the second son of Juan Martín de Saavedra, Duque de Rivas, and succeeded to the title upon the death without issue of his elder brother in 1834. At eleven he entered the Seminario de Nobles at Madrid but left at sixteen to join the army. From 1808 to 1813 he took an active part in the Spanish War of Independence. From 1813 to 1820 he lived quietly in Seville, devoting his time to literary pursuits, and from 1820 to 1823 he distinguished himself as a member of the Cortes. He sided with the revolutionary party, and as a result, when Ferdinand VII came into power, he was forced to flee, escaping with difficulty to Gibraltar. From there he proceeded to London, and later to Malta where he remained five years during which he continued his literary activities, and then went to live in France. Upon the death of Ferdinand VII, he was able to return to Spain (1834). In 1836, he became minister of the interior in the cabinet headed by Isturiz, and in 1844 he was sent as ambassador to Naples where he remained until 1850. Besides being a poet of great merit, Saavedra had considerable skill as a painter, and during his exile in France, earned a living for himself and family by conducting a school for painting and by selling his pictures. But it is as a poet that he is best known. He published his first volume of "Poesias" in 1813 and in 1814, two tragedies, "Aliatur" and "El Duque de Aquitania". Only the first was presented. The works which place him in the front rank of Spanish poets are "El moro expósito", a narrative poem breathing a spirit of patriotism (1834), and the tragedy "Don Alvaro" (1835), presented with great success in Madrid and considered his best work. A complete edition of his works was published (5 vols., Madrid, 1854), under the title "Obras Completas", and in 1885 a complete edition with illustrations appeared ar Barcelona in two volumes.

DE BENA in La Biblioteca de Autores Espanoles, II (Madrid, 1848); CANETE, Autores dramaticos contemporaneos, I (Madrid, 1881).

VENTURA FUENTES

Saba and Sabeans

This Saba (Sheba) must not be confounded with Saba (Seba) in Ethiopia of Is., xliii, 3; xlv, 14. It lies in the Southern Arabian Jôf about 200 miles north-west of Aden. The Sabeans are mentioned in the Bible as a distant people (Joel, iii, 8), famous traders (Ez., xxvii,22-3; xxxviii, 13; Job, vi, 19), who exported gold (Is., lx,6; Ps., lxxiii, 15 (R.V.); Ez., xxxviii, 13), precious stones (Ez., xxvii, 22), perfumes (Jer., vi, 20), incense (Is., lx, 6), and perhaps slaves (Joel, ibid.), and practised brigandage. The genealogies of Genesis connect them now with Dadan, as sons of Regma (x,7; cf. I Par., i, 9) and of Jecsan (xxv, 3; cf. I Par., i, 32), now with Asarmoth (Hadhramôt), as sons of Jecsan (x, 26-8, cf.,I Par., i, 20-22). These details point to two Sabas, one in the south contiguous to Hadhramot, another in the north near Taima (Job, i, 15; vi, 19) and El 'Ela (cf. "Comptes rendus de l'académie des Inscriptions" etc., June 1910); but which was the original home of the Sabeans, cannot yet be decided. Hommel indeed places it in the north, near Idumean Dedan, and identifies it with Aribi-Yareb (whose queens figure in Assyrian inscriptions), with the Saba, whose queen visited Solomon (III Kings, x), which is probably mentioned as tributary to Theglathphalasar III (745-27 B.C.), and whose ruler, Ithamara, paid tribute to Sargon in 715 B.C. Thence (according to Glaser) the Sabeans moved south in the eighth or ninth century and established their kingdom on the ruins of the Minaean power. This theory is plausible and solves the difficulty of III Kings, x; but the identification of Saba with Aribi-Yareb is arbitrary, and all present evidence disproves the existence of kings in Saba till much later. Sargon, who lavishes the title of King on his tributaries, refuses it to Ithamara, the Yethamara of Sabean inscriptions, and these inscriptions point to a long period of rule by Mukarribs (priest-kings), ten of whose names have been preserved.

Their capital was Çirwah. Authorities agree in dating their rule from the beginning of the tenth century B.C., and in making the advent of the kings contemporaneous with the destruction of the Minaean kingdom. Here agreement ceases. Glaser, e.g. dates the Sabean kings from 820, Müller from 750, and they can certainly not be placed later than 500 B.C., since at least seventeen of them reigned before 115 B.C. At that date a new era begins. The Himayarites (Homeritae of classical geography) overthrew in that year the Kingdom of Saba, and founded the "Kingdom of Saba and Raidân". In 25 B.C. the army of Aelius Gallus failed miserably before the walls of Marib, the Sabean capital. About A.D. 300 the ever-increasing Abyssinian immigrants overthrew the Himyarite dynasty, and inaugurated the "Kingdom of Saba, Raidan, Hadhramôt, and Yemen", which, after yielding place for an interval to a Judaeo-Sabean kingdom and violent religious persecution (cf. Pereira, "Historia dos Martyres de Nagran", Lisbon, 1899) was re-established by Byzantine intervention in 525. After the rout of the Viceroy Abraha at Mecca in 570, the Persians seized their opportunity, and Southern Arabia became a Persian province till its incorporation in Islam.

Modern discoveries confirm the classical and Biblical accounts of Sabean prosperity. Ruins of fortresses and walled towns of temples and irrigation-works, cover the land. Of the immense dams the most famous is that of the capital, Marib, which did service, after repeated restoration, down to the sixth century of our era. Thanks to irrigation, agriculture flourished. Gold, too, abounded, with silver and precious spices. Brigandage reinforced the natural products. But the chief source of wealth was the trade route from India to Egypt and northern Syria, which passed through the Sabean capital (cf. Müller, "Der Islam im Morgen- und Abendland", I, 24 sqq.). Accordingly, when, in the first century after Christ, the Ptolomies exchanged the Southern Arabian route for a direct road from Alexandria to Egypt, the decline of Sabean prosperity began. Thus the bursting of the dam of Marib was the consequence, not, as Arabic legend pretended, the cause, of the disintegration of the Sabean tribes. The Sabean polity seems to have been based on the feudal system. Two kings appear to have shared the supreme power, but the monarchy was not hereditary, and passed on the king's death to the first male born during the reign to one of the leading families. The heads of these families shared with the king the exclusive right to sanction the building of castles, and are even called the kings of their own tribes. Of other magistrates-e.g. the eponymous magistrates- we know little more than the names. A wide principle of individual equality seems to have prevailed; strangers were admitted as clients; slaves abounded. Women appear to enjoyed equal rights with their consorts and are sometimes called "mistress of the castle". Concubinage prevailed, but not polygamy. Sabean art has in some respects merited high praise, but it lacks originality, and betrays at different periods the influence of the surrounding civilizations. The coins, the king's head with an owl on the reverse, are sometimes of fine workmanship (cf. Schlumberger, "Le trésor de San'a Daris", 1880). The earliest date from the fifth century B.C. Many recent writers attribute to the Sabeans the invention of the Semitic alphabet.

The supreme god of Saba was Il-Mukah, to whom was joined in the inferior capacity of spouse or daughter, the sun-goddess Shamsh. Other deities were Athtar, the morning or evening star, Ta'lab, "Patron of Riyâm", Haubas, Rammâm, and others-names which may be merely epithets of the moon-god. Submission towards and intimate affinity to the deity is the characteristic of the Sabean religion. The inscriptions commemorate gratitude for success in arms, "man-slaying", health, preservation, safe return, booty, and rich crops. Worshippers offer to the gods themselves and their children, register vows, and attest their fulfilment. Votive offerings consisted in gilt images of the object, and one king dedicated as many as thirty golden ("gilt") statues on one occasion. We can only make a passing allusion to the predominant influence attributed by some savants to Southern Arabia on the formation of the Mosaic institutions. Especial stress is laid on the Arabian origin of the Divine name and of many religious terms, on the scruple of the Arabians about using the Divine name, their designation of priests as Levites, their laws of ceremonial purity, their imageless worship, their sin-offerings etc., especially when viewed in the light of Abraham's ancestry, and of the intimate connection of Moses with Midian. Apart, however, from the fact that the question belongs to the Minaean rather than to the Sabean problem, the materials at present at our disposal do not warrant any probable solution of the question.

Classical Geographers: GLASER, Skizze der Geschichte u. Geographic Arabiens (Berlin, 1890). Arabic Geographers: see especially Müller, Die Burgen u. Schölsser Südarabiens nach dem Iklîl des Hamdani (Vienna, 1879). Sabean Inscriptions: Corpus inscr. Semit., IV (Paris, 1889--); HOMMEL, Südarabische Chrestomathie (Munich, 1892); MULLER and MORDTMAN, Sabäische Denkmäler (Vienna, 1883); MULLER, Sudarabische Alterthumer im Kunsthistorische Hofmuseum (Vienna, 1889).
General Reference: HOMMEL, Aufsätze u. Abhandlungen (Munich, 1892); WEBER, Arabien vor dem Islam (Leipzig, 1901); Idem, Studien zur Sudarab. Altertumskunde, I-III (Berlin, 1901-7); GRIMME, Mohammed (Munster, 1895); KÖNIG, Fünf neue Landschaftenamen im a. Test. (Berlin, 1902); HARTMANN, Der islamische Orient, II (Leipzig, 1909); HASTINGS, Dict. of the Bible.
For Biblical Aspect: HOMMEL, Ancient Hebrew Tradition (New York and London, 1897); IDEM in HILPRECHT, Explorations in Bible Lands (Edinburg, 1903), 741-52; LANDSDORFER, Die Bibel u. die s¨darab. Altertumsforschung (Munster, 1910); GRIMME in Zeitschrift der morgenländischen Geschichte, LXI, 3S sqq.
Sabaean Religion: NIELSEN, Die altarab. Mondreligion (Strasburg, 1904); IDEM, Der Sabäische Gott Il-Mukah (Leipzig, 1910).
Modern Explorations: HOMMEL in Hilprecht, op.cit., 697-726; WEBER, Forschungsreisen in Südarabien bis zum Auftreten Glasers (Leipzig,1906); IDEM, E. Glasers Forschungsreisen in Südarabien (Leipzig, 1908).

J.A. HARTINGER

Sabaoth

(In Hebrew, plural form of "host" or "army"). The word is used almost exclusively in conjunction with the Divine name as a title of majesty: "the Lord of Hosts", or "the Lord God of Hosts". The origins and precise signification of the title are matters of more or less plausible conjecture. According to some scholars the "hosts" represent, at least primitively, the armies of Israel over whom Jehovah exercised a protecting influence. Others opine that the word refers to the hosts of heaven, the angels, and by metaphor to the stars and entire universe (cf. Genesis 2:1). In favour of the latter view is the fact that the title does not occur in the Pentateuch or Josue though the armies of Israel are often mentioned, while it is quite common in the prophetic writings where it would naturally have the more exalted and universal meaning.

JAMES F. DRISCOLL

St. Sabbas

( Also spelled Sabas).

Hermit, born at Mutalaska near Caesarea in Cappadocia, 439; died in his laura 5 December, 532. He entered a Basilian monastery aat the age of eight, came to Jerusalem in 456, lived five years in a cavern as a disciple of St. Euthymius, and, after spending some time in various monasteries, founded (483) the Laura Mar Sabe (restored in 1840) in the gorges of the Cedron, southeast of Jerusalem. Because some of his monks opposed his rule and demanded a priest as their abbot, Patriarch Salustius of Jerusalem ordained him in 491 and appointed archimandrite of all the monasteries in Palestine in 494. The opposition continued and he withdrew to the new laura which he had built near Thekoa. A strenuous opponent of the Monophysites and the Origenists he tried to influence the emperors against them by calling personally on Emperor Anastasius at Constantinople in 511 and on Justinian in 531. His authorship of "Typicon S. Sabæ" (Venice, 1545), a regulation for Divine worship throughout the year as well as his authorship of a monastic rule bearing the same title (Kurtz in "Byzant, Zeitschrift", III, Leipzig, 1894, 167-70), is doubtful. After him was named the Basilica of St. Sabas with its former monastery on the Aventine at Rome. His feast is on 5 December. Other saints of this name are:

• St. Sabbas, a Goth, martyred 12 April, 372, by being drowned in the Musæus, a tributary of the Danube;
• St. Sabbas, also a Goth, martyred with about seventy others at Rome, under Aurelian;
• St. Julianus Sabbas, a hermit near Edessa, d. about 380;
• St. Sabbas the Younger, a Basilian abbot, 6 February, 990 or 991, at the monastery of St. Caesarius in Rome;
• St. Sabbas, Archbishop of Serbia, d. at Trnawa, 14 January, 1237.

A Life in Greek by Cyril of Scythopolis was edited by Cotelier in Eccl. Graecae Monum., III (Paris, 1686) 220-376, and by Ponjalovskij together with an Old-Slavonian version (St. Petersburg, 1890); another old Life in Greek was edited by Koiklydes (Jerusalem, 1905).

MICHAEL OTT

Sabbatarians, Sabbatarianism

(Heb. Shabot rest).

The name, as appears from its origin, denotes those individuals or parties who are distinguished by some peculiar opinion or practice in regard to the observance of the Sabbath or day of rest. In the first place it is applied to those rigorists who apparently confound the Christian Sunday with the Jewish Sabbath and, not content with the prohibition of servile work, will not allow many ordinary and innocent occupations on the Sunday. This form of Sabbatariansm has chiefly prevailed among Scottish and English Protestants and was at one time very common. Of late years it has sensibly declined; and there is now a tendency towards the opposite extreme of laxity in observing the law of Sunday rest. These Sabbatarians never formed a distinct sect; but were merely a party of rigorists scattered among many and various Protestant denominations. At the same time it is not only in their name that they have something in common with the distinctive sects of Sabbatarians properly so-called, for their initial error in neglecting the distinction between the Christian weekly festival and the Jewish Sabbath is likewise the starting-point of the Sabbatarian sects; and these carry their mistaken principle to its logical conclusion.

This logical development of judaizing Sabbatarianism is curiously illustrated in the history of a sect of Sabbatarian Socinians founded in Transylvania in Hungary towards the end of the sixteenth century. Their first principle, which led them to separate from the rest of the Unitarian body, was their belief that the day of rest must be observed with the Jews on the seventh day of the week and not on the Christian Sunday. And as we learn from Schrodl the greater part of this particular Sabbatarian sect joined the orthodox Jews in 1874, thus carrying out in practice the judaizing principle of their founders. Although there does not seem to be any immediate or obvious connection between the observance of the seventh day and the rejection of infant baptism, these two errors in doctrine and discipline are often found together. Thus Sabbatarianism made many recruits among the Mennonite Anabaptists in Holland and among the English Baptists who, much as they differ on other points of doctrine, agree in the rejection of paedo-baptism. And it is presumably a result of this contact with Anabaptism that Sabbatarianism is also found in association with fanatical views on political or social questions. The most conspicuous of English Sabbatarian Baptists was Francis Bampfield (d. 1683), brother of a Devonshire baronet and originally a clergyman of the English Church. He was the author of several works and ministered to a congregation of Sabbatarian Baptists in London. He suffered imprisonment for his heterodoxy and eventually died in Newgate. In America the Baptists who profess Sabbatarianism are known as Seventh-Day Baptists.

But if the greater number of Sabbatarians have come from the Baptists, the most amazing of them was at one time associated with the Wesleyan Methodists. This was the prophetess Joanna Southcott (1750-1814), like Bampfield, a native of Devonshire, who composed many spiritual poems and prophetical writings, and became the mother of a sect of Sabbatarians, also known as Southcottians or Joannas. Modern Englishmen who are apt to smile at medieval credulity can scarcely find in Catholic countries in the "darkest" days of ignorance any instance of a more amazing credulity than that of Joanna Southcott's disciples, who confidently awaited the birth of the promised Messiah whom the prophetess of sixty-four was to bring into the world. They gave practical proof of their faith by preparing a costly cradle. Nor did they abandon all hope when the poor deluded woman died of the disease which had given a false appearance of pregnancy. The sect survived for many years; and when in 1874 her tombstone was shattered by an accidental explosion, the supposed portent re-enkindled the faith of her followers.

The American sect of Seventh-Day Adventists may be added to the list of Sabbatarian communities, among which their large numbers should give them a conspicuous place. To these may be added the Jewish sect of Sabbatarians, though these derive their name not from the Sabbath, but from their founder, Sabbatian Zebi or Zevi (1626-76). His teaching was not concerned with any special observance of the Sabbath, but as a form of false Messianism it may be compared with the mission of Joanna Southcott. The two stories show some strange points of resemblance especially in the invincible credulity of the disciples of the pretended Jewish Messiah and of the deluded Devonshire prophetess. (See bibliography of ADVENTISTS)

W.H. KENT

Sabbath

(Heb. shabbath, cessation, rest; Gr. Sabbaton; Lat. Sabbatum).

The seventh day of the week among the Hebrews, the day being counted from sunset to sunset, that is, from Friday evening to Saturday evening.

Prescriptions concerning the Sabbath

The Sabbath was a day of rest "sanctified to the Lord" (Ex., xvi, 23; xxxi, 15; Deut., v, 14). All work was forbidden, the prohibition including strangers as well as Israelites, beasts as well as men (Ex., xx, 8-10; xxxi, 13-17; Deut., v, 12-14). The following particular actions are mentioned as forbidden: cooking (ex., xvi, 23); gathering manna (xvi, 26 sqq.); plowing and reaping (xxxiv, 21); lighting a fire (for cooking, xxxv, 3); gathering wood (num., xv, 32 sqq.); carrying burdens (jer., xvii, 21-22); pressing grapes, bringing in sheaves, and loading animals (II Esd., xiii, 15); trading (Ibid., 15 sqq.). Travelling, at least with a religious object, was not forbidden, the prohibition of Ex., xvi, 29, referring only to leaving the camp to gather food; it is implied in the institution of holy assemblies (Lev., xxiii, 2-3, Heb. text), and was customary in the time of the kings (IV Kings, iv, 23). At a later period, however, all movement was restricted to a distance of 2000 cubits (between five and six furlongs), or a "sabbath day's journey" (Acts, I, 12). Total abstention from work was prescribed only for the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement; on the other feast-days servile work alone was prohibited (Ex., xii, 16; Lev., xxiii, 7 sqq.). Wilful violation of the Sabbath was punished with death (Ex., xxxi, 14-15; Num., xv, 32-36). The prohibition of work made it necessary to prepare food, and whatever might be needed, the day before the Sabbath, hence known as the day of preparation, or Parasceve (paraskeue; Matt., xxvii, 62; Mark, xv, 42; etc.). Besides abstention from work, special religious observances were prescribed. (a) The daily sacrifices were doubled, that is two lambs of a year old without blemish were offered up in the morning, and two in the evening, with twice the usual quantity of flour tempered with oil and of the wine of libation (num., xxvii, 3-10). (b) New loaves of proposition were placed before the Lord (Lev., xxiv, 5; 1 Par., ix, 32). (c) A sacred assembly was to be held in the sanctuary for solemn worship (Lev., xxiii, 2-3, Heb. text; Ezech., xlvi, 3). We have no details as to what was done by those living at a distance from the sanctuary. Synagogal worship belongs to the post-Exilic period; still it is probably a development of an old custom. In earlier days the people were wont to go to hear the instructions of the Prophets (IV Kings, iv, 23), and it is not unlikely that meetings for edification and prayer were common from the oldest times.

Meaning of the Sabbath

The Sabbath was the consecration of one day of the weekly period to God as the Author of the universe and of time. The day thus being the Lord's, it required that man should abstain from working for his own ends and interests, since by working he would appropriate the day to himself, and that he should devote his activity to God by special acts of positive worship. After the Sinaitic covenant God stood to Israel in the relation of Lord of that covenant. The Sabbath thereby also became a sign, and its observance an acknowledgment of the pact: "See that thou keep my sabbath; because it is a sign between me and you in your generations; that you may know that I am the Lord, who sanctify you" (Ex., xxxi, 13). But while the Sabbath was primarily a religious day, it had a social and philanthropic side. It was also intended as a day of rest and relaxation, particularly for the slaves (Deut., v, 14). Because of the double character, religious and philanthropic, of the day, two different reasons are given for its observance. The first is taken from God's rest on the seventh day of creation: "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, . . .and rested on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it" (Ex., xx, 11; xxxi, 17). This does not mean that the Sabbath was instituted at the Creation, as some commentators have thought, but that the Israelites were to imitate God's example and rest on the day which He had sanctified by His rest. The Sabbath as the sign of the Sinaitic covenant recalled the deliverance from the bondage of Egypt. Hence, in the second place, the Israelites are bidden to remember that they were once slaves in Egypt, and should therefore in grateful remembrance of their deliverance rest themselves and allow their bond-servants to rest (Deut., v, 14-15). As a reminder of God's benefits to Israel the Sabbath was to be a day of joy (Is., lvii, 13) and such it was in practice (cf. Osee, II, 11; Lam., II, 6). No fasting was done on the Sabbath (Judith, viii, 6) on the contrary, the choicest meals were served to which friends were invited.

Origin of the Sabbath

The Sabbath is first met with in connection with the fall of the manna (Ex., xvi, 22 sqq.), but it there appears as an institution already known to the Israelites. The Sinaitic legislation therefore only gave the force of law to an existing custom. The origin of this custom is involved in obscurity. It was not borrowed from the Egyptians, as the week of seven days closing with a day of rest was unknown to them. In recent years a Babylonian origin has been advocated. A lexicographical tablet gives shabattu as the equivalent of um nuh libbi, "the day of the appeasement of the heart" (of the gods). Furthermore, a religious calendar of the intercalary month Elul and of the month Marchesvan mentions the 7th, 14th, 21st, 28th, and 19th days, the latter probably because it was the 49th (7x7) day from the beginning of the preceding month, as days on which the king, the magician, and the physician were to abstain from certain acts. The king, for instance, was not to eat food prepared with fire, put on bright garments, ride in a chariot, or exercise acts of authority. These days were then, days of propitiation, and therefore shabattu days. We have thus periods of seven days the last day of which is marked by abstention from certain actions, and called shabattu, in other words the equivalent of the Sabbath. A Babylonian origin is not in itself improbable, since Chaldea was the original home of the Hebrews, but there is no proof that such is actually the case. The reading shabattu is uncertain, shapattu being at lest equally probable. Besides, there is no evidence that these days were called shabattu; the signs so read are found affixed only to the 15th day of the month, where, however, sha patti, "division" of the month is the more probable reading. These days, moreover, differed entirely from the Sabbath. They were not days of general rest, business being transacted as on other days. The abstention from certain acts had for object to appease the anger of the gods; the days were, therefore, days of penance, not of joy like the Sabbath. Lastly, these days followed the phases of the moon, whereas the Sabbath was independent of them. Since the Sabbath always appear as a weekly feast without connexion with the moon, it cannot be derived, as is done by some writers, from the Babylonian feast of the full moon, or fifteenth day of the month, which, moreover, has only doubtful claim to the designation shabattu.

Observance of the Sabbath

Violations of the Sabbath seem to have been rather common before and during the exile (Jer., xvii, 19 sqq., Ezech., xx, 13, 16, 21, 24; xxii, 8; xxii, 38); hence the Prophets laid great stress on its proper observance (Amos, viii, 5; Is., I, 13; lvii, 13-14; Jer., loc. cit.; Ezech., xx, 12 sqq.). After the Restoration the day was openly profaned, and Nehemias found some difficulty in stopping the abuse (II Esd., xiii, 15-22). Soon, however, a movement set in towrds a meticulous observance which went far beyond what the law contemplated. At the time of the Machabees the faithful Jews allowed themselves to be massacred rather than fight on the Sabbath (I Mach., ii, 35-38); Mathathias and his followers realizing the folly of such a policy decided to defend themselves if attacked on the Sabbath, though they would not assume the offensive (I Mach., ii, 40-41; II Mach., viii, 26). Under the influence of pharasaic rigorism a system of minute and burdensome regulations was elaborated, while the higher purpose of the Sabbath was lost sight of. The Mishna treatise Shabbath enumerates thirty-nine main heads of forbidden actions, each with subdivisions. Among the main heads are such trifling actions as weaving two threads, sewing two stitches, writing two letters, etc. To pluck two ears of wheat was considered as reaping, while to rub them was a species of threshing (cf. Matt., xii, 1-2; Mark, ii, 23-24; Luke, vi, 1-2). To carry an object of the weight of a fig was carrying a burden; hence to carry a bed (John, v, 10) was a gross breach of the Sabbath. It was unlawful to cure on the Sabbath, or to apply a remedy unless life was endangered (cf. Matt., xii, 10 sqq.; Mark, iii, 2 sqq.; Luke vi, 7 sqq.). This explains why the sick were brought to Christ after sundown (Mark, I, 32). It was even forbidden to use a medicament the preceding day if it produced its effect on the Sabbath. In the time of Christ it was allowed to lift an animal out of a pit (Matt., xii, 11; Luke xiv, 5), but this was later modified so that it was not permitted to lay hold of it and lift it out, though it might be helped to come out of itself by means of mattresses and cushions. These examples, and they are not the worst, show the narrowness of the system. Some of the rules were, however, found too burdensome, and a treatise of the Mishna (Erubin) tempers their rigour by subtle devices.

The Sabbath in the New Testament

Christ, while observing the Sabbath, set himself in word and act against this absurd rigorism which made man a slave of the day. He reproved the scribes and Pharisees for putting an intolerable burden on men's shoulders (Matt., xxiii, 4), and proclaimed the principle that "the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath" (Mark, ii, 27). He cured on the Sabbath, and defended His disciples for plucking ears of corn on that day. In His arguments with the Pharisees on this account He showed that the Sabbath is not broken in cases of necessity or by acts of charity (Matt., xii, 3 sqq.; Mark, ii, 25 sqq.; Luke, vi, 3 sqq.; xiv, 5). St. Paul enumerates the Sabbath among the Jewish observances which are not obligatory on Christians (Col., ii, 16; Gal., iv, 9-10; Rom., xiv, 5). The gentile converts held their religious meetings on Sunday (Acts, xx, 7; 1 Cor., xvi, 2) and with the disappearance of the Jewish Christian churches this day was exclusively observed as the Lord's Day. (See SUNDAY.)

EDERSHEIM, "Life and Times of Jesus II" (New York, 1897), 52-62, 777 sqq.; SCHURER, "Hist. Of the Jewish People" (New York, 1891), see index; PINCHES, "Sapattu, the Babylonian Sabbaath" in "Proceed. Of Soc. Of Bibl. Archeol." (1904), 51-56; LAGRANGE, "Relig. Semit." (Paris, 1905), 291-5; DHORME in "Rev. bibl." (1908), 462-6; HERN, "Siebenzahl und Sabbath bei den Babyloniern un im A. T." (Leipzig, 1907); IDEM, Der Israelitische Sabbath" (Munster, 1909); KEIL, "Babel und Bibelfrage" (Trier, 1903), 38-44; LOTZ, "Quaestiones de histor. sabbati" (1883); LESETRE in VIGOUROUX, "Dict. de la bible", s.v. "Sabbat."

F. BECHTEL

Sabbatical Year

( Shenath shabbathon, "Year of rest"; Septuagint eniautos anapauseos; Vulgate annus requietionis).

The seventh year, devoted to cessation of agriculture, and holding in the period of seven years a place analogous to that of the Sabbath in the week; also called "Year of Remission".

Three prescriptions were to be observed during the year (Exodus 23:10-11; Leviticus 25:1-7; Deuteronomy 15:1-11, 31:10-13):

• The land was to lie fallow and all agricultural labor was to be suspended. There was to be neither plowing nor sowing, nor were the vines and olives to be attended to. The spontaneous yield was not to be garnered, but was to be left in the fields for common use, and what was not used was to be abandoned to the cattle and wild animals (Exodus 23:10-11; Leviticus 25:1-7). Of the fruit trees the olive is alone mentioned, because its oil was one of the three great agricultural products; but the law probably applied also to other trees. The prescribed rest was for the land, not for man. Hence work other than agricultural was not forbidden, nor even work in the fields which had no direct connection with raising crops, such as building walls of enclosure, digging wells, etc.
• No crops being reaped during the sabbatical year, the payment of debts would have been a great hardship, if not an impossibility, for many. Hence the creditor was commanded "to withhold his hand" and not to exact a debt from an Israelite, though he might demand it of strangers, who were not bound to abstain from agricultural pursuits (Deuteronomy 15:1-3, Hebrew text). The Talmudists and many after them understand the law to mean the remission of the debt; but modern commentators generally hold that it merely suspended the obligation to pay and deferred the creditor from extracting the debt during the year. The Douay translation "He to whom anything is owing from his friend or neighbour or brother cannot demand it again" is incorrect.
• During the sabbatical year the Law was to be read on the Feast of Tabernacles to all Israel -- men, women, and children -- as well as to the strangers within the gates, that they might know and fear the Lord, and fulfill all the words of the Law (Deuteronomy 31:10-13).

The law concerning the release of Hebrew slaves in the seventh year (Exodus 21:2 sqq.; Deuteronomy 15:12 sqq.) is wrongly connected by some writers with the sabbatical year. That there was no special connection between the two is sufficiently shown by the requirement of six years of servitude, the beginning of which was not affixed to any particular year, and by the law prescribing the liberation of Hebrew slaves in the year of jubilee, which immediately followed the seventh sabbatical year (Leviticus 25:39 sqq.).

Since the sabbatical year was preceded by six sowings and six harvests (Exodus 23:10), it began with autumn, the time of sowing, and probably coincided with the civil year, which began with the month of Tishri (September-October); some commentators, however, think that like the year of jubilee it began on the tenth of the month.

The year was not well observed before the Captivity (cf. II Paralipomenon 36:21 and Leviticus 26:34, 35, 43). After the return, the people covenanted to let the land lie fallow and to exact no debt in the seventh year (II Esdras 10:31), and thereafter it was regularly kept. The occurrence of a sabbatical year is mentioned in I Machabees 6:49 and 6:53, and its observance is several times referred to by Josephus (Jewish Wars I:2:4; Antiquities XI:8:5-6; XIII:8:1; XIV:16:2).

The absence of any allusion to the celebration of the sabbatical year in pre-exilic times has led modern critics to assert that it was instituted at the time of the Restoration, or that at least the custom of allowing all fields to lie fallow simultaneously was then introduced. But it is hardly credible that the struggling community would have adopted a custom calculated to have a seriously disturbing effect on economic conditions, and without example among other nations, unless it had the sanction of venerable antiquity.

The main object for which the sabbatical year was instituted was to bring home to the people that the land was the Lord's, and that they were merely His tenants at will (Leviticus 25:23). In that year He exercised His right of sovereign dominion. Secondarily it was to excite their faith and reliance on God (Leviticus 25:20-22), and to stimulate their faithfulness to His Law (Deuteronomy 31:10-13).

F. BECHTEL

Sabbatine Privilege

The name Sabbatine Privilege is derived from the apocryphal Bull "Sacratissimo uti culmine" of John XXII, 3 March, 1322. In this Bull the pope is made to declare that the Mother of God appeared to him, and most urgently recommended to him the Carmelite Order and its confratres and consorores. The Blessed Virgin asked that John, as Christ's representative on earth, should ratify the indulgences which He had already granted in heaven (a plenary indulgence for the members of the Carmelite Order and a partial indulgence, remitting the third part of the temporal punishment due to their sins, for the members of the confraternity); she herself would graciously descend on the Saturday (Sabbath after their death and liberate and conduct to heaven all who were in purgatory. Then follow the conditions which the confratres and consorores must fulfill. At the end of the Bull the pope declares:

Istam ergo sanctam Indulgentiam accepto, roboro et in terris confirmo, sicut, propter merita Virginis Matris, gratiose Jesus Christus concessit in coelis

(This holy indulgence I therefore accept; I confirm and ratify it on earth, just as Jesus Christ has graciously granted it in heaven on account of the merits of the Virgin Mother).

Our first information of this Bull is derived from a work of the Carmelite Balduinus Leersius ("Collectaneum exemplorum et miraculorum" in "Bibliotheca Carmelit.", I, Orleans, 1752, p. 210), who died in 1483. The authenticity of the Bull was keenly contested especially in the seventeenth century, but was vigorously defended by the Carmelites. The chief opponents of its authenticity were Joannnes Launoy and the Bollandist, Daniel Papebroch, both of whom published works against it. Today it is universally regarded by scholars as inauthentic, even the "Monumenta histor. Carmel." of the Carmelite B. Zimmerman (I, Lérins, 1907, pp. 356-63) joining in rejecting it.

In 1379, in consequence of the hostility still shown to their order and especially to its name, the Carmelites besought Urban VI to grant an indulgence of 3 years and 3 quarantines to all the faithful who designated them and their order "Ordinem et Fratres B. Mariae Genetricis Dei de Monte Carmeli" (Bullar. Carmelit. I, 141); this was granted by Urban on 26 April, 1379. It is difficult to understand why, instead of asking for this indulgence, they did not appeal to the old promise and the recent "Bulla sabbatina", if the scapular was then known and the promise to St. Simon Stock and this Bull were genuine and incontestable. While the Bull of John XXII was ratified by some later popes in the sixteenth century (cf. Bullar. Carmelit., II, 47, 141), neither the Bull itself in its wording nor its general contents were thereby declared authentic and genuine. On the contrary, the ratification by Gregory XIII on 18 September, 1577 (Bullar. Carmelit., II, 196), must be interpreted quite in the sense of the later Decree of the Holy Office. This Decree, which appeared in 1613, expresses no opinion concerning the genuineness of the Bull, but confines itself to declaring what the Carmelites may preach of its contents. The Bull forbids the painting of pictures representing, in accordance with the wording of the Bull, the Mother of God descending into purgatory (cum descensione beatae Virginis ad animas in Purgatorio liberandas). It must be also remembered that the latest authentic summary of indulgences of the Carmelite Order of 31 July, 1907 (Acta S. Sedis, XL, 753 sqq.), approved by the Congregation of Indulgences, says nothing either of the Bull of John XXII, of the indulgences granted by him, or of the Sabbatine privilege of the Carmelites. To learn the meaning and importance of the Sabbatine privilege, we may turn only to the above-mentioned Decree of the Holy Office. It was inserted in its entirety (except for the words forbidding the painting of the pictures) into the list of the indulgences and privileges of the Confraternity of the Scapular of Mount Carmel.

We reproduce here the whole passage dealing with the Sabbatine privilege, as it appears in the summary approved by the Congregation of Indulgences on 4 July, 1908. It is noteworthy that the Bull of John XXII, which was still mentioned in the previous summary approved on 1 December, 1866, is no longer referred to (cf. "Rescript. authent. S.C. Indulg.", Ratisbon, 1885, p. 475). Among the privileges, which are mentioned after the indulgences, the following occurs in the first place: "The privilege of Pope John XXII, commonly [vulgo] known as the Sabbatine, which was approved and confirmed by Clement VII ("Ex clementi", 12 August 1530), St. Pius V ("Superna dispositione", 18 Feb., 1566), Gregory XIII ("Ut laudes", 18 Sept., 1577), and others, and also by the Holy Roman General Inquisition under Paul V on 20 January, 1613, in a Decree to the following effect:

It is permitted to the Carmelite Fathers to preach that the Christian people may piously believe in the help which the souls of brothers and members, who have departed this life in charity, have worn in life the scapular, have ever observed chastity, have recited the Little Hours [of the Blessed Virgin], or, if they cannot read, have observed the fast days of the Church, and have abstained from flesh meat on Wednesdays and Saturdays (except when Christmas falls on such days), may derive after death -- especially on Saturdays, the day consecrated by the Church to the Blessed Virgin -- through the unceasing intercession of Mary, her pious petitions, her merits, and her special protection.

With this explanation and interpretation, the Sabbatine privilege no longer presents any difficulties, and Benedict XIV adds his desire that the faithful should rely on it (Opera omnia, IX, Venice, 1767, pp. 197 sqq.). Even apart from the Bull and the tradition or legend concerning the apparition and promise of the Mother of God the interpretation of the Decree cannot be contested.

The Sabbatine privilege thus consists essentially in the early liberation from purgatory, through the special intercession and petition of Mary, which she graciously exercises in favour of her devoted servants preferentially -- as we may assume -- on the day consecrated to her, Saturday. Furthermore, the conditions for the gaining of the privilege are of such a kind as justify a special trust in the assistance of Mary. It is especially required of all who wish to share in the privilege that they faithfully preserve their chastity, and recite devoutly each day the Little Hours of the Blessed Virgin. However, all those who are bound to read their Breviary, fulfil the obligation of reciting the Little Hours by reading their Office. Persons who cannot read must (instead of reciting the Little Hours) observe all the fasts prescribed by the Church as they are kept in their home diocese or place of residence, and must in addition abstain from flesh meat on all Wednesdays and Saturdays of the year, except when Christmas falls on one of these days. The obligation to read the Little Hours and to abstain from flesh meat on Wednesday and Saturday may on important grounds be changed for other pious works; the faculty to sanction this change was granted to all confessors by Leo XIII in the Decree of the Congregation of Indulgences of 11 (14) June, 1901.

For the text of the Bull see Bullarium Carmelit., I (Rome, 1715), 61 sq.; for its defense cf. Carmelite authors, e.g. BROCARD, Receueil d'instructions (4th ed., Ghent, 1875); RAYNAUD, Scapulare Partheno-Carmeliticum (Cologne, 1658). For the explanation of the privilege, consult BERINGER, Die Ablasse (13th ed.), 659 sqq.

JOSEPH HILGERS

St. Sabina

Widow of Valentinus and daughter of Herod Metallarius, suffered martyrdom about 126. According to the Acts of the martyrdom, which however have no historic value, she lived at Rome and was converted to Christianity by her female slave Serapia. Serapia was put to death for her faith and later, in the same year, Sabina suffered martyrdom. In 430 her relics were brought to the Aventine, where a basilica, which is very interesting in the history of art, is called after St. Sabina. Originally the church was dedicated to both saints. The feast of St. Sabina is celebrated on 29 August.

KLEMENS LÖFFLER

Pope Sabinianus

The date of his birth is unknown, but he was consecrated pope probably 13 Sept., 604, and died 22 Feb., 606. The son of Bonus, he was born at Blera (Bieda) near Viterbo. In 593 he was sent by St. Gregory I as apocrisiarius or Apostolic nuncio to Constantinople; but in some respects his administration of the office did not come up to Gregory's expectations. He was not astute enough for the rulers of Byzantium. He returned to Rome in 597, and was chosen to succeed Gregory soon after the death of that great pontiff; but as the imperial confirmation of his election did not arrive for some months, he was not consecrated till September. The difficulties of his pontificate were caused by fear of the Lombards and by famine. When the Lombard danger had passed, Sabinianus opened the granaries of the Church, and sold corn to the people at one solidus (twelve shillings) for thirty pecks. Because he was unable or unwilling to allow the people to have the corn for little or nothing, there grew up in later times a number of idle legends in which his predecessor was represented punishing him for avarice. He is reputed to have restored to the secular clergy posts which St. Gregory had filled with monks. He was buried in St. Peter's.

Liber Pontificalis, ed. DUCHESNE, I (Paris, 1886), 315; Epp. Gregorii; 1, ed. EWALD (Berlin, 1891); MANN, Lives of the Popes in the early Middle Ages, I, 251 sq.

HORACE K. MANN

Louis de Sabran

Jesuit; born in Paris, 1 March, 1652; died at Rome, 22 Jan., 1732. His father, afterwards a marquis, was attached to the French embassy in London during the Commonwealth, and piously visited the martyrs Corby and Duckett (q.v.) before their deaths. He married an English lady (a Goring?), and Louis was sent to the English college of St. Omer, and entered among the English Jesuits. Distinguished for many talents, he became one of the royal chaplains to King James II, in 1685, preached with great diligence and was engaged in controversy with William Sherlock, dean of St. Paul's, and Edward Gee. On the outbreak of the Revolution in 1688 he was first sent to Portsmouth with the infant Prince of Wales, and then became involved in many adventures. He was repeatedly seized by the mob and maltreated, but as often escaped, and finally managed to slip over to France. He was subsequently appointed visitor of the Neopolitan Jesuits, and represented his province at Rome in the congregation of 1693, when the case of Father González (q.v.) was discussed. In 1699 the Prince-Bishop of Liège appointed him president of his episcopal seminary, which excited a furious attack from the Jansenistic party, and the bishop had to enforce order with soldiers. But once the crisis was past, Father Sabran's rule became perfectly successful, and in 1708 or 1709, he was made provincial. He then wrote to Father Metcalfe, a Jesuit in the North, about the progress of Jansenism, but his letter was intercepted, and was declared by some to portend that he intended to gain possession of Douai College, as he had done that of Liège. A long-drawn and somewhat bitter controversy ensued. After his provincialship he became rector of St. Omer (1712-5), then spiritual director at the English College, Rome, till death. The titles of his controversial tracts, will be found in Sommervogel, and he is alleged to have written a paper "Artes Bajanae" about 1701 against Jansenism.

SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. de la comp. de Jesús, VII (Paris, 1896), 359; FOLEY, Records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus, VII (London, 1883), 676; KIRK, Biographies of English Catholics in the Eighteenth Century, ed. POLLEN (London, 1903), 203; MSS. at Stonyhurst, etc.

J.H. POLLEN

Sabrata

A titular see in Tripolitana. Sabrata was a Phoenician town on the northern coast of Africa, between the two Syrta. With Oca and Leptis Magna it caused the Greek name Tripolis to be given to the region. Its Phoenician name, which occurs on coins and in an inscription at Thevesta, was hellenized Abrotomon, though Pliny (V, 4) makes these two separate towns. Sabrata became a Roman colony; Flavia Domitilla, Vespasian's first wife, was the daughter of Statilius Capella of Sabrata. Justinian fortified the town and built there a beautiful church. In the Middle Ages it continued to be an important market, to which the natives of the interior brought their corn; the Arab writers call it Sabrat en-Nefousa, from a powerful tribe, the Nefousa, formerly Christian. Sabrata is now represented by Zouagha, a small town called by Europeans Tripoli Vecchia, in the vilayet of Tripoli, fifty miles west of the town of Tripoli. Its ruins lie a little north of the village; they consist of crumbled ramparts, an amphitheatre, and landing-stage. Four of its bishops are known: Pompey in 233; Nados, present at the Conference of Carthage, 411; Vincent, exiled by Genseric about 450; Leo, exiled by Huneric after the Conference of Carthage, 484.

SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geog., s. v. Sabrata and Abrotonum, with a bibliography of ancient authors; BARTH, Wanderungen, 277; TOULOTTE, Geographie de l'Afrique chrétienne (Montreuil, 1894), 258-60; DIEHL, L'Afrique byzantine (Paris, 1896), passim.

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Raneiro Sacchoni

(Reiner.)

A learned and zealous Dominican, born at Piacenza about he beginning of the thirteenth century; died about 1263. It is generally said that he died in 1258 or 1259, but this in an error, as we learn from the Brief of Urban IV, by which he was called to Rome, 21 July, 1262. Little is known as to his youth and early manhood. That, however, at an early age, he was perverted by the Cathari, became on of their bishops, and remained amongst them for seventeen years, we are assured by his own humble avowal ("Summa contra Waldenses", vi). He was led back to the Faith, most probably, by the preaching of St. Peter Martyr, joined the Order of Preachers, then recently established, and laboured zealously for many years among the heretics of Upper Italy. After the martyrdom of St. Peter he was made inquisitor for Lombardy and the Marches of Ancona. Being enraged against him, and yet unable to put him to death, the heretics finally succeeded in having him sent into exile. Thereafter we have no further mention of him except in the Brief of Urban IV. The "Summan de catharis et leonistis, sive pauperibus de Lugduno" (Paris, 1548, and by Martene in "Thes. Anecd.:, V, 1759), is the only authentic work ascribed to him. This work is a collection of the heretical doctrines of his time, and was regarded as a great authority during the Middle Ages. The edition of Gretser (Ratisbon, 1738) is much interpolated.

ECHARD, Script. Ord. Praed., I, 154 sq.; HUNTER, Nomenclator, II, 336 sq.; TOURON, Hist. des hommes ill., I (Paris, 1743), 313 sq.

Sacra Jam Splendent

The opening words of the hymn for Matins of the Feast of the Holy Family. The Holy See instituted the feast in 1893, making it a duplex majus (greater double) and assigning it to the third Sunday after Epiphany. Leo XIII composed the three hymns (Vespers, Matins, Lauds) of the Breviary Office. The hymn for Matins contains nine Sapphic stanzas of the classical type of the first stanza:

Sacra jam splendent decorata lychnis
Templa, jam sertis redimitur ara,
Et pio fumant redolentque aerrae
Thuris honore.

(A thousand lights their glory shed
On shrines and altars garlanded,
While swinging censers dusk the air
With perfumed prayer.)

The hymns for Vespers (O lux beata caelitum) and Lauds (O gente felix hospita) are in classical dimeter iambics, four-lined stanzas, of which the Vespers hymn contains six and the Lauds hymn seven exclusive of the usual Marian doxology (Jesu tibi sit gloria). All three hymns are replete with spiritual unction, graceful expression, and classical dignity of form. They reflect the sentiment of the pope in his letter establishing a Pious Association in honour of the Holy Family and in his Encyclical dealing with the condition of working-men.

Translations of the three hymns are given in HENRY, Poems, Charades, Inscriptions of Leo XIII (Philadelphia, 1902), with Latin text, pp. 104-15, and comment., pp. 282-84. The hymns for Vespers and Lauds are translated by BAGSHAWE, Breviary Hymns and Missal Sequences (London, s.d.), nos. 52, 53.

H.T. HENRY

Sacramentals

In instituting the sacraments Christ did not determine the matter and form down to the slightest detail, leaving this task to the Church, which should determine what rites were suitable in the administration of the sacraments. These rites are indicated by the word Sacramentalia, the object of which is to manifest the respect due to the sacrament and to secure the sanctification of the faithful. They belong to widely different categories, e.g.: substance, in the mingling of water with Eucharistic wine; quantity, in the triple baptismal effusion; quality, in the condition of unleavened bread; relation, in the capacity of the minister; time and place, in feast-days and churches; habit, in the liturgical vestments; posture, in genuflection, prostrations; action, in chanting etc. So many external conditions connect the sacramentals with the virtue of religion, their object being indicated by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, 15), that it is asserted that apart from their ancient origin and traditional maintenance ceremonies, blessings, lights, incense, etc. enhance the dignity of the Holy Sacrifice and arouse the piety of the faithful. Moreover the sacramentals help to distinguish the members of the Church from heretics, who have done away with the sacramentals or use them arbitrarily with little intelligence.

Sacramental rites are dependent on the Church which established them, and which therefore has the right to maintain, develop, modify, or abrogate them. The ceremonial regulation of the sacraments in Apostolic times is sufficiently proved by the words of St. Paul to the Corinthians with regard to the Eucharist: "Cetera autem, cum venero, disponam" [the rest I will set in order when I come (I Cor., xi, 34)], which St. Augustine, on what ground we know not, supposes to refer to the obligation of the Eucharistic fast (Ep. liv, "Ad Januarium", c. 6, n. 8, in P. L., XXXIII, 203). The Fathers of the Church enumerate ceremonies and rites, some of which were instituted by the Apostles, others by the early Christians (cf. Justin Martyr, "Apol. I", n. 61, 65 in P.G., VI, 419, 427; Tertullian, "De baptismo:, vii in P. L., I, 1206; St. Basil, "De Spiritu Sancto", I, xxvii, n. 67 in P.G., XXXII, 191). The Catholic Church, which is the heiress of the Apostles, has always used and maintained against heretics this power over sacramentals. To her and to her alone belongs the right to determine the matter, form, and minister of the sacramentals. The Church, that is, the supreme authority represented by its visible head, alone legislates in this matter, because the bishops no longer have in practice the power to modify of abolish by a particular legislation what is imposed on the universal Church. What concerns the administration of the sacraments is contained in detail in the Roman Ritual and the Episcopal Ceremoniale.

Apart from the ceremonies relating to the administration of the sacraments the Church has instituted others for the purpose of private devotion. To distinguish between them, the latter are named sacramentals because of the resemblance between their rites and those of the sacraments properly so-called. In ancient times the term sacrament alone was used, but numerous confusions resulted and the similarity of rites and terms led many Christians to regard both as sacraments. After Peter Lombard the use and definition of the word "sacramental" had a fixed character and was exclusively applicable to those rites presenting an external resemblance to the sacraments but not applicable to the sensible signs of Divine institution. St. Thomas Aquinas makes use of the terms sacra and sacramentalia (Summa I-II, Q. cviii, a. 2 ad 2um; III, Q. lxv, a. 1 ad 8um), which the theologians of a later period adopted, so that at present sacramentalia is exclusively reserved for those rites which are practiced apart from the administration of the seven sacraments, for which the word ceremonies is used.

The number of the sacramentals may not be limited; nevertheless, the attempt has been made to determine their general principles or rather applications in the verse: "Orans, tinctus, edens, confessus, dans, benedicens".

• Orans indicates public prayer, whether liturgical or private;
• tinctus, the use of holy water and the unctions in use at various consecrations;
• edens, the eating of blessed foods;
• confessus, the general avowal of faults which is made in the Confiteor recited at Mass, at Communion, in the Divine Office;
• dans, alms;
• benedicens, papal and episcopal blessings etc., blessings of candles, ashes, palms etc.

Another distinction classifies sacramentals according to whether they are acts, e.g. the Confiteor mentioned above, or things, such as medals, holy water etc. The sacramentals do not produce sanctifying grace ex opere operato, by virtue of the rite or substance employed, and this constitutes their essential difference from the sacraments. The Church is unable to increase or reduce the number of sacraments as they were instituted by Christ, but the sacramentals do not possess this dignity and privilege. Theologians do not agree as to whether the sacramentals may confer any other grace ex opere operantis through the action of the one who uses them, but the negative opinion is more generally followed, for as the Church cannot confer sanctifying grace nor institute signs thereof, neither can she institute efficacious signs of the other graces which God alone can give. Moreover, as experience teaches, the sacramentals do not infallibly produce their effect. Finally in the euchologic formulas of the sacramentals the Church makes use, not of affirmative, but of deprecatory expressions, which shows that she looks directly to Divine mercy for the effect.

Besides the efficacy which the sacramentals possess in common with other good works they have a special efficacy of their own. If their whole value proceeded from the opus operantis, all external good works could be called sacramentals. The special virtue recognized by the Church and experienced by Christians in the sacramentals should consist in the official prayers whereby we implore God to pour forth special graces on those who make use of the sacramentals. These prayers move God to give graces which He would not otherwise give, and when not infallibly acceded to it is for reasons known to His Wisdom. God is aware of the measure in which He should bestow His gifts. All the sacramentals have not the same effect; this depends on the prayer of the Church which does not make use of the same urgency nor have recourse to the same Divine sources of merit. Some sacramentals derive no special efficacy from the prayer of the Church; such are those which are employed in worship, without a blessing, or even with a blessing which does not specify any particular fruit. This is the case with the blessing of vessels meant to contain the holy oils: "Give ear to our prayers, most merciful Father, and deign to bless and sanctify these purified vessels prepared for the use of the sacred ministry of Thy Church". On the other hand, some sacramentals, among them one of those most frequently used, holy water, are the object of a benediction which details their particular effects.

One of the most remarkable effects of sacramentals is the virtue to drive away evil spirits whose mysterious and baleful operations affect sometimes the physical activity of man. To combat this occult power the Church has recourse to exorcism and sacramentals. Another effect is the delivery of the soul from sin and the penalties therefor. Thus in the blessing of a cross the Church asks that this sacred sign may receive the heavenly blessing in order that all those who kneel before it and implore the Divine Majesty may be granted great compunction and a general pardon of faults committed. This means remission of venial sins, for the sacraments alone, with perfect contrition, possess the efficacy to remit mortal sins and to release from the penalties attached to them. St. Thomas is explicit on this point: "The episcopal blessing, the aspersion of holy water, every sacramental unction, prayer in a dedicated church, and the like, effect the remission of venial sins, implicitly or explicitly" (Summa III, Q. lxxxvii, a. 3, ad 1um). Finally the sacramentals may be employed to obtain temporal favours, since the Church herself blesses objects made use of in every-day life, e.g. the blessing of a house on which is called down the abundance of heavenly dew and the rich fruitfulness of the earth; so likewise in the benediction of the fields, in which God is asked to pour down His blessings on the harvests, so that the wants of the needy may be supplied by the fertile earth.

H. LECLERCQ

Sacraments

Sacraments are outward signs of inward grace, instituted by Christ for our sanctification (Catechismus concil. Trident., n.4, ex S. Aug. "De Catechizandis rudibus"). The subject may be treated under the following headings:

I. The necessity and the nature of the sacramental system

II. The nature of the sacraments of the new law

III. The origin (cause) of the sacraments

IV. The number of the sacraments

V. The effects of the sacraments

VI. The minister of the sacraments

VII. The recipient of the sacraments

I. NECESSITY AND NATURE

(1) In what sense necessary

Almighty God can and does give grace to men in answer to their internal aspirations and prayers without the use of any external sign or ceremony. This will always be possible, because God, grace, and the soul are spiritual beings. God is not restricted to the use of material, visible symbols in dealing with men; the sacraments are not necessary in the sense that they could not have been dispensed with. But, if it is known that God has appointed external, visible ceremonies as the means by which certain graces are to be conferred on men, then in order to obtain those graces it will be necessary for men to make use of those Divinely appointed means. This truth theologians express by saying that the sacraments are necessary, not absolutely but only hypothetically, i.e., in the supposition that if we wish to obtain a certain supernatural end we must use the supernatural means appointed for obtaining that end. In this sense the Council of Trent (Sess. VII, can. 4) declared heretical those who assert that the sacraments of the New Law are superfluous and not necessary, although all are not necessary for each individual. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church and of Christians in general that, whilst God was nowise bound to make use of external ceremonies as symbols of things spiritual and sacred, it has pleased Him to do so, and this is the ordinary and most suitable manner of dealing with men. Writers on the sacraments refer to this as the necessitas convenientiae, the necessity of suitableness. It is not really a necessity, but the most appropriate manner of dealing with creatures that are at the same time spiritual and corporeal. In this assertion all Christians are united: it is only when we come to consider the nature of the sacramental signs that Protestants (except some Anglicans) differ from Catholics. "To sacraments considered merely as outward forms, pictorial representations or symbolic acts, there is generally no objection", wrote Dr. Morgan Dix ("The sacramental system", New York, 1902, p. 16). "Of sacramental doctrine this may be said, that it is co-extensive with historic Christianity. Of this there is no reasonable doubt, as regards the very ancient days, of which St. Chrysostom's treatise on the priesthood and St. Cyril's catechetical lectures may be taken as characteristic documents. Nor was it otherwise with the more conservative of the reformed bodies of the sixteenth century. Martin Luther's Catechism, the Augsburg, and later the Westminster, Confessions are strongly sacramental in their tone, putting to shame the degenerate followers of those who compiled them" (ibid., p. 7, 8)

(2) Why the sacramental system is most appropriate

The reasons underlying a sacramental system are as follows:

• Taking the word "sacrament" in its broadest sense, as the sign of something sacred and hidden (the Greek word is "mystery"), we can say that the whole world is a vast sacramental system, in that material things are unto men the signs of things spiritual and sacred, even of the Divinity. "The heavens show forth the glory of God, and the firmament declareth the work of his hands" (Ps. xviii, 2). The invisible things of him [i.e. God], from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity" (Rom., i, 20).
• The redemption of man was not accomplished in an invisible manner. God renewed, through the Patriarchs and the Prophets, the promise of salvation made to the first man; external symbols were used to express faith in the promised Redeemer: "all these things happened to them [the Israelites] in figure" (I Cor., x, 11; Heb., x, 1). "So we also, when we were children, were serving under the elements of the world. But when the fullness of time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman" (Gal., iv, 3, 4). The Incarnation took place because God dealt with men in the manner that was best suited to their nature.
• The Church established by the Saviour was to be a visible organization (see CHURCH: The Visibility of the Church): consequently it should have external ceremonies and symbols of things sacred.
• The principal reason for a sacramental system is found in man. It is the nature of man, writes St. Thomas (III:61:1), to be led by things corporeal and semse-perceptible to things spiritual and intelligible; now Divine Providence provides for everything in accordance with its nature (secundum modum suae conditionis); therefore it is fitting that Divine Wisdom should provide means of salvation for men in the form of certain corporeal and sensible signs which are called sacraments. (For other reasons see Catech. Conc. Trid., II, n.14.)

(3) Existence of sacred symbols

(a) No sacraments in the state of innocence. According ot St. Thomas (III:61:2) and theologians generally there were no sacraments before Adam sinned, i.e., in the state of original justice. Man's dignity was so great that he was raised above the natural condition of human nature. His mind was subject to God; his lower faculties were subject to the higher part of his mind; his body was subject to his soul; it would have been against the dignity of that state had he been dependent, for the acquisition of knowledge or of Divine grace, on anything beneath him, i.e., corporeal things. For this reason the majority of theologians hold that no sacraments would have been instituted even if that state had lasted for a long time.

(b) Sacraments of the law of nature. Apart from what was or might have been in that extraordinary state, the use of sacred symbols is universal. St. Augustine says that every religion, true or false, has its visible signs or sacraments. "In nullum nomen religionis, seu verum seu falsum, coadunari homines possunt, nisi aliquo signaculorum seu sacramentorum visibilium consortio colligantur" (Cont. Faust., XIX, xi). Commentators on the Scriptures and theologians almost unanimously assert that there were sacraments under the law of nature and under the Mosaic Law, as there are sacraments of greater dignity under the Law of Christ. Under the law of nature -- so called not to exclude supernatural revelation but because at that time there existed no written supernatural law -- salvation was granted through faith in the promised Redeemer, and men expressed that faith by some external signs. What those signs should be God did not determine, leaving this for the people, most probably to the leaders or heads of families, who were guided in their choice by an interior inspiration of the Holy Ghost. This is the conception of St. Thomas, who says that, as under the law of nature (when there was no written law), men were guided by interior inspiration in worshiping God, so also they determined what signs should be used in the external acts of worship (III:60:5, ad 3). Afterwards, however, as it was necessary to give a written law: (a) because the law of nature had been obscured by sin, and (b) because it was time to give a more explicit knowledge of the grace of Christ, then also it became necessary to determine what external signs should be used as sacraments (III:60:5, ad 3; III:61:3, ad 2) This was not necessary immediately after the Fall, by reason of the fullness of faith and knowledge imparted to Adam. But about the time of Abraham, when faith had been weakened, many had fallen into idolatry, and the light of reason had been obscured by indulgence of the passions, even unto the commission of sins against nature, God intervened and appointed as a sign of faith the rite of circumcision (Gen., xvii; ST III:70:2, ad 1; see CIRCUMCISION).

The vast majority of theologians teach that this ceremony was a sacrament and that it was instituted as a remedy for original sin; consequently that it conferred grace, not indeed of itself (ex opere operato), but by reason of the faith in Christ which it expressed. "In circumcisione conferebatur gratia, non ex virtute circumcisionis, sed ex virtute fidei passionis Christi futurae, cujus signum erat circumcisio -- quia scilicet justitia erat ex fide significata, non ex circumcisione significante" (ST III:70:4). Certainly it was at least a sign of something sacred, and it was appointed and determined by God himself as a sign of faith and as a mark by which the faithful were distinguished from unbelievers. It was not, however, the only sign of faith used under the law of nature. It is incredible, writes St. Augustine, that before circumcision there was no sacrament for the relief (justification) of children, although for some good reason the Scriptures do not tell us what that sacrament was (Cont. Jul., III, xi). The sacrifice of Melchisedech, the sacrifice of the friends of Job, the various tithes and oblations for the service of God are mentioned by St. Thomas (III:61:3, ad 3; III:65:1, ad 7) as external observances which may be considered as the sacred signs of that time, prefiguring future sacred institutions: hence, he adds, they may be called sacraments of the law of nature.

(c) Sacraments of the Mosaic Law. As the time for Christ's coming drew nearer, in order that the Israelites might be better instructed God spoke to Moses, revealing to him in detail the sacred signs and ceremonies by which they were to manifest more explicitly their faith in the future Redeemer. Those signs and ceremonies were the sacraments of the Mosaic Law, "which are compared to the sacraments which were before the law as something determined to something undetermined, because before the law it had not been determined what signs men should use" (ST III:61:3, ad 2). With the Angelic Doctor (I-II:102:5) theologians usually divide the sacraments of this period into three classes:

1. The ceremonies by which men were made and signed as worshippers or ministers of God. Thus we have (a) circumcision, instituted in the time of Abraham (Gen., xvii), renewed in the time of Moses (Lev., xii, 3) for all people; and (b) the sacred rites by which the Levitical priests were consecrated.
2. The ceremonies which consisted in the use of things pertaining to the service of God, i.e. (a) the paschal lamb for all the people, and (b) the loaves of proposition for the ministers.
3. The ceremonies of purification from legal contamination, i.e. (a) for the people, various expiations, (b) for the priests, the washing of hands and feet, the shaving of the head, etc. St. Augustine says the sacraments of the Old Law were abolished because they had been fulfilled (cf. Matt., v.17), and others have been instituted which are more efficacious, more useful, easier to administer and to receive, fewer in number ("virtute majora, utilitate meliora, actu faciliora, numero pauciora", Cont. Faust., XIX, xiii). The Council of Trent condemns those who say that there is no difference except in the outward rite between the sacraments of the Old Law and those of the New Law (Sess. VII, can. ii). The Decree for the Armenians, published by Order of the Council of Florence, says that the sacraments of the Old Law did not confer grace, but only prefigured the grace which was to be given by the Passion of Christ. This means that they did not give grace themselves (i.e. ex opere operato) but only by reason of the faith in Christ which they represented -- "ex fide significata, non ex circumcisione significante" (ST I-II:102:5)

II. NATURE OF THE SACRAMENTS OF THE NEW LAW

(1) Definition of a sacrament

The sacraments thus far considered were merely signs of sacred things. According to the teaching of the Catholic Church, accepted today by many Episcopalians, the sacraments of the Christian dispensation are not mere signs; they do not merely signify Divine grace, but in virtue of their Divine institution, they cause that grace in the souls of men. "Signum sacro sanctum efficax gratiae" -- a sacrosanct sign producing grace, is a good, succinct definition of a sacrament of the New Law. Sacrament, in its broadest acceptation, may be defined as an external sign of something sacred. In the twelfth century Peter Lombard (d. 1164), known as the Master of the Sentences, author of the manual of systematized theology, gave an accurate definition of a sacrament of the New Law: A sacrament is in such a manner an outward sign of inward grace that it bears its image (i.e. signifies or represents it) and is its cause -- "Sacramentum proprie dicitur quod ita signum est gratiae Dei, ei invisibilis gratiae forma, ut ipsius imaginem gerat et causa existat" (IV Sent., d.I, n.2). This definition was adopted and perfected by the medieval Scholastics. From St. Thomas we have the short but very expressive definition: The sign of a sacred thing in so far as it sanctifies men - "Signum rei sacrae in quantum est sanctificans homines" (III:60:2).

All the creatures of the universe proclaim something sacred, namely, the wisdom and the goodness of God, as they are sacred in themselves, not as they are sacred things sanctifying men, hence they cannot be called sacraments in the sense in which we speak of sacraments (ibid., ad 1um). The Council of Trent includes the substance of these two definitions in the following: "Symbolum rei sacrae, et invisibilis gratiae forma visibilis, sanctificandi vim habens" -- A symbol of something sacred, a visible form of invisible grace, having the power of sanctifying (Sess. XIII, cap.3). The "Catechism of the Council of Trent" gives a more complete definition: Something perceptible by the senses which by Divine institution has the power both to signify and to effect sanctity and justice (II, n.2). Catholic catechisms in English usually have the following: An outward sign of inward grace, a sacred and mysterious sign or ceremony, ordained by Christ, by which grace is conveyed to our souls. Anglican and Epscopalian theologies and catechisms give definitions which Catholics could accept.

In every sacrament three things are necessary: the outward sign; the inward grace; Divine institution. A sign stands for and represents something else, either naturally, as smoke represents fire, or by the choice of an intelligent being, as the red cross indicates an ambulance. Sacraments do not naturally signify grace; they do so because they have been chosen by God to signify mysterious effects. Yet they are not altogether arbitrary, because in some cases, if not in all, the ceremonies performed have a quasi-natural connection with the effect to be produced. Thus, pouring water on the head of a child readily brings to mind the interior purification of the soul. The word "sacrament" (sacramentum), even as used by profane Latin writers, signified something sacred, viz., the oath by which soldiers were bound, or the money deposited by litigants in a contest. In the writings of the Fathers of the Church the word was used to signify something sacred and mysterious, and where the Latins use sacramentum the Greeks use mysterion (mystery). The sacred and mysterious thing signified is Divine grace, which is the formal cause of our justification (see GRACE), but with it we must associate the Passion of Christ (efficient and meritorious cause) and the end (final cause) of our sanctification, viz., eternal ife. The significance of the sacraments according to theologians (e.g. ST III:60:3) and the Roman Catechism (II, n.13) extends to these three sacred things, of which one is past, one present, and one future. The three are aptly expressed in St. Thomas's beautiful antiphon on the Eucharist: "O sacrum convivium, in quo Christus sumitur, recolitur memoria passionis ejus, mens impletur gratia, et futurae gloriae nobis pignus datur -- O sacred banquet, in which Christ is received, the memory of the passion is recalled, the soul is filled with grace, and a pledge of future life is given to us".

(2) Errors of Protestants

Protestants generally hold that the sacraments are signs of something sacred (grace and faith), but deny that they really cause Divine grace. Episcopalians, however, and Anglicans, especially the Ritualists, hold with Catholics that the sacraments are "effectual signs" of grace. In article XXV of the Westminster Confession we read:

Sacraments ordained of God be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace and God's good will towards us by which He doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken but strengthen and confirm our faith in Him (cf. art. XXVII).

"The Zwinglian theory", writes Morgan Dix (op.cit., p.73), "that sacraments are nothing but memorials of Christ and badges of Christian profession, is one that can by no possible jugglery with the English tongue be reconciled with the formularies of our church." Mortimer adopts and explains the Catholic formula " ex opere operato" (loc. cit., p. 122). Luther and his early followers rejected this conception of the sacraments. They do not cause grace, but are merely "signs and testimonies of God's good will towards us" (Augsburg Confessions); they excite faith, and faith (fiduciary) causes justification. Calvinists and Presbyterians hold substantially the same doctrine. Zwinglius lowered still further the dignity of the sacraments, making them signs not of God's fidelity but of our fidelity. By receiving the sacraments we manifest faith in Christ: they are merely the badges of our profession and the pledges of our fidelity. Fundamentally all these errors arise from Luther's newly-invented theory of righteousness, i.e. the doctrine of justification by faith alone (see GRACE). If man is to be sanctified not by an interior renovation through grace which will blot out his sins, but by an extrinsic imputation through the merits of Christ, which will cover his soul as a cloak, there is no place for signs that cause grace, and those used can have no other purpose than to excite faith in the Saviour. Luther's convenient doctrine on justification was not adopted by all his followers and it is not baldly and boldly proclaimed by all Protestants today; nevertheless they accept its consequences affecting the true notion of the sacraments.

(3) Catholic Doctrine

Against all innovators the Council of Trent declared: "If anyone say that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify, or that they do not confer grace on those who place no obstacle to the same, let him be anathema" (Sess. viii, can.vi). "If anyone say that grace is not conferred by the sacraments ex opere operato but that faith in God's promises is alone sufficient for obtaining grace, let him be anathema" (ibid., can. viii; cf. can.iv, v, vii). The phrase "ex opere operato", for which there is no equivalent in English, probably was used for the first time by Peter of Poitiers (D. 1205), and afterwards by Innocent III (d. 1216; de myst. missae, III, v), and by St. Thomas (d. 1274; IV Sent., dist. 1, Q.i, a.5). It was happily invented to express a truth that had always been taught and had been introduced without objection. It is not an elegant formula but, as St. Augustine remarks (In Ps. cxxxviii): It is better that grammarians should object than that the people should not understand. "Ex opere operato", i.e. by virtue of the action, means that the efficacy of the action of the sacraments does not depend on anything human, but solely on the will of God as expressed by Christ's institution and promise. "Ex opere operantis", i.e. by reason of the agent, would mean that the action of the sacraments depended on the worthiness either of the minister or of the recipient (see Pourrat, "Theology of the Sacraments", tr. St. Louis, 1910, 162 sqq.). Protestants cannot in good faith object to the phrase as if it meant that the mere outward ceremony, apart from God's action, causes grace. It is well known that Catholics teach that the sacraments are only the instrumental, not the principal, causes of grace. Neither can it be claimed that the phrase adopted by the council does away with all dispositions necessary on the part of the recipient, the sacraments acting like infallible charms causing grace in those who are ill-disposed or in grievous sin. The fathers of the council were careful to note that there must be no obstacle to grace on the part of the recipients, who must receive them rite, i.e. rightly and worthily; and they declare it a calumny to assert that they require no previous dispositions (Sess. XIV, de poenit., cap.4). Dispositions are required to prepare the subject, but they are a condition (conditio sine qua non), not the causes, of the grace conferred. In this case the sacraments differ from the sacramentals, which may cause grace ex opere operantis, i.e. by reason of the prayers of the Church or the good, pious sentiments of those who use them.

(4) Proofs of the Catholic Doctrine

In examining proofs of the Catholic doctrine it must be borne in mind that our rule of faith is not simply Scripture, but Scripture and tradition.

(a) In Sacred Scripture we find expressions which clearly indicate that the sacraments are more than mere signs of grace and faith: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John, iii, 5); "He saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost" (Tit., iii, 5); "Then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost" (Acts, viii, 17); "He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life...For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John, vi, 55, 56). These and similar expressions (see articles on each sacrament) are, to say the least, very much exaggerated if they do not mean that the sacramental ceremony is in some sense the cause of the grace conferred.

(b) Tradition clearly indicates the sense in which they have been interpreted in the Church. From the numerous expressions used by the Fathers we select the following: "The Holy Ghost comes down from heaven and hovers over the waters, sanctifying them of Himself, and thus they imbibe the power of sanctifying" (Tertullian, De bapt., c. iv). "Baptism is the expiation of sins, the remission of crimes, the cause of renovation and regeneration" (St. Gregory of Nyssa, "Orat. in Bapt."). "Explain to me the manner of nativity in the flesh and I will explain to you the regeneration of the soul...Throughout, by Divine power and efficacy, it is incomprehensible; no reasoning, no art can explain it" (ibid.) "He that passes through the fountain [Baptism] shall not die but rises to new life" (St. Ambrose, De sacr., I, iv). "Whence this great power of water", exclaims St. Augustine, "that it touches the body and cleanses the soul?" (Tr. 80 in Joann). "Baptism", writes the same Father, "consists not in the merits of those by whom it is administered, nor of those to whom it is administered, but in its own sanctity and truth, on account of Him who instituted it" (Cont. Cres., IV). The doctrine solemnly defined by the Council of Trent had been announced in previous councils, notably at Constantinople (381; Symb. Fid.), at Mileve (416; can.ii) in the Second Council of Orange (529; can. xy); and in the Council of Florence (1439; Decr. pro. Armen., see Denzinger-Bannwart, nn. 86, 102, 200, 695). The early Anglican Church held fast to the true doctrine: "Baptism is not only a sign of profession and a mark of difference, whereby christened men are discerned from those that be not christened, but is also a sign of regeneration or New-Birth, whereby as by an instrument they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the church" (Art. XXVII).

(c) Theological argument. -- The Westminster Confession adds: "The Baptism of children is in any wise to be retained in the church as most agreeable with the institution of Christ". If Baptism does not confer grace ex opere operato, but simply excites faith, then we ask: (1) Of what use would this be if the language used be not understood by the recipient, i.e. an infant or an adult that does not understand Latin? In such cases it might be more beneficial to the bystanders than to the one baptized. (2) In what does the Baptism of Christ surpass the Baptism of John, for the latter could excite faith? Why were those baptized by the Baptism of John rebaptized with the Baptism of Christ? (Acts, xix). (3) How can it be said that Baptism is strictly necessary for salvation since faith can be excited and expressed in many other ways? Finally Episcopalians and Anglicans of today would not revert to the doctrine of grace ex opere operato unless they were convinced that the ancient faith was warranted by Scripture and Tradition.

(5) Matter and Form of the sacraments

Scholastic writers of the thirteenth century introduced into their explanations of the sacraments terms which were derived from the philosophy of Aristotle. William of Auxerre (d. 1223) was the first to apply to them the words matter (materia) and form (forma). As in physical bodies, so also in the sacramental rite we find two elements, one undetermined, which is called the matter, the other determining, called the form. For instance, water may be used for drinking, or for cooling or cleansing the body, but the words pronounced by the minister when he pours water on the head of the child, with the intention of doing what the Church does, determines the meaning of the act, so that it signifies the purification of the soul by grace. The matter and form (the res et verba) make up the external rite, which has its special significance and efficacy from the institution of Christ. The words are the more important element in the composition, because men express their thoughts and intentions principally by words. "Verba inter homines obtinuerunt principatum significandi" (St. Augustine, De doct. christ.", II, iii; ST III:60:6). It must not be supposed that the things used for the acts performed, for they are included in the res, remarks St. Thomas (ST III:60:6, ad 2) have no significance. They too may be symbolical, e.g. anointing the body with oil relates to health; but their significance is clearly determined by the words. "In all the compounds of matter and form the determining element is the form: (ST III:60:7).

The terminology was somewhat new, the doctrine was old; the same truth had been expressed in former times in different words. Sometimes the form of the sacrament meant the whole external rite (St. Augustine, "De pecc. et mer.", xxxiv; Conc. Milev., De bapt.). What we call the matter and form were referred to as "mystic symbols"; "the sign and the thing invisible"; the "word and the element" (St. Augustine, tr. 80 in Joann.). The new terminology immediately found favour. It was solemnly ratified by being used in the Decree for the Armenians, which was added to the Decrees of the Council of Florence, yet has not the value of a conciliar definition (see Denzinger-Bannwart, 695; Hurter, "Theol. dog. comp.", I, 441; Pourrat, op.cit., p. 51). The Council of Trent used the words matter and form (Sess. XIV, cap. ii, iii, can. iv), but did not define that the sacramental rite was composed of these two elements. Leo XIII, in the "Apostolicae Curae" (13 Sept., 1896) made the scholastic theory the basis of his declaration, and pronounced ordinations performed according to the ancient Anglican rite invalid, owing to a defect in the form used and a lack of the necessary intention on the part of the ministers. The hylomorphistic theory furnishes a very apt comparison and sheds much light on our conception of the external ceremony. Nevertheless our knowledge of the sacraments is not dependent on this Scholastic terminology, and the comparison must not be carried too far. The attempt to verify the comparison (of sacraments to a body) in all details of the sacramental rite will lead to confusing subtilities or to singular opinions, e.g., Melchior Cano's (De locis theol., VIII, v.3) opinion as to the minister of Matrimony (see MARRIAGE; cf. Pourrat, op.cit., ii).

III. ORIGIN (CAUSE) OF THE SACRAMENTS

It might now be asked: in how far was it necessary that the matter and form of the sacraments should have been determined by Christ?

(1) Power of God

The Council of Trent defined that the seven sacraments of the New Law were instituted by Christ (Sess. VII, can.i). This settles the question of fact for all Catholics. Reason tells us that all sacraments must come originally from God. Since they are the signs of sacred things in so far as by these sacred things men are sanctified (ST III:60:2); since the external rite (matter and form) of itself cannot give grace, it is evident that all sacraments properly so called must originate in Divine appointment. "Since the sanctification of man is in the power of God who sanctifies", writes St. Thomas (ST III:60:2), "it is not in the competency of man to choose the things by which he is to be sanctified, but this must be determined by Divine institution". Add to this that grace is, in some sense, a participation of the Divine nature (see GRACE) and our doctrine becomes unassailable: God alone can decree that by exterior ceremonies men shall be partakers of His nature.

(2) Power of Christ

God alone is the principal cause of the sacraments. He alone authoritatively and by innate power can give to external material rites the power to confer grace on men. Christ as God, equally with the Father, possessed this principal, authoritative, innate power. As man He had another power which St. Thomas calls "the power of the principal ministry" or "the power of excellence" (III:64:3). "Christ produced the interior effects of the sacraments by meriting them and by effecting them... The passion of Christ is the cause of our justification meritoriously and effectively, not as the principal agent and authoritatively but as an instrument, inasmuch as His Humanity was the instrument of His Divinity" (III:64:3; cf. III:13:1, III:13:3). There is theological truth as well as piety in the old maxim: "From the side of Christ dying on the cross flowed the sacraments by which the Church was saved" (Gloss. Ord. in Rom.5: ST III:62:5). The principal efficient cause of grace is God, to whom the Humanity of Christ is as a conjoined instrument, the sacraments being instruments not joined to the Divinity (by hypostatic union): therefore the saving power of the sacraments passes from the Divinity of Christ, through His Humanity into the sacraments (ST III:62:5). One who weighs well all these words will understand why Catholics have great reverence for the sacraments. Christ's power of excellence consists in four things: (1) Sacraments have their efficacy from His merits and sufferings; (2) they are sanctified and they sanctify in His name; (3) He could and He did institute the sacraments; (4) He could produce the effects of the sacraments without the external ceremony (ST III:64:3). Christ could have communicated this power of excellence to men: this was not absolutely impossible (III:64:4). But, (1) had He done so men could not have possessed it with the same perfection as Christ: "He would have remained the head of the Church principally, others secondarily" (III:64:3). (2) Christ did not communicate this power, and this for the good of the faithful: (a) that they might place their hope in God and not in men; (b) that there might not be different sacraments, giving rise to divisions in the Church (III:64:1). This second reason is mentioned by St. Paul (I Cor., i, 12, 13): "every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?"

(3) Immediate or Mediate Institution

The Council of Trent did not define explicitly and formally that all the sacraments were instituted immediately by Christ. Before the council great theologians, e.g. Peter Lombard (IV Sent., d. xxiii), Hugh of St. Victor (De sac. II, ii) Alexander of Hales (Summa, IV, Q. xxiv, 1) held that some sacraments were instituted by the Apostles, using power that had been given to them by Jesus Christ. Doubts were raised especially about Confirmation and Extreme Unction. St. Thomas rejects the opinion that Confirmation was instituted by the Apostles. It was instituted by Christ, he holds, when he promised to send the Paraclete, although it was never administered whilst He was on earth, because the fullness of the Holy Ghost was not to be given until after the Ascension: "Christus instituit hoc sacramentum, non exhibendo, sed promittendo" (III. Q.lxii, a.1, ad 1um). The Council of Trent defined that the sacrament of Extreme Unction was instituted by Christ and promulgated by St. James (Sess. XIV, can.i). Some theologians, e.g. Becanus, Bellarmine, Vasquez, Gonet, etc. thought the words of the council (Sess. VII, can.i) were explicit enough to make the immediate institution of all the sacraments by Christ a matter of defined faith. They are opposed by Soto (a theologian of the council), Estius, Gotti, Tournely, Berti, and a host of others, so that now nearly all theologians unite in saying: it is theologically certain, but not defined (de fide) that Christ immediately instituted all the sacraments of the New Law. In the decree "Lamentabili", 3 July, 1907, Pius X condemned twelve propositions of the Modernists, who would attribute the origin of the sacraments to some species of evolution or development. The first sweeping proposition is this: "The sacraments had their origin in this that the Apostles, persuaded and moved by circumstances and events, interpreted some idea and intention of Christ", (Demzinger-Bannwart, 2040). Then follow eleven propositions relating to each of the sacraments in order (ibid., 2041-51). These propositions deny that Christ immediately instituted the sacraments and some seem to deny even their mediate institution by the Saviour.

(4) What does Immediate Institution Imply? Power of the Church.

Granting that Christ immediately instituted all the sacraments, it does not necessarily follow that personally He determined all the details of the sacred ceremony, prescribing minutely every iota relating to the matter and the form to be used. It is sufficient (even for immediate institution) to say: Christ determined what special graces were to be conferred by means of external rites: for some sacraments (e.g. Baptism, the Eucharist) He determined minutely (in specie) the matter and form: for others He determined only in a general way (in genere) that there should be an external ceremony, by which special graces were to be conferred, leaving to the Apostles or to the Church the power to determine whatever He had not determined, e.g. to prescribe the matter and form of the Sacraments of Confirmation and Holy Orders. The Council of Trent (Sess. XXI, cap. ii) declared that the Church had the power to change the "substance" of the sacraments. She would not be claiming power to alter the substance of the sacraments if she used her Divinely given authority to determine more precisely the matter and form in so far as they had not been determined by Christ. This theory (which is not modern) had been adopted by theologians: by it we can solve historical difficulties relating, principally, to Confirmation and Holy Orders.

(5) May we then say that Christ instituted some sacraments in an implicit state?

That Christ was satisfied to lay down the essential principles from which, after a more or less protracted development, would come forth the fully developed sacraments? This is an application of Newman's theory of development, according to Pourrat (op.cit., p.300), who proposes two other formulae; Christ instituted all the sacraments immediately, but did not himself give them all to the Church fully constituted; or Jesus instituted immediately and explicitly Baptism and Holy Eucharist: He instituted immediately but implicitly the five other sacraments (loc.cit., p.301). Pourrat himself thinks the latter formula too absolute. Theologians probably will consider it rather dangerous, and at least " male sonans". If it be taken to mean more than the old expression, Christ determined in genere only the matter and the form of some sacraments, it grants too much development. If it means nothing more than the expression hitherto in use, what is gained by admitting a formula which easily might be misunderstood?

IV. NUMBER OF THE SACRAMENTS

(1) Catholic Doctrine: Eastern and Western Churches

The Council of Trent solemnly defined that there are seven sacraments of the New Law, truly and properly so called, viz., Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Orders, and Matrimony. The same enumeration had been made in the Decree for the Armenians by the Council of Florence (1439), in the Profession of Faith of Michael Palaelogus, offered to Gregory X in the Council of Lyons (1274) and in the council held at London, in 1237, under Otto, legate of the Holy See. According to some writers Otto of Bamberg (1139), the Apostle of Pomerania, was the first who clearly adopted the number seven (see Tanquerey, "De sacr."). Most probably this honour belongs to Peter Lombard (d. 1164) who in his fourth Book of Sentences (d. i, n.2) defines a sacrament as a sacred sign which not only signifies but also causes grace, and then (d.ii, n.1) enumerates the seven sacraments. It is worthy of note that, although the great Scholastics rejected many of his theological opinions (list given in app. to Migne edition, Paris, 1841), this definition and enumeration were at once universally accepted, proof positive that he did not introduce a new doctrine, but merely expressed in a convenient and precise formula what had always been held in the Church. Just as many doctrines were believed, but not always accurately expressed, until the condemnation of heresies or the development of religious knowledge called forth a neat and precise formula, so also the sacraments were accepted and used by the Church for centuries before Aristotelian philosophy, applied to the systematic explanation of Christian doctrine, furnished the accurate definition and enumeration of Peter Lombard. The earlier Christians were more concerned with the use of sacred rites than with scientific formulae, being like the pious author of the "Imitation of Christ", who wrote: "I had rather feel compunction than know its definition" (I, i).

Thus time was required, not for the development of the sacraments - except in so far as the Church may have determined what was left under her control by Jesus Christ -- but for the growth and knowledge of the sacraments. For many centuries all signs of sacred things were called sacraments, and the enumeration of these signs was somewhat arbitrary. Our seven sacraments were all mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures, and we find them all mentioned here and there by the Fathers (see THEOLOGY; and articles on each sacrament). After the ninth century, writers began to draw a distinction between sacraments in a general sense and sacraments properly so called. The ill-fated Abelard ("Intro. ad Theol.", I, i, and in the "Sic et Non") and Hugh of St. Victor (De sacr., I, part 9, chap. viii; cf. Pourrat, op.cit., pp.34, 35) prepared the way for Peter Lombard, who proposed the precise formula which the Church accepted. Thenceforward until the time of the so-called Reformation the Eastern Church joined with the Latin Church in saying: by sacraments proper we understand efficacious sacred signs, i.e. ceremonies which by Divine ordinance signify, contain and confer grace; and they are seven in number. In the history of conferences and councils held to effect the reunion of the Greek with the Latin Church, we find no record of objections made to the doctrine of seven sacraments. On the contrary, about 1576, when the Reformers of Wittenberg, anxious to draw the Eastern Churches into their errors, sent a Greek translation of the Augsburg Confession to Jeremias, Patriarch of Constantinople, he replied: "The mysteries received in this same Catholic Church of orthodox Christians, and the sacred ceremonies, are seven in number -- just seven and no more" (Pourrat, op.cit., p.289). The consensus of the Greek and Latin Churches on this subject is clearly shown by Arcadius, "De con. ecc. occident. et orient. in sept. sacr. administr." (1619); Goar (q.v.) in his "Euchologion" by Martene (q.v.) in his work "De antiquis ecclesiae ritibus", by Renaudot in his "Perpetuite de la foi sur sacrements" (1711), and this agreement of the two Churches furnishes recent writers (Episcopalians) with a strong argument in support of their appeal for the acceptance of seven sacraments.

(2) Protestant Errors

Luther's capital errors, viz. private interpretation of the Scriptures, and justification by faith alone, logically led to a rejection of the Catholic doctrine on the sacraments (see LUTHER; GRACE). Gladly would he have swept them all away, but the words of Scripture were too convincing and the Augsburg Confession retained three as "having the command of God and the promise of the grace of the New Testament". These three, Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and Penance were admitted by Luther and also by Cranmer in his "Catechism" (see Dix, "op.cit.", p. 79). Henry VIII protested against Luther's innovations and received the title "Defender of the Faith" as a reward for publishing the "Assertio septem sacramentorum" (re-edited by Rev. Louis O'Donovan, New York, 1908). Followers of Luther's principles surpassed their leader in opposition to the sacraments. Once granted that they were merely "signs and testimonies of God's good will towards us", the reason for great reverence was gone. Some rejected all sacraments, since God's good will could be manifested without these external signs. Confession (Penance) was soon dropped from the list of those retained. The Anabaptists rejected infant Baptism, since the ceremony could not excite faith in children. Protestants generally retained two sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, the latter being reduced by the denial of the Real Presence to a mere commemorative service. After the first fervour of destruction there was a reaction. Lutherans retained a ceremony of Confirmation and ordination. Cranmer retained three sacraments, yet we find in the Westminster Confession: "There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ Our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. Those five commonly called sacraments, that is to say Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures but yet have not like nature of sacraments with Baptism and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible signs or ceremony ordained by God (art.XXV). The Wittenberg theologians, by way of compromise, had shown a willingness to make such a distinction, in a second letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople, but the Greeks would have no compromise (Pourrat, loc.cit., 290).

For more than two centuries the Church of England theoretically recognized only two "sacraments of the Gospel" yet permitted, or tolerated other five rites. In practice these five "lesser sacraments" were neglected, especially Penance and Extreme Unction. Anglicans of the nineteenth century would have gladly altered or abolished the twenty-fifth article. There has been a strong desire, dating chiefly from the Tractarian Movement, and the days of Pusey, Newman, Lyddon, etc. to reintroduce all of the sacraments. Many Episcopalians and Anglicans today make heroic efforts to show that the twenty-fifth article repudiated the lesser sacraments only in so far as they had "grown of the corrupt following of the Apostles, and were administered 'more Romamensium' ", after the Roman fashion. Thus Morgan Dix reminded his contemporaries that the first book of Edward VI allowed "auricular and secret confession to the priest", who could give absolution as well as "ghostly counsel, advice, and comfort", but did not make the practice obligatory: therefore the sacrament of Absolution is not to be "obtruded upon men's consciences as a matter necessary to salvation" (op.cit., pp.99, 101, 102, 103). He cites authorities who state that "one cannot doubt that a sacramental use of anointing the sick has been from the beginning", and adds, "There are not wanting, among the bishops of the American Church, some who concur in deploring the loss of thiss primitive ordinance and predicting its restoration among us at some propitious time" (ibid., p.105). At a convention of Episcopalians held at Cincinnati, in 1910, unsuccessful effort was made to obtain approbation for the practice of anointing the sick. High Church pastors and curates, especially in England, frequently are in conflict with their bishops because the former use all the ancient rites. Add to this the assertion made by Mortimer (op.cit., I, 122) that all the sacraments cause grace ex opere operato, and we see that "advanced" Anglicans are returning to the doctrine and the practices of the Old Church. Whether and in how far their position can be reconciled with the twenty-fifth article, is a question which they must settle. Assuredly their wanderings and gropings after the truth prove the necessity of having on earth an infallible interpreter of God's word.

(3) Division and Comparison of the Sacraments

(a) All sacraments were instituted for the spiritual good of the recipients; but five, viz. Baptism, Confirmation, Penance, the Eucharist, and Extreme Unction, primarily benefit the individual in his private character, whilst the other two, Orders and Matrimony, primarily affect man as a social being, and sanctify him in the fulfillment of his duties tiowards the Church and society. By Baptism we are born again, Confirmation makes us strong, perfect Christians and soldiers. The Eucharist furnishes our daily spiritual food. Penance heals the soul wounded by sin. Extreme Unction removes the last remnant of human frailty, and prepares the soul for eternal life, Orders supplies ministers to the Church of God. Matrimony gives the graces necessary for those who are to rear children in the love and fear of God, members of the Church militant, future citizens of heaven. This is St. Thomas's explanation of the fitness of the number seven (III:55:1). He gives other explanations offered by the Schoolmen, but does not bind himself to any of them. In fact the only sufficient reason for the existence of seven sacraments, and no more, is the will of Christ: there are seven because He instituted seven. The explanations and adaptations of theologians serve only to excite our admiration and gratitude, by showing how wisely and beneficently God has provided for our spiritual needs in these seven efficacious signs of grace.

(b) Baptism and Penance are called "sacraments of the dead", because they give life, through sanctifying grace then called "first grace", to those who are spiritually dead by reason of original or actual sin. The other five are "sacraments of the living", because their reception presupposes, at least ordinarily, that the recipient is in the state of grace, and they give "second grace", i.e. increase of sanctifying grace (q.v.). Nevertheless, since the sacraments always give some grace when there is no obstacle in the recipient, it may happen in cases explained by theologians that "second grace" is conferred by a sacrament of the dead, e.g. when one has only venial sins to confess receives absolution and that "first grace" is conferred by a sacrament of the living (see ST III:72:7 ad 2; III:79:3). Concerning Extreme Unction St. James explicitly states that through it the recipient may be freed from his sins: "If he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him" (James, v.15).

(c) Comparison in dignity and necessity. The Council of Trent decalred that the sacraments are not all equal in dignity; also that none are superfluous, although all are not necessary for each individual (Sess. VII, can.3, 4). The Eucharist is the first in dignity, because it contains Christ in person, whilst in the other sacraments grace is conferred by an instrumental virtue derived from Christ (ST III:56:3) To this reason St. Thomas adds another, namely, that the Eucharist is as the end to which the other sacraments tend, a centre around which they revolve (ST III:56:3). Baptism is always first in necessity; Holy Orders comes next after the Eucharist in the order of dignity, Confirmation being between these two. Penance and Extreme Unction could not have a first place because they presuppose defects (sins). Of the two Penance is the first in necessity: Extreme Unction completes the work of Penance and prepares souls for heaven. Matrimony has not such an important social work as Orders (ST III:56:3, ad 1). If we consider necessity alone -- the Eucharist being left out as our daily bread, and God's greatest gift -- three are simply and strictly necessary, Baptism for all, Penance for those who fall into mortal sin after receiving Baptism, Orders for the Church. The others are not so strictly necessary. Confirmation completes the work of Baptism; Extreme Unction completes the work of Penance; Matrimony sanctifies the procreation and education of children, which is not so important nor so necessary as the sanctification of ministers of the Church (ST III:56:3, ad 4).

(d) Episcopalians and Anglicans distinguish two great sacraments and five lesser sacraments because the latter "have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained by God" (art. XXXV). Then they should be classed among the sacramentals since God alone can be the author of a sacrament (see above III). On this point the language of the twenty-fifth article ("commonly called sacraments") is more logical and straightforward than the terminology of recent Anglican writers. The Anglican Catechism calls Baptism and Eucharist sacraments "generally (i.e. universally) necessary for salvation". Mortimer justly remarks that this expression is not "entirely accurate", because the Eucharist is not generally necessary to salvation in the same way as Baptism (op.cit., I, 127). The other five he adds are placed in a lower class because, "they are not necessary to salvation in the same sense as the two other sacraments, since they are not necessary for everyone" (loc.cit., 128). Verily this is interpretation extraordinary; yet we should be grateful since it is more respectful than saying that those five are "such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures" (art. XXV). Confusion and uncertainty will be avoided by accepting the declaration of the Council of Trent (above).

V. EFFECTS OF THE SACRAMENTS

(1) Catholic Doctrine

(a) The principal effect of the sacrament is a two-fold grace: (1) the grace of the sacrament which is "first grace", produced by the sacraments of the dead, or "second grace", produced by the sacraments of the living (supra, IV, 3, b); (2) The sacramental grace, i.e., the special grace needed to attain the end of each sacrament. Most probably it is not a new habitual gift, but a special vigour or efficacy in the sanctifying grace conferred, including on the part of God, a promise, and on the part of man a permanent right to the assistance needed in order to act in accordance with the obligations incurred, e.g., to live as a good Christian, a good priest, a good husband or wife (cf. ST III:62:2).

(b) Three sacraments, Baptism, Confirmation and Orders, besides grace, produce in the soul a character, i.e., an indelible spiritual mark by which some are consecrated as servants of God, some as soldiers, some as ministers. Since it is an indelible mark, the sacraments which impress a character cannot be received more than once (Conc. Trid., sess. VII, can.9; see CHARACTER).

(2) How the sacraments cause Grace: Theological controversies.

Few questions have been so hotly controverted as this one relative to the manner in which the sacraments cause grace (ST IV, Sent., d.1, Q.4, a.1.).

(a) All admit that the sacraments of the New Law cause grace ex opere operato, not ex opere operantis (above, II, 2, 3).

(b) All admit that God alone can be the principal cause of grace (above 3, 1).

(c) All admit that Christ as man, had a special power over the sacraments (above, 3, 2).

(d) All admit that the sacraments are, in some sense, the instrumental causes either of grace itself or of something else which will be a "title exigent of grace" (infra e). The principal cause is one which produces an effect by a power which it has by reason of its own nature or by an inherent faculty. An instrumental cause produces an effect, not by its own power, but by a power which it receives from the principal agent. When a carpenter makes a table, he is the principal cause, his tools are the instrumental causes. God alone can cause grace as the principal cause; sacraments can be no more than his instruments "for they are applied to men by Divine ordinance to cause grace in them" (ST III:62:1). No theologian today defends Occasionalism (see CAUSE) i.e. the system which taught that the sacraments caused grace by a kind of concomitance, they being not real causes but the causae sine quibus non: their reception being merely the occasion of conferring grace. This opinion, according to Pourrat (op.cit., 167), was defended by St. Bonaventure, Duns Scotus, Durandus, Occam, and all the Nominalists, and "enjoyed a real success until the time of the Council of Trent, when it was transformed into the modern system of moral causality". St. Thomas (III:62:1, III:62:4; and "Quodlibeta", 12, a, 14), and others rejected it on the ground that it reduced the sacraments to the condition of mere signs.

(e) In solving the problem the next step was the introduction of the system of dispositive instrumental causality, explained by Alexander of Hales (Summa theol., IV, Q. v, membr. 4), adopted and perfected by St. Thomas (IV Sent., d. 1, Q. i, a. 4), defended by many theologians down to the sixteenth century, and revived later by Father Billot, S.J. ("De eccl. sacram.", I, Rome, 1900). According to this theory the sacraments do not efficiently and immediately cause grace itself, but they cause ex opere operato and instrumentally, a something else -- the character (in some cases) or a spiritual ornament or form -- which will be a "disposition" entitling the soul to grace ("dispositio exigitiva gratiae"; "titulus exigitivus gratiae", Billot, loc.cit.). It must be admitted that this theory would be most convenient in explaining "reviviscence" of the sacraments (infra, VII, c). Against it the following objections are made:

• From the time of the Council of Trent down to recent times little was heard of this system.
• The "ornament", or "disposition", entitling the soul to grace is not well explained, hence explains very little.
• Since this "disposition" must be something spiritual and of the supernatural order, and the sacraments can cause it, why can they not cause the grace itself?
• In his "Summa theologica" St. Thomas does not mention this dispositive causality: hence we may reasonably believe that he abandoned it.

(f) Since the time of the Council of Trent theologians almost unanimously have taught that the sacraments are the efficient instrumental cause of grace itself. The definition of the Council of Trent, that the sacraments "contain the grace which they signify", that they "confer grace ex opere operato" (Sess. VII, can.6, 8), seemed to justify the assertion, which was not contested until quite recently. Yet the end of the controversy had not come. What was the nature of that causality? Did it belong to the physical or to the moral order? A physical cause really and immediately produces its effects, either as the principal agent or as the instrument used, as when a sculptor uses a chisel to carve a statue. A moral cause is one which moves or entreats a physical cause to act. It also can be principal or instrumental, e.g., a bishop who in person successfully pleads for the liberation of a prisoner is the principal moral cause, a letter sent by him would be the instrumental moral cause, of the freedom granted. The expressions used by St. Thomas seem clearly to indicate that the sacraments act after the manner of physical causes. He says that there is in the sacraments a virtue productive of grace (III:62:4) and he answers objections against attributing such power to a corporeal instrument by simply stating that such power is not inherent in them and does not reside in them permanently, but is in them only so far and so long as they are instruments in the hands of Almighty God (loc.cit., ad um and 3 um). Cajetan, Suarez, and a host of other great theologians defend this system, which is usually termed Thomistic. The language of the Scripture, the expressions of the Fathers, the Decrees of the councils, they say, are so strong that nothing short of an impossibility will justify a denial of this dignity to the sacraments of the New Law. Many facts must be admitted which we cannot fully explain. The body of man acts on his spiritual soul; fire acts, in some way, on souls and on angels. The strings of a harp, remarks Cajetan (In III, Q.lxii) touched by an unskilled hand, produce nothing but sounds: touched by the hands of a skilful mmusician they give forth beautiful melodies. Why cannot the sacraments, as instruments in the hands of God, produce grace?

Many grave theologians were not convinced by these arguments, and another school, improperly called the Scotistic, headed by Melchior Cano, De Lugo, and Vasquez, embracing later Henno, Tournely, Franzelin, and others, adopted the system of instrumental moral causality. The principal moral cause of grace is the Passion of Christ. The sacraments are instruments which move or entreat God effectively and infallibly to give his grace to those who receive them with proper disposotions, because, says Melchior Cano, "the price of the blood of Jesus Christ is communicated to them" (see Pourrat, op. cit., 192, 193). This system was further developed by Franzelin, who looks upon the sacraments as being morally an act of Christ (loc.cit., p.194). The Thomists and Suarez object to this system:

• Since the sacraments (i.e. the external rites) have no intrisic value, they do not, according to this explanation, exert any genuine causality; they do not really cause grace, God alone causes the grace: the sacrament do not operate to produce it; they are only signs or occasions of conferring it.
• The Fathers saw something mysterious and inexplicable in the sacraments. In this system wonders cease or are, at least, so much reduced that the expressions used by the Fathers seem altogether out of place.
• This thoery does not sufficiently distinguish, in efficacy, the sacraments of the Gospel from the sacraments of the Old Law. Nevertheless, because it avoids certain difficulties and obscurities of the physical causality theory, the system of moral causality has found many defenders, and today if we consider numbers alone, it has authority in its favour.

Recently both of these systems have been vigorously attacked by Father Billot (op.cit., 107 sq.), who proposes a new explanation. He revives the old theory that the sacraments do not immediately cause grace itself, but a disposition or title to grace (above e). This disposition is produced by the sacraments, neither physically nor morally, but imperatively. Sacraments are practical signs of an intentional order: they manifest God's intention to give spiritual benefits; this manifestation of the Divine intention is a title exigent of grace (op.cit., 59 sq., 123 sq.; Pourrat, op.cit., 194; Cronin in reviews, sup. cit.). Father Billot defends his opinions with remarkable acumen. Patrons of the physical causality gratefully note his attack against the moral causality, but object to the new explanation, that the imperative or the intentional causality, as distinct from the action of signs, occasions, moral or physical instruments (a) is conceived with difficulty and (b) does not make the sacraments (i.e. the external, Divinely appointed ceremonies) the real cause of grace. Theologians are perfectly free to dispute and differ as to the manner of instrumental causality. Lis est adhuc sub judice.

VI. MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENTS

(1) Men, Not Angels

It was altogether fitting that the ministration of the sacraments be given, not to the angels, but to men. The efficacy of the sacraments comes from the Passion of Christ, hence from Christ as a man; men, not angels, are like unto Christ in His human nature. Miraculously God might send a good angel to administer a sacrament (ST III:64:7).

(2) Ordination Requirements for the Ministers of Particular Sacraments

For administering Baptism validly no special ordination is required. Any one, even a pagan, can baptize, provided that he use the proper matter and pronounce the words of the essential form, with the intention of doing what the Church does (Decr. pro Armen., Denzinger-Bannwart, 696). Ony bishops, priests, and in some cases, deacons may confer Baptism solemnly (see BAPTISM). It is now held as certain that in Matrimony the contracting parties are the ministers of the sacrament, because they make the contract and the sacrament is a contract raised by CHrist to the dignity of a sacrament (cf. Leo XIII, Encycl. "Arcanum", 10 Febr., 1880; see MATRIMONY). For the validity of the other five sacraments the minister must be duly ordained. The Council of Trent anathematized those who said that all Christians could administer all the sacraments (Sess. VII, can.10). Only bishops can confer Sacred Orders (Council of Trent, sess. XXIII, can.7). Ordinarily only a bishop can give Confirmation (see CONFIRMATION). The priestly Order is required for the valid administration of Penance and Extreme Unction (Conc. Trid., sess. XIV, can.10, can.4). As to the Eucharist, those only who have priestly Orders can consecrate, i.e. change bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. Consecration presupposed, any one can distribute the Eucharistic species but, outside of very extraordinary circumstances this can be lawfully done only by bishops, priests, or (in some cases) deacons.

(3) Heretical or Schismatic Ministers

The care of all those sacred rites has been given to the Church of Christ. Heretical or schismatical ministers can administer the sacraments validly if they have valid Orders, but their ministrations are sinful (see Billot, op.cit., thesis 16). Good faith would excuse the recipients from sin, and in cases of necessity the Church grants jurisdiction necessary for Penance and Extreme Unction (see EXCOMMUNICATION: V, EFFECTS OF EXCOMMUNICATION).

(4) State of Soul of the Minister

Due reverence for the sacraments requires the minister to be in a state of grace: one who solemnly and officially administers a sacrament, being himself in a state of mortal sin, would certainly be guilty of a sacrilege (cf. ST III:64:6). Some hold that this sacrilege is committed even when the minister does not act officially or confer the sacrament solemnly. But from the controversy between St. Augustine and the Donatists in the fourth century and especially from the controversy between St. Stephen and St. Cyprian (q.v.) in the third century, we know that personal holiness or the state of grace in the minister is not a prerequisite for the valid administration of the sacrament. This has been solemnly defined in several general councils including the Council of Trent (Sess VII, can.12, ibid., de bapt., can.4). The reason is that the sacraments have their efficacy by Divine institution and through the merits of Christ. Unworthy ministers, validly conferring the sacraments, cannot impede the efficacy of signs ordained by Christ to produce grace ex opere operato (cf. St. Thomas, III:64:5, III:64:9). The knowledge of this truth, which follows logically from the true conception of a sacrament, gives comfort to the faithful, and it should increase, rather than diminish, reverence for those sacred rites and confidence in their efficacy. No one can give, in his own name, that which he does not possess; but a bank cashier, not possessing 2000 dollars in his own name, could write a draft worth 2, 000, 000 dollars by reason of the wealth of the bank which he is authorized to represent. Christ left to His Church a vast treasure purchased by His merits and sufferings: the sacraments are as credentials entitling their holders to a share in this treasure. On this subject, the Anglican Church has retained the true doctrine, which is neatly proved in article XXVI of the Westminster Confession: "Although in the visible church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil hath the chief authority in the ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ's, and do minister by His commission and authority, we may use their ministry both in hearing the Word of God and in receiving the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their wickedness nor the grace of God's gifts from such as by faith, and rightly, do receive the sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ's institution and promise, although they be administered by evil men" (cf. Billuart, de sacram., d.5, a.3, sol.obj.)

(5) Intention of the Minister

(a) To be a minister of the sacraments under and with Christ, a man must act as a man, i.e. as a rational being; hence it is absolutely necessary that he have the intention of doing what the Church does. This was declared by Eugene IV in 1439 (Denzinger-Bannwart, 695) and was solemnly defined in the council of Trent (Sess.VII, can.II). The anathema of Trent was aimed at the innovators of the sixteenth century. From their fundamental error that the sacraments were signs of faith, or signs that excited faith, it followed logically that their effect in no wise depended on the intention of the minister. Men are to be "ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God" (I Cor., iv, 1), and this they would not be without the intention, for it is by the intention, says St. Thomas (III:64:8, ad 1) that a man subjects and unites himself to the principal agent (Christ). Moreover, by rationally pronouncing the words of the form, the minister must determine what is not sufficiently determined or expressed by the matter applied, e.g. the significance of pouring water on the head of the child (ST III:64:8). One who is demented, drunk, asleep, or in a stupor that prevents a rational act, one who goes through the external ceremony in mockery, mimicry, or in a play, does not act as a rational minister, hence cannot administer a sacrament.

(b) The necessary object and qualities of the intention required in the minister of the sacrament are explained in the article INTENTION. Pourrat (op.cit., ch.7) gives a history of all controversies on this subject. Whatever may be said speculatively about the opinion of Ambrosius Catherinus (see POLITI, LANCELOT) who advocated the sufficiency of an external intention in the minister, it may not be followed in practice, because, outside of cases of neccessity, no one may follow a probable opinion against one that is safer, when there is question of something required for the validity of a sacrament (Innoc. XI, 1679; Denzinger-Bannwart, 1151).

(6) Attention in the Minister

Attention is an act of the intellect, viz. the application of the mind to what is being done. Voluntary distraction in one administering a sacrament would be sinful. The sin would however not be brave, unless (a) there be danger of making a serious mistake, or (b) according to the common opinion, the distraction be admitted in consecrating the Eucharistic species. Attention on the part of the minister is not necessary for the valid administration of a sacrament, because in virtue of the intention, which is presupposed, he can act in a rational manner, notwithstanding the distraction.

VII. RECIPIENT OF THE SACRAMENTS

When all conditions required by Divine and ecclesiastical law are complied with, the sacrament is received validly and licitly. If all conditions required for the essential rite are observed, on the part of the minister, the recipient, the matter and form, but some non-essential condition is not complied with by the recipient, the sacrament is received validly but not licitly; and if the condition wilfully neglected be grave, grace is not then conferred by the ceremony. Thus baptized persons contracting Matrimony whilst they are in the state of mortal sin would be validly (i.e. really) married, but would not then receive sanctifying grace.

(1) Conditions for valid reception

(a) The previous reception of Baptism (by water) is an essential condition for the valid reception of any other sacrament. Only citizens and members of the Church can come under her influence as such; Baptism is the door by which we enter the Church and thereby become members of a mystical body united to Christ our head (Catech. Trid., de bapt., nn.5, 52).

(b) In adults, for the valid reception of any sacrament except the Eucharist, it is necessary that they have the intention of receiving it. The sacraments impose obligations and confer grace: Christ does not wish to impose those obligations or confer grace without the consent of man. The Eucharist is excepted because, in whatever state the recipient may be, it is always the body and blood of Christ (see INTENTION; cf. Pourrat, op.cit., 392).

(c) For attention, see above, VI, 6. By the intention man submits himself to the operation of the sacraments which produce their effects exopere operato, hence attention is not necessary for the valid reception of the sacraments. One who might be distracted, even voluntarily, during the conferring, e.g. of Baptism, would receive the sacrament validly. It must be carefully noted, however, that in the case of Matrimony the contracting parties are the ministers as well as the recipients of the sacraments; and in the sacrament of Penance, the acts of the penitent, contrition, confession, and willingness to accept a Penance in satisfaction, constitute the proximate matter of the sacraments, according to the commonly received opinion. Hence in those cases such attention is required as is necessary for the valid application of the matter and form.

(2) Conditions for the Licit Reception

(a) For the licit reception, besides the intention and the attention, in adults there is required:

• for the sacraments of the dead, supernatural attrition, which presupposes acts of faith, hope, and repentance (see ATTRITION and JUSTIFICATION);
• for the sacraments of the living the state of grace. Knowingly to receive a sacrament of the living whilst one is in the state of mortal sin would be a sacrilege.

(b) For the licit reception it is also necessary to observe all that is prescribed by Divine or ecclesiastical law, e.g. as to time, place, the minister, etc. As the Church alone has the care of the sacraments and generally her duly appointed agents alone have the right to administer them, except Baptism in some cases, and Matrimony (supra VI, 2), it is a general law that application for the sacraments should be made to worthy and duly appointed ministers. (For exceptions see EXCOMMUNICATION.)

(3) Reviviscence of the Sacraments

Much attention has been given by theologians to the revival of effects which were impeded at the time when a sacrament was received. The question arises whenever a sacrament is received validly but unworthily, i.e. with an obstacle which prevents the infusion of Divine grace. The obstacle (mortal sin) is positive, when it is known and voluntary, or negative, when it is involuntary by reason of ignorance or good faith. One who thus receives a sacrament is said to receive it feignedly, or falsely (ficte), because by the very act of receiving it he pretends to be properly disposed; and the sacrament is said to be validum sed informe -- valid, but lacking its proper form, i.e. grace or charity (see LOVE). Can such a person recover or receive the effects of the sacraments? The term reviviscence (reviviscentia) is not used by St. Thomas in reference to the sacraments and it is not strictly correct because the effects in question being impeded by the obstacle, were not once "living" (cf. Billot, op.cit., 98, note). The expression which he uses (III:69:10), viz., obtaining the effects after the obstacle has been removed, is more accurate, though not so convenient as the newer term.

(a) Theologians generally hold that the question does not apply to Penance and the Holy Eucharist. If the penitent be not sufficiently disposed to receive grace at the time he confesses his sins the sacrament is not validly received because the acts of the penitent are a necessary part of the matter of this sacrament, or a necessary condition for its reception. One who unworthily receives the Eucharist can derive no benefit from that sacrament unless, perhaps, he repent of his sins and sacrilege before the sacred species have beeen destroyed. Cases that may occur relate to the five other sacraments.

(b) It is certain and admitted by all, that if Baptism be received by an adult who is in the state of mortal sin, he can afterwards receive the graces of the sacrament, viz. when the obstacle is removed by contrition or by the sacrament of Penance. On the one hand the sacraments always produce grace unless there be an obstacle; on the other hand those graces are necessary, and yet the sacrament cannot be repeated. St. Thomas (III:69:10) and theologians find a special reason for the conferring of the effects of Baptism (when the "fiction" has been removed) in the permanent character which is impressed by the sacrament validly administered. Reasoning from analogy they hold the same with regard to Confirmation and Holy Orders, noting however that the graces to be received are not so necessary as those conferred by Baptism.

(c) The doctrine is not so certain when applied to Matrimony and Extreme Unction. But since the graces impeded are very important though not strictly necessary, and since Matrimony cannot be received again whilst both contracting parties are living, and Extreme Unction cannot be repeated whilst the same danger of death lasts, theologians adopt as more probable the opinion which holds that God will grant the graces of those sacraments when the obstacle is removed. The "reviviscence" of the effects of sacraments received validly but with an obstacle to grace at the time of their reception, is urged as a strong argument against the system of the physical causality of grace (supra, V, 2), especially by Billot (op.cit., thesis, VII, 116, 126). For his own system he claims the merit of establishing an invariable mode of causality, namely, that in every case by the sacrament validly received there is conferred a "title exigent of grace". If there be no obstacle the grace is conferred then and there: if there be an obstacle the "title" remains calling for the grace which will be conferred as soon as the obstacle is removed (op.cit., th.VI, VII). To this his opponents reply that exceptional cases might well call for an exceptional mode of causality. In the case of three sacraments the character sufficiently explains the revival of effects (cf. ST III:66:1, III:69:9, III:69:10). The doctrine as applied to Extreme Unction and Matrimony, is not certain enough to furnish a strong argument for or against any system. Future efforts of theologians may dispel the obscurity and uncertainty now prevailing in this interesting chapter.

D.J. KENNEDY

Brothers of the Sacred Heart

A congregation founded in 1821 by Père André Coindre, of the Diocese of Lyons, France. Its constitutions were modeled upon the constitutions of St. Ignatius based upon the Rule of Saint Augustine. Its members bind themselves for life by the simple vows of religion. There are no priests in the congregation, the objective purpose of which is the Christian education of boys in asylums, parochial and select schools, and commercial colleges. The growth of the congregation was slow. At the period of its origin the political condition of France was very unfavorable. It was a day of political agitation and revolution. Lyons, the cradle of the congregation, suffered sorely in these revolutions. But a more hampering difficulty to its growth lay in the ill-defined government imposed upon the congregation. Père André Coindre was the superior-general and continued such till his death in 1821. Père Vincent Coindre, his brother, succeeded him in this office.

In 1840 Père Coindre assembled the general chapter of the congregation. During the discussions of the chapter, opinion among the brothers was unanimous that it was necessary for the success of the congregation that its temporal affairs should be in the hands of the brothers themselves, and that one of their number should be superior-general. The question was referred to Mgr de Bonald, Archbishop of Lyons, who, after an exhaustive examination, judged it advisable that Père Coindre should resign the office. On 13 Sept., 1841, Brother Polycarp was unanimously chosen by the brothers as their superior-general. He reconstructed the government of the community and gave it stability and permanency. At the time of his death in 1859, there were in France alone seventy three establishments, an increase of sixty during his administration. He had, moreover, in 1846 opened up in the United States, at Mobile, Ala., a new field of labor for the institute. In 1872 the province of the United States extended its schools into Canada, and in 1880 transferred its novitiate from Indianapolis to Arthabaskaville, P. Q., Canada. The growth of the congregation was here so rapid that it was deemed advisable to erect the establishments in Canada into a separate province. This was effected by a decree of the general chapter of the society held at Paradis, near Le Puy, France, in 1900. About the same time a house of studies for postulants and a novitiate for the United States province were established at Metuchen, N. J.

The congregation has at the present time (1907) in the United States and Canada forty-eight establishments directed by 460 brothers, educating more than 9000 pupils. Just previous to the French Law of 1901, suppressing religious communities in France, there were in that country alone 1100 brothers, 150 schools, academies, colleges, asylums, deaf and dumb institutions, with 25,000 pupils, in twenty dioceses. Owing to the present religious persecution in France, the congregation has been obliged to seek new fields of labor, and twenty establishments have recently been founded in Spain and Belgium.

BROTHER CHARLES

Missionary Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Jesus

A religious congregation having its general mother house at Rome, founded in 1880 by Mother Francis Xavier Cabrini, who is still living. The aim of the institute is to spread devotion to the Heart of Jesus by means of the practice of spiritual and corporal works of mercy. The sisters conduct homes for the aged and the sick, orphanages, industrial schools, sewing classes; they visit hospitals and prisons, and give religious instruction in their convents, which are open to women desirous of making retreats. The congregation has spread rapidly in Europe and America. In 1899, at the suggestion of Leo XIII, the sisters came to New York, and have since opened convents in the Dioceses of Brooklyn, Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, Newark, Scranton, and Seattle. At the beginning of 1911 the institute had in the United States: 253 sisters; 11 schools with 4850 pupils; 6 orphanages with 713 orphans; 2 hospitals with about 3520 patients annually; and 1 dispensary where 21,630 persons were treated during the preceding years.

This congregation is to be distinguished from the Missionary Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, founded by Father Hubert Linckens, provincial of the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart, Hiltrup, near Munster, on 3 August, 1899, and approved episcopally in 1900. The latter sisters are engaged teaching in New Guiana, New Pomerania, and the Marshall Islands, in the districts confided to the care of the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart.

A.A. MACERLEAN

Missionaries of the Sacred Heart of Jesus

(Issoudun).

A religious congregation of priests and lay brothers with the object of promoting the knowledge and practice of devotion to the Heart of Jesus as embodied in the revelations of Our Lord to Blessed Margaret Mary Alacoque, and of offering personal reparation to the Divine Heart. The society's motto is, "Ametur ubique terrarum Cor Jesu Sacratissimum" (May the most Sacred Heart of Jesus be loved everywhere). It was founded at Issoudun, in the Archdiocese of Bourges, France, by the Abbe Jules Chevalier. Until very recent years the mother house was in the above-named town, but since the separation of Church and State in France the society has its headquarters in Rome. The origin of the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart is closely connected with the Papal definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the B. V. M., the means to lay their foundation being the outcome of special prayers addressed to the Mother of God during the nine days preceding the great religious event of 8 Dec., 1854. The founder had pledged himself to honor the Blessed Virgin in a special manner. He redeemed his promise the following year by erecting a shrine dedicated to the honor of the Blessed Virgin under the title of "Our Lady of the Sacred Heart ".

In 1864 an association of prayer was founded which has since been honored with the official title of Universal Archconfraternity of Our Lady of the Sacred Heart, and enriched with numerous indulgences. The central governing body is at Rome, with local directors in various countries. The official centre for the United States is at Watertown, New York; those for other English-speaking countries are at Glastonbury, Somerset, England; Sydney, New South Wales, and Cork, where the society's first house in Ireland was founded, and an ecclesiastical college opened, in 1909.

On 2 Oct. 1867, an apostolic school was founded by Father Vandel at Chezal-Benoit in France, with twelve pupils. It grew and prospered, and in course of time other similar institutions arose in different countries. From these the priests of the society are chiefly recruited. The work is represented in the United States by St. Joseph's Apostolic School at Watertown, N. Y.

The personnel of the society is composed of 825 professed religious, with provincial houses in Italy, Germany, Holland, Australia, and a Provincial Superior residing in Paris, who rules over the dispersed members of the French Province, and its establishments in Switzerland; Belgium; Canada -- Quebec; Beauport, Province of Quebec; South Qu'Appelle, Medicine Hat, Saskatchewan, and North Cobalt, Ont.

The Fathers at Quebec direct the Archconfraternity of Our Lady of the Sacred Heart, publish the Annals, its monthly bulletin, and conduct five missions and retreats. They also have a public chapel. The novitiate for Canada and the States is at Beauport. The other Canadian communities are engaged in parochial and missionary work. In England, besides Glastonbury, the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart have communities at St. Albans, Herfordshire, and at Braintree, Essex. They engage in parish work and act as chaplains.

In the United States the Society has communities at Watertown, N. Y.; Natick, R. I.; Onawa and Sioux City, Iowa; Cazenovia, Wis., this last being a dependency of the German Province; the first four form an American Quasi-Province with headquarters at Natick. In all these places the Fathers have charge of parishes, except those at Sioux City, who preach missions, supply the places of absent priests, and assist the clergy. The Natick community supplies chaplains to St. Joseph's Hospital for tubercular patients at Hills Grove, and to the Rhode Island State charitable and correctional institutions at Howard, Cranston, and Sackanosset.

For the past quarter of a century the efforts of the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart have been expended chiefly in foreign mission fields. On 1 Sept., 1881, three Fathers set out from Barcelona for the South Sea Islands at the request of Leo XIII, and established a station in New Britain -- now New Pomerania. To-day the priests and brothers doing missionary work in divers islands and archipelagoes of the South Pacific number upward of 300, exclusive of the new mission lately opened in Mindanao, Philippine Islands -- where thirty or more apostolic laborers from the Dutch Province are already employed -- and the vast territory comprised in the diocese of Port Victoria and Palmerston, South Australia, in charge of Father F. X. Gsell as Administrator Apostolic, with residence at Port Darwin. The Bishop of Ponso-Alegre has just entrusted the direction of his episcopal college to the congregation.

CHEVALIER, Le Sacre-Coeur de Jesus dans ses rapports avec Marie, ou Notre Dame du Sacre-Coeur (Paris, 1884); VAUDON, Mgr Henry Verjus (Paris, 1899); CARRIERE, Le P. Jean Vandel (Issoudun, 1908); Album societatis missionariorum SSmi Cordis Jesu (ROME, 1911).

ZÉPHYRIN PÉLOQUIN

Society of the Sacred Heart of Jesus

(PACCANARISTS).

This society was founded by two young seminarists of Saint-Sulpice who had emigrated to Belgium during the French Revolution, Francois-Eleonor de Tournély and Prince Charles de Broglie, a son of the marshal. Their object was to form a society similar in all respects to the order founded by St. Ignatius Loyola. Their first residence was the old country house of the Louvain Jesuits, into which the community under Tournély entered 8 May, 1794, numbering four members. These four were the two founders and two young officers of the army of Condé, Xavier de Tournély, brother of the superior, and Pierre-Charles Le Blanc. The victory of the French forces at Fleurus (26 June, 1794) obliged them to leave Belgium just as they were joined by a recruit who was destined to play a part of great importance, Joseph Varin de Solmon, who had also been in the army of Condé. The fugitives lived for some time at Leutershofen near Augsburg. In the church of the Benedictines at Augsburg, on 15 Oct., 1794, they consecrated themselves by a special vow to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Most Holy Heart of Mary, to continue the work they had begun, to offer themselves to the sovereign pontiff and to obey him as St. Ignatius and his companions had done. When it had to leave Augsburg, the Society of the Sacred Heart numbered sixteen subjects. It wandered about for some time in Southern Germany and several of its members, Father Varin among them, were ordained priests. At length, on Easter Tuesday, 1797, it settled in the village of Hagenbrunn, three leagues from Vienna. There the founder, not more than thirty years of age, died of smallpox, 9 July, 1797, and Father Varin, but twenty-eight years of age, was chosen his successor.

The new superior submitted the statutes of the society for the endorsement of the exiled French bishops in Germany and the approbation of Pius VI, then detained at Florence. The number of postulants having greatly increased, a novitiate was opened at Prague under the protection of the Archduchess Maria Anna, and Hagenbrunn was converted into a boarding-school. This was at the close of the year 1798. Nicholas Paccanari, a native of Valsugnana, near Trent, had at one time been a sergeant in the garrison of S. Angelo, had then become a merchant and, having met with financial disaster, was reduced to earn his livmg as a sort of guide or cicerone. Though entirely without education, he possessed a remarkable natural gift of eloquence.

At about this period Paccanari was attached to the Oratory of the Caravita, a pious association at Rome umder the direction of Father Gravita, who had been a Jesuit. Here Paccanari conceived a desire to re-constitute the Society of Jesus. He won over to his project those priests who were his associates at the Caravita: Joseph della Vedova, a doctor of the Sapienza; Halnat, of the Diocese of Rennes, formerly a missionary in Madagascar; Epinette, of the Diocese of Le Mans. He drew up a rule of life for them and shut himself up at Loreto in a retreat which lasted eleven months. Returning to Rome in May, 1797, he obtained for his project the approval of Cardinal della Somaglia, the pope's vicar, and on 15 August, in the Chapel of the Caravita, the founder and his three companions made the three vows of religion and the vow of obedience to the sovereign pontiff. They adopted the habit of the original Jesuits and settled themselves at Spoleto. In August, 1798, Paccanari, having been received by Pius VI who was then at Sienna, obtained from the pope several privileges and a Rescript m which the society was designated "The Company of the Faith of Jesus". The pope charged him with the care of the Propaganda students who had been expelled from their seminary.

Paccanari made three journeys to Rome to collect these young men; the third time he and his companions were arrested by the French military authorities and lodged in the Castle of S. Angelo. They remained there four months, were then expelled from the Roman Republic and retired to Parma, where many of the former Jesuits had established themselves under the protection of the duke. Father Halnat, having learned of the existence of the Sacred Heart Fathers, suggested to Paccanari the idea of one foundation for the two institutes devoted to the same object. Negotiations were opened, but were interrupted by the imprisonment of Paccanari, and were resumed in 1799. The founder of the Fathers of the Faith, after a visit to Pius VI who heartily encouraged his project, repaired to Vienna. The society numbered about a score of members, only three of them priests. It had at first been well received by the Jesuits of Parma and of Venice, but its leader's lukewarmness towards the idea of union with the Jesuits of Russia rendered it suspect to those religious.

Fusion with the French community at Hagenbrunn therefore offered the only opportunity for its development. Conferences were inaugurated at Hagenbrunn, 9 April, 1799, and lasted nine days, Father Sineo della Torre, one of the Sacred Heart Fathers, acting as interpreter between Father Varin and Paccanari, who knew neither French nor Latin. The encouragement given by Pius VI was accepted by the Fathers of the Sacred Heart as a command, and their already numerous congregation allowed itself to be absorbed by Paccanari's little society. On 18 April, Paccanari, still only a tonsured cleric, was received as superior-general, and the name Fathers of the Sacred Heart was changed to that of Fathers of the Faith. The general, deeming the manner of life of the Hagenbrunn Fathers too austere and too confined, shortened their hours of prayer, increased the time devoted to studies and recreation, and launched his subjects on the external life and the work of preaching. Having been introduced by Father Varin to the Archduchess Maria Anna, Paccanari gained an extraordinary ascendancy over that princess, through whose good offices he received minor orders, the subdiaconate, and the diaconate from the hands of the nuncio at Vienna.

At the request of his new subjects, who were already beginning to be uneasy about his tendencies, he gave out (11 Aug., 1799) a somewhat vague statement of his intentions in regard to the original Jesuits. At last he left Germany, but only after distributing his men among the different countries of Western Europe. A college was opened at Dillingen, a foundation which lasted five or six years was made at Amsterdam, and Fathers Rozaven and de Broglie with some scholastics set out for England, where in March, 1800, they opened a boarding-school at Kensington. Paccanari himself, returning to Italy, established a novitiate at Cremona, then at Este.

He scattered many of his religious among the hospitals—at that time overcrowded with wounded soldiers—in Italy and Germany. In the midst of of his labors he was ordained priest at Padua, and soon after this he received from the new pope, Pius VII, permission to have a house at Rome. The Archduchess Maria Anna bought from the Theatines the Church of St. Sylvester, with its convent and gardens, at Monte-Cavallo; and in 1801 the pope in person came to install the Fathers there. In the month of August, 1802, the first congregation was held; with some temporary modifications, the old constitution of the Society of Jesus was adopted. In 1803 and 1804 Paccanari summoned to the College of St. Sylvester the young religious of the society, and the courses in philosophy and theology, as well as the solemn theses, of this house of studies shed great lustre upon the nascent order. At that time there were 110 religious at St. Sylvester. In the beginning of 1804, again under the archduchess's patronage, the Salviati Palace, near St. Peter's, was opened as a boarding-school for young nobles, the institution being named, after its benefactress, the "Collegio Mariano".

Throughout Italy, but particularly at Spoleto, the Paccanarists gave missions with great success. In Nov., 1805, the Council of the Republic of Le Valais offered Paccanari the College of Sion, which was accepted. To Father Varin France had been assigned as the field of his apostolate; he returned thither in the spring of 1800 and began by preaching to the sick in the hospitals of Bicêtre and la Salpêtrière. It was at this time that, with Blessed Sophie Barat, he established the Society of the Ladies of the Sacred Heart (21 Nov., 1800). The Fathers of the Faith rapidly increased in number; in 1801 they were able to open at Lyons a boarding-school, which was transferred in the following year to the old Jesuit college at Belley. Lamartine was educated there. Another school was established in 1802 at Amiens, and then another at Roanne in 1804. These foundations aroused the suspicions both of Fouché, the minister of police, and of Napoleon; but Portalis and, still more, Cardinal Fesch quieted them for a time. Missions were preached with brilliant success; at the first mission, at Tours, the extraordinary power which Father Enfantin exercised over the crowds was unexpectedly revealed; at the second, at Amiens, more than six hundred marriages were rehabilitated.

Meanwhile Paccanari's administration, his taste for display, his festivals, and the premature thrusting of his subjects into publicity displeased the Fathers of the Faith. Besides, Father Rozaven, the provincial of England, who had learned in 1802 certain unsavory details of the general's private life, pursued his inquiries, and, having attained certainty, visited Rome in 1803 to communicate the melancholy facts to Pius VII. During his absence most of his brethren in London wrote to Father Gruber, the Vicar-General of the Society of Jesus in Russia, to obtain admission individually. Father Rozaven on his return to England imitated their example, and in March, 1804, he set out for Russia. Only Father Charles de Broglie remained in London, as a secular priest; he broke with his former friends, allied himself closely with the anti-concordataire bishops, and persisted in his protestations against the act of Pius VII as late as 1842. Father Varin, apprised of the course of events by Father Rozaven, referred the matter to the cardinal-legate in France, and on 21 June, 1804, broke with Paccanari. His society, having become independent, remained in France on the advice of the legate and of Pius VII himself. It flourished in that country until 1807; missions were given at Grenoble, Poitiers, Niort, Bordeaux, and elsewhere; seminaries were opened at Roulers (Gand), Marvejols (Mende), Bazas (Bordeaux), and a college at Argentière (Lyons). This progress alarmed Fouché; Napoleon issued an order for the suppression of the congregation, which was executed in Nov., 1807; the connivance of local authorities enabled it to continue the work of the seminaries, but its missions were stopped. Many of the Fathers entered the parochial ministry.

In August, 1806, Father Sineo della Torre and the Fathers in Switzerland in their turn abandoned Paccanari. In 1810 they were received as a body into the Society of Jesus, though only in foro inferno, the official aggregation not taking place until 1814. Also about the year 1806 some of the Fathers of Spoleto, Padua, Lombardy, and Amsterdam seceded. The Society of Jesus having been restored at Naples by Pius VII (31 July, 1804), many Fathers of the Collegio Mariano went there and were admitted as novices.

In July, 1807, Paccanari received positive commands from the pope to retire to Spoleto. A first canonical process was begun during the winter. Relegated to the convent of the Franciscans at Assisi, the general made a confession of his whole life and appeared penitent. At the end of five months he was transferred to the prisons of the Holy Office. A new trial resulted, in August, 1806, in a sentence of ten years' imprisonment. The sentence paid a tribute to the innocence and virtue of the other Fathers of the Faith; nevertheless it was the annihilation of their soceity. In 1809, when the French army opened the pontifical prisons, Paccanari at first refused to go out, but eventually left and disappeared. It is uncertain whether he withdrew to Switzerland under an assumed name, as some have asserted, or whether, under some regrettable circumstances, he was stabbed by a domestic servant and his body thrown into the Tiber, as another tradition has it. No one knows what his end was.

The Archduchess Maria Anna, who, in spite of the commands of her brother the Emperor Leopold, had at first refused to abandon Paccanari and his work, was obliged to submit, overcome by the miserable life which her brother allowed her to live and the shame of ier condemnation. She retired to Styria to die a holy death. She obtained permission for the last remnants of the Paccanarists to live, though without the religious habit, in the house of St. Sylvester. The Collegio Mariano was sold, and in 1814 most of the Paccanarists entered the Society of Jesus.

As for the French Fathers, the fall of Napoleon enabled them to meet in Paris and deliberate as to what course they should take. Father de Cloriviere, one of the old Jesuits, and Monsignori di Gregorio and della Genga (the latter afterwards Leo XII), the pope's representatives, advised them to remain in France. Father Varin, however, had already set out for Russia to ask the general to appoint a commissary to re-establish the Society of Jesus in France, when the commission was given to Father Cloriviere himself. Father Varin was received by him into the Society on 19 July, 1814. Nearly all the former Fathers of the Faith followed him; the rest remaining among the secular clergy.

GUIDEE, Vie du P. Joseph Varin (2nd ed., Paris, 1860); IDEM, Notices hist. sur quelques membres de la Soc. des Peres du Sacre-Coeur et de la C. de J. (Paris, 1860); SPEIL, Leonor v. Tournély u. die Gesellschaft des hl. Herzens Jesu (Breslau, 1874).

MARC DUBRUEL

Congregation of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary and of the Perpetual Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar

Better known as the Congregation of Picpus, was founded by Father Coudrin, b. at Coursay-les-Bois, in Poiton on 1 March, 1768. He was only deacon when the persecution, directed against the clergy, dispersed the students of the seminary of Poitiers, where he was being trained. Having learned that Mgr de Bonald, Bishop of Clermont, was in Paris and would confer Holy Orders upon him, he set out for that city, and on 4 March, 1792, was ordained priest in the Irish Seminary. The ordination took place in the library, because the revolutionaries had invaded the chapel in which they were actually holding their meetings. After ordination he returned to Coursay, but the violence of the persecution soon compelled him to hide elsewhere. During October of the same year, disguised, he labored in the Dioceses of Poitiers and Tours.

Father Coudrin gathered around him a few companions, to whom he communicated his views to promote devotion to the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and of Mary, and who were also willing to assist him in his great work. On Christmas night, 1800, he solemnly made his religious vows, devoting himself entirely to the love of the Sacred Hearts. During the year 1805 Father Coudrin bought some dilapidated houses in the Rue Picpus in Paris, and there established himself with a few of his religious. A college for the training of youths and a seminary were soon started. "The Good Father", as his religious used to call him, governed his congregation with tact and prudence, and in spite of many difficulties, his work prospered. Several new monasteries and colleges were founded and opened in various towns.

In 1825 the evangelization of the Sandwich Islands in the Pacific Ocean was entrusted by the Holy See to the Congregation of the Sacred Hearts, and the following year the first band of missionaries of the Sacred Hearts left France to carry the Faith to the inhabitants. In 1833 the Archipelagos of Oriental Oceanica were likewise confided to the same Congregation and immediately missionaries were sent to the Gambier Islands; some of these fathers established houses of the congregation in Peru and Chile, South America. Not long afterwards other evangelical laborers were sent to the Marquesa Islands at the death of the founder in 1837. The perpetual adoration of the Blessed Sacrament was made day and night in nineteen houses, while several other houses had also been founded abroad.

In 1817 it was formally approved by Pius VII, in 1825 by Leo XII, and in 1840 by Gregory XVI, under the name of Congregation of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary and of the Perpetual Adoration of the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar. Its special aim is to honor and imitate the four ages of our Lord: His infancy by the instruction of children, and by the formation of youths for the priesthood; His hidden life by the exercise of the Adoration; His public life, by preaching and by missionary work; His crucified life by the works of Christian mortification. At the present day the missions confided to the Congregation of the Sacred Hearts comprise three Apostolic Vicariates: the Tahiti Islands, Marquesa Islands, and the Hawaiian Islands, where Father Damien fell a victim to his humble and generous devotion for the poor lepers of Molokai. The Congregation of the Sacred Hearts, which depends directly upon the Propaganda, is governed by a Superior General, who is elected for life. The members make perpetual but simple vows after a probation of eighteen months' novitiate. In 1898 the Congregation was divided into three provinces. The Belgian province, under which England and the United States of America are comprised, has a novitiate and a house of studies at Courtray. The provincial has his residence in the monastery of the Sacred Hearts in Louvain, Mount St. Antoine, Belgium. The superior in England is in the Damien house of Eccleshall in Staffordshire; in the United States in the monastery of the Sacred Hearts at Fairhaven in Massachusetts.

HEIMBUCHER, Die Orden u. Kongregationen (2nd ed., Paderborn, 1908), 471.

WILLIAM DE BROECK

Sacrifice

(Lat. sacrificium; Ital. sacrificio; French sacrifice.)

This term is identical with the English offering (Latin offerre) and the German Opfer; the latter is derived, not from offerre, but from operari (Old High German opfâron; Middle High German opperu, opparôn), and thus means "to do zealously, to serve God, to offer sacrifice" (cf. Kluge "Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache", Strassburg, 1899, p. 288). By sacrifice in the real sense is universally understood the offering of a sense-perceptible gift to the Deity as an outward manifestation of our veneration for Him and with the object of attaining communion with Him. Strictly speaking however, this offering does not become a sacrifice until a real change has been effected in the visible gift (e. g. by slaying it, shedding its blood. burning it, or pouring it out). As the meaning and importance of sacrifice cannot be established by a priori methods, every admissible theory of sacrifice must shape itself in accordance with the sacrificial systems of the pagan nations, and especially with those of the revealed religions, Judaism and Christianity. Pure Buddhism, Mohammedanism, and Protestantism here call for no attention, as they have no real sacrifice; apart from these there is and has been no developed religion which has not accepted sacrifice as an essential portion of its cult. We shall consider successively:

• I. Pagan Sacrifice;
• II. Jewish Sacrifice;
• III. Christian Sacrifice;
• IV. Theory of Sacrifice.

I. PAGAN SACRIFICE

The Vedism of the ancient Indies was, to an extent never elsewhere attained, a sacrificial religion connected with the deities Agni and Soma. A Vedic proverb runs: "Sacrifice is the navel of the world". Originally regarded as a feast for the gods, before whom food-offerings (cakes, milk, butter, meat, and the soma drink) were set on the holy grass before the altar, sacrifice gradually became a magical agency for influencing the gods, such as might be expressed in the formula, "Do ut des", or in the Vedic proverb: "Here is the butter; where are thy gifts?" The Vedic sacrificial prayers express no spirit of humility or submission; even the word "thank" is unknown in the Vedic language. The gods thus sank to the level of mere servants of man, while the high-priests or Brahmins entrusted with the complicated rites gradually acquired an almost divine dignity. In their hands the sacrificial ceremonial, developed to the extremest detail, became an irresistible power over the gods. A proverb says: "The sacrificer hunts Indra like game, and holds him fast as the fowler does the bird; the god is a wheel which the singer understands how to turn." The gods derive their whole might and power from the sacrifice as the condition of their existence, so that the Brahmins are indispensable for their continued existence.

However, that the gods were not entirely indifferent to man, but gave him their assistance, is proved among other things by the serious expiatory character which was not quite eliminated from the Vedic sacrifices. The actual offering of the sacrifices, which was never effected without fire, took place either in the houses or in the open air; temples were unknown. Among the various sacrifices two were conspicuous: the soma offering and the sacrifice of the horse. The offering of the soma (Agnistoma) -- a nectar obtained by the pressing of some plants -- took place in the spring; the sacrifice lasted an entire day, and was a universal holiday for the people. The triple pressing of the soma, performed at certain intervals during the day, alternated with the offering of sacrificial cakes, libations of milk, and the sacrifice of eleven he-goats to various gods. The gods (especially Indra) were eager for the intoxicating soma drink: "As the ox bellows after the rain, so does Indra desire the soma." The sacrifice of the horse (açvamedha), executed at the command of the king and participated in by the whole people, required a whole year's preparation.

It was the acme, "the king of the sacrifices", the solemnities lasting three days and being accompanied by all kinds of public amusements. The idea of this sacrifice was to provide the gods of light with another steed for their heavenly yoke. At first, instead of the sacrifice of the horse, human sacrifice seems to have been in vogue, so that here also the idea of substitution found expression. For the later Indians had a saying: "At first the gods indeed accepted men as sacrificial victims. Then the sacrificial efficacy passed from them to the horse. The horse thus became efficacious. They accepted the horse, but the sacrificial efficacy went to the steer, sheep, goat, and finally to rice and barley: Thus for the instructed a sacrificial cake made of rice and barley is of the same value as these [five] animals" (cf. Hardy, "Die vedisch-brahmanisehe Periode der Religion des alten Indiens", Münster, 1892, p. 150). Modern Hinduism with its numberless sects honours Vishnu and Shiva as chief deities. As a cult it is distinguished from ancient Vedism mainly by its temple service. The Hindu temples are usual artistic and magnificent edifices with numerous courts, chapels, and halls, in which representations of gods and idols are exposed. The smaller pagodas serve the same purpose. Although the Hindu religion centres in its idolatry sacrifice has not been completely evicted from its old place. The symbol of Shiva is the phallus (linga); linga stones are indeed met throughout India (especially in the holy places) in extraordinary numbers. The darker shades of this superstition, degenerated into fetichism, are somewhat relieved by the piety and elevation of many Hindu hymns or songs of praise (stotras), which surpass even the old Vedic hymns in religious feeling.

(2) Among the Iranians

The kindred religion of the ancient Iranians centres, especially after its reform by Zoroaster, in the service of the true god Ormuzd (Ahura Mazda), whose will is the right and whose kingdom is the good. This ethically very elevated religion promotes especially a life of purity, the conscientious fulfilment of all liturgical and moral precepts, and the positive renunciation of the Devil and all demoniacal powers. If the ancient Indian religion was essentially a religion of sacrifice, this religion of the ancient Persians may be described as a religion of observance. Inasmuch as, in the old Avesta (q. v.), the sacred book of the Persians, the war between the good god Ormuzd and the Devil ends eschatologically with the complete victory of the good god, we may designate the earliest Parseeism as Monotheism. However, the theological Dualism taught in the later Avesta, where the wicked anti-god Ahriman is opposed to the good god Ormuzd as an absolute principle, is already foreshadowed and prepared for in many didactic poems (gâthas) of the old Avesta. Sacrifice and prayer are intended to paralyze the diabolical machinations of Ahriman and his demons. The central feature of the Avestic divine service was the worship of fire, a worship, however, unconnected with special fire-temples. Like the modern Mobeds in India, the priests carried portable altars with them, and could thus offer sacrifice everywhere. Special fire-temples were, however, early erected, in which five times daily the priests entered the sacred fire-chamber to tend the fire in a metal vessel, usually fed with odoriferous wood. In a roomy antechamber the intoxicating haoma (the counterpart of the Indian soma drink) was brewed, the holy water prepared, and the sacrifice of flesh (myazda) and cakes (darun) offered to the gods. The precious haoma, the drink of immortality, not only conduced in the case of mankind to eternal life, but was likewise a drink for the gods themselves. In the later Avesta this drink, originally only a medium of cult, was formally deified, and identified with the divinity; nay even the very vessels used in the fabrication of this drink from the haoma branches were celebrated and adored in hymns of praise. Worthy of mention also are the sacrificial twigs (baresman, later barsom), which were used as praying twigs or magical wands and solemnly stretched out in the hand. After the reduction of the kingdom of the Sassanids by the Arabians (A. D. 642) the Persian religion was doomed to decay, and the vast majority of its followers fell away into Islamism. Besides some small remnants in modern Persia, large communities still exist on the west coast of India, in Guzerat and Bombay, whither many Parsees then immigrated.

(3) Among the Greeks

The universal religion of ancient Greece was a glad and joyous Polytheism most closely connected with civic life. Even the ancient Amphictyonic Council was a confederacy of states with the object of maintaining in common a certain shrine. The object of the religious functions, which consisted in prayer, sacrifice, and votive offerings, was the winning of the favour and assistance of the gods, which were always received with feelings of awe and gratitude. The sacrificial offerings, bloody and unbloody, were generally taken from articles of human food; to the gods above pastry, sacrificial cakes, pap, fruits, and wine were offered, but to the nether gods, cakes of honey and, as a drink, a mixture of milk, honey, and water. The sacrificial consecration often consisted merely in the exposition of the foods in pots on the roadsides or on the funeral mounds with the idea of entertaining the gods or the dead. Usually a portion was retained wherewith to solemnize a sacrificial feast in union with the gods; of the sacrifices to the nether gods in Hades, however, nothing was retained. Great banquets of the gods (theoxenia) were well known to the Greeks as were the Leotisternia to the Romans. As a rule, however, the sacrifices were burned on the altar, at times as holocausts. Incense was added as a subsidiary offering with most sacrifices, although there were also special offerings of incense. The offerer of sacrifice wore clean clothes and chaplets around his head, sprinkled his hands and the altar with holy water, and strewed with solemn prayers sacrificial meal over the heads of the victims (pigs, goats, and cocks). Flutes were played while the victim was being slain, and the blood was allowed to drop through holes into the sacrificial trenches. The meritoriousness of the sacrifice was regarded as to a great extent dependent on its costliness. The horns of the victims were gilded, and on great festivals whole hecatombs were slain; sacrifices of twelve, and especially of three victims (trittues) were the most usual. In times of great affliction human sacrifices were offered even down to the historical era. The sacrifice was the centre of the Greek cult, and no meal was partaken of until a libation of the wine about to be consumed was poured out to the gods. Among the characteristic peculiarities of the Greek religion may be mentioned the votive offerings (anathemata), which (besides firstlings, tithes, votive tablets, and objects of value) consisted chiefly of chaplets, cauldrons, and the popular tripods (tripodes). The number of the votive offerings, which were frequently hung up on the sacred oaks, grew in time so immeasurably that various states erected their special treasuries at Olympia and Delphi.

(4) Among the Romans

To a still greater extent than among the Greeks was religion and the whole sacrificial system a business of the state among the ancient Romans. Furthermore, no other people of antiquity developed Polytheism to such extremes. Peopling the world with gods, genii, and lares, they placed almost every action and condition under a specially-conceived deity (god or goddess). The calendar prepared by the pontifices gave the Romans detailed information as to how they should conduct themselves with respect to the gods throughout the year. The object of sacrifice was to win the favour of the gods and to ward off their sinister influence. Sacrifices of atonement (piacula) for perpetrated crimes and past errors were also scheduled. In the earliest times the ancient Indo-Germanic sacrifice of the horse, and also sacrifices of sheep, pigs, and oxen were known. That human sacrifices must have been once usual may be concluded from certain customs of a later period (e. g. from the projection of straw puppets into the Tiber and the hanging of woollen puppets at the crossways and on the doors of the houses). Under the empire various foreign cults were introduced, such as the veneration of the Egyptian deities Isis and Osiris, the Syrian Astarte, the Phrygian goddess Cybele, etc. The Roman Pantheon united in peace the most incongruous deities from every land. Finally, however, no cult was so popular as that of the Indo-Iranian Light-god Mithra, to whom especially the soldiers and officials of the empire, even in such distant places as the Danube and the Rhine offered their sacrifices. In honour of the steer-killing Mithra the so-called taurobolia were introduced from the East; by taurobolium is meant the loathsome ceremony wherein the worshippers of Mithra let the warm blood of a just-slaughtered steer flow over their naked backs as they lay in a trench with the idea of attaining thereby not only physical strength, but also mental renewal and regeneration.

(5) Among the Chinese

The religion of the Chinese, a peculiar mixture of nature and ancestor-worship, is indissolubly connected with the constitution of the state. The oldest Sinism was a perfect Monotheism. However, we are best acquainted with the Chinese sacrificial system in the form which was given it by the great reformer, Confucius (sixth century before Christ), and which it has retained practically unaltered after more than two thousand years. As the "Son of Heaven" and the head of the State religion, the Emperor of China is also the high-priest who alone may offer sacrifice to heaven. The chief sacrifice takes place annually during the night of the winter solstice on the "altar of heaven" in the southern section of Peking. On the highest terrace of this altar stands a wooden table as the symbol of the soul of the god of heaven; there are in addition many other "soul tables" (of the sun, moon, stars, clouds, wind, etc.), including those of the ten immediate predecessors of the emperor. Before every table are set sacrificial offerings of soup, flesh, vegetables, etc. To the ancestors of the emperor, as well as to the sun and moon, a slaughtered ox is offered; to the planets and the stars a calf, a sheep, and a pig. Meanwhile, on a pyre to the south-east of the altar, a sacrifice of an ox lies ready to be burned to the highest god of heaven. While the ox is being consumed, the emperor offers to the soul-table of heaven and the tables of his predecessors a staff of incense, silk, and some meat broth. After the performance of these ceremonies, all the articles of sacrifice are brought to special furnaces and there consumed. Similarly the emperor sacrifices to the earth at the northern wall of Peking, the sacrificial gifts being in this case not burned, but buried. The gods of the soil and of corn, as well as the ancestors of the emperor, have also their special places and days of sacrifice. Throughout the empire the emperor is represented in the sacrifices by his state officials. In the classical book of ritual, "Li-ki", it is expressly stated: "The son of heaven sacrifices to the heaven and the earth; the vassals to the gods of the soil and of corn." Besides the chief sacrifices, there are a number of others of the second or third rank, which are usually performed by state officials. The popular religion with its innumerable images, which have their special temples, is undisguised idolatry.

(6) Among the Egyptians

The ancient religion of the Egyptians, with its highly developed priesthood and its equally extensive sacrificial system, marks the transition to the religion of the Semites. The Egyptian temple contained a dark chapel with the image of the deity; before it was a pillared hall, (hypostyle) faintly lit by a small window under the roof, and before this hall a spacious court-yard, enclosed by a circular series of pillars. The ground-plan proves that the temple was not used either for assemblies of the people or as the residence of the priests, but was intended solely for the preservation of the images of the gods, the treasures, and the sacred vessels. To the sanctuary proper only the priests and the king were admitted. The sacrifices were offered in the great court-yard, where also the highly popular processions, in which the images of the gods were borne in a ship, took place. The rites of the daily service of the temple, the movements, words, and prayers of the officiating priest, were all regulated down to the smallest detail. The image of the god was entertained daily with food and drink, which were placed on the sacrificial table. At the laying of the foundation-stone of a new temple human sacrifices were offered, being abolished only in the era of the Ramassides; a trace of this repulsive custom survived in the later ceremony of impressing on the sacrificial victim a seal bearing the image of a man in chains with a knife in his throat. To the favourite god of the Egyptians, Ammon-Râ, the rulers of the New Empire made such extraordinarily numerous and costly votive offerings that the state became almost bankrupt. The Egyptian religion, which finally developed into abominable bestiolatry, fell into decay with the destruction of the Serapeum in Alexandria by the Eastern Emperor, Theodosius I (391).

(7) Among the Semites

Among the Semites the Babylonians and Assyrians deserve first mention. The Babylonian temple contained in the sanctuary the image of the god to whom it was consecrated, and in adjoining chambers or chapels the images of the other gods. The Babylonian priests were a private caste, the mediators between the gods and man, the guardians of the sacred literature, and the teachers of the sciences. In Assyria, on the other hand, the king was the high-priest, and offered up sacrifice. According to the Babylonian idea, sacrifice (libations, offerings of foods, bloody sacrifices) is the due tribute of mankind to the gods, and is as old as the world; sacrifices are the banquets of the gods, and the smoke of the offerings is for them a fragrant odour; a joyous sacrificial banquet unites the sacrificers with their divine guests. Both burnt and aromatic offerings were common to the Babylonians and the Assyrians. The sacrificial gifts included wild and tame animals, fowl, fish, fruit, curds, honey, and oil. Sacrificial animals were usually of the male sex; they had to be without defects, strong and fat, for only the unblemished is worthy of the gods. Only in the rite of purification were female animals allowed, and only in the lesser ceremonies defective animals. The offering of bread on tables (showbread) was also usual. To the sacrifices was attributed a purifying and atoning force, and the idea of substitution, the sacrificial victim being substituted for man, was clearly expressed. In the Babylonian penitential psalms especially, the deep consciousness of sin and guilt often finds touching expression. Men were slain only with lamentations for the dead.

The demonstration that the Chanaanites originally came from Arabia (that ancient home of the races) to Palestine, and there disseminated the culture of the ancient Arabians, is an achievement of modern investigators. While the Babylonian religion was governed by the course of the stars (astrology), the spiritual horizon of the Chanaanites was fixed by the periodical changes of dying and reawakening nature, and thus depended secondarily on the vivifying influence of the stars, especially of the sun and the moon. Wherever the force of nature revealed evidence of life, there the deity had his seat. At fountains and rivers temples arose, because water brings life and drought, death. Feeling themselves nearest to the deity on mountains, hill-worship (mentioned also in the Old Testament) was the most popular among the Chanaanites. On the height stood an altar with an oval opening, and around it was made a channel to carry off the blood of the sacrificial victim. To the cruel god Moloch sacrifices of children were offered -- a horrible custom against which the Bible so sternly inveighs. The kindred cult of the Ph nicians originated in a low idea of the deity, which inclined towards gloominess, cruelty, and voluptuousness. We need only mention the worship of Baal and Astarte, Phallism and the sacrifice of chastity, the sacrifice of men and children, which the civilized Romans vainly strove to abolish. In their sacrificial system the Ph nicians had some points in common with the Israelites. The "sacrificial table of Marseilles", which, like the similar "sacrificial table of Carthage", was of Ph nician origin, mentions as sacrificial victims: steers, calves, stags, sheep, she-goats, lambs, he-goats, fawns, and fowl, tame and wild. Sick or emaciated animals were forbidden. The Ph nicians were also acquainted with holocausts (kalil), which were always supplicatory sacrifices and partial offerings, which might be sacrifices of either supplication or thanks. The chief efficacy of the sacrifice of men and animals was regarded as lying in the blood. When the victim was not entirely consumed, the sacrificers participated in a sacrificial banquet with music and dancing.

II. JEWISH SACRIFICE

That many general ideas and rites, which are found in pagan religions, find their place also in the Jewish sacrificial system, should excite as little surprise as the fact that revealed religion in general does not reject at all natural religion and ethics, but rather adopts them in a higher form. The ethical purity and excellence of the Jewish sacrificial system is at once seen in the circumstance that the detestable human sacrifices are spurned in the official religion of Jahweh (cf. Deut., xii, 31; xviii, 10). Abraham's trial (Gen. xxii 1 sqq.) ended with the prohibition of the slaying of Isaac, God ordering instead the sacrifice of the ram caught in the briers. Among the Children of Israel human sacrifice meant the profanation of Jahweh's name (Lev., xx, 1 sqq., etc.). The later prophets also raised their mighty voices against the disgraceful service of Moloch with its sacrifice of children. It is true that the baneful influence of pagan environment won the upper hand from the time of King Achaz to that of Josias to such an extent that in the ill-omened Valley of Hinnom near Jerusalem thousands of innocent children were sacrificed to Moloch. To this infectious pagan example, not to the spirit of the religion of Jahweh, is also to be referred the sacrifice which Jephte, in consequence of his vow, reluctantly performed by slaying his own daughter (Judges, xi, 1 sqq.). The assertion of many investigators (Ghilany, Daumer, Vatke) that even in the legitimate service of Jahweh human sacrifices occurred, is historically untenable; for, though the Mosaic Law contained the provision that, not only the firstlings of beasts and Fruits, but also the firstborn of men were due to Jahweh, it was expressly provided that these latter should be redeemed, not sacrificed. The offering of the blood of an animal instead of a human life originated in the profound idea of substitution, and has its justification in the prophetical metaphorical references to the unique vicarious sacrifice offered by Christ on Golgotha. The Israelitic blood vengeance (cherem), in accordance with which impious enemies and things were utterly exterminated (cf. Jos., vi, 21 sqq.; 1 kings, xv, 15, etc.), had absolutely nothing to do with human sacrifice. The idea of the blood vengeance originated, not as in various pagan religions in the thirst of God for human blood, but in the principle that the powers hostile to God should be removed by a bloody chastisement from the path of the Lord of life and death. The accursed were not sacrificed but removed from the face of the earth. According to Jewish tradition, sacrifice in its bloody and its unbloody form extends back to the beginning of the human race. The first and oldest sacrifice mentioned in the Bible is that of Cain and Abel (Gen. iv, 3 sq.). With sacrifice an altar was associated (Gen., xii, 7 sq.). Even in patriarchal times we meet also the sacrificial meal, especially in connexion with treaties and the conclusion of peace. The conclusion of the covenant at Mount Sinai was also effected under the auspices of a solemn sacrifice and banquet (Ex., xxiv., 5 sqq.). Subsequently Moses, as the envoy of Jahweh, elaborated the whole sacrificial system, and in the Pentateuch fixed with most scrupulous exactness the various kinds of sacrifice and their ritual. Like the whole Mosaic cult, the sacrificial system is governed by the one central idea, peculiar to the religion of Jahweh: "Be holy because I am holy" (Lev., xi, 44).

(2) Material of the Sacrifices

The general name for Jewish sacrifice was originally minchah (anaphora, donum), afterwards the special technical term for the unbloody food-offering. To the latter was opposed the bloody sacrifice (thysia, victima). According to the method of offering, sacrifices were known as korban ("bringing near") or 'õlah ("ascending"), the latter term being used especially of the holocaust (q.v.). The material of the bloody sacrifice must be taken from the personal possessions of the offerer, and must belong to the category of clean animals. Thus, on the one hand, only domestic animals (oxen, sheep, goats) from the stock of the sacrificer were allowed (Lev., xxii, 19 sqq.), and hence neither fish nor wild animals; on the other hand, all unclean animals (e. g. dogs, pigs, asses, camels) were excluded, even though they were domestic animals. Doves were about the only sort of birds that could be used. The substitution of turtle doves or young pigeons for the larger animals was allowed to the poor (Lev., v, 7; xii, 8). Concerning the sex, age, and physical condition of the animals there were also exact precepts; as a rule, they had to be free from defect, since only the best were fit for Jahweh (Lev., xxii, 20 sqq.; Mal., i, 13 sq.). The material of the unbloody sacrifices (usually additions to the bloody sacrifice or subsidiary sacrifices) was chosen from either the solid or the liquid articles of human food. The fragrant incense, the symbol of prayer ascending to God, was an exception. The sacrifice of solids (minchah) consisted partly of toasted ears of corn (or shelled grain) together with oil and incense (Lev., ii, 14 sqq.), partly of the finest wheaten flour with the same additional gifts (Lev., ii, 1 sqq.), and partly of unleavened bread (Lev., ii, 4 sqq.). Since not only leaven, but also honey produced fermentation in bread, which suggests rottenness, the use of honey was also forbidden (Lev., ii, 11; cf. 1 Cor., v, 6 sqq.). Only the bread of the first fruits, which was offered on the feast of Pentecost, and the bread added to many sacrifices of praise were leavened, and these might not be brought to the altar, but belonged to the priests (Lev., ii, 4 sqq.; vii, 13 sq., etc.). On the other hand salt was regarded as a means of purification and preservation, and was prescribed as a seasoning for all food-offerings prepared from corn (Lev., ii, 13). Consequently, among the natural productions supplied to the (later)Temple, was a vast quantity of salt, which, as "salt of Sodom" was usually obtained from the Dead Sea, and stored up in a special salt chamber (Esd., vi, 9; vii, 22; Josephus, "Antiquities", XII, iii, 3). As an integral portion of the food-offering we always find the libation (spondeion, libamen), which is never offered independently. Oil and wine were the only liquids used (cf. Gen., xxviii, 18; xxxv, 14; Num., xxviii, 7,14): the oil was used partly in the preparation of the bread, and partly burned with the other gifts on the altar; the wine was poured out before the altar. Libations of milk, such as those of the Arabs and the Ph nicians, do not occur in the Mosaic Law.

The fact that, in addition to the subsidiary sacrifices, unbloody sacrifices were also customary, has been unjustifiably contested by some Protestants in their polemics against the Sacrifice of the Mass, of which the sacrifices of food and drink were the prototypes. Passing over the oldest sacrifices of this kind in the case of Cain and Abel (see MASS, SACRIFICE OF THE), the Mosaic cult recognized the following independent sacrifices in the sanctuary:

Of the independent unbloody sacrifices at least a portion was always burnt as a memorial (askara, memoriale) for Jahweh; the rest belonged to the priests, who consumed it as sacred food in the outer court (Lev., ii, 9 sq.; v, 12 sq.; vi, 16).

(3) The Rites of the Bloody Sacriflce

The ritual of the bloody sacrifice is of special importance for the deeper knowledge of Jewish sacrifice. Despite other differences, five actions were common to all the categories: the bringing forward of the victim, the imposition of hands, the slaying, the sprinkling of the blood, and the burning. The first was the leading of the victim to the altar of burnt sacrifices in the outer court of the tabernacle (or of the Temple) "before the Lord" (Ex., xxix, 42; Lev., i, 5; iii, 1; iv, 6). Then followed on the north side of the altar the imposition of hands (or, more accurately, the resting of hands on the head of the victim), by which significant gesture the sacrificer transferred to the victim his personal intention of adoration, thanksgiving, petition, and especially of atonement, If sacrifice was about to be offered for the whole community, the ancients, as the representatives of the people, performed the ceremony of the imposition of hands (Lev., iv, 15). This ceremony was omitted in the case of certain sacrifices (first fruits, tithes, the paschal lamb, doves) and in the case of bloody sacrifices performed at the instance of pagans. From the time of Alexander the Great the offering of burnt sacrifices even by Gentiles was permitted in recognition of the supremacy of foreign rulers; thus, the Roman Emperor Augustus required a daily burnt offering of two lambs and a steer in the Temple (cf. Philo, "Leg. ad Caj.," 10; Josephus, "Contra Ap.", II, vi). The withdrawal of this permission at the beginning of the Jewish War was regarded as a public rebellion against the Roman rule (cf. Josephus, "De bello jud.", II, xvii, 2). The ceremony of the imposition of hands was usually preceded by a confession of sins (Lev., xvi, 21; v, 5 sq.; Num., v, 6 sq.), which, according to Rabbinic tradition, was verbal (cf. Otho, "Lex rabbin.", 552). The third act or the slaying, which effects as speedy and complete a shedding of the blood as possible by a deep cut into the throat, had also, like the leading forward and the imposition of hands, to be performed by the sacrificer himself (Lev., i, 3 sqq.); only in the case of the offering of doves did the priest perform the slaying (Lev., i, 15). In later times, however, the slaying, skinning, and dismemberment of the larger animals were undertaken by the priests and Levites, especially when the whole people were to offer sacrifice for themselves on great festivals (II Par., xxix, 22 sqq.). The real sacrificial function began with the fourth act, the sprinkling of blood by the priest, which, according to the Law, pertained to him alone (Lev., i, 5; iii, 2; iv, 5; II Par., xxix, 23, etc.). If a layman undertook the blood-sprinkling, the sacrifice was invalid (cf. Mischna Sebachim, II, 1).

The oblation of the blood on the altar by the priest thus formed the real essence of the bloody sacrifice. This idea was indeed universal, for "everywhere from China to Ireland the blood is the chief thing, the centre of the sacrifice; in the blood lies its power" (Bähr, "Symbolik des mosaischen Kultus", II, Heidelberg, 1839, p. 62). That the act of slaying or the destruction of the victim was not the chief element, is evident from the precept that the sacrificers themselves, who were not priests, had to care for the slaying. Jewish tradition also expressly designated the priestly sprinkling of the blood on the altar as "the root and principle of the sacrifice". The explanation is given in Lev., xvii, 10 sq.: "If any man whosoever of the house of Israel, and of the strangers that sojourn among them, eat blood, I will set my face against his soul an will cut him off from among his people: Because the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you, that you may make atonement with it upon the altar for your souls, and the blood may be for an expiation of the soul." Here the blood of the victim is declared in the clearest terms to be the means of propitiation, and the propitiation itself is associated with the application of the blood on the altar. But the propitiation for the guilt-laden soul is accomplished by the blood only in virtue of the life contained in it, which belongs to the Lord of death and life. Hence the strict prohibition of the "eating" of blood under penalty of being cut off from among the people. But inasmuch as the blood, since it bears the life of the victim, represents or symbolizes the soul or life of man, the idea of substitution finds clear expression in the sprinkling of the blood, just as it has been already expressed in the imposition of hands. But the blood obtained by the slaying exerts its expiatory power first on the altar, where the soul of the victim symbolically laden with sin comes into contact with the purifying and sanctifying power of God. The technical term for the reconciliation and remission of sin is kipper "to expiate" (Piel from the word meaning "to cover"), a verb which is connected rather with the Assyrian kuppuru (wipe off, destroy) than with the Arabic "to cover, cover up". The fifth and last act, the burning, was performed differently, according as the whole victim (holocaust) or only certain portions of it were to be consumed by fire. By the altar and the "consuming fire" (Deut., iv, 24) Jahweh symbolically appropriated, as through His Divine mouth, the sacrifices offered; this was strikingly manifested in the sacrifices of Aaron, Gedeon, and Elias (cf. Lev., ix, 24; Judges, vi, 21; III Kings, xviii, 38).

(4) Different Categories of the Bloody Sacrifices

(a) Among the various classes of bloody sacrifice, the burnt offering takes the first place. It is called both the "ascent sacrifice" ('õlah) and the "holocaust" (kâlil); Sept. holokautoma; in Philo, holokauston), because the whole victim -- with the exception of the hip muscle and the hide -- is made through fire to ascend to God in smoke and vapour (see HOLOCAUST). Although the idea of expiation was not excluded (Lev., i, 4), it retired somewhat into the background, since in the complete destruction of the victim by fire the absolute submission of man to God was to find expression. The holocaust is indeed the oldest, most frequent, and most widespread sacrifice (cf. Gen., iv, 4; viii, 20; xxii, 2 sqq.; Job., i, 5; xlii, 8). As the "ever enduring" sacrifice, it had to be offered twice daily, in the morning and in the evening (cf. Ex., xxix, 38 sqq.; Lev., vi, 9 sqq.; Num., xxviii, 3 sqq., etc.). As the sacrifice of adoration par excellence, it included in itself all other species of sacrifice. [Concerning the altar, see ALTAR (IN SCRIPTURE).]

(b) The idea of expiation received especially forcible expression in the expiatory sacrifices, of which two classes were distinguished, the sin and the guilt-offering. The distinction between these lies in the fact that the former was concerned rather with the absolution of the person from sin (expiatio), the latter rather with the making of satisfaction for the injury done (satisfactio).

(c) The third class of bloody sacrifice embraced the "peace offerings" (victima pacifica, shelamim), which were sub-divided into three classes: the sacrifice of thanks or praise, the sacrifice in fulfilment of a vow, and entirely voluntary offerings. The peace sacrifices in general were distinguished by two characteristics:

(i) the remarkable ceremony of "wave" and "heave";
(ii) the communal sacrificial meal held in connexion with them.

All animals allowed for sacrifice (even female) might be used and, in the case of entirely "voluntary sacrifices", even such animals as were not quite without defects (Lev., xxii, 23). Until the act of sprinkling the blood the rites were the same as in the burnt-sacrifice, except that the slaying did not necessarily take place at the north side of the altar (Lev., iii, 1 sqq.; vii, 11 sqq.). The usual portions of fat had, as in the case of the sacrifice of expiation, to be burned on the altar. In the cutting up of the victim, however, the breast and the right shoulder (Sept. brachion; Vulg. armus) had to be first separately severed, and the ceremony of "wave" (tenupha) and "heave" (teruma) performed with them. According to Talmudic tradition the "wave" was performed as follows: the priest placed the breast of the victim on the hands of the offerer, and then, having placed his own hands under those of this person, moved them backward and forward in token of the reciprocity in giving and receiving between God and the offerer. With the right shoulder the same ceremony was then performed, except that the "heave" or "teruma" consisted in an upward and downward movement. The breast and shoulder used in these ceremonies fell to the share of the priests, who might consume them in a "clean place" (Lev., x, 14). They also received a loaf from the supplementary food-offering (Lev., vii, 14). The offerer assembled his friends at a common meal on the same day to consume in the vicinity of the sanctuary the flesh remaining after the sacrifice. Levitically clean guests, especially the Levites and the poor, were admitted (Deut., xvi, 11; Lev., 19 sqq.), and wine was freely drunk at this meal. Whatever remained of a sacrifice of thanksgiving or praise had to be burned on the following day; only in the case of the vowed and entirely voluntary sacrifices might the remainder be eaten on the second succeeding day, but all that thereafter remained had to be burned on the third day (Lev., vii, 15 sqq.; xix, 6 sqq.). The idea of the peace-offering centres in the Divine friendship and the participation at the Divine table, inasmuch as the offerers, as guests and table-companions, participated in a certain manner in the sacrifice to the Lord. But, on account of this Divine friendship, when all three classes of sacrifice were combined, the sacrifice of expiation usually preceded the burnt-offering, and the latter the peace-offering.

In addition to the periodical sacrifices just described, the Mosaic Law recognized other extraordinary sacrifices, which must at least be mentioned. To these belong the sacrifice offered but once on the occasion of the conclusion of the Sinaitic covenant (Ex., xxiv, 4 sqq.), those occurring at the consecration of the priests and Levites (Ex., xxix, 1 sqq.; Lev., viii; Num., viii, 5 sqq.) and certain occasional sacrifices, such as the sacrifice of purification of a healed leper (Lev., xiv, 1 sqq.), the sacrifice of the red cow (Num., xix, 1 sqq.), the sacrifice of jealousy (Num., v, 12 sqq.), and the sacrifice of the Nazirites (Num., vi, 9 sqq.). On account of its extraordinary character one might include the yearly sacrifice of the paschal lamb (Ex., xii, 3 sqq.; Deut., xvi, 1 sqq.) and that of the two he-goats on the Day of Atonement (Lev., xvi, 1 sqq.) among this class. With the appearance of the Messias, the entire Mosaic sacrificial system was, according to the view of the Rabbis, to come to an end, as in fact it did after the destruction of the Temple by Titus (A. D. 70). Concerning the sacrificial persons see PRIESTHOOD.

(5) Modern Criticism

A detailed examination of modern criticism concerning Jewish sacrifice cannot be attempted here, since the discussion involves the whole Pentateuch problem (see PENTATEUCH). What is called the "Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis" denies that the ritual legislation in the Pentateuch comes from Moses. It is claimed that the setting down of the sacrificial legislation first began in the exilic period. From the time of Moses to the Babylonian Captivity sacrifice was offered freely and without any legal compulsion, and always in connexion with a joyous sacrificial meal. The strict forms of the minutely-prescribed sacrificial rite were first established by the Priest's Code (=P), Divine authority being afterwards claimed for them by artificially projecting them into the Mosaic era. Even during the time of the Great Prophets nothing was known of a Mosaic sacrificial thora, as is proved by their disparaging remarks Concerning the worthlessness of sacrifice (cf. Is., i, 11 sqq.; Jer., vi, 19 sq.; Amos, v, 21 sqq.; Osee, viii, 11 sqq., etc.). With Ezechiel, however, a change is visible, the ritual forms of sacrifice being highly cherished as a Divine law. But it is impossible to refer this law to Moses.

We may briefly reply that the disparaging statements of the pre-exilic Prophets are no proof for the assertion that in their time there was no sacrificial law regarded as Mosaic. Like the Psalms (xl, 7 sqq.; l, 8 sqq.; lxix, 31 sq.), the Prophets emphasized only the ancient and venerable truth that Jahweh valued most highly the interior sacrifice of obedience, and rejected as worthless purely external acts without pious dispositions. He demanded of Cain the right sentiment of sacrifice (cf. Gen iv 4 sq.), and proclaimed through Samuel: "Obedience is better than sacrifices" (I Kings, xv, 22). This requirement of ethical dispositions is not equivalent to the rejection of external sacrifice. Nor can one accept the statement that Moses did not legally regulate the Jewish sacrificial system. How otherwise could he have been regarded among the Jews as the God-appointed founder of the religion of Jahweh, which is inconceivable without Divine service and sacrifice? That during the centuries after Moses the sacrificial cult underwent an internal and external development, which reached its climax in the extant priest's code, is a natural and intelligible assumption, indications of which appear in the Pentateuch itself. The whole reorganization of the cult by the Prophet Ezechiel shows that Jahweh always stood above the letter of the law, and that he was nowise bound to maintain in unalterable rigidity the olden regulations. But the changes and deviations in Ezechiel are not of such magnitude as to justify the view that not even the foundation of the sacrificial code originated with Moses. The further statement that a sacrificial meal was regularly connected with the ancient sacrifices, is an unjustifiable generalization. For the burnt-offering (holocaustum, 'õlah), with which no meal was associated, belonged to the most ancient sacrifices (cf. Gen., viii, 20), and is at least as old as the peace-offering (shelamim), which always terminated with a meal. Again, it is antecedently at least improbable that the older sacrifices always had, as is asserted, a gay and joyous character, since the need of expiation was not less, but rather more seriously felt by the Israelites than by the pagan nations of antiquity. Where there was a consciousness of sin, there must also have been anxiety for expiation.

III. CHRISTIAN SACRIFICE

Christianity knows but one sacrifice, the sacrifice which was once offered by Christ in a bloody manner on the tree of the Cross. But in order to apply to individual men in sacrificial form though a constant sacrifice the merits of redemption definitively won by the sacrifice of the Cross, the Redeemer Himself instituted the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to be an unbloody continuation and representation of the bloody sacrifice of Calvary. Concerning this eucharistic sacrifice and its relation to the sacrifice on the Cross, see the article MASS. In view of the central position which the sacrifice of the Cross holds in the whole economy of salvation, we must briefly discuss the reality of this sacrifice.

(1) The Dogma of the Sacrifice of the Cross

The universal conviction of Christianity was expressed by the Synod of Ephesus (431), when it declared that the Incarnate Logos "offered Himself to God the Father for us for an odour of sweetness" (in Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchiridion," n. 122), a dogma explicitly confirmed by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII. cap. i-ii; can. ii-iv). The dogma is indeed nothing else than a clear echo of Holy Writ and tradition. If all the sacrifices of the Old Testament, and especially the bloody sacrifice, were so many types of the bloody sacrifice of the Cross (Cf. Heb., viii-x), and if the idea of vicarious atonement was present in the Mosaic bloody sacrifices, it follows immediately that the death on the Cross, as the antitype, must possess the character of a vicarious sacrifice of atonement. A striking confirmation of this reasoning is found in the pericope of Isaias concerning God's "just servant," wherein three truths are clearly expressed:

The Messianity of the passage, which was unjustifiably contested by the Socinians and Rationalists, is proved by the express testimony of the New Testament (cf. Matt., viii, 17; Mark, xv, 28; Luke, xxii, 37; Acts, viii, 28 sqq.; 1 Peter. ii, 22 sqq.). The prophecy found its fulfilment in Christ. For, although His whole life was a continuous sacrifice, yet the sacrifice culminated in His bloody death on the Cross, as He Himself says: "He came to give His life a redemption for many" (Matt. xx, 28). Three factors are here emphasized: sacrifice, vicarious offering, and expiation. The phrase, "to give his life" (dounai ten psychen), is, as numerous parallel passages attest, a Biblical expression for sacrifice; the words, "for many" (anti pollon), express the idea of vicarious sacrifice, while the term, "redemption" (lytron), declares the object of the expiation (cf. Eph., v, 2; II Cor., v, 21). Rationalism (Socinus, Ritschl) seeks in vain to deny that St. Paul had this idea of vicarious expiation on the ground that the expression anti pollon (in the place of many) is foreign to him. For, apart from the fact that he clearly expresses in other terms the idea of substitution (cf. IL Cor., v, 15; Gal., iii, 13), his phrase "for many" (hyper pollon instead of anti pollon), taken in connexion with the idea of sacrifice current in his writings, bears the pregnant meaning "instead of many," not merely "for the advantage of many". This is clearly indicated by I Tim., ii, 6: "Who gave himself a redemption for all [antilytron hyper panton]."

As in the Old Testament the expiatory power of the sacrifice lay in the blood of the victim, so also the expiation for the forgiveness of sins is ascribed to the "Blood of the New Testament" (see MASS, SACRIFICE OF THE). There is thus nothing more precious than the Blood of Christ: ". . . you were not redeemed with corruptible things as gold and silver . . . ., but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled" (I Peter, i, 18 sq.). While the foregoing considerations refute the assertion of modern "critics" that the expiatory sacrifice of Christ was first introduced by Paul into the Gospel, it is still true that the bloody sacrifice of the Cross occupied the central position in the Pauline preaching. He speaks of the Redeemer as Him "whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation [hilasterion], through faith in his blood" (Rom., iii, 25). Referring to the types of the Old Testament, the Epistle to the Hebrews especially elaborates this idea: "For if the blood of goats and of oxen, and the ashes of a heifer being sprinkled, sanctify such as are defiled, to the cleansing of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of Christ who by the Holy Ghost offered himself unspotted unto God, cleanse our conscience from dead works" (Heb., ix, 13 sq.). With the multiplicity and variety, the inefficacy and inadequacy of the Mosaic bloody sacrifices is contrasted the uniqueness and efficacy of the sacrifice of the Cross for the forgiveness of sins (cf. Heb., ix, 28: "So also was Christ once [apax] offered to exhaust the sins of many"; x, 10: "In the which will we are sanctified by the oblation of the body [dia tes prosphoras tou somatos] of Jesus Christ once"). The bloody death on the Cross is specially characterized as a "sin offering": "But this man offering one sacrifice for sins [mian hyper amartion prosenegkas thysian], for ever sitteth on the right hand of God" (Heb., x, 12; cf. II Cor., v, 21). The "heavenly sacrifice" of Christ, the existence of which is assumed by Thalhofer, Zill, and Schoulza, cannot be deduced from the Epistle to the Hebrews. In heaven Christ no longer sacrifices Himself, but simply, through His "priestly intercession", offers the sacrifice of the Cross (Heb., vii, 25; cf. Rom., viii, 34).

While the Apostolic Fathers and the apologist Justin Martyr merely repeat the Biblical doctrine of the sacrificial death of Christ, Irenæus was the first of the early Fathers to consider the sacrifice of the Cross from the standpoint of a "vicarious satisfaction" (satisfactio vicaria); this expression, however, did not come into frequent use in ecclesiastical writings during the first ten centuries. Irenæus emphasizes the fact that only a God-Man could wash away the guilt of Adam, that Christ actually redeemed mankind by His Blood and offered "His Soul for our souls and His Flesh for our flesh" (" Adv. hær.", V, i, 1, in P. G. VII, 1121). Though Irenæus bases the redemption primarily on the Incarnation, through which our vitiated nature was restored to its original holiness (" mystical interpretation" of the Greeks), he nevertheless ascribes in a special manner to the bitter Passion of the Saviour the same effects that he ascribes to the Incarnation: viz. the making of man like unto God, the forgiveness of sin, and the annihilation of death (Adv. hær., II, xx, 3; III, xviii, 8). It was not so much "under the influence of the Græco-Oriental mysteries of expiation" (Harnack) as in close association with Paul and the Mosaic sacrificial ritual, that Origen regarded the death on the Cross in the light of the vicarious sacrifice of expiation. But, since he maintained preferentially the Biblical view of the "ransom and redemption", he was the originator of the one-sided "old patristic theory of the redemption". Incidentally ("In Matt., xvi, 8," in P. G., XIII, 1397 sqq.) he makes the rash statement that the ransom rendered on the Cross was paid to the Devil -- a view which Gregory of Nyssa later systematized. This statement was, however, repudiated by Adamantius ("De recta in Deum fide", I, xxvii, in P. G., XI, 1756 sqq.) as "the height of blasphemous folly" (polle blasphemos anoia), and was positively rejected by Gregory of Nazianzus and John of Damascus. This repulsive theory never became general in the Church, although the idea of the supposed "rights of the Devil" (erroneously derived from John, xii, 31; xiv, 30; II Cor., iv, 4; II Peter, ii, 19) survived among some ecclesiastical writers even to the time of Bede and Peter Lombard. Whatever Origen and Gregory of Nyssa say of our ransom from the Evil One, they are both clear in their statements that Christ offers the sacrifice of expiation to the Heavenly Father and not to the Devil; the redemption from the slavery of the Devil is effected by Christ through His sacrifice on the Cross. As, according to Harnack's admission, the idea of vicarious expiation "is genuine among the Latins", we may easily dispense with the testimony of Latin patristic literature. While the Greek Church adhered to the old mystical conception in connexion with the theory of ransom, the doctrine of the Redemption received a further development in the "juristic theory of satisfaction" of St. Anselm of Canterbury ("Cur Deus homo" in P. L., CLVIII, 359 sqq.); this was freed of some crudities by St. Thomas Aquinas and deepened by the "ethical theory of reconciliation". A comprehensive theory, employing dialectically all the Biblical and patristic factors, is still a desideratum in speculative theology.

(2) Theological Problems

Other difficult questions concerning the sacrifice of the Cross have been already more successfully dealt with by theologians. On account of the remarkable and unique coincidence of the priest, victim, and acceptor of the sacrifice, a first question arises as to whether Christ was victim and priest according to His Divine or according to His human nature. On the basis of the dogma of the hypostatic union the only answer is: although the God-Man or the Logos Himself was at once both priest and victim, He was both, not according to His Divine nature, but through the function of His humanity. For, since the Divine nature was absolutely incapable of suffering, it was no more possible for Christ to act as priest according to His Divine nature, than it was for God the Father or the Holy Ghost. As regards the relation between the priest and the acceptor, it is usually stated in explanation that Christ acts only as sacrificing priest, and that God the Father alone receives the sacrifice. This view is false. Even though God the Father is mentioned as the only acceptor by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, cap. i), this is merely an appropriation, which excludes neither the Son nor the Holy Ghost in the matter of acceptance. The acceptor of the sacrifice of the Cross is thus the offended God, or the whole Trinity, to which Christ as Logos and Son of God also belongs. One must, however, distinguish between the Divinity and the Humanity of Christ and say: while Christ as God, together with the Father and the Holy Ghost accepted His own sacrifice in expiation of the offended Deity, He offered this same sacrifice as Man vicariously to the Blessed Trinity. While this coincidence of the three functions of priest, victim, and acceptor in the same Christ may constitute a mystery, it yet contains no contradiction (cf. Augustine, "De civ. Dei", X, xx). A third problem of great importance concerns the nature of the actio sacrifica in the sacrifice of the Cross. Did the sacrificial act consist in the slaying of Christ on the Cross? This question must be answered with a decided negative; otherwise one would have to say that the function of high-priest at the sacrifice of the Cross was exercised, not by Christ, but by his torturers and their myrmidons, the Roman soldiers. In the Mosaic sacrifices also the essence of the sacrifice lay, not in the actual slaying of the victim, but in the letting, or rather in the sprinkling, of the blood. Consequently, the sacrifice of the Cross, at which Christ functions as sole priest, must likewise be referred to the free offering of His blood for us men, inasmuch as the Redeemer, while outwardly submitting to the forcible shedding of His blood by His executioners, simultaneously offered it to God in the spirit of sacrifice (cf. John, x, 17 sq.; Heb., ix, 22; I Peter, 1, 2).

IV. THEORY OF SACRIFICE

In view of the comprehensive historical material which we have gathered both from pagan practice and from the religions Divinely revealed, it is now possible to essay a scientific theory of sacrifice, the chief lines being drawn naturally from the Jewish and Christian sacrificial systems.

( 1) Universality of Sacrifice

One of the specially characteristic features which the history of religions places before us is the wide diffusion, even the universality, of sacrifice among the human race. It is true that Andrew Lang ("The Making of a Religion", London, 1899) maintains the improbable view that originally the supreme, majestic, and heavenly God was as little venerated with sacrifices as He is to-day among certain tribes of Africa and Australia; that even in the Jahwehism of the Israelites the sacrificial cult was rather a degeneration than an ethico-religious advance. In agreement with this (other investigators add) is the fact that in many features the Mosaic sacrificial ritual was simply borrowed from the pagan ritual of the Egyptians, Babylonians, and other Semitic peoples. It is remarkable also that many Fathers of the Church (e. g. Chrysostom) and Scholastics, and among the Jews, Maimonides represented the Mosaic sacrifices as merely a concession which God made to the weakness of the Jewish character in order to restrain the Chosen People from the horrors of bloody sacrifice to idols.. This one-sided view, however, cannot be maintained before the bar of the history or the psychology of religion. Nothing is psychologically so intelligible as the derivation of sacrifice from the naturally religious heart of man, and the history of all peoples similarly proves that scarcely a single religion has ever existed or exists to-day without Some sacrifice. A religion entirely without sacrifice seems almost a psychological impossibility, and is at least unnatural. It is the complete want of sacrifice among some African and Australian tribes, rather than the numerous sacrifices of Mosaism, that has resulted from degeneration. Had God conceded the bloody sacrifices simply on account of the weakness of the Israelites, as above asserted, He would have promoted, rather than checked, the spread of pagan idolatry, especially if the sacrificial ritual were also taken from pagan religions. Here as elsewhere parallels in other religions prove no borrowing, unless such is supported by strict historical evidence, and even the actual borrowings may in their new home have been inspired with an entirely new spirit. The adoption of the substance of paganism into Mosaism is disproved especially by the anti-pagan and unique idea of holiness with which the whole Jewish cult is stamped (cf. Lev., xi, 44), and which shows the sacrificial thora as of one piece. A later editor could never have imprinted the stamp of holiness on a ritual composed of pagan fragments without the pure paganism peeping through the seams and joinings. One must therefore, both before and after the Priest's Code (save for later additions and accommodations to new circumstances) regard the sacrificial thora as truly Mosaic, and see in them the expression not only of human nature, but also of the Divine will. A remarkable exception from the general rule is Islamism, which knows neither sacrifice nor priest; sacrifice is replaced by a strict ritual of prayer, with which religious ablutions and almsgiving are associated. Again, while genuine Buddhism rejects sacrifice, this rule was far from obtaining in practice, for Lamaism in Tibet has sacrifices for the dead, and the average Buddhist of the people offers unbloody sacrifices to his buddha. The Hindu offers flowers, oil, food, and incense to his idols, and slays victims to the god Shiva and his spouse. And not even the believing Protestant is without a sacrifice, since, in spite of his rejection of the Mass, he at least recognizes Christ's death on the Cross as the great sacrifice of Christianity.

(2) Species of Sacrifice

The two chief kinds of sacrifice, the bloody and the unbloody, were suggested to mankind by nature itself, and were thus known in the earliest times. To which of the two historical priority is to be conceded, can scarcely be decided. For the greater antiquity of the unbloody sacrifice equally good grounds can be offered as for that of the bloody sacrifice. The earliest historical mentions of sacrifice found in the Bible would make them coeval, for Cain as the husband-man offered the fruits of the field, while his brother Abel as the shepherd offered bloody victims (Gen., iv, 3 sq.). As regards pagan religions, many historians of religion plead for the priority of the unbloody sacrifice. Porphyrius and Theophrastus also expressed the view that the first sacrifices consisted of plants and flowers, which were burned in honour of the Deity. The soma-haoma, a drink-offering common to both Indian Vedism and Iranian Parseeism, must be dated back to primeval times, when the Indians and the Iranians still formed one great people. How the Indians came to offer their very ancient horse sacrifice is unknown. It is a mere surmise to suppose that perhaps the general transition from a vegetable to a flesh diet, as related by Noe (cf. Gen., ix, 3 sqq.), occasioned the rise of animal sacrifices. The rare occurrence of slaying an animal was turned into a festival, which was celebrated with sacrifices. Among the earliest Hebrews sebach (bloody sacrifice) was a "slaying festival", with which bloody sacrifice was inseparably associated. The introduction of bloody sacrifices among the Iranians is more easily explained, since, especially in Zoroastrianism, it was esteemed a great merit to destroy the harmful animals belonging to the wicked god Ahriman, and eventually to sacrifice them to the good god Ormuzd. Further than surmises, however, we are unable to go. That the unbloody sacrifice was practised among the ancient Greeks, classical archæologists maintain with good reason, arguing that in Homer the word thyein (Lat. suffire) did not mean "to slay" or "to offer as a bloody sacrifice" (as it did in post-Homeric Greek), but rather to "offer a smoking sacrifice" (incense). It is not impossible that even the cruel and voluptuous cults of Anterior Asia also offered at first only vegetable sacrifices, since the fundamental idea of their religion, the death and renascence of nature, is expressed most evidently and impressively in the plant world. All this is however purely hypothetical. The observation that human sacrifice once extended over the whole earth, leaves room also for the supposition that the bloody sacrifice in the form of slaughtered men claims chronological priority, the hideous custom being replaced, as civilization advanced, by the sacrifice of animals. But among many peoples (e. g. the Chanaanites, Ph nicians, and the ancient Mexicans) not even the possession of a high culture succeeded in abolishing the detestable human sacrifices. But, whatever view may be taken of the priority question, it is undoubted that both the bloody and the unbloody sacrifices reach back to prehistoric times.

Not without its significance for the scientific idea of sacrifice is the fact that the material of the bloody and unbloody sacrifices was regularly taken from things used as food and drink, and indeed from the best of these commodities. This very general circumstance affords evidence that the sacrificial gift must be taken from the belongings of the sacrificer and must be associated, as a means of sustenance, with his physical life. The independent sacrifice of incense alone requires another explanation; this is supplied by the fragrant odour, which symbolizes either the sweetness of the ascending offering of prayer or the gracious acceptance of the sacrifice by the Deity. The bloody sacrifice, on account of its symbolical connexion with the life of man, was especially expressive of complete self-oblation to the Divinity. In the cruder views of naive natural man, the ascending odour of the incense offering soothed the olfactory organs of the gods. Especially crude was this unworthy materializing of sacrifice in Indian Vedism (the soma drink) and in the Babylonian story of the Flood, where it is said: "The gods suck in the fragrant odour; like flies, the gods gathered over the sacrificer." Even the Old Testament expression, "a sweet savour for God" (odor suavitatis), was originally an accommodation to the ingenuous ideas of the uncultured nomadic people (cf. Gen., viii, 21; Lev., i, 17, etc.), an anthro-pomorphism which was ever more clearly recognized as such according as the Israelites progressed in their ethical refinement of the idea of God. Not on the greatness or material worth of the sacrificial gifts should store be laid, since Jahweh was above necessity, but on the true sentiment of sacrifice, without which, as declared by the Prophets (cf. Is., i, 11 sqq.; Osee, iv, 5; Mal., i, 10), all external sacrifices were not only worthless, but even reprehensible.

(3) Rites of Sacrifice

While sacrifice itself originates spontaneously in the natural prompting of religious-minded man, the particular rites, dependent on law and custom, display a manifold variety at different times and places. Among the different peoples the ceremonial of sacrifice offers indeed a very variegated picture. If we emphasize only that which was general and common to all, the simplest sacrificial rite consists in the mere exposition of the gifts in a holy place, as for example the show-bread (panis propositionis) of the Israelites and Babylonians, or the votive offerings (anathemata) of the Greeks. Frequently the idea of entertaining the gods or the dead is evidently associated with the offering of food and drink, e. g. among the Indians, Egyptians, and Greeks. Even in the oldest history of Israel this idea of entertainment, although spiritualized, is perceptible (Judges, vi, 17 sqq.; xiii, 15 sqq.). As true sacrifices in the strict sense were regarded only those in which a real alteration was effected in the sacrificial gift at the time of offering it. By this immutation the gifts were not only withdrawn from all profane usage, but were also completely given over to the service and possession of God or the gods. With this object in view edibles or sacrificial victims were either completely or partly burned, while libations were poured out as drink offerings. The earliest form seems to have been the whole or burnt-offering (holocaust). While only special portions of the victims (for the most part the best portions) were burned, the remainder of the flesh was regarded as holy sacrificial food, and was eaten either by the priests or by the offerers in a holy place (or even at home) with the idea of entering into communion. The chief element in the sacrifice, however, was not the sacrificial meal, but rather the sprinkling of the blood, which, as the bearer of life, was clearly intended in many religions to represent man himself. This idea of substitution is seen with overwhelming clearness in the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. Among all peoples the sacrifice, as the chief and most perfect function of religion, was surrounded with the greatest pomp and solemnity; the celebration was usually of a light and joyous character, especially in the case of the sacrifices of praise, petition, and thanksgiving. With joyous heart man consecrated himself to the Deity through the medium of the gifts he offered. External adornment, music, song, prayer, and dance heightened the festive joy. On the other hand the expiatory sacrifice was of a serious character, whether it was intended to atone for misdeeds or to avert misfortune. Not every private person was competent to offer sacrifice; this function pertained only to certain persons or priests, whose office was immediately connected with the sacrifices. In the earliest time the head of the family or tribe performed the functions of priest -- in ancient Egypt the king, as even to-day the emperor in China (see PRIESTHOOD). Sacrifice and altar (q.v.) are, like sacrifice and priest, correlative terms. Originally the altar consisted of a single stone, which by consecration became the dwelling of God (cf. Gen., xii, 7 sq.; xiii, 4; xxviii, 18 sqq.). Among many peoples the place of sacrifice was either the house (for private sacrifices) or the open air (for public sacrifices). In the latter case specially selected places (trees, groves, heights) in an elevated position were preferred for sacrifice. Among the Romans altar and hearth (ara et focus) were regarded as indispensable requisites for sacrifice.

(4) Origin of Sacrifice

Since sacrifice is a regular concomitant of every religion, sacrifice must, according to the law of causality, have originated simultaneously with religion. Consequently, sacrifice is as old as religion itself. It is evident that the nature of the explanation given of sacrifice will depend on the views one takes of the origin of religion in general.

(a) Widely held to-day is the theory of evolution, which, in accordance with the principles of Darwin, endeavours to trace the origin of religion from the degraded stage of the half-animal, religionless primeval man, and its gradual development to higher forms. The scheme of development is naturally different according to the personal standpoint of the investigator. As the starting-point for the comparative study of the lowest religious forms is usually taken the uncivilized savage of to-day, the true portrait of the primeval man (Lubbock, Tyler, etc.). An attempt is made to construct an ascending scale from the crudest Fetichism to naturalistic Polytheism, from which develops ethical Monotheism, as the highest and purest product. Until recently the Animism (q, v.) proposed by Tylor was the prevalent theory; this traced religion from the ancient worship of souls, ghosts, spirits of ancestors, etc. (under the influence of fear). At this original stage sacrifice had no other purpose than the feeding and entertaining of these deified beings, or their appeasement and conciliation, if hostile dispositions were ascribed to them (demons). In recent times this explanation, once honoured as dogma in the history of religions, is most vigorously combated by the experts themselves as untenable. It has been recognized that Animism and the kindred Fetichism and Totemism represent only secondary elements of many nature-religions, not the essence. "In any case," says Chantepie de la Saussaye, "a purely animistic basis of religion can nowhere be shown" ("Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte", I, Tübingen, 1905, p. 12). But if the origin of the idea of God cannot be explained from Animism, entertainment cannot have been the original idea of sacrifice, especially since, according to the most recent investigations, the primeval religions seem to converge rather towards Monotheism. Just as in the consciousness of all sacrificing peoples the gods remained sublime above souls, spirits, and demons, sacrifice as a religious gift far transcended food and drink. But, wherever the gods are represented as companions at the banquet, there always appeared the right idea, that by his participation in the sacrificial gifts man enters into communion with the gods, and (e. g. in the case of the ancient Indian soma drink) even partakes of divine strength. The obscuring of this idea by anthropomorphic errors, fostered by priestly deceit, did indeed here and there lead to the one-sided "feeding of the gods" (cf. Dan., xiv, 2 sqq.), but this may by no means be regarded as a primitive institution, Animism (q. v.) is most successfully refuted by Andrew Lang ('The Making of a Religion", London, 1898).

(b) A second naturalistic explanation, which may be called the "social theory", derives religion from social instincts and accordingly sacrifice from the communal meal which was established to strengthen and seal in religious manner the tribal community. These communal meals are supposed to have given the first impulse to sacrifice. These fundamental thoughts may be developed in several ways. As Totemism, in addition to its religious, has also a distinctly social element, and in this respect is on a far higher level than Animism, some authors (especially W. Robertson Smith, "The Religion of the Semites", London, 1894) believe that the origin of animal sacrifices can be traced back to Totemism. When the different clans or divisions of a tribe partook at the communal meal of the sacred animal (totem) which represented their god and ancestors, they believed that by this meal they participated in the divine life of the animal itself. Sacrifice in the sense of offering gifts to the Deity, the symbolic replacing of human life by an animal, the idea of expiation, etc., are declared to belong to a much later period of the history of sacrifice. Originally the gifts of cereals had rather the character of a tribute due to the gods, and this idea was later transferred to the animal sacrifices. It is however very questionable whether this totemistic theory, notwithstanding some excellent suggestions, entirely meets the facts. Certainly the social force of religion and its significance in the formation of communities should not be underestimated; but, apart from the fact that Totemism is not, any more than Animism, an explanation of the origin of religion, the hypothesis is contradicted by the certain fact that in the earliest epoch the whole or burnt offering existed side by side with the communal meal, the former being equally old, if not older than the latter. In the consciousness of the peoples the sacrificial meal constituted not so much an element of the sacrifice, as the participation, confirmation, and completion of the same. On the same ground what is called the "banquet theory" of the late Bishop Bellord must also be rejected; this theory refers the essence of the sacrifice to the meal, and declares a sacrifice without a meal impossible (cf. The Ecclesiastical Review, XXXIII, 1905, pp. 1 sqq., 258 sqq.). This theory is not in accordance with the facts; for, as it is compelled to refer the essence of the Sacrifice of the Mass solely to the priest's communion, instead of to the twofold transubstantiation, the truth of the sacrifice of the Cross can be maintained only on the forced and false supposition that the Last Supper in its organic connexion with the Crucifixion imprinted on the latter its sacrificial character. (For further particulars, see MASS, SACRIFICE OF THE.)

(c) So far as we may gather from revelation, the most natural and probable view seems to be that sacrifice originated in the positive command of God, since, by the original revelation in Paradise, the whole religion of mankind appears to have been established in advance on a supernatural basis. The Greek legend of the invention of sacrifice by Prometheus and the giant Chiron, together with similar legends of Asiatic religions, might be interpreted as reminiscences of the Divine origin of sacrifice. The positive command to sacrifice might even after the Fall have been preserved by tradition among the descendants of Adam, and thus spread among the pagan nations of all lands. The idolatrous deviations from the paradisaic idea of sacrifice would thus appear as regrettable errors, which, however, would not be more difficult to explain than the general fall of the human race. But, however plausible and probable this hypothesis may be, it is unprovable, and indeed unnecessary for the explanation of sacrifice. Regarding sacrifice in Paradise the Bible gives us no information; for the explanation of "eating of the Tree of Life" as a sacramental food offering is a later theologumenon which the acuteness of theologians, following Augustine's lead, has devised. But without recurring to a Divine ordinance, the origin of sacrifice may easily be explained by purely psychological motives. In consideration of the relation of sonship between man and God, which was felt more deeply in primitive times than subsequently, the only evidence of sincere inner adoration that the creature could give was by sacrificing some of his own possessions, thus visibly expressing his absolute submission to the Divine Majesty. Nor was it less in keeping with the inner promptings of man to declare his gratitude to God by gifts offered in return for benefits received, and to give through the medium of sacrificial presents expression to his petitions for new favours. Finally, the sinner might hope to free himself of the oppressive consciousness of guilt, when in the spirit of contrition he had to the best of his ability repaired the wrong done to the Divinity. The more childlike and ingenuous the conception of God formed by primitive man, the more natural and easy was for him the introduction of sacrifice. A truly good child offers little gifts to his parents, though he does not know what they will do with them. The psychological theory thus seems to offer the best explanation of the origin of sacrifice.

(5) Object of Sacrifice

As its "metaphysical form", the object first gives sacrifice its full spiritual content, and quickens the external rites with a living soul. The developed pagan religions agree with revealed religion in the idea that sacrifice is intended to give symbolical expression to man's complete surrender of himself into the hands of the Supreme God in order to obtain communion with Him. In the recognition of the absolute supremacy of God lies the juridical, and in the correlative absolute subjection to God the ethical side of sacrifice. In both moments the latreutic character of the sacrifice stands out clearly, since to God alone, as the First Cause (Causa prima) and the Last End (Finis ultimus) of all things, may sacrifice be offered. Even the idolatrous sacrifices of pagans did not entirely lose sight of this fundamental idea, since they esteemed their idols as gods. Even sacrifices of thanksgiving and petition never exclude this essential latreutic feature, since they concern thanksgivings and petitions to the ever-adorable Divinity. From our sinful condition arises the fourth object of sacrifice, i. e. the appeasing of the Divine anger. The fourfold object of sacrifice supplies an immediate explanation of the four kinds of sacrifice (cf. St. Thomas, I-II, Q. cii, a. 3). With the sentiments of sacrifice incorporated in these objects is closely connected the high importance of prayer, which accompanies the rite of sacrifice in all the higher religions; Grimm thus simply declares: "Sacrifice is only a prayer offered with gifts." Where we are to seek the culminating point of the sacrificial act (actio sacrifica), in which the object of sacrifice is especially expressed, is the most freely debated question, and concerning it the theorists are not in agreement. While some see the culmination of the sacrifice in the real alteration (immutatio), and especially in the destruction of the gift, others refer the essence of the sacrificial act to the external oblation of the gift, after it has been subjected to any change whatsoever; a third, but not very numerous party make the sacrificial meal the chief element. This last view has already been set aside as untenable. That the meal is not essential is likewise shown by numerous sacrifices, with which no meal is associated (e. g. the primitive burnt-sacrifice, and the sacrifice of the Cross). Again, the importance of the blood, which as a means of nourishment was avoided, spurned by, and even forbidden to the Jews, finds no expression in the banquet-theory. That the destruction of the gift (especially the slaying) cannot constitute the essence of the sacrifice is clear from the fact that the sprinkling of the blood (aspersio sanguinis) was regarded as the culmination, and the killing as only the preparation for the real sacrificial act. In fact the "destruction theory", settled in Catholic theology since the time of Vasquez and Bellarmine, harmonizes neither with the historical pagan conception of sacrifice nor with the essence of the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, nor finally with the fundamental ideas of the Mosaic cult. The destruction is at most the material, and the oblation the formal element of the sacrifice. Consequently, the idea of sacrifice lies in the self-surrender of man to God, not with the object of (symbolical) self-destruction, but of final transformation, glorification, and deification. Wherever a meal is associated with the sacrifice, this signifies merely the confirmation and certification of the communion with God, already existing or reacquired by expiation. We may thus define sacrifice as the external oblation to God by an authorized minister of a sense-perceptible object, either through its destruction or at least its real transformation, in acknowledgement of God's supreme dominion and for the appeasing of His wrath. In so far as this definition refers to the sacrifice of the Mass, see SACRIFICE OF THE MASS.

I. Concerning pagan sacrifice in general see CREUZER, Symbolik u. Mythologie der alten Völker (3rd ed., Darmstadt, 1877); WERNER, Die Religionen u. Kulte des vorchristl. Heidentums (Ratisbon, 1888); VOLLERS, Die Weltreligionen in ihrem geschichtl. Zusammenhang (Jena, 1909); DE LA SAUSSAYE, Lehrbuch der Religionsgesch. (2 vols., 3rd ed., Tübingen, 1905). Concerning the sacrifices of the ancient Indians see MÜLLER, Hibbert Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion as illustrated by the Religion of India (London, 1878); LINDNER, Die Dîkshâ oder die Weihe für das Somaopfer (1878); BERGAIGNE, La religion védique (3 vols., Paris, 1878-83); WEBER, Zur Kenntnis des ved. Opferrituals in Indische Studien, X and XIII; HILLEBRANDT, Das altind. Neu- u. Vollmondsopfer (1879); IDEM, Ritual-Literatur, ved. Opfer u. Zauber (1897); MUIR, Original Sanscrit Texts, III-V (London, 1890); HOPKINS, The Religions of India (London, 1893); HARDY, Die vedischbrahmanische Periode der Religion des alten Indiens (1893); IDEM, Indische Religionsgesch. (1898); OLDENBERG, Die Religion des Veda (1894); SCHWAB, Das altindische Tieropfer (1896); MACDONELL, Vedic Mythology (1897); DAHLMANN, Der Idealismus der indischen Religionsphilos. im Zeitalter der Opfermystik (Freiburg, 1901); ROUSSELL, La religion védique (Paris, 1909). Concerning Hinduism consult: MONIER-WILLIAMS, Brahmanism and Hinduism (London, 1891); GURU PROSAD SEN, An Introduction to the Study of Hinduism (Calcutta, 1893); CROOKE, Introduction to the Popular Religion and Folklore of Northern India (London, 1896); DUBOIS, Hindu Manners, Customs and Ceremonies (Oxford, 1897); SLATER, The higher Hinduism in relation to Christianity (London, 1902). Concerning the Iranians, cf. HYDE, Historia religionis veterum Persarum (Oxford, 1700); WINDISCHMANN, Zoroastrische Studien (1863); SPIGEL, Eranische Altertumskunde, II (1878); DE HARLEZ, Les origines du Zoroastrisme (Paris, 1879); HAUG, Essays on the Sacred Language, Writings and Religion of the Parsis (London, 1884); DOSABHAI FRANIJI KARAKA, History of the Parsis, including their Manners, Customs, Religion and Present Position (2 vols., London, 1884); CASARTELI, La philos. religeuse du Mazdéisme sous les Sassanides (Paris, 1884); JACKSON, Zoroaster, the Prophet of Ancient Iran (New York, 1899). Concerning the Greeks, Cf. MAURY, Hist. des religions de la Grèce antique (3 vols., Paris, 1857-9); GIRARD, Le sentiment religieux en Grèce d'Homère à Eschyle (Paris, 1879); ROSCHER, Ausführliches Lexikon der griech. u. röm. Mythologie (1884); REISCH, Griechische Weihegeschenke (Vienna, 1890); STENGEL, Die griech. Sakralaltertümer (1890); RHODE, Psyche (1891); GARDENER AND JEVONS, Manual of Greek Antiquities (London, 1895); USENER, Götternamen (1896); FARNELL, Cults of the Greek States (2 vols., London, 1896); GRUPPE, Griech. Mythologie u. Religionsgesch. (Munich, 1897-1906); ROUSE, Greek Votive Offerings (Cambridge, 1910); REITZENSTEIN, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen (1910); PIEPERS, Qu stiones anathematic (Leiden, 1903). Concerning the Romans, cf. BOUCHÉ-LECLERC, Manuel des institutions romaines (Paris, 1896); WISSOWA, Religion u. Kultus der Römer (Munich, 1902); VON PÖHLMANN, Die röm. Kaiserzeit u. der Untergang der antiken Welt (1910); GASQUET, Essai sur le culte et les mystères de Mithra (Paris, 1899); CUMONT, Die Mysterien des Mithra (Leipzig, 1903); PRELLER, Römische Mythologie (3rd ed., 1881-83); BEURLIER, Le culte rendu aux empereurs romains (Paris, 1890); WENDLAND, Die hellenist.-röm. Kultur in ihren Beziehungen zum Judentum u. Christentum (1907); DIETERICH, Eine Mithrasliturgie (2nd ed., 1910). Concerning the Chinese, cf. DOUGLAS, Confucianism and Taoism (London, 1892); DE HARLEZ, Les religions de la Chine (Brussels, 1891); DVORAK, Chinas Religionen (2 Vols., Leipzig, 1895-1903). Concerning the Egyptians, cf. LE PAGE RENOUF, Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion as illustrated by the Religion of Ancient Egypt (London, 1879); ERMAN, Aegypten u, ägyptisches Leben im Altertum (2 vols., 1885-88); IDEM, Die ägyptische Religion (2nd ed., Berlin, 1909); BRUGSCH, Religion u. Mythologie der alten Aegypter (1888); BUDGE, The Mummy (London, 1893); IDEM, The Gods of the Egyptians (London, 1904); IDEM, History of Egypt (8 vols., London, 1902-); WIEDEMANN, Die Religion der alten Aegypter (1890); FLINDERS PETRIE, History of Egypt (London, 1894); SAYCE, Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia (London, 1902); OTTO, Priester u. Tempel im hellenist. Aegypten (2 vols., 1902-08). Concerning the Semites. cf. VON BAUDISSIN, Beiträge zur semitischen Religionsgesch. (Berlin, 1875-78); ROBERTSON SMITH, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (London, 1899); LAGRANGE, Sur les religions sémitiques (Paris, 1903); ZIMMER, Beiträge zur Kenntnis der babylon. Religion (1896); HAUPT, Babylonian Elements in the Levitical Ritual (1900); HILPRECHT, Die Ausgrabungen im Bel-Tempel zu Nippur (1903); JEREMIAS, Montheistische Strömungen innerhalb der babylonischen Religion (1904); WINCKLER, Die Gesetze Hammurabis (1904); JASTROW, Die Religion Babyloniens u. Assyriens (1905); KOLDEWEY, Die Tempel von Babylon (1911); MOVERS, Das Opferwesen der Karthager (1847); CHEYNE-BLACK, Encycl. biblica, s. v. Ph nicia; SCHOLZ, Götzendienst u. Zauberwesen bei den alten Hebräern u. benachbarten Völkern (1877); SCHANZ, Apologie des Christentums, II (1905). See also the literature to PRIESTHOOD.

II. LIGHTFOOT, Ministerium templi (Rotterdam, 1699); BÄHR, Symbolik des mosaischen Kultus, II (Heidelberg, 1839); THALHOFER, Die unblutigen Opfer des mosaischen Kultus (Ratisbon, 1848); RIEHM, Der Begriff der Sühne im A. T. (Gotha, 1876); IDEM, Handwörterbuch des biblischen Altertums (Leipzig, 1884-); IDEM, Alttestamentl. Theologie (Halle, 1889); KURTZ, Sacrificial Worship of the Old Testament, tr. (Edinburgh, 1863); WANGEMANN, Das Opfer nach der hl. Schrift (1866); SCHOLZ, Die hl. Altertümer des Volkes Israel (Ratisbon, 1868); IDEM, Götzendienst u. Zauberwesen bei den alten Hebräern (Ratisbon, 1877); HANEBERG, Die reliqiösen Altertümer der Bibel (Munich, 1869); SCHEGG, Biblische Archäologie (Freiburg, 1887); LAOUENAN, Du Brahmanisme et ses rapports avec le Judaisme et le Christianisme (Paris, 1888); CAVE, Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice and Atonement (Edinburgh, 1890); SCHÄFER, Die religiösen Altertümer der Bibel (1891); SCHMOLLER, Das Wesen der Sühne in der alttestamentlich. Opferthora in Studien u. Kritiken (1891); NOWACK, Hebräische Archäologie (Freiburg, 1894); VOLCK, De nonnullis V. T. prophet. locis ad sacrificia spectantibus (Leipzig, 1893); SCOTT, Sacrifice, its Prophecy and Fulfilment (Edinburgh, 1894); BAXTER, Sanctuary and Sacrifice (London, 1895); SCHULTZ, Old Testament Theology, tr. (Edinburgh, 1898); FREY, Tod, Seelenglaube u. Seelenkult im alten Israel (1898); MATTHIEU, La notion de sacrifice dans l'ancien Testament et son évolution (Toulouse, 1902); GOLD, Sacrificial Worship (NeW York, 1903); NIKEL, Genesis u. Keilschriftforschung (Freiburg, 1903); SCHRADER, Die Keilinschriften u. das A. T. (3rd ed., Berlin, 1903); ZAPLETAL, Alttestamentliches (Freiburg, 1903); KÖBERLE, Sünde u. Gnade im religiösen Leben des Volkes Israel bis auf Christus (Munich, 1905); HERRMANN, Die Idee der Sühne im A. T. (Leipzig, 1905); SCHÖPFER, Gesch, des A. T. (4th ed., 1906); KENT, Israel's Laws and Legal Precedents (NeW York, 1907); BENZINGER, Hebräische Archäologie (Freiburg, 1907); MADER, Die Menschenopfer der alten Hebräer u. der benachbarten Völker (Freiburg, 1908); ENGELKEMPER, Heiligtum u, Opferstätten in den Gesetzen des Pentateuch (Münster, 1908); SMITH, The Biblical Doctrine of Atonement in Biblical World, XXXI (1908), 22 sqq.; KITTEL, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, II (Gotha, 1909); PETERS, Die jüdische Gemeinde von Elephantine-Syene u. ihr Tempel im 5. Jahrh. vor Chr. (Freiburg, 1910); ALLGEIER, Ueber Doppelberichte in der Genesis. Eine kritische Untersuchung u. eine prinzipielle Prüfung (Freiburg, 1911).

III. TANNER, Cruentum Christi sacrificium, incruentum Missæ sacrificium explicatum (Prague, 1669); CONDREN. Das Priestertum u. das Opfer Jesu Christi (Ratisbon, 1847); VON CICHOWSKI, Das alttestamentl. Pascha in seinem Verhältnis sum Opfer Christi (Munich, 1849); THALHOFER, Die Opfer des Hebräerbriefes (Dillinger, 1855); IDEM, Das Opfer des alten u. neuen Bundes (Ratisbon, 1870); BICKEL, Messe u. Pascha (Mainz, 1871); PELL, Das Dogma von der Sünde u. Erlösung im Lichte der Vernunft (Ratisbon, 1886); IDEM, Die Lehre des hl. Athanasius von der Sünde u. Erlösung (Passau, 1888); OSWALD, Die Erlösung in Christo Jesu (2nd ed., Paderborn, 1887); STRÄTER, Die Erlösungslehre des hl. Athanasius (Freiburg, 1894); ANRICH, Das antike Mysterien. wesen u. sein Einfluss auf das Christentum (Göttingen, 1894): SCHENZ, Die priesterl. Tätigkeit des Messias nach dem Propheten Isajas (Ratisbon, 1892); SEEBERG, Der Tod Christi in seiner Bedeutung für die Erlösung (Leipzig, 1895); DÖRHOLT, Die Lehre von der Genugtuung Christi (Paderborn, 1896); CHARRE, Le sacrifice de l'Homme-Dieu (Paris, 1899); GRIMM, Gesch. des Leidens Jesu, I (Ratisbon, 1903); FUNKE, Die Satisfactionstheorie des hl. Anselm (Münster, 1903); RITTER, Christus der Erlöser (Linz, 1903); BELSER, Gesch. des Leidens u. Sterbens, der Auferstehung u. Himmelfahrt des Herrn (Freiburg, 1903); JENTSCH, Hellentum u. Christentum (Leipzig, 1903); MUTH, Die Heilstat Christi als stellvertretende Genugtuung (Ratisbon, 1904); RIVIÈRE, Le dogme de la Rédemption (Paris, 1905); CROMBRUGGHE, De soteriologiæ christianæ primis fontibus (Louvain, 1905); KLUGE, Das Seelenleiden des Welterlösers (Mainz, 1905); WEIGL, Die Heilslehre des hl. Cyrill von Jerusalem (Mainz, 1905); WEISS, Die messianischen Vorbilder im A. T. (Freiburg, 1905); FIEBIG, Babel u. das N. T. (Tübingen, 1905); FELDMANN, Der Knecht Gottes in Isajas Kap. 40-55 (Freiburg, 1907); STAAB, Die Lehre von der stellvertretenden Genugtuung Christi (Paderborn, 1908); POHLE, Dogmatik, II (Paderborn, 1909); BAUER, Vom Griechentum zum Christentum (Leipzig, 1910); HARNACK, Dogmengesch., I-II (Tübingen, 1901). For other literature see MASS, SACRIFICE OF THE, and PRIESTHOOD.

IV. BECANUS, De triplici sacrificio natur, legis, grati (Lyons, 1631); OUTRAM, De sacrificiis libri duo (Amsterdam, 1678); STÖCKL, Das Opfer nach seinem Wesen u. seiner Gesch. (Mainz, 1861); VON LASAULX, Ueber die Gebete der Griechen u. Römer (Würzburg, 1842); IDEM, Die Sühnopfer der Griechen u. Römer u. ihr Verhältnis zum Einen auf Golgatha (Ratisbon, 1854); DE MAISTRE, Eclaircissements sur le sacrifice (Paris, 1862); DÖLLINGER, Heidentum u. Judentum (2nd ed., Ratisbon, 1868); WANGEMANN, Das Opfer nach der Lehre der hl. Schrift des A. u. N. Testamentes (Berlin, 1866); LÜCKEN, Die Traditionen des Menschengeschlechts (Münster, 1869); SCHULTZE, Der Fetischismus (Leipzig, 1871); MÜLLER, Introduction to the Science of Religion (London, 1873); IDEM, Lectures on the Origin of Religion (London, 1878); IDEM, Natural Religion (London, 1899); IDEM, Physical Religion (London, 1890); IDEM, Anthropological Religion (London, 1892); FAIRBAIRN, Studies in the Philosophy of Religion and History (London, 1876); FREEMAN-CLARKE, Ten Great Religions (2 vols., London, 1871-83); CAIRD, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion (London, 1880); VON HARTMANN, Das religiöse Bewusstsein der Menscheit in Stufengang seiner Entwickelung (Berlin, 1882); LIPPERT, Allgemeine Gesch. des Priestertums (2 vols., Berlin, 1883); SCHNEIDER, Die Naturvölker (2 vols., Paderborn, 1885-86); PELEIDERER, Religionsphilosophie auf geschichtl. Grundlage (2 vols., Leipzig, 1883-89); KÖPPLER, Priester u. Opfergabe (Mainz, 1886); ROBERTSON-SMITH, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (London, 1889); KELLOG, The Genesis and Growth of Religion (New York, 1892); SIEBECK, Lehrbuch der Religionsgesch. (Freiburg, 1883); JEVONS, An Introduction to the History of Religion (London and New York, 1896); SABATIER, La doctrine de l'expiation et son évolution historique (Paris, 1896); TIELE, Elements of the Science of Religion (New York, 1896); BRINTON, Religions of Primitive Peoples (New York, 1897); LANG, The Making of a Religion (London and New York, 1898); DE LA GRASSERIE, La psychologie des religions (Paris, 1899); LETOURNEAU, L'évolution religieuse (Paris, 1897); VON ORELLI, Allgemeine Religionsgesch. (Bonn, 1899); FRAZER, The Golden Bough (London and New York, 1900); IDEM, Totemism and Exogamy (London 1910); BORCHERT, Der Animismus oder Ursprung der Religion aus dem Seelen-, Ahnen- u. Geisterkult (Leipzig, 1900); ZAPLETAL, Der Totemismus u. die Religion Israels (Freiburg, 1900); MORRIS-JASTROW, The Study of Religion (London, 1901); RENZ, Die Gesch. des Messopferbegriffs, I (Freising, 1901); LUBBOCK, The Origin of Civilization and the Primitive Condition of Man (6th ed., London, 1902); TYLOR, Primitive Culture (2 Vols., 6th ed., London, 1902); BOUSSET, Das Wesen der Religion (Leipzig, 1903); DORNER, Grundriss der Religionsphilosophie (Leipzig, 1903); POHLE, Dogmatik, III (Paderborn, 1910), 317-27; PELL, Noch ein Lösungsversuch zur Messopferfrage unter Revision des Opferbegriffs (2nd ed., Passau, 1911), Cf. GOURD in Revus de métaphysique et de morale (1902), 131 sqq.; MESCHLER in Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, LXIX (1905), 156 sqq.; Zeitschr. für Religionspsychologie, II (1908), 81 sqq.

J. POHLE

Sacrilege

(Lat. sacrilegium, robbing a temple, from sacer, sacred, and legere, to purloin.)

Sacrilege is in general the violation or injurious treatment of a sacred object. In a less proper sense any transgression against the virtue of religion would be a sacrilege.

Theologians are substantially agreed in regarding as sacred that and that only which by a public rite and by Divine or ecclesiastical institution has been dedicated to the worship of God. The point is that the public authority must intervene; private initiative, no matter how ardent in devotion or praiseworthy in motive, does not suffice. Attributing a sacred character to a thing is a juridical act, and as such is a function of the governing power of the Church.

It is customary to enumerate three kinds of sacrilege: personal, local, and real. St. Thomas teaches (Summa, II-II, Q., xcix) that a different sort of holiness attaches to persons, places, and things. Hence the irreverence offered to any one of them is specifically distinct from that which is exhibited to the others. Suarez (De Religione, tr. iii, 1-3) does not seem to think the division very logical, but accepts it as being in accord with the canons.

Personal Sacrilege. Personal sacrilege means to deal so irreverently with a sacred person that, whether by the injury inflicted or the defilement caused, there is a breach of the honour due to such person. This sacrilege may be committed chiefly in three ways:

• by laying violent hands on a cleric or religious. This constitutes an infraction of what is known as the privilege of the canon (privilegium canonis), and is visited with the penalty of excommunication;
• by violating the ecclesiastical immunity in so far as it still exists. Clerics according to the old-time discipline were entitled to exemption from the jurisdiction of lay tribunals (privilegium fori). The meaning, therefore, is that he who despite this haled them before a civil court, otherwise than as provided by the canons, was guilty of sacrilege and was excommunicated;
• by any sin against the vow of chastity on the part of those who are consecrated to God -- such are those in sacred orders (in the Latin Church) and religious, even those with simple vows, if these are perpetual. The weight of opinion amongst moralists is that this guilt is not contracted by the violation of a privately-made vow. The reason seems to be that, while there is a breach of faith with Almighty God, still such a vow, lacking the indorsement and acceptance of the Church, does not make the person formally a sacred one; it does not in the juridical sense set such an one apart for the worship of God. It need hardly be noted that the partners of sacred persons in sins of this kind are to be adjudged equally guilty of sacrilege even though their status be a purely lay one.

Local Sacrilege. Local sacrilege is the violation of a sacred place. Under the designation "sacred place" is included not only a church properly so-called even though it be not consecrated, but merely blessed, but also public oratories as well as cemeteries canonically established for the burial of the faithful. Four species of this crime are ordinarily distinguished:

• the theft of something found in and specially belonging to the church;
• the infringing of the immunity attaching to sacred places in so far as this prerogative still prevails. It should be observed that in this case the term "sacred place" receives a wider comprehension than that indicated above. It comprises not only churches, public chapels, and cemeteries, but also the episcopal palace, monasteries, hospitals erected by episcopal authority and having a chapel for the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice, and also the person of the priest when he is carrying the Blessed Sacrament. To all of these was granted the right of asylum the outraging of which was deemed a sacrilege;
• the commission within the sacred precincts of some sinful act by which, according to canon law, the edifice is esteemed polluted. These acts are homicide, any shedding of blood reaching to the guilt of a grievous sin, any consummated offence against chastity (including marital intercourse which is not necessary), the burial within the church or sacred place of an unbaptized person or of one who has been excommunicated by name or as a notorious violator of the privilege of the canon;
• the doing of certain things (whether sins or not), which, either by their own nature or by special provision of law, are particularly incompatible with the demeanour to be maintained in such a place. Such would be for instance turning the church into a stable or a market, using it as a banquet hall, or holding court there indiscriminately for the settlement of purely secular affairs.

Real Sacrilege. Real sacrilege is the irreverent treatment of sacred things as distinguished from places and persons. This can happen first of all by the administration or reception of the sacraments (or in the case of the Holy Eucharist by celebration) in the state of mortal sin, as also by advertently doing any of those things invalidly. Indeed deliberate and notable irreverence towards the Holy Eucharist is reputed the worst of all sacrileges. Likewise conscious maltreatment of sacred pictures or relics or perversion of Holy Scripture or sacred vessels to unhallowed uses, and finally, the usurpation or diverting of property (whether movable or immovable) intended for the maintenance of the clergy or serving for the ornamentation of the church to other uses, constitute real sacrileges. Sometimes the guilt of sacrilege may be incurred by omitting what is required for the proper administration of the sacraments or celebration of the sacrifice, as for example, if one were to say Mass without the sacred vestments.

SLATER, Manual of Moral Theology (New York, 1908); RICKABY, Moral Teaching of St. Thomas (London, 1896); BALLERINI, Opus theologicum morale (Prato, 1899); D'ANNIBALE, Summula theologi moralis (Rome, 1908); SPELMAN, The History and Fate of Sacrilege (London, 1888).

JOSEPH F. DELANY

Sacris Solemniis

The opening words of the hymn for Matins of Corpus Christi and of the Votive Office of the Most Blessed Sacrament, composed by St. Thomas Aquinas. The rhythmic stanza imitates the classical measures found in Horace and in several hymns of the Roman Breviary (see SANCTORUM MERITIS); but for whatever excellence the hymn lacks in respect of classical prosody it compensates in the interesting and intricate rhymic scheme. This may be illustrated by breaking up the stanza of four lines into seven. The sixth stanza, which is sometimes employed as a separate hymn at Benediction will serve to illustrate:

The incisio (i.e. the coincidence of the end of a word with the end of a foot) is perfect throughout all the stanzas. With what rhythm should the hymn be recited? Translators vary much in their conception of an appropriate English equivalent. The first words suggest by the tonic accents English dactylics:

The felicitous Anglican translator, the Rev. Dr. J.M. Neale, used iambic metre:

This fifth stanza is interesting for its own sake, as it calls attention to the plan of the Eucharistic sacrifice. Dr. Neale's translation does not follow strictly the rhymic scheme, which is better observed in a translation given in "Sursum Corda" (1908, p. 6). Shipley "Annus Sanctus", London, 1874, p. 192) gives Wallace's translation, the first stanza of which illustrates another metric form:

Caswall (Lyra Catholica, 1849) gave a condensed translation:

The revision (which also includes the change of "night" into "eve", and changes in the third and fourth lines of the sixth stanza) appears in the "Lyra" of 1884, in Shipley's Annus Sanctus", and in the Marquess of Bute's translation of the Roman Breviary; the revision is interesting as illustrating Caswall's zeal for literal betterment of the translation.. Wagner ("Origine et developpement du chant liturgique", translation of Bour, Tournai, 1904, p. 169) speaks of the gradual substitution of rhythm for metre in the hymns and refers to the "Sacris solemniis" as illustrative of "the two conceptions of verse . . . where the old verse and the rhythmic disposition of syllables meet peaceably together. Rhyme, also, was gradually introduced; this same hymn offers very instructive examples of it. It is a device of punctuation for the ear." Birkle ("Vatican Chant", translation of Lemaistre, New York, 1904, p. 103) says: "The first three lines have three accents each — a weak accent upon the second and seventh syllable and the chief accent upon the tenth. The first half of the line concludes with the sixth syllable, which must be noticeable in the chanting. In the last verse the chief accent must be placed upon the sixth syllable" (but in the illustration he places an accent also upon the third syllable).

Consult Pimont, Les hymnes du breviaire romain, II (Paris, 1884), 177-88, for text and extensive comment; Hymnarium Sarisburiense (London, 1851), 119 for text, variant readings, and very simple plainsong. The text and official plainsong melodies are given in the Vatican Graduale (Ad processionem Coporis Christi). Cf. also JULIAN, Dict. Of Hymnology (2nd ed., London, 1907; HENRY in Sursum Corda (1908), 6, translation and comment; DREVES Analecta hymnica, XVI (Leipzig), p. 38 (In dedicatione urbis Granatae), 75 (De Angelo Custode), 103 (De S. Disma), for fifteenth-sixteenth-century imitations of the hymn. See also bibliography to SANCTUS MERITIS.

H.T. HENRY

Sacristan

An officer who is charged with the care of the sacristy, the church, and their contents. In ancient times many duties of the sacristan were performed by the doorkeepers (ostiarii), later by the mansionarii and the treasurers. The Decretals of Gregory IX (lib. I, tit. xxvi, "De officio sacristæ speak of the sacristan as if he had an honourable office attached to a certain benefice, and say that his duty was to care for the sacred vessels, vestments, lights, etc. Nowadays the sacristan is elected or appointed. The "Cæremoniale episcoporum" prescribed that in cathedral and collegiate churches the sacristan should be a priest, and describes his duties in regard to the sacristy, the Blessed Eucharist, the baptismal font, the holy oils, the sacred relics, the decoration of the church for the different seasons and feasts, the preparation of what is necessary for the various ceremonies, the pregustation in pontifical Mass, the ringing of the church bells, the preservation of order in the church, and the distribution of Masses; and finally it suggests that one or two canons be appointed each year to supervise the work of the sacristan and his assistants.

The under-sacristan (custos) is also mentioned in the Decretals (lib. I, tit. xxvii, "De officio custodis"). He was the assistant of the sacristan, was subject to the archdeacon, and discharged duties very similar to those of the sacristan. Now the office is hardly ever attached to a benefice, but is usually a salaried position. The Council of Trent desired that, according to the old canons, clerics should hold such offices; but in most churches, on account of the difficulty or impossibility of obtaining clerics, laymen perform many of the duties of the sacristan and under-sacristan.

Altar Societies

There are altar societies in connection with most parish churches. The duties of members vary according to circumstances, in some instances including those which ordinarily fall within the sacristan's province, such as the vestments and altar vessels, making ready for the priest's Mass, and so on, but as a general thing they consist of the payment of yearly dues into a fund for the maintenance and repair of the accessories used in the ceremonies of the Church and usually also of a certain amount of labor for this purpose. Altar societies differ from tabernacle societies in that their work is for the benefit of the church to which they are attached. (See TABERNACLE SOCIETIES).

The Sodality of St. John Berchmans, known as the Pious Association of Servers of Mass and Sacristans, was founded by Vincent Basile, S.J., missionary Apostolic among the southern Slavs, for lay acolytes, choir boys, sacristans, and all who have any duty to perform in the services of the Church. Its object is to induce all its members to perform their duties piously and in a manner befitting the ceremonies in which they participate, for the glory of God and the edification of the faithful. The rules compiled by Father Basile bind the members to absolute silence in church, devout genuflexion when passing before the Blessed Sacrament, and the clear pronunciation of the words of the liturgical prayers. This same circumspection is expected to characterize their conduct even in the sacristy, and they are required to attend monthly meeting and to receive Holy Communion at least once a month. The director should be either the pastor or a priest appointed by him. Although it is not a confraternity properly so-called, this sodality was approved by Pope Pius IX, 21 Sept., 1865, and indulgences were accorded to its members, subject to the usual conditions.

Cæremoniale episcoporum, I (Ratisbon, 1902), vi.

J.F. GOGGIN BLANCHE M. KELLY

Sacristy

(Latin sacrastia, vestry).

A room in the church or attached thereto, where the vestments, church furnishings and the like, sacred vessels, and other treasures are kept, and where the clergy meet and vest for the various ecclesiastical functions. It corresponds to the secretarium or diaconicum of old. At present the almost universal practice is to have the sacristy directly behind the main altar or at either side. The sacristy should contain cases, properly labelled, for the various vestments in all the liturgical colors; a crucifix or other suitable image in a prominent position to which the clergy bow before going to the sanctuary and on returning (Ritus celebrandi missam, II, i); a lavatory, where the officiating clergy may wash their hands (op. cit. I, i); a copy of the Decree of Urban VIII prohibiting certain offices and masses (S. R. C., 460 ad 6; 555 § Et ne); a book containing the obligations of the Church regarding foundations and their fulfillment (Innocent XII, Nuper, § 26, 21 Dec., 1699). It is customary to have a holy water font, and a bell to admonish the congregation of the advent of the clergy, at the door leading to the sanctuary. The sacristy is not blessed or consecrated together with the church, and consequently is not a sacred place in the canonical sense. However, except where penalties are concerned, it enjoys on the whole the same prerogatives as the church. When a sacristy directly behind the sanctuary has two entrances, the clergy enter the sanctuary at the gospel side, and leave by the epistle side (S.R.C., 3029 ad 12). A double sacristy is sometimes provided, one for the clergy, one for the altar boys. Canons too usually have their own sacristy. In cathedrals, where there is no special chapel for this purpose, there should be a separate sacristy (secretarium) with an altar, where the bishop may assist at Terce and prepare for pontifical Mass (Cærem. Episcoporum, I, 137; II, 74; see SACRISTAN).

St. CHARLES BORROMMEO, Instructiones Fabric£ Eccl. 1, 28 in Acta Eccles. Mediol. (Paris, 1645), 206 sq.; Raym. Antonii Instructio Pastoralis, 8, 1, ed. EYST. (1877), 166 sq.

ANDREW B. MEEHAN

Sadducees

A politico-religious sect of the Jews during the late post-Exile and New-Testament period. The old derivation of the name from tsaddiqim, i.e. the righteous; with assumed reference to the adherence of the Sadducees to the letter of the Law as opposed to the pharasaic attention to the superadded "traditions of the elders", is now generally discredited mainly on philological grounds and the term is associated with the proper name "Sadoc", Sadducee being equivalent to Sadokite. They became the dominant priestly party during the Greek and Roman period of Jewish history, and the name, whether bestowed seriously or in irony, originated doubtless in their pretensions to the descendants of Sadoc, the high-priest prominent in the times of David and Solomon (III Kings, I, 8, 26, 32; ii, 35; I Par., xxix, 22; cf. Ezech., xl, 46; xlii, 19; etc.). As a prominent political party they first appear in the reign of John Hyrcanus (135-105 B.C.). They espoused the hellenizing tendencies of the Asmonean princes in which they were strongly opposed by the Pharisees (q.v.), or Separatists, a party evolved from the earlier Assideans, and which abhorred all forms of Greek culture as detrimental to the religious interests of the Jewish nation. Under Aristobulus I and Alexander Jannæus, the immediate successor of John Hyrcanus, the power of the Sadducees was supreme, and though the opposing faction of the Pharisees came into favour during the regency of Alexandra Salome (780-69 B.C.), the Sadducees regained their ascendancy under Aristobulus II (69-63 B.C.) whom they supported in his conflicts with Hyrcanus II, Antipater, and the Romans. When Pompey captured Jerusalem (63 B.C.) he executed many of their leaders, as did also Herod the Idumean on his accession to power (37 B.C.). The Sadducees retained however, their traditional priestly functions and also a varying preponderance in the Sanhedrin, but even in this respect their influence was much diminished through the policy of Herod and later of the Roman procurators of Judea, who, arbitrarily and mainly for political reasons, appointed and removed the high-priests at will.

During this period and down to the destruction of Jerusalem the Sadducees were naturally unpopular with the masses because of their marked tendency to side closely with the ruling power, while the patriotic and exclusive Pharisees became more and more the leaders of the people. Among the religious difference between the two parties may be mentioned the denial on the part of the Sadducees of the resurrection, the immortality of the soul and the existence of angels (Matt., xxii, 23; Mark xii, 18; Acts, xxiii, 8). They rejected likewise the oral traditions which the Pharisees maintained and emphasized as a Divinely ordained supplement to the written law. While the tenacity and exclusiveness and other characteristics of the Pharisees have been indelibly impressed on all subsequent generations of Judaism, the influence of the indifferent and materialistic Sadducees vanished completely as soon as the Jews ceased to be a nation.

JAMES F. DRISCOLL

Thomas Vincent Faustus Sadler

Born 1604; died at Dieulward, Flanders, 19 Jan., 1680-1. He was received into the Church at the age of seventeen by his uncle, Dom Walter Sadler, and joined the Benedictines at Dieulward, being professed in 1622. Little is known of his missionary labors, but probably he was chaplain to the Sheldons of Weston and the Tichbornes in Hampshire before going to London, where he worked many years. He edited several spiritual books, often collaborating with Dom Anselm Crowther, and signing himself T.V. His chief publications are "The Christian Pilgrim in his Spiritual Conflict and Conquest" (1652); "Jesus, Maria, Joseph" (1657); "The Daily Exercise of the Devout Rosarists" (1657), which was afterwards developed into a well-known prayer book, "The Daily Exercise of the Devout Christian"; "A Guide to Heaven", translated from Bona's "Manuductio" (1672); "The Holy Desires of Death", translated from Lallemant (1678). Wood attributes to him "The Childe's Catechism" (1678).

WELLDON, Chronological Notes on the English Benedictine Congregation (London, 1881; SNOW, Necrology of the English Congregation O. S. B. (London, 1883); WOOD, Athenae Oxonienses, ed. BLISS (London, 1813-20); OLIVER, Collections (London, 1857); GILLOW in Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath.; COOPER in Dict. Nat. Biol.

EDWIN BURTON

Mary Anne Madden Sadlier

Authoress, b. at Cootehill, Co. Cavan, Ireland, 30 Dee., 1820; d. at Montreal, Canada, 5 April, 1903. Her father, Francis Madden, a merchant of fine tastes, encouraged her literary aspirations, and her first efforts were printed in a London magazine, while she was still a girl. After the death of her father she emigrated to Montreal (1844). Here, two years later, she became the wife of James Sadlier, member of the firm, and manager of the Montreal branch of the New York publishing house of D. & J. Sadlier & Co. During the fourteen years that followed she continued to live in Montreal, and did most of the literary work that made her name famous. The family then moved to New York, where her husband died nine years later. The Sadliers owned a weekly paper ("The Tablet"), and in it the majority of her stories appeared. She contributed regularly also to its editorial columns. Her stories and translations number more than sixty volumes, and in their day enjoyed a well-deserved popularity among the rapidly-growing Irish-American community, on whose character, in its constructive period, they exerted a powerful influence. Many of them, admirably wrought out in simplicity of style and the naturalness of the characters, were written for a special purpose. "The Blakes and Flanagans" dealt with the school question "Bessy Conway"; with the trials of the Irish immigrant girl; "Aunt Honor's Keepsake" with the saving of the destitute Catholic children of New York for whom the great protectory was then founded. Irish history also supplied her with a constant source of inspiration which resulted in "The Red Hand of Ulster", "The Confederate Chieftains", "Maureen Dhu", "Life in Galway", "MacCarthy More", "The Old House by the Boyne" and other tales. She translated Orsini's "Life of the Blessed Virgin", and de Ligny's "Christ" and other works, and compiled a "Catechism of Sacred History". After her husband's death Mrs. Sadlier remained several years in New York, and then returned to Canada, where she spent the remainder of her days.

ALLIBONE, Dictionary of Authors, s. v.; The Messenger (New York, May, 1903); The Ave Maria (Notre Dame, Indiana), files; The Catholic News (New York), files.

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Jacopo Sadoleto

Cardinal, humanist, and reformer, b. at Modena, 1477; d. at Rome, 1547. His father, a distinguished lawyer, intended him for his own profession; but Jacopo devoted himself to classical and philosophical studies. At Rome he enjoyed the favour of Cardinal Caraffa, and afterwards of Leo X, who made him his secretary. In 1517 he was appointed Bishop of Carpentras near Avignon. Unlike many of the humanists, he was a man of blameless life and attentive to all his duties as a priest and bishop. It was only at the express command of the successive popes whom he served that he would consent to absent himself even for a time from his diocese. In him were combined in an eminent degree the qualities of a man of piety, a man of letters, and a man of action. As a poet, orator, theologian, and philosopher he was in the foremost rank of his time. His poem on the recently discovered Laocoön first brought him to the notice of the learned. His mild and gentle character, shunning all extremes, and his profound learning fitted him for the difficult task of conciliating the Protestants. Indeed, his commentary on the Epistle to the Romans was considered to favour them too much, and the publication of it was forbidden at Rome until it had undergone correction. He would have nothing to do with persecuting the heretics. In 1536 he was summoned to Rome by Paul III to be a member of a special commission for the reform of the Church. In the following December he received the cardinal's hat, at the same time as Caraffa (afterwards Paul IV) and Pole, also members of the commission. With Cardinal Contarini (q. v.), the president of the commission, they drew up the famous "Consilium de emendanda Ecclesia", which they presented to the pope. Sadoleto was sent as legate to Francis I to bring about a reconciliation between him and Charles V (1542), but his mission failed. After 1543, when a coadjutor was appointed to govern Carpentras, he was constantly at the side of Paul III, ever urging the pontiff in the path of peace and reform. Sadoleto's works were published at Verona in four volumes (1737-8), and at Rome (1759).

Joly, Etude sur Sadolet (Caen, 1856); Tiraboschi, Storia della letteratura italiana, XVIII (Venice, 1824); Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste, IV-V (Freiburg, 1906-9). It is only by perusing this last-named work that the extent of Sadoleto's activity and influence in the counter-Reformation can be estimated.

T.B. SCANNELL

Sagalassus

A titular see in Pisidia, suffragan of Antioch. Sagalassus was one of the chief towns of Pisidia, near the north-west boundary of that province, in a fertile plain surrounded by hills, situated on the banks of an affluent of the Cestrus, a river which is represented on its coins. Alexander stormed it, after defeating its inhabitants in the neighbourhood. Cneius Manlius ravaged the district and made it pay a heavy war indemnity. After being subject to Amyntas, Tetrarch of Lycaonia and Galatia it became part of the Roman province of Pisidia. nothing else is known of its history, though it is mentioned by most of the ancient geographers; it is to be noted that Strabo (XII, 569) places it less accurately in Isauria, and Ptolemy (V, iii, 6) locates it erroneously in Lycia. Until the thirteenth century the "Notitiæ episcopatuum" mention it as the first suffragan see of Antioch in Pisidia. Le Quien (Oriens christianus, I, 1041) mentions four of its bishops: Jovius, present at the Council of Constantinople, 381; Frontianus, at Chalcedon, 451; Theodosius, at Nicæa, 787; Leo, at Constantinople, 869. This formerly wealthy and fortified city is now a poor village, called Aghiassoun by the Turks, about twenty-three miles south of Isbarta, in the vilayet of Koniah, containing some hundred inhabitants. It has immense ruined monuments, all later than the second century A. D.: a theatre, vast portico, gymnasium, ramparts, tombs, sarcophagi, churches, etc.

ARUNDELL, A Visit to the Seven Churches, 132 seq.; HAMILTON, Researches in Asia Minor, I, 486 seq.; FELLOWS, Asia Minor, 164 seq.; SMITH, Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Geog., s. v., with bibliography of ancient authors; TEXIER, Asie mineure, 715; MÜLLER (ed. Didot), Notes à Ptolemy, I, 483.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Théodat-Gabriel Sagard

Recollect lay brother, missionary, and historian, b. in France at the end of the sixteenth century; d. towards the close of the seventeenth. In 1623, with Nicolas Viel, the future martyr, he was sent to Canada on the Huron mission. Anne of Austria, the consort of Louis XIII, had provided them with a portable altar and vestments. On his way to the Hurons, he acquired from Joseph Le Caron, his superior, the first rudiments of their difficult tongue, so that on reaching his post he began to catechize and baptize the Indians. He shared in the incredible hardships of his companions. The provision of mass wine having been exhausted, they had recourse to the juice of the wild grape (Vitis Canadensis). In one year's residence he won the affection of his neophytes and acquired a certain ascendency over them. When appointed, in the spring of 1624, to descend to Quebec for provisions, he was allowed by the Indians to depart on the express condition that he would return. A letter of his superior, ordering him back to France, thwarted his most ardent desire. He presented a memoir concerning the state of religion to the Duc de Montmorency, Viceroy of New France, inveighing against the agents of the trading companies whose evil influence paralyzed the zeal of the missionaries. He convinced his superiors of the necessity of introducing a more powerful and influential religious order to cope with the difficult situation. The Jesuits having been suggested, the choice of them was ratified by Cardinal Richelieu in 1625. In 1686, Sagard published a history of Canada under the title: "Histoire du Canada et voyages que les Freres Mineurs Recollets ont faits pour la conversion des infideles". It is a clear and simple account of all he saw or heard mentioned in this new land. Charlevoix criticises his Huron vocabulary as inaccurate compared with later studies of the language, but gives him credit for his good judgment and zeal for the conversion of souls and the progress of the colony.

CHARLEVOIX, Histoire de la Nouvelle-France (Paris, 1744); SIXTE LE TAC, Histoire chronologique de la Nouvelle-France (Paris, 1888); BEAUBIEN, Le Sault-au-Recollet (Montreal, 1898); GOSSELIN, La mission du Canada avant Mgr de Laval (Evreux, 1909).

LIONEL LINDSAY

Bernardino de Sahagún

Missionary and Aztec archeologist, b. at Sahagún, Kingdom of Leon, Spain, in or before the year 1500; d. at Mexico, 23 Oct., 1590. He studied at the convent of Salamanca where he took the vows of the order, and in 1529 was sent out to Mexico, being one of the earliest missionaries assigned to that country, where he labored until his death more than sixty years later. He was assigned to the college of Santa Cruz in Tlaltelolco, near the City of Mexico, and took up the work of preaching, conversion, and the instruction of the native youth in Spanish and Latin, science, music, and religion, while by close study and years of daily practice he himself acquired such mastery of the Aztec language as has never since been attained by any other student. Although several times filling administrative positions, he preferred to devote his attention solely to the work of instruction and investigation. His zeal and pre-eminent ability in respect to the Indian language and religion attracted the attention of his superior, who directed him to compile in the Aztec language a compendium of all things relating to the native history and custom that might be useful in the labor of Christianizing the Indians. The work thus undertaken occupied some seven years, in collaboration with the best native authorities, and was expanded into a history and description of the Aztec people and civilization in twelve manuscript books, together with a grammar (Arte) and dictionary of the language.

Various delays enabled the author to continue revisions and additions for several years. One of these delays hinged upon the question of the hiring of clerical assistance as inconsistent with the Franciscan vow of poverty, although Father Sahagún, by reason of age and the trembling of his hand, was then unable to write himself. After five years of waiting it was decided in favor of the author, who was given the help he needed, and the complete Aztec manuscript with the grammar and dictionary, was finished in 1569. In the meantime a preliminary manuscript draft had been carried to Spain, where it became known to Ovando, president of the Council of the Indies, on whose request the Franciscan delegate general directed Father Sahagún to make a complete Spanish translation, furnishing all necessary assistance. On account of the fear of encouraging the educated natives to dwell upon their heathen past—a very real danger at the time—and on account also of the author's strictures upon the methods of the Conquistadores, it was not published, but was consulted in manuscript, being sent from one to the another college of the order, until finally carried to Spain and deposited in the convent of Tolosa, where it was found, and a copy made, by the archivist Muñoz shortly before 1800. It was published under the title "Hlstoria general de las cosas de Nueva España" in three volumes at Mexico in 1829, and in volumes five and seven of Kingsborough's "Mexican Antiquities", London, 1831.

Father Sahagún thus describes the inception of the work: "I was commanded in all holy obedience by my chief prelate to write in the Mexican language that which appeared to me to be useful for the doctrine, worship, and maintenance of Christianity among these natives of New Spain, and for the aid of the ministers and workers that taught them. Having received this commandment, I made in the Spanish language a minute or memorandum of all the matters that I had to treat of, which matters are what is written in the twelve books . . . which were begun in the pueblo of Tepeopulco. . . . I got together all the principal men, together with the lord of the place, who was called Don Diego de Mendoza, of great distinction and ability well-experienced in things ecclesiastic, military, political, and even relating to idolatry. They being come together, I set before them what I proposed to do, and prayed them to appoint me able and experienced persons with whom I might converse and come to an understanding on such questions as I might propose. They answered me that they would talk the matter over and give their answer on another day; and with this they took their departure. So on another day the lord and his principal men came and having conferred together, with great solemnity, as they were accustomed at that time to do, they chose out ten or twelve of the principal old men, and told me that with these I might communicate and that these would instruct me in any matters I should inquire of. Of these there were as many as four instructed in Latin, to whom I, some few years before, had myself taught grammar in the college of Santa Cruz in Tlaltelolco. With these appointed principal men, including the four instructed in grammar, I talked many days during about two years, following the order of the minute I had already made out. On all the subjects on which we conferred they gave me pictures—which were the writings anciently in use among them—and these the grammarians interpreted to me in their language, writing the interpretation at the foot of the picture."

Besides the "Historia", the "Arte" and the "Diccionario" (the last in Aztec, Spanish, and Latin) he was the author of a number of lesser works, mostly religious and in the Aztec language, among which may be noted a volume of sermons; an explanation of the Epistles and Gospels of the Mass; a history of the coming of the first Franciscans to Mexico, in two volumes; a Christian psalmody in Aztec, for the use of the neophytes in church (Mexico, 1583-84), and a catechism in the same language. He died at the age of ninety years, sixty-one of which had been devoted to missionary labor and research. At his funeral, which was attended by all the religious and students of the city, the Indians also attended, shedding tears. In Sahagún we have the ideal missionary priest and scholar. As a young man he was noted for his beauty and grace of person, and from childhood was given to prayer and self-restraint. His religious companions affirmed that he went into frequent ecstasies. He was most exact in the duties of his order, never missing Matins, even in his old age. Always and to all persons he was gentle, humble, and courteous. In over sixty years as college professor he rested not for a day "teaching civilization and good customs, reading, writing, grammar, music, and other in the service of God and the state". In addition to his unequaled mastery of the Mexican language, it was said of him that he excelled in all the sciences.

BANCROFT, Native Races of the Pacific States: III, Myths and Languages (San Francisco, 1856); BERISTAIN Y SOUSA, Biblioteca Hispano Americana Setentrional III (Amecameca, 1883); PRECOTT, Conquest of Mexico, I (New York, 1843); VETANCURT, Menologio Franciscano (Mexico, 1871).

JAMES MOONEY

Sahaptin Indians

A prominent tribe formerly holding a considerable territory in Western Idaho and adjacent portions of Oregon and Washington, including the lower Snake River, with its tributaries the Salmon, Clearwater, and Grande Ronde, from about 45° down nearly to the entrance of the Palouse, and from the Blue Mountains of Oregon on the west to the main divide of the Bitter-root Mountains on the east.

They are of the Shahaptian linguistic stock, to which belong also the Palouse, Umatilla, Tenino (Warmsprings), Yakima and others farther to the west, with whom they maintained close friendly relations, while frequently at variance with the Salishan tribes on their northern border — the Flatheads, Coeur d'Alene and Spokan — and in chronic warfare with the Blackfeet, Crows, and Shoshoni on the east and south.

They call themselves Numipu, meaning simply "people". The name Sahaptin or Saptin comes through the Salishan tribes. By Lewis and Clark (1805) they were called Chopunnish, possibly another form of Saptin. Their popular and official name of Nez Percés, "Pierced Noses", originally bestowed by the French trappers, refers to a former custom of wearing a dentalium shell through a hole bored in the septum of the nose. When first known (1805) they numbered, according to the most reliable estimates, probably over 6000, but have greatly decreased since the advent of the whites, and are still steadily on the decline. Contributing causes are incessant wars with the more powerful Blackfeet in earlier years; a wasting fever, and measles epidemic (1847) from contact with immigrants; smallpox and other diseases following the occupation of the country by miners after 1860; losses in the war of 1877 and subsequent removals; and wholesale spread of consumption due to their changed condition of living under civilization. In 1848 they were officially estimated at 3000; in 1862 they were reported at 2800; in 1893 the census showed 2035; in 1910 they were officially reported at 1530, including all mixed bloods, all upon the Fort Lapwai (allotted) reservation in northern Idaho, excepting the remnant of Joseph's band, numbering then only 97, upon Colville reservation in north-eastern Washington. Of their numerous former bands, this one, formerly centring in Wallowa (or Willewah) valley, Oregon, was perhaps the most important, numbering originally about 500. In their primitive condition the Nez Percés, although semi-sedentary, were without agriculture, depending on hunting, fishing, and the gathering of wild roots and berries. Their permanent houses were communal structures, sometimes circular, but more often oblong, about twenty feet in width and sixty to ninety feet in length, with framework of poles covered by rush mats, with floor sunk below the ground level, and earth banked up around the sides, and with an open space along the centre of the roof, for the escape of smoke. On the inside were ranged fires along the centre at a distance of ten or twelve feet apart, each fire serving two families on opposite sides of the house, the family sections being sometimes separated by mat curtains. One house might thus shelter more than one hundred persons. Lewis and Clark mention one large enough to accommodate nearly fifty families. On temporary expeditions they used the ordinary buffalo-skin tipi or brush shelter. They had also sweat-houses and menstrual lodges. The permanent sweat-house was a shallow subterranean excavation, roofed with poles and earth and bedded with grass, in which the young and unmarried men slept during the winter season, and occasionally sweated themselves by means of steam produced by pouring water upon hot stones placed in the centre. The temporary sweat-house used by both sexes was a framework of willow rods, covered with blankets, with the heated stones placed inside. The menstrual lodge, for the seclusion of women during the menstrual period and for a short period before and after childbirth, was a subterranean structure, considerably larger than the sweat-house, and entered by means of a ladder from above. The occupants thus secluded cooked their meals alone and were not allowed even to touch any articles used by outsiders. Furniture consisted chiefly of bed platforms, baskets and bags woven of rushes or grass, wooden mortars for pounding roots and spoons of horn. The woman had also her digging stick for gathering roots; the man his bow, lance, shield, and fishing equipment. The Nez Percé bow of mountain-sheep horn backed with sinew was the finest in the West. The ordinary dress was of skins, with the addition of a fez-shaped basket hat for the woman and a protective skin helmet for the warrior. Aside from fish and game, chiefly salmon and deer, their principal foods were the roots of the camas (Camassia esculenta) and kouse (Lomatium kous, etc.), the first being roasted in pits by a peculiar process, while the other was ground in mortars and molded into cakes for future use. The gathering and preparing devolved upon the women. Marriage occurred at about the age of fourteen and was accompanied by feasting and giving of presents. Polygamy was general, but kinship prohibition was enforced even to the third degree. Inheritance was in the male line. "The standard of morality, both before and after marriage seems to have been conspicuously high" (Spinden). Interment was in the ground, the personal belongings of the deceased being deposited with the body, and the house torn down or removed to another spot. The new house was ceremonially purified and the ghost exorcised, and the mourning period was terminated with a funeral feast. Sickness and death, especially of children, were frequently ascribed to the work of ghosts. The religion was animistic, with a marked absence of elaborate myth or ritual. The principal religious event in the life of the boy or girl was the dream vigil, when, after the solitary fasting for several days, the fevered child had a vision of the spirit animal which was to be his or her tutelary through life. Dreams were the great source of spiritual instruction. The principal ceremonial was the dance to the tutelary spirit, next to which in importance was the scalp dance. The clan system was unknown. Chiefs were elective rather than hereditary, governing by assistance of the council, and there was no supreme tribal chief. They were considerably under the influence of the so-called "Dreamer religion" of the upper Columbia tribes, but had no part in the later "ghost dance". Previous to the visit of the American explorers, Lewis and Clark (1805), the Nez Percés had had no direct acquaintance with white men, although aware of their presence beyond the mountains and on the Pacific coast. They already had horses from the South. A few years later trading posts were established in the upper Columbia region, and from the Catholic Canadian and Iroquois employees of the Hudson's Bay Company traders they first learned of Christianity and as early as 1820 both they and the Flatheads had voluntarily adopted many of the Catholic forms. Of the Nez Percés it has been said: "They seemed to realize the paucity of their religious traditions and from the first eagerly seconded the efforts of the missionaries to instruct them in the Christian faith." As a result of urgent appeals from the Flathead Indians for missionaries, a Presbyterian mission was established (1837) among the Nez Percés at Lapwai, near the present Lewistown, Idaho, under Reverend H.H. Spaulding, who, two years later, set up a printing press from which he issued several small publications in the native language. Regular Catholic work in the same region began with the advent of Fathers Blanchet and Demers on the Columbia (1838) and of De Smet and the Jesuits in the Flathead country (1840). The establishment of the Oregon trail through the country of the Nez Percés and allied tribes led (1849) to the introduction of an epidemic disease, by which they were terribly wasted, particularly the Cayuse, who, holding responsible Dr. Whitman, in charge of the Presbyterian mission in their tribe, attacked and destroyed the mission, murdering Whitman and his wife and eleven others. The Catholic Bishop Brouillet, who was on his way at the time to confer with Whitman for the purchase of the mission property, was not molested, but was allowed to bury the dead and then found opportunity to warn Spaulding in time for him to reach safety. In consequence of these troubles all the Presbyterian missions in the Columbia region were discontinued but the work was resumed in later years and a considerable portion of the Nez Percés are now of that denomination. In 1855 they sold by treaty a large part of their territory. In the general outbreak of 1855-6, sometimes designated as the Yakima war, the Nez Percés, almost alone, remained friendly. In the year 1863, in consequence of the discovery of gold, another treaty was negotiated by which they surrendered all but the Lapwai reservation. Joseph, whose band held the Wallowa valley in North-Eastern Oregon, refused to be a party to the treaty, and his refusal led to the memorable Nez Percés war (1877). After successfully holding in check for some months the regular troops under General Howard and a large force of Indian scouts, Joseph conducted a masterly retreat for over a thousand miles across the mountains, but was finally intercepted by General Miles when within a short distance of the Canadian frontier. Despite the promise that he should be returned to his own country, Joseph and the remnant of his band were deported to Oklahoma, where they wasted away so rapidly that in 1885 the few who survived were transferred, not to Lapwai, but to the Colville reservation in Washington. Throughout the entire retreat no outrage was committed by Joseph's warriors. The main portion of the tribe took no part in the war. In 1893 those of Lapwai were given individual allotments and the reservation was thrown open to white settlement. The Catholic work in the tribe is in charge of the Jesuits, aided by the Sisters of Saint Joseph, and centring at St. Joseph's mission, Slickpoo, Idaho. For fifty years it was conducted by Fr. Joseph Cataldo,. S.J., who gave attention also to the neighbouring cognate tribes. The Catholic Indians are reported at over 500, edifying and faithful in their religious duties, in spite of the general tribal aversion to education and civilization. The materiel condition of the tribe, however, is not promising. While maintaining their old reputation for honesty and generosity, they are non-progressive and are rapidly withering away under consumption, which threatens their speedy extinction. Aside from the Spaulding publications already noted the most valuable contributions to the study of the Nez Percé language are a grammar by Father Cataldo and a dictionary by Father Van Gorp. The most important study of a cognate language is probably the "Grammar and Dictionary of the Yakama Language" by the Oblate Father Pandosy (see Yakima).

BANCROFT, Native Races of the Pacific States; I, Wild Tribes; III, Myths and Languages (San Francisco, 1886); IDEM, HIST. Washington, Idaho and Montana (San Francisco, 1890), Annual Reports of Bureau of Catholic Indian Missions (Washington); CATALDO, A Numipu or Nez Percé Grammar (De Smet, 1891); CHITTENDEN, American Fur Trade (New York, 1902), Annual Reports of the Commissioner Indian Affairs (Washington); COX, Adventures on the Columbia (New York, 1832); DE SMET, Life, Letters, and Travels, ed. CHITTENDEN AND RICHARDSON (4 vols., New York, 1905); HENRY AND THOMPSON, New Light on the Early History of the Greater Northwest, ed. COUES (3 vols., New York 1897); IRVING, Rocky Mountains (2 vols., Philadelphia, 1837); IDEM, Astoria (2 vols., Philadelphia, 1836); LEWIS AND CLARK, Original Journals (1804-6), ed. THWAITES, 7 vols. and atlas (New York 1904- 5); MCBETH, Nez Percés since Lewis and Clark (New York, 1908); MOONEY, The Ghost Dance Religion, 14th Rept. Bur. Am. Ethnology, II (Washington, 1896); PARKER, Journey of a Tour beyond the Rocky Mountains (Auburn, 1846); ROSS, Adventures on the Columbia (London, 1849), reprint in THWAITES, Early Western Travels, VII (Cleveland, 1904); IDEM, Fur Traders of the Far West (2 vols., London, 1855); SPAULDING, Nez Percés First Book (Lapwai, 1839); IDEM, Primer in the Nez Percés Language (Lapwai, 1840); IDEM, Gospel of Matthew in Nez Percés Language (Clearwater, Lapwai, 1845); SPINDEN, Myths of the Nez Percé Inds. in Jour. Am. Folk Lore, XXI (Boston, 1908); IDEM, The Nez Percé Indians in Memoirs Am. Anthrop. Assn., II, pt. iii (Lancaster, 1908); STEVENS, Report in Rept. Comsner. Ind. Affairs for 1854 (Washington, 1855); IDEM, Narrative and final Report in Pacific R.R. Reports, XII, B. 1 (Washington, 1860); VAN GORP, Dictionary of the Numipu or Nez Percé Language (St. Ignatius, Montana, 1895); WYETH, Correspondence and Journals, 1831-6; Sources of the History of Oregon, I, pts. iii-vi in Oregon Hist. Soc. (Eugene, Oregon, 1899).

JAMES MOONEY

Vicariate Apostolic of Sahara

The Sahara is a vast desert of northern Africa, measuring about 932 miles from north to south and 2484 miles from east to west, and dotted with oases which are centres of population. Eight years after the journey of the famous Duveyrier (1859-61), which had important scientific results, Pius IX (6 Aug., 1868) appointed the Archbishop of Algiers, Mgr Lavigerie, delegate Apostolic of the Sahara and the Sudan. In the same year the Jesuits established themselves at Laghouat, the extremity occupied by French arms. In 1871 they sent to Mgr Lavigerie a long report in which they advocated the establishment of dispensaries and schools. In 1872 Father Charmetant and two other White Fathers (Missionary Fathers of Africa of Algiers) replaced the Jesuits at Laghouat. In 1573 the White Fathers established themselves at Biskra, Ouargla, Touggart, and Gerryville. Later a station was founded at Melili in Mzab. Two successive attempts were made by the White Fathers to reach the Sudan by crossing the Sahara, thus reaching Timbuktu, a large market for black slaves, there to join in the struggle against slavery. The first attempt was made in December, 1878, by Fathers Menoret, Paulmier, and Bouchand; they were slain in April, 1876, by their Touarag guides, being the first martyrs of the Society of White Fathers, and the cause of their beatification was introduced at Rome in 1909. After this disaster the White Fathers founded two stations, not farther north in the desert, but to the north-east, at Tripoli and Ghadames. The massacre of the explorer Flatters and his companions (1880-81) did not discourage the White Fathers in their second attempt to cross the Sahara. In 1881 Father Richard set out from Ghadames, having become so Arabian in speech and bearing that no one suspected his nationality. He intended to establish himself with Fathers Morat and Pouplard at Ghat in the midst of the desert, but all three were assassinated.

The White Fathers then left Ghadames. On 25 March, 1890, while the Brussels conference against slavery was being held, Mgr Lavigerie explained in a letter to Keller that to eradicate in Africa the great corporation of the Senoussi, which protected the slave-trade, the Sahara must be crossed, and he announced the opening at Biskra, at the entrance to the Sahara, of a house which he called the House of God, intended for the formation of the "Brothers of the Sahara", or "Pioneers of the Sahara", who would be engaged in charitable works and in extending hospitality to travelers, the sick, and fugitive slaves. The Pioneers of the Sahara had to live as religious, but without monastic vows. As early as February, 1891, the station at Ouargla, suppressed in 1876, was re-established, and in October Father Harquard sent thither six armed "pioneers" who wrote to the cardinal: "We shall endeavor to hold high the banner of the Sacred Heart and the flag of France." The White Sisters founded hospitals at Ghardaia and El Tbiod Sidi Cheikh, thus gaining the confidence of populations which were hostile to France. The Fourean-Lamy expedition of 1898, which succeeded in crossing the desert as far as Lake Tehad, opened wider avenues to the Catholic apostolate. The Prefecture Apostolic of the Sahara and the Sudan became a vicariate Apostolic on 6 March, 1891, and in 1901 received new boundaries by which the Prefecture Apostolic of Ghardaia was separated from it. The twentieth degree of latitude forms the boundary between them. The vicariate governs 1000 European Catholics, 600 negro Catholics, 4000 catechumens, 40 missionaries, 15 sisters, 35 catechists; it has 12 churches or chapels, 10 schools, 7 orphanages, 3 leper houses, 2 hospitals. The population of the Sahara is estimated at 4,000,000.

VOILLOT, L'exploration du Sahara, etude historique et geographique (Paris, 1895); BERNARD AND LACROIX, La penetration saharaienne (Algiers, 1909); BAUNARD, Le cardinal Lavigerie (Paris, 1896, 1898); Annales de la propagagation de la Foi (1909), 333-40; PIOLET, La France au dehors, V (Paris, 1902).

GEORGES GOYAU

Johann Michael Sailer

Professor of theology and Bishop of Ratisbon, b. at Aresing in Upper Bavaria 17 October, 1751; d. 20 May, 1832, at Ratisbon. Sailer was the son of a poor shoemaker. Until his tenth year he attended the primary school in his native place; after this he was a pupil in the gymnasium at Munich. In 1770 he entered the Society of Jesus at Landsberg in Upper Bavaria as a novice; upon the suppression of the Society in 1773 he continued his theological and philosophical studies at Ingolstadt. In 1775 he was ordained priest; 1777-80 he was a tutor of philosophy and theology, and from 1780 second professor of dogmatics at Ingolstadt. Along with many others, he lost his position in 1781 when the Elector Charles Theodore transferred theological instruction to the monasteries. In the years 1781-84 while engaged in literary work he attracted the attention of the elector and Bishop Clement Wenceslaus. In 1794 the latter called Sailer to Dillingen as professor of pastoral theology and ethics, a position which Sailer held for ten years and which brought him a high reputation. His opponents, professors of Dillingen and Rossle, the principal of the school at Pfaffenhausen, succeeded in limiting Sailer's activities in 1793 and in securing his sudden dismissal in 1794. Sailer now went to visit his friend Winkelhofer at Munich, and pursued there by his opponents, went to the house of his friend Beck at Ebersberg. Here he devoted himself to literary work until, in 1799, he was called to a professorship at Ingolstadt. In 1800 he was transferred along with the university to Landshut. Here he taught pastoral and moral theology, pedagogics, homiletics, liturgy, and catechetics; celebrated as a teacher and a writer he was repeatedly called to other positions, was on terms of friendship with distinguished Catholics and Protestants, and was universally revered by his pupils, among whom was the Crown Prince Louis, later King of Bavaria. In 1818 Sailer declined the offer of the Prussian Government to have him appointed Archbishop of Cologne; in 1819 the Bavarian Government, through the influence of the Crown Prince Louis, nominated him as Bishop of Augsburg, but the nomination was rejected by Rome. In 1821, however, after he had sufficiently justified himself, he was appointed cathedral canon of Ratisbon, in 1822 auxiliary bishop and coadjutor with right of succession, in 1825 cathedral provost, and in 1829 Bishop of Ratisbon.

The age in which Sailer lived was dominated by the "Enlightenment", which in its radical form disputed the fundamental dogmas of Christianity, and was characterized by externalism, contempt for Christian mysticism, worldliness of the clergy, degradation of the pulpit by the treatment of secular topics, relaxation of ecclesiastical discipline, denial of the primacy of papal jurisdiction, efforts of the State to gain control of the Church, turbulent reforms within the Church, and a one-sided training of the mind in education. In opposition to these destructive tendencies Sailer came to the defense of faith in Christ and in the fundamental principles of Christianity, striving for an inner, living, practical Christianity, for a faith that should manifest itself in charity, for the maintenance of godliness (Christian mysticism), and for the training of a pious and intelligent clergy. He also insisted that the pulpit should be reserved solely for the preaching of the Gospel, and that the bishops should be in union with the pope; he upheld the primacy of the papal jurisdiction, and defended the freedom and rights of the Church against the encroachments of the State. Ecclesiastical reform he ardently desired, not, however, through unauthorized agencies but by the appointed organs of the Church; and he demanded that education should aim at training both mind and will. Sailer labored for the Christian ideal by his winning personality, by his utterances as teacher, parish priest, and preacher, and by his numerous works that were philosophical, theological, devotional, and biographical in character.

Thus Sailer brought back large numbers of people to Chrlstianity and the Church. Notwithstanding his fruitful activity and his benevolence, Sailer had antagonists who opposed him partly from jealousy, partly from misunderstanding and ill-will; he was accused of heterodoxy, indifferentism, and mysticism. If Sailer is judged in connection with his times, these reproaches are without foundation. In his day Sailer was a pillar of the Church. A perfectly correct judgment of Sailer has been expressed by Goyau in "L'Allemagne religieuse" (Paris,1905): "With Sailer German piety, both Protestant and Catholic, learned again to pray. This is the peculiar characteristic of his activity. Do not expect from him any religious polemics; he abhorred them; what he really cherished was the idea of a sort of coöperation of the various Christian bodies against the negations of infidelity. Sailer made a breach in Rationalism, by opposing to it a piety in which both Christian bodies could unite" (pp. 294, 295). The best edition of his works is "J.M. Sailers samtliche Werke unter Anleitung des Verfassers", ed. Joseph Widmer, 40 vols., Sulzbach, 1830-41; supplementary volume, 1845.

SAILER, Selbstbiographie (1819), vol. XIX of collected works; VON SCHENK, Die Bischofe Sailer u. Wittmann in Charitas (1838); VON SCHMID, Erinnerungen aus meinem Leben (2 vols., Augshurg, 1853); LUTOLF, Leben u. Bekenntnisse des Jos. L. Schiffmann, ein Beitrag zur Charakteristik Sailers u. seiner Schule in der Schweiz (Lucerne, I860); AICHINGER, J.M. Sailer (Freising, 1865); JOCHAM, Dr. Alois Buchner, ein Lebensbild zur Verstandigung uber J.M. Sailers Priesterschule (Augsburg, 1870); VON MULLER, Jean Paul u. Sailer als Erzieher der deutschen Nation (Munich 1908); KLOTZ, Sailer als Moralphilosoph (Paderborn, 1908); RADLMAIER, J.M. Sailer als Padagog (Berlin, 1909); STOLZLE, J.M. Sailer u. seine Bedeutung in Hochland (1910); IDEM, J.M. Sailers Schriften, ausgewahlt u. eingeleitet (Kempten and Munich, 19lO); IDEM, J.M. Sailer, seine Massregelung an der Akademie zu Dillingen u. seine Berufung nach Ingolstadt; ein Beitrag zu Gelehrtengesch. aus dem Zeitalter der Aufklarung (Kempten and Munich, 1910).

R. STOLZLE

Claude de Sainctes

French controversialist, b. at Perche, 1525; d. at Crèvecoeur, 1591. At the age of fifteen he joined the Canons Regular of Saint-Cheron, and was sent to the College of Navarre in Paris, where he received the degree of Doctor of Theology (1555) On account of the erudition of his early works and the aptitude which he showed for controversy, he was called to the Conference of Poissy held in 1561 between the Catholics and the Huguenots, at which Theodore of Beza and Father Lainez, general of the Jesuits, were present. He was afterwards deputed to the Council of Trent to represent, with Simon Vigor, the University of Paris. Upon his return he acquired a notable reputation by his sermons and his discussions with Protestants. He published a work against their spoliation of Catholic churches and a vigorous declaration against the doctrines of Calvin and Theodore of Beza; the latter replied and drew upon himself a new attack from Claude de Sainctes. At the same time he charged the King of France by his treatise on "L'ancien naturel des Français" never to tolerate heretics and against these latter he defended the dogma of the Church by an exhaustive treatise on the Eucharist. Through the patronage of the Cardinal of Lorraine, he was appointed to the Bishopric of Evreux (1575). He was very zealous in his efforts to convert Protestants. He assisted at the provincial Council of Rouen (1581) and published its records in French. When the League became active he took sides with it and worked to gain partisans, but the royal troops took possession of Evreux and the bishop was forced to flee. Unfortunately for him there were found among his papers writings in which he approved the murder of Henry III and maintained that one could likewise kill his successor. Arrested and arraigned before the Parlement of Caen, he was condemned to death as guilty of high treason. At the request of the Cardinal of Bourbon and of several bishops, Henry IV commuted his sentence to life imprisonment, and he was confined in the château of Crèvecoeur where he died two months later. His works were published, some in Latin and others in French. The more important are: "Liturgiae sive missae SS. Patrum Jacobi, Basilii J. Chrysostomi" (Greek-Latin, Paris, 1560); "Discours sur le saccagement des églises catholiques par les hérétiques anciens et nouveaux calvinistes" (Paris, 1562); "Traité de l'ancien naturel des Français en la religion chrétienne" (Paris, 1567); "Déclaration d'anciens athéismes de la doctrine de Calvin et de Bèze contre les premiers fondements de la chrétienté" (Paris, 1567); "De rebus Eucharistiae controversis libri X" (Paris, 1575).

DUPIN, Hist.des auteurs ecclesiastiques du XVIe siecle, IV (Paris, 1703), 539; HURTER, Nomencl.

ANTOINE DEGERT

Abbey of Saint Albans

Located in Hertfordshire, England; founded about 793 by Offa, king of the Mercians. Venerable Bede (Hist. Eccles., I, vii), writing at the beginning of the eighth century, speaks of a church, existing at that date, of wonderful workmanship and worthy of the martyrdom it commemorated. Offa's monastery seems to have been attached to this church, which he repaired, having personally obtained the papal approval for his foundation. Willegod, a relation of the king, was made abbot. By the year 1000 the old church was evidently in a dilapidated state again and Ealdred and Eadmer, the eighth and ninth abbots, collected materials to build a new church from the ruins of the Roman city of Verulam. The actual building was only begun in 1077, when Abbot Paul of Caen, a relative of Archbishop Lanfranc, undertook the work with such energy that the whole church was completed in eleven years; a large part of this church still remains. The abbey increased in wealth and importance; Adrian IV exempted it from episcopal jurisdiction and gave it precedence over all other English abbeys. In the Wars of the Roses St. Albans suffered much, and the unsettled state of the country involved the abbey in a long series of lawsuits by which it was much impoverished. In 1521 Cardinal Wolsey became abbot in commendam, the only instance of this practice known in England. On his disgrace in 1529 Robert Catton, prior of Norwlch, was elected abbot, but was deprived in 1538 to make room for a nominee of Henry VIII, Robert Boreman, by whom the abbey was surrendered to the king in the following year. The list of abbots may be found in Dugdale. Matthew Paris is probably the most famous monk of the foundation, which is notorious for refusing to accept Nicholas Breakspere, afterwards Adrian IV, when he begged for admission as a novice. The church of St. Albans escaped destruction at the dissolution of the abbey, and in 1553 was purchased from the Crown for £400 by the mayor and burgesses of the town, to be used as a parish church. Of the church built by Paul of Caen most of the nave, transepts, and presbytery still exist, but portions fell and were rebuilt in the style of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The eastern part of the presbytery with the Lady chapel beyond it also belong to the latter periods. In the second half of the nineteenth century the late Lord Grimthorpe undertook to restore the building at his own expense. In spite of all remonstrance he did this in such a way that "to grimthorpe" has now become an active verb signifying the unintelligent mutilation of an ancient building under the cloak of restoration. The church is 550 feet long, and 190 wide across the transepts, the central tower being 144 feet high. It contains a famous reredos of the late fifteenth century, the reconstructed base of St. Alban's shrine, and several fine chantries and monuments. Of the conventual buildings only the gatehouse now remains.

DUGDALE, Monasticon Anglicanum, II (London, 1846), 178-255; NEWCOME, History of the Abbey of St. Albans (London, 1795); BUCKLER, History of the Architecture of the Abbey Church of St. A. (London, 1847); BROWNE WILLIS, History of the Mitred Abbies, I (London, 1718), 13-27; COMYNS-CARR Abbey Church of St. A. (London, 1877); PERKINS, Cathedral Church of St. Albans (London, 1910).

G. ROGER HUDLESTON

Diocese of Saint Albert

(SANCTI ALBERTI).

The immense territories, known to-day as the Provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, formed till 1871 only one diocese under the name of St. Boniface. On 22 Sept., 1871, St. Boniface having been elevated to the rank of archdiocese, the new Diocese of St. Albert was canonically erected and Right Rev. Vital J. Grandin, O.M.I. (consecrated 30 Nov., 1859, Bishop of Satala and appointed co-adjutor of the Bishop of St. Boniface) was transferred to the new see. The first Bishop of St. Albert died on 3 June, 1902, after a long episcopate of nearly forty-five years, and half a century of missionary life. He was succeeded by Right Rev. Emile J. Legal, O.M.I. (consecrated Bishop of Pogla, 17 June, 1897, and coadjutor of St. Albert, 3 June, 1902). This diocese, even after having been subdivided in 1891 to form the Vicariate Apostolic of Saskatchewan, comprises the southern half of Province of Alberta and the western part of Saskatchewan, an area of some 150,000 square miles. It is bounded on the east by the 110th degree of longitude; on the west by the Rocky Mountains; on the south by the United States, and on the north by the 55th degree of latitude. At the time of its erection, the total population of the diocese was from 4000 to 5000 half-breeds, 10,000 to 12,000 Indians belonging to half a dozen tribes, and a few hundred white people, employees of the Hudson Bay Company. The evangelization of this new diocese was then entrusted to twelve Oblates of Mary Immaculate.

Five missions had been established, hundreds of miles apart. The first cathedral was a log-house and the bishop's palace a small frame building. Three schools and two orphan asylums were in charge of Sisters of Charity. The whole Catholic population numbered scarcely 10,000.

Though cut off from all means of communication with the civilized world, receiving but a yearly mail, deprived not only of all comfort, but even of the necessaries of life, obliged to travel long distances, camping outside for weeks and even months consecutively, in cold of 30 to 40 degrees, to spread the knowledge of divine Faith and establish here and there new centres of missions, the first two bishops of St. Albert and their missionaries never despaired or lost faith in the future of their work. After several years of hard struggle a great change became apparent. In 1874-75, the Canadian Government having established a few posts of mounted police in the diocese, new settlements were founded. Reservations for the Indians were established; churches, schools, and missions built. At the same time a considerable number of half-breeds from Manitoba settled in the eastern part of the diocese, where they soon formed new parishes or missions. In 1883-84 the opening of the Canadian Pacific Railway brought colonies of immigrants, and soon the work of the missions was much increased. In 1890 the Diocese of St. Albert was divided, and the Vicariate Apostolic of Saskatchewan created, which in 1911 was erected as a diocese.

Since 1890 the development of the missionary work has been wonderful. An appeal was made in 1891 to the secular clergy to come and help the Oblates of Mary Immaculate who could no longer attend alone to so many stations, missions, and parishes, already erected or urgently needed. Several secular priests, and later several religious orders came to help in the work of education and evangelization. The Catholic population of the diocese is now 55,000, of which about 15,000 are Greek Catholics. They are attended by 1 bishop; 98 regular priests; 20 secular priests; and 33 seminarists. There are: churches with resident priests, 56; missions, 55; stations, 98; communities of men, 9, of women, 15; boarding schools, 14; 1 industrial school for Indians; boarding schools for Indians, 8; primary schools, 60; hospitals, 11; hospices, 2; orphan asylums, 20. The great majority of the Cree Indians have been converted to the Catholic Faith, and the Blackfeet have of late manifested better dispositions. French, English, German, and Polish-speaking Catholics have parishes or missions of their own. Thousands of Galicians of the Greek Catholic Rite have started three flourishing missions attended by Basilian Fathers of the same rite. A community of nuns, belonging also to the Greek Catholic Church has been founded to take charge of their schools and charitable institutions.

The Diocese of St. Albert, after many years of almost insurmountable obstacles and difficulties, has become one of the most promising of Western Canada. It is crossed by the transcontinental lines of the Canadian Pacific, the Grand Trunk Pacific and Canadian Northern Railways, and towns and villages spring up almost every ten miles. Immigrants come daily from all parts of the civilized world. Among them a fair proportion of Catholics take possession of the soil, settle on their homesteads, and new fields of missionary labour are incessantly open to the zeal of the secular and regular clergy of St. Albert.

Annuaire Pontif. Cath. (1911); MORICE, History of the Catholic Church in Western Canada, I, II (Toronto, 1910).

H. LEDUC

Saint Andrews and Edinburgh

(S. Andreae et Edinburgensis). Archdiocese.

The exact date of the foundation of the See of St. Andrews is, like any others in the earliest history of the Scottish Church, difficult, if not impossible, to fix. That there were bishops in the country now called Scotland, and exercising jurisdiction in the district where the city of St. Andrews afterwards arose, as early as the eighth or ninth century, is practically certain. We may, however, take 908, the year of the famous assembly at the Moot hill of Scene, as that in which a Bishop of St. Andrews (Cellach) first appears in history, vowing, in association with the king (Constantine), to "protect the laws and discipline of the Faith, and the rights of the churches and of the Gospel". In the two most ancient and authentic lists that have come down to us, those given by Wyntoun, Prior of Lochleven, and by Bower of Inchcolm in his "Scotichronicon", Cellach is called the first Bishop of St. Andrews. For two centuries the bishops bore Celtic names -- Fothad, Maelbrigd, Maelduin, and the like=2E The death of Fothad II (1093) marks the close of the first period of the history of the see, of which scanty records and still scantier material traces remain. The English influence on Scottish national life, both ecclesiastical and civil, which followed the marriage of St. Margaret, great-niece of Edward the Confessor, to the King of Scots in 1069, had as one of its results the nomination of Turgot (Margaret's former confessor) to the See of St. Andrews. He was succeeded by Eadmer, a Benedictine monk of Canterbury; and Eadmer by Robert, a canon regular of St. Augustine, who founded at St. Andrews in 1144 the cathedral priory for canons of his own order.

It was his successor Arnold who began, at the eastern end, the construction of the magnificent cathedral, the building of which occupied more than a century and a half. Meanwhile the bishops of St. Andrews, although they claimed and exercised (as their Celtic predecessors had done) the right of presiding at all assemblies of the Scottish clergy, had never been formally granted the ecclesiastical primacy: indeed in 1225 their position was seriously affected by a Bull of Honorius III, enjoining that future synods were to be presided over by one of the bishops, styled the Conservator, to be elected by his brother prelates. This arrangement, which of course deprived the bishops of St. Andrews of their quasi-primatial jurisdiction, remained in force until the subsequent erection of the see into an archbishopric.

It was William Lamberton, the twenty-third bishop of the diocese, who had the honour of seeing the cathedral completed, and solemnly consecrated in presence of King Robert Bruce on 5 July, 1318. The building was 355 feet in length, and consisted of a nave of twelve bays with aisles, north and south transepts, each of three bays, with eastern aisles, choir of five bays with aisles, and presbytery. Sixty years after the consecration it was partly destroyed by fire, but was completely restored before 1440. Bishop Lamberton built the beautiful chapter-house, which still exists, though roofless. Among Lamberton's most eminent successors were Henry Wardlaw, who founded the University of St. Andrews in 1411, James Kennedy, founder of St. Salvator's College, and Patrick Graham (Kennedy's half-brother), who successfully resisted the claim revived by Archbishop Neville of York to have the supremacy of that see over the Scottish Church recognized in Rome. So successful was Graham's protest, that Sixtus IV finally decided the question by a Bull, 27 August, 1472, erecting the See of St. Andrews into an archbishopric, and its cathedral into the metropolitan church for the whole of Scotland. Twelve sees were assigned to St. Andrews as its suffragans, those of Glasgow, Dunkeld, Aberdeen, Moray, Brechin, Dunblane, Ross, Caithness, Orkney, Argyll, the Isles, and Galloway. The last-named bishopric had hitherto been subject to York, while those of Orkney, Argyll, and the Isles had continued to form part of the Province of Trondhjem in Norway. Pope Sixtus announced the new creation in letters addressed to James III and to the Scottish bishops, and he also conferred on the primate the office of Apostolic nuncio. The new metropolitan see, however, preserved its unique position for barely twenty years.

Scotland was unanimous in demanding -- through its king, its chancellor, and its bishops -- that the ancient See of Glasgow should be similarly honoured; and in 1492 Innocent VIII erected it also into an archbishopric and separate province, with Dunkeld, Dunblane, Galloway, and Argyll as suffragans. In 1496 James IV procured the nomination to St. Andrews first of his brother, the Duke of Ross, and, after his death (by an abuse too common in those times), of his own natural son, Alexander Stuart, a boy of sixteen. The youthful archbishop fell at Flodden in 1513, fighting by his father's side. He was followed successively by Archbishops Forman, James and David (Cardinal) Beaton, and Hamilton. At the period immediately preceding the Reformation and the spoliation of the ancient Church, the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the primate included two archdeaconries, nine rural deaneries, the patronage of 131 benefices, and the administration of 245 parishes. Archbishop Hamilton (q. v.) was hanged at Stirling (in his pontifical vestments) on 5 April, 1571; and though the few remaining members of his cathedral chapter duly elected Robert Hay as his successor, he was never consecrated, and the See of St. Andrews remained vacant for three hundred and seven years.

For nearly a century the scattered Catholics of the former archdiocese were under the jurisdiction of the English prefects and vicars Apostolic; but in 1653 a prefect of the Scottish Mission (William Ballantyne) was appointed by the Holy See. Forty years later the first vicar Apostolic for Scotland (Bishop Nicholson) was consecrated in Paris. The country was divided into two vicariates in 1726, a Highland and a Lowland, and just a hundred years later Leo XII added a third, the Eastern, including the whole of the former Archdiocese of St. Andrews. At length, on 4 March, 1878, the regular hierarchy was restored by Leo XIII.

The Catholic Diocese of St. Andrews and Edinburgh as defined in the Apostolic Letter "Ex Supremo Apostolatus Apice" of 4 March 1878, comprises the counties of Edinburgh, Berwick, Fife (southern part), Haddington, Linlithgow, Peebles, Roxburgh, Selkirk and (practically) Stirlingshire. The entire population of this portion of Scotland, according to the latest census, amounts to nearly 870,000, and the number of Catholics is estimated at 63,000, or about seven per cent of the whole. The number of churches, chapels and stations at the beginning of 1911 was 87, and of missions 51, served by eight Jesuit priests, and four Oblates of Mary Immaculate. The last-named order has one house in the diocese, and the Society of Jesus two. orders of women in the diocese comprise Ursulines of the Incarnation (whose convent, founded Edinburgh in 1835, was the first established in Scotland since the Reformation); Sisters of Mercy (two houses); Little Sisters of the Poor; Sisters of the Immaculate Conception; Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent of Paul, (four houses); Sisters of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary; Poor Clares; Helpers of the Holy Souls. Religious of Marie Réparatrice; Sisters of Charity of St. Paul (two houses); Sisters of the Holy Cross; Dominicans; and Carmelites. The Catholic institutions are, a children's refuge, industrial school and boy's orphanage, orphanage for girls, House of Mercy for servants, home for working boys, Sacred Heart Home for penitents, dispensary and home for respectable girls, convalescent home, and St. Vincent's Home for destitute Children. The number of congregational day-schools is fifty, and the average attendance of children at them between 10,000 and 11,000. The great majority of the Catholics of the diocese (certainly over 90 per cent) are of Irish origin and parentage; of the remainder many are Italians, (chiefly from Naples), Poles, and Lithuanians, the latter engaged for the most part as miners. The Poles tend to become absorbed in the native population, usually discarding their Polish names. The material progress in the diocese, in the way of church building, has been noteworthy in recent years. In 1859 there was one church in the capital; half a century later there were eight; and churches have been built in different parts of the diocese of considerable architectural merit. Several of them being the finest ecclesiastical edifices in their respective towns. The archi-episcopal residence is in Edinburgh, where is also the old cathedral of St. Andrews was wrecked by the Protestant mob (Knox's "rascal multitude") in 1559; and though efforts were made by the Protestant Archbishop Spottiswoode and others to restore it, it became a total ruin. Nothing now remains of it but the south wall of the nave, a fragment of the beautiful west front, the eastern gable with its flanking turrets, portions of the transept and some pier bases. The present archbishop is the Most Rev. James A. Smith, b. in Edinburgh, 1841, ordained in Rome, 1866, and consecrated Bishop of DunkeId in 1890. He was translated, to the See of Saint Andrews and Edinburgh in 1901. The last Protestant archbishop died in 1704; and the title remained unused until 1844, when it was revived by the episcopalian synod.

Registrum Prioratus S. Andreae (Bannatyne Club, Edinburgh, 1841); BRADY, Episcopal Succession in England, Scotland, and Ireland (Rome, 1876); LYON, History of St. Andrews (Edinburgh, 1813); FORDUN, Scotichronicon (ed. GOODALL, Edinburgh, 1759); KEITH, Historical Catalogue of Scottish Bishops (Edinburgh, 1824); THEINER, Annales Ecclesiastici (Rome, 1856); MACKENZIE-WALCOTT, The Ancient Church of Scotland (London, 1874): LANG, St. Andrews (London, 18935; BELLESHEIM, Hist. of the Catholic Church of Scotland (4 vols., Edinburgh, 1887-90).

D.O. HUNTER-BLAIR

University of Saint Andrews

The germ of the university is to be found in an association of learned ecclesiastics, formed in 1410, among whom were: Laurence of Lindores, Abbot of Scone, Richard Cornwall, Archdeacon of Lothian, Wm. Stephen, afterwards Archbishop of Dunblane. They offered courses of lectures in divinity, logic, philosophy, canon and civil law. Henry Wardlaw, the Bishop of St. Andrews, granted a charter of privilege in 1411; he sought a Bull of foundation from the antipope, Benedict XIII, whose legate he was and whose claims Scotland supported. The Bull was granted in 1413; it was confirmed by royal charter of James I in 1532. The five-hundredth anniversary of the foundation was celebrated in 1911. The university consisted of three colleges: St. Salvator's, founded in 1450 by Bishop James Kennedy, confirmed and further privileged by Popes Nicholas V, Pius II, and Paul II; St. Leonard's, founded by Archbishop Stuart and Prior Hepburn in 1512; and St. Mary's, founded by Archbishop James Beaton, under sanction of Paul III, in 1537. This occupied the site of the original pedagogy. All the foundations were amply supported by successive endowment. The college buildings escaped when the churches of St. Andrews were demolished by the reformers, but it was not until 1574 that the university began to recover. At the same time that Andrew Melville (a St. Andrews' student) was re-erecting the university at Glasgow, a commission, inspired by George Buchanan, began a series of reforms at St. Andrews, which intermittently continued throughout the seventeenth century. In 1747 St. Salvator's and St. Leonard's Colleges were united. The university was further enlarged and strengthened by the affiliation in 1897 of University College, Dundee, at which the scientific departments are chiefly conducted. A proposal by the Marquess of Bute (rector 1892-98) to affiliate Blair's College, Aberdeen, was unsuccessful. Among the famous professors and students in St. Andrews of the earlier period must be named John Major, Andrew Melville, Gavin Douglas, George Buchanan, Patrick Forbes, Napier of Merchiston; its leaders and its alumni, played a great part in Scottish ecclesiastical politics of the seventeenth century, most notably Zachary Boyd, Wm. Carstares, principal of the University of Edinburgh, and Samuel Rutherford. During the last century St. Andrews can show a long list of distinguished scientists and men of letters. The total number of students (1909-10) was 571, of whom 247 were women; University College, Dundee, contributed 214 of the total.

St. Andrews' University Calendar (1910-11); ANDERSON, The University of St. Andrews, a Historical Sketch (1878); RASHDALL, Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1895), 295; COOPER, Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v. Andrew Melville, LYON, History of St. Andrews (Edinburgh, 1843).

J.S. PHILLIMORE

Priory of Saint Andrews

The Priory of Saint Andrews priory was one of the great religious houses in Scotland and the metropolitan church in that country before the Reformation. Its origin is uncertain, although all agree that it must be very ancient. According to the "Registrum S. Andreae", the first founder was Angus, King of the (Picts 735-747), who gave to Bishop Regulus, who had brought to Scotland the relics of St. Andrew, meadows, fields, and other properties. The church was, perhaps from the beginning, administered by Culdees, who also had the right of electing the bishop. In 1144, however, at the request of King Alexander I, who may be called the second founder of the priory on account of his many donations to it, Robert, Prior of Scone, was made Bishop of St. Andrews. He brought with him some of his brother-canons regular whom he established in the priory. For some time the canons and the Culdees served the church together, but by order of the pope in 1147 the Culdees, who had previously been given the option to become canons and had refused, were removed and all their rights passed to the canons who from that moment till the Reformation formed the Cathedral Chapter.

When in 1297 Bishop Lamberton, who succeeded Bishop Fraser, was chosen by the canons without the intervention of the Culdees, as was done in the two previous elections, Cumyn, Provost of the Culdees, opposed the election and went to Rome. He pleaded his case before the pope in vain, and Lamberton was consecrated bishop in 1298. The Culdees, after this, disappear from St. Andrews altogether. The priory protected by bishops, kings, and noble families prospered, and like all the great monasteries it had cells or privies as its dependencies. These were: (1) Lochleven, formerly a house of Culdees, and given to the canons by Bishop Robert and King David; (2) Monymusk, where the Culdees became canons regular; (3) Isle of May, which Bishop Wishart bought from the monks of Reading and gave to the canons of St. Andrews, pleno jure; (4) Pittenweem, an old priory, which already existed in 1270; (5) Portmoak, founded in 838 for Culdees and given to St. Andrews by Bishop Roger. Kilrimont was made over to the canons by Bishop Robert, who also gave them the hospital "in susceptionem hospitum et peregrinorum". On account of his position as Superior of the Cathedral Chapter, the prior pro tempore had precedence of all the abbots in the kingdom. To the canons of St. Andrews the now famous university of that name owes its existence. It was founded by Prior Biset and his canons in 1408, and many of them lectured there. Some of the canons became bishops of St. Andrews or of other dioceses, and in other ways distinguished themselves for their piety or learning. Of Bishop Robert the chronicler tells us that he was a man of rare prudence, virtuous, and a scholar. In 1349, when the black plague made so many victims, Abbot Bower records the death of twenty-four canons of St. Andrews, who, as he says, were all "sufficienter litterati et morum conspicui". When in 1412 the new parish church was founded by the canons, the first incumbent was one of them, W. Romer, "vir multum laudabilis religiosus et benignus". Bishop Bell, returning from Rome, became a canon at St. Andrews, where he died in 1342. But evil days came for the priory when lay-priors or commendatories were introduced; relaxations and irregularities crept in, and the Reformation completed the work of destruction. Instigated by the fiery preaching of John Knox, his followers burnt down the cathedral and the priory. A few years ago the late Marquess of Bute purchased the remaining ruins with a view to restore them to Catholic use.

MARTINE, Reliquiae S. Andreae, or the state of the venerable, and Primatial See of St. Andrew's; FORDUN-BOWER, Scotichronicon (Edinburgh, 1759); GORDON, Monasticon (1875); History of Holyrod (Edinburgh).

A. ALLARIA

Ancient Diocese of Saint Asaph

(ASSAVENSIS, originally ELVIENSIS)

This diocese was founded by St. Kentigern about the middle of the sixth century when he was exiled from his see in Scotland. He founded a monastery called Llanelwy at the confluence of the Clwyd and Elwy in North Wales, where after his return to Scotland in 573 he was succeeded by Asaph or Asa, who was consecrated Bishop of Llanelwy. The diocese originally coincided with the principality of Powys, but lost much territory first by the Mercian encroachment marked by Watt's dyke and again by the construction of Offa's dyke, soon after 798. Nothing is known of the history of the diocese during the disturbed period that followed. Domesday Book gives scanty particulars of a few churches but is silent as to the cathedral. Early in the twelfth century Norman influence asserted itself and in 1143 Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury, consecrated one Gilbert as Bishop of St. Asaph, but the position of his successors was very difficult and one of them, Godfrey, was driven away by poverty and the hostility of the Welsh. A return made in the middle of the thirteenth century (British Museum, Cotton MSS. Vitellius, c. x.) shows the existence of eight rural deaneries, seventy-nine churches, and nineteen chapels. By 1291 the deaneries had been doubled in number and there were Cistercian houses at Basingwerk, Aberconway, Strata Marcella and Valle Crucis, and a Cistercian nunnery at Llanllugan. The cathedral, which had been burnt in the wars, was rebuilt and completed in 1295. It was a plain massive structure of simple plan, and was again destroyed during the Wars of the Roses. When it was restored by Bishop Redman the palace was not rebuilt and thus the bishops continued to be nonresident. At the end of the fifteenth century there was a great revival of church building, as is evidenced by the churches of that date still existing in the diocese. The chief shrines in the diocese were St. Winefred's Well, St. Garmon in Yale, St. Dervel Gadarn in Edeirnion, St. Monacella at Pennant, and the Holy Cross in Strata Marcella. All these were demolished at the Reformation. At that time the diocese contained one archdeaconry, sixteen deaneries, and one hundred and twenty-one parishes.

The names and succession of the bishops after Sts. Kentigern and Asaph are not known until 1143. For five hundred years the only names we meet with are Tysilio (about 600), Renchidus (about 800), Cebur (about 928), and Melanus (about 1070). From 1143 the succession is as follows: Gilbert (1143); Geoffrey of Monmouth (1152); Richard (1154); Godfrey (1158); Adam (1175); John I (1183); Reyner (1186); Abraham (1225); Hugh (1235); Howel ap Ednyfed (1240); Anian I (1249); John II (1267); Anian II (1268); Llewelyn ap Ynyr (Leolinus de Bromfield), 1293; Davydd ap Bleddyn (1314); John Trevor I (1352); Llewelyn ap Madoc (1357); William de Spridlington (1376); Lawrence Child (1382); Alexander Bache (1390); John Trevor II (1395); Robert de Lancaster (1411); John Lowe (1433); Reginald Pecock (1444); Thomas Knight (1450); Richard Redman (1471); Michael Diacon (1495); Davydd ap Iorwerth (1500); Davydd ap Owen (1503); Edmund Birkhead (1513); Henry Standish (1518); see held by schismatics (1535-55); Thomas Goldwell (1555), who died at Rome 13 April, 1585, not only the last Catholic Bishop of St. Asaph's, but the last survivor of the ancient hierarchy. The bishop had five episcopal residences, four of which were alienated by the schismatical bishop under Edward VI. The cathedral was dedicated to St. Asaph and the arms of the see were sable, two keys in saltire argent.

THOMAS, History of St. Asaph, diocesan, cathedral and parochial (London, 1874); IDEM, St. Asaph in Diocesan Histories (London, 1865); WALCOTT, Memorials of St. Asaph (London, 1865); WILLIS, Survey of St. Asaph (2 vols., Wrexham, l80l); WHARTON historia de episcopis et decanis Londinencibus necnon Assavensibus (London, 1695).

EDWIN BURTON

Abbey of Saint Augustine

A Benedictine monastery, originally dedicated to Sts. Peter and Paul, founded in 605 outside of the City of Canterbury, on the site of the earlier Church of St. Pancras given by King Ethelbert to St. Augustine in 597. It was subsequently enlarged, and in 978 St. Dunstan, then Archbishop of Canterbury, dedicated it anew to St. Peter, St. Paul, and St. Augustine, since which time it has always been known by the name of the latter saint whose body lay enshrined in the crypt of the abbey church. In spite of its proximity to the neighboring cathedral priory of Christ Church, the abbey precincts covered much ground and the monastery was of considerable importance for many centuries. At the dissolution in 1538 the act of surrender was signed by the abbot and thirty monks, who were rewarded with pensions. The abbey itself was appropriated by Henry VIII as a royal palace, but since that time the greater part of the buildings have been allowed gradually to fall to ruin. In 1844 the remains of the abbey were sold at public auction and on the site was erected a college for missionaries of the Church of England. The revenues of the abbey at the time of its suppression were £1684.

TANNER, Notitia Monastica (London, 1744) DUGDALE, Monasticon Anglicanum (London, 1817-30); Customary of St Augustine's Abbey (ed. THOMPSON), XXIII, Henry Bradshaw Society's publications (London, 1902).

G. CYPRIAN ALSTON

Saint Bartholomew's Day

This massacre of which Protestants were the victims occurred in Paris on 24 August, 1572 (the feast of St. Bartholomew), and in the provinces of France during the ensuing weeks, and it has been the subject of knotty historical disputes.

The first point argued was whether or not the massacre had been premeditated by the French Court — Sismondi, Sir James Mackintosh, and Henri Bordier maintaining that it had, and Ranke, Henri Martin, Henry White, Loiseleur, H. de la Ferrière, and the Abbé Vacandard, that it had not. The second question debated was the extent to which the court of Rome was responsible for this outrage. At present only a few over-zealous Protestant historians claim that the Holy See was the accomplice of the French Court: this view implies their belief in the premeditation of the massacre, which is now denied by the majority of historians. For the satisfactory solution of the question it is necessary to distinguish carefully between the attempted murder of Coligny on 22 August and his assassination on the night of 23-24 August, and the general massacre of Protestants.

The idea of a summary execution of the Protestant leaders, which would be the means of putting an end to the civil discord that had caused three "religious wars" in France in 1562-1563, 1567-1568, and 1569-1570 respectively, had long existed in the mind of Catherine de' Medici, widow of Henry II and mother of the three successive kings, Francis II, Charles IX, and Henry III; it had also been entertained by her sons. As early as 1560 Michaelis Suriano, the Venetian ambassador, wrote: "Francis II (1559-1560) wanted to fall upon the Protestant leaders, punish them without mercy and thus extinguish the conflagration." When, in 1565, Catherine de' Medici with her son Charles IX (1560-1574) and her daughters Margaret of Valois and Elizabeth, wife of Philip II, investigated the political and religious questions of the hour at the conferences of Bayonne, the Duke of Alba, who was present on these occasions, wrote to Philip II: "A way to be rid of the five, or at most six, who are at the head of the faction and direct it, would be to seize their persons and cut off their heads or at least to confine them where it would be impossible for them to renew their criminal plots." Just at that time Alava on his side confided to the same Spanish king this dark forecast, "I foresee that these heretics will be completely wiped out". In 1569 Catholics and Protestants were in arms one against the other, and the Venetian ambassador, Giovanni Carrero, remarked: "It is the common opinion that, in the beginning it would have sufficed to do away with five or six heads and no more". This same year Parliament promised a reward of 50,000 écus to whoever would apprehend the Admiral de Coligny (1517-72), leader of the Calvinist party, the king adding that this sum would be awarded to him who would deliver up the admiral either alive or dead. Maurevel tried to overtake the admiral for the purpose of killing him but instead only assassinated one of his lieutenants. Thus we see that the idea of a summary execution of the leaders of Protestantism was in the air from 1560 to 1570; moreover it was conformable to the doctrine of political murder as it flourished during the sixteenth century when the principles of social morality and Christian politics elaborated by the theology of the Middle Ages, were replaced by the lay and half-pagan doctrine of Machiavellianism, proclaiming the right of the strongest or the most crafty.

The peace signed at Saint-Germain, August, 1570, between the Court and the Protestants seemed to reestablish order. It was sanctioned by conferences held at La Rochelle in which on the one side a war was planned against Philip II, all the Calvinist nobility being supposed to enlist; and on the other, the marriage of Henry of Bourbon (the future King Henry IV), a Calvinist and the son of Jeanne of Albret, with Margaret of Valois, sister of Charles IX. On 12 September, 1571, the Admiral de Coligny came to Blois, where Charles IX resided, to superintend and further this new policy, and it would seem that just at that time the king was sincere in seeking the support of Coligny and the Protestants against Philip II. And Catherine de' Medici was shrewdly endeavouring to court favour on all sides. Upon hearing of Spain's victory at Lepanto (7 October, 1571), she remonstrated with Charles IX for his lack of policy in severing relations with Philip II; and in June, 1572, she tried to arrange a marriage between her third son, the Duke of Alençon, and the Protestant Elizabeth of England, and also made active preparations for the marriage of Margaret of Valois with Henry of Bourbon, taking every means to have it solemnized in Paris. Meanwhile Coligny, with money which Charles IX had given him unknown to Catherine, sent 4000 men to the relief of Mons, who was at the time besieged by the Duke of Alba. They were beaten (11 July, 1572) and the Duke of Alba, having ascertained that Charles IX was instrumental in the attempt to defeat him, thenceforth entertained the most hostile feeling toward the French King. Charles IX, greatly irritated, made open preparations for war against Spain, relying on Coligny for assistance. Suddenly on 4 August, Catherine made her way to Charles IX, who was then hunting at Montripeau, and insisted that unless he would give up the conflict with Philip II she would withdraw to Florence, taking with her the Duke of Anjou. A conference was held and Coligny, with the idea of sustaining his co-religionists in Flanders, demanded war with Spain, but the council unanimously refused it. Then with rash audacity Coligny declared to the king and to Catherine that if war were not waged against Spain, another war might be expected. From this Catherine deduced that the Protestant party, with the admiral for spokesman, threatened the King of France with a religious war which would be the fourth within ten years.

At the time of the marriage of Henry of Bourbon and Margaret of Valois (18 August), the situation was as follows: on the one side were the Guises with their troops, and on the other Coligny and his musketeers, while Charles IX, although recognizing both parties, leaned more towards Coligny, and Catherine favoured the Guises with a view to revenging herself on Coligny and recovering her influence over Charles IX. Just at this time Philip II was of the opinion that the King of France should strike a decisive blow against the Protestants, and we have proof of this in a letter written to Cardinal Come, Secretary of State to Gregory XIII, by the Archbishop of Rossano, nuncio in Spain. Wrote the nuncio:

The King (Philip II) bids me say that if his Most Christian Majesty means to purge his kingdom of its enemies, the time is now opportune, and that by coming to terms with him (Philip II) His Majesty could destroy those who are left. Now, especially as the Admiral is at Paris where the people are attached to the Catholic religion and to their king, it would be easy for him (Charles IX) to do away with him (Coligny) forever.

It is probable that Philip II sent similar suggestions to his ministers at Paris, and that the latter conferred with Catherine and the Duke of Anjou, even offering them military assistance for the struggle against the Protestants. This intervention caused Catherine to plan Coligny's assassination, and at a meeting to which she called Madame de Nemours, widow of the great Duke of Guise, it was decided that Maurevel should set a trap for the admiral. This was done, with the result that on the morning of 22 August, a musket-shot fired by Maurevel struck Coligny although wounding him but slightly. The Protestants became excited and Charles IX grew angry, declaring that the peace edict must be observed. He went to visit the wounded Coligny and Catherine accompanied him, but at Coligny's request she had to withdraw and, if we may credit the account given by the Duke of Anjou (Henry III), the admiral, lowering his voice, warned Charles IX against his mother's influence. But just at that moment Charles had but one idea, which was to find and punish Henry of Guise, whom he suspected of being the instigator if not the perpetrator of the attempt on Coligny's life.

It was because the attack made on Coligny, 22 August, had failed that Catherine conceived the idea of a general massacre. "If the Admiral had died from the shot," wrote Salviati, the nuncio, "no others would have been killed." Those historians who claim the massacre to have been premeditated explain that Catherine had the marriage of Margaret and Henry of Bourbon solemnized in Paris in order to bring the Protestant leaders there for the purpose of murdering them. However, this interpretation is based merely upon a very doubtful remark attributed to Cardinal Alessandrino and of which we shall speak later on, and it was certainly unlike Catherine, who was always more inclined to placate the various parties by dint of subtle manoeuvring them, after careful deliberation, to inaugurate a series of irreparable outrages. As we shall see, the decision to have recourse to a massacre arose in Catherine's mind under pressure of a sort of madness; she saw in this decision a means of preserving her influence over the king and of preventing the vengeance of Protestants, who were exasperated by the attack made on Coligny. "The Admiral's death was premeditated, that of the others was sudden," wrote Don Diego de Zuniga to Philip II, on 6 September 1572. Herein lies the exact difference: the attempt on Coligny's life was premeditated whereas the massacre was the outcome of a cruel impulse. On the night of 22 August Catherine de' Medici felt herself lessened in her son's consideration. She learned from one Bouchavannes that the Huguenots had decided to meet at Meaux, 5 September, and avenge Coligny's attempted murder by marching on Paris; she knew that the Catholics were preparing to defend themselves, and she foresaw that between both parties the king would be alone and powerless. At supper she heard Pardaillan, a Huguenot, say that justice would be rendered even if the king would not render it, and Captain Piles, another Huguenot, was of the opinion that "even if the Admiral lost an arm there would be numberless others who would take so many lives that the rivers of the kingdom would run with blood". The threats of the Huguenots and her son's consternation impelled Catherine to try to avert this civil war by organizing an immediate massacre of the Protestants.

But Charles IX had to be won over. In the account of the dreadful events subsequently given by the Duke of Anjou he alludes to a single conversation between Catherine and Charles IX on 23 August, but Tavannes and Margaret of Valois mention two, the second of which took place late at night. As to the decisive interview there is conflicting testimony. The Duke of Anjou claims that Charles IX, suddenly converted to the cause by Catherine's ardent importuning, cried out: "Good God! since you deem it well to kill the Admiral, I agree, but all the Huguenots in France must likewise perish, so that not one be left later to upbraid me." Cavalli, the Venetian Ambassador, maintained in his report that the king held out for an hour and a half, finally yielding because of Catherine's threat to leave France and the fear that his brother, the Duke of Anjou, might be named captain-general of the Catholics. Margaret of Valois stated in her account that it was Rets, his former tutor, whom Catherine sent to reason with him, who eventually succeeded in obtaining the king's consent. Is it then true, as certain documents claim, that, toward midnight, Charles IX again hesitated? Perhaps. At any rate, it was he who, on 24 August, a little after midnight, ordered Le Charron, Prévot des Marchands, in charge of the Paris police, to call to arms the captains and bourgeois of the quarters in order that he (the king) and the city might be protected against the Huguenot conspirators. Catherine and the Duke of Anjou had previously secured the assistance of Marcel, former Prévot des Marchands. Whilst Le Charron, without any great enthusiasm, marshalled the bourgeoisie who were to quell a possible uprising of Huguenots, Marcel drew up the masses, over whom he had unlimited influence, and who, together with the royal troops, were to attack and plunder the Huguenots. The royal troops were especially commissioned to kill the Huguenot nobles; the mob, mobilized by Marcel, was to threaten the bourgeois troops in case the latter should venture to side with the Huguenots. Charles IX and Catherine decided that the massacre should not begin in the city till the admiral had been slain, and afterwards Catherine claimed that she took upon her conscience the blood of only six of the dead, Coligny and five others; however, having deliberately fired the passions of the multitude, over whom Marcel had absolute control, she should be held responsible for all the blood shed.

THE MASSACRE

Toward midnight the troops took up arms in and around the Louvre, and Coligny's abode was surrounded. A little before daybreak the sound of a pistol-shot so terrified Charles IX and his mother that, in a moment of remorse, they despatched a nobleman to Guise to bid him refrain from any attack on the admiral, but the order came too late; Coligny had already been slain. Scarcely had the Duke of Guise heard the bell of Saint-Germain l'auxerrois than he started with a few men toward the Coligny mansion. Besme, one of the duke's intimates, went up to the admiral's room. "Are you Coligny?" he asked. "I am," the admiral replied. "Young man, you should respect my years. However, do as you please; you will not be shortening my life to any great extent. Besme plunged a dagger into the admiral's breast and flung his body out the window. The Bastard of Angoulême and the Duke of Guise, who were without, kicked the corpse and an Italian, a servant of the Duke of Nevers, cut off its head. Immediately the king's guards and the nobles on the side of the Guises slew all the Protestant nobles whom Charles IX, but a few days previously, when he wanted to protect the admiral against the intrigues of the Guises, had carefully lodged in the admiral's neighbourhood. La Rochefoucauld, with whom that very night Charles IX had jested till eleven o'clock, was stabbed by a masked valet; Téligny, Coligny's son-in-law, was killed on a roof by a musket-shot, and the Seigneur de la Force and one of his sons had their throats cut, the other son, a child of twelve, remaining hidden beneath their corpses for a day. The servants of Henry of Bourbon and the Prince of Condé who dwelt in the Louvre were murdered under the vestibule by Swiss mercenaries. One nobleman fled to the apartment of Margaret, who had just married Henry of Bourbon, and she obtained his pardon. Whilst their servants were being slaughtered Henry of Bourbon and the Prince of Condé were ordered to appear before the king, who tried to make them abjure, but they refused.

After that the massacre spread through Paris, and Crucé, a goldsmith, Koerver, a bookseller, and Pezou, a butcher, battered in the doors of the Huguenot houses. A tradition, long credited, claims that Charles IX stationed himself on a balcony of the Louvre and fired upon his subjects; Brantôme, however, supposed that the king took aim from the windows of his sleeping apartment. But nothing is more uncertain as the balcony on which he was said to have stood was not there in 1572, and in none of the accounts of the Massacre of Saint Bartholomew sent to their governments by the various diplomatists then in Paris does this detail figure. It was first mentioned in a book published at Basel in 1573: "Dialogue auquel sont traitées plusieurs choses advenues aux Luthériens et Huguenots de France" and reprinted in 1574 under the title: "Le reveille matin des Français". This libel is the work of Barnaud, a native of Dauphiné, a Protestant greatly disliked by his co-religionists, and whose calumnies caused a Protestant nobleman to insult him in public. The "Tocsin contre les auteurs du Massacre de France", another narration of the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, that appeared in 1579, makes no allusion to this sinister pastime of Charles IX, and the accounts given of it twenty years afterwards by Brantôme and d'Aubigné do not agree. Moreover, the anecdote quoted by Voltaire, according to which the Maréchal de Tessé had known a gentleman then over a hundred years old who was supposed to have loaded Charles IX's musket, is extremely doubtful, and the absolute silence of those diplomatists who addressed to their respective governments detailed reports of the massacre must ever remain a strong argument against this tradition.

On the following morning blood flowed in streams; the houses of the rich were pillaged regardless of the religious opinions of their owners. "To be a Huguenot," emphatically declares Mézeray, the historian, "was to have money, enviable position, or avaricious heirs." When at eleven o'clock in the morning the Prévot Le Charron came to inform the king of this epidemic of crime, an edict was issued forbidding a continuation of the slaughter; but the massacre was prolonged for several days more, and on 25 August Ramus, the celebrated philosopher, was assassinated in spite of the formal prohibition of the king and queen. The number of victims is unknown. Thirty-five livres were paid to the grave-diggers of the Cemetery of the Innocents for the interment of 1100 corpses; but many were thrown into the Seine. Ranke and Henri Martin estimate the number of victims in Paris at 2000. In the provinces also massacres occurred. On the evening of 24 August, a messenger brought to the Provost of Orléans a letter bearing the royal seal and ordering him to treat all Huguenots like those of Paris and to exterminate them, "taking care to let nothing leak out and by shrewd dissimulation to surprise them all". Only that day the king had written to M. d'Eguilly, Governor of Chartres, that there was question merely of a quarrel between Guise and Coligny. On 25 August an order was issued to kill the factious; on the next day the king solemnly announced in open session that his decision of 24 August was the only means of frustrating the plot; on 27 August he again began to prohibit all murder; and on the following day he solemnly declared that the punishment of the admiral and his accomplices was due not to their religion but to their conspiracy against the Court, and he despatched letters bidding the governors to repress the factionists; on 30 August he ordered the people of Bourges to kill any Huguenots who should congregate, but revoked "all verbal commands that he had issued when he had just cause to fear some sinister event". In this series of contradictory instructions may be detected the ever-slumbering antagonism between Catherine's fixedness of purpose and the vacillation of Charles IX, but almost everywhere in the country the policy of bloodshed prevailed.

The general opinion throughout France was that the king had to kill Coligny and the turbulent in self-defence. President de Thou publicly praised Charles IX; Attorney-General du Faur de Pibrac wrote an apology for the massacre; Jodelle, Baïf, and Daurat, poets of the "P1éiade", insulted the admiral in their verse; a suit was entered in the Parlement against Coligny and his accomplices whether living or dead, and its immediate result was the hanging of Briquemaut and Cavaignes, two Protestants who had escaped the massacre. This protracted severity on the part of the Parlement of Paris set the pace for outside places, and in many places an excess of zeal led to an increase of brutality. Lyons, Toulouse, Bordeaux, and Rouen all had their massacres. So many Lyonese corpses drifted down the Rhône to Arles that, for three months, the Arlesians did not want to drink the river water. At Bayonne and at Nantes compliance with royal orders was refused. The intervals between these massacres prove that on the first day the Court did not issue formal orders in all directions; for instance, the Toulouse massacre did not occur till 23 September and that of Bordeaux till 3 October. The number of victims in the provinces is unknown, the figures varying between 2000 and 100,000. The "Martyrologe des Huguenots", published in 1581, brings it up to 15,138, but mentions only 786 dead. At any rate only a short time afterwards the reformers were preparing for a fourth civil war.

From the foregoing considerations it follows:

• That the royal decision of which the St. Bartholomew massacre was the outcome, was in nowise the result of religious disturbances and, strictly, did not even have religious incentives; the massacre was rather an entirely political act committed in the name of the immoral principles of Machiavellianism against a faction that annoyed the Court.
• That the massacre itself was not premeditated; that, up to 22 August, Catherine de' Medici had only considered — and that for a long time — the possibility of getting rid of Coligny; that the criminal attack made on Coligny was interpreted by the Protestants as a declaration of war, and that, in the face of impending danger, Catherine forced the irresolute Charles IX to consent to the horrible massacre.

Such, then, are the conclusions to be kept in view when entering upon the discussion of that other question, the responsibility of the Holy See.

THE HOLY SEE AND THE MASSACRE

A. Pius V (1566-May 1, 1572)

Pius V, being constantly informed in regard to the civil wars in France and the massacres and depredations there committed, looked upon the Huguenots as a party of rebels who weakened and divided the French Kingdom just when Christianity required the strength of unity in order to strike an effective blow against the Turks. In 1569 he had sent Charles IX 6000 men under the command of Sforza, Count of Santa-Fiore, to help the royal troops in the third religious war; he had rejoiced over the victory at Jarnac (12 March, 1569), and on 28 March had written to Catherine de' Medici: "If Your Majesty continues openly and freely to fight (aperte ac libere) the enemies of the Catholic Church unto their utter destruction, divine help will never fail you." After the Battle of Moncontour in October, 1569, he had begged the king thenceforth to tolerate in his states the exercise of Catholicism only; "otherwise," he said, "your kingdom will be the bloody scene of continual sedition". The peace concluded in 1570 between Charles IX and the Huguenots caused him grave anxiety. He had endeavoured to dissuade the king from signing it and had written as follows to the Cardinals of Bourbon and Lorraine: "The King will have more to fear from the hidden traps and knavishness of the heretics than from their barefaced brigandage during the war." What Pius V wanted was an honest, open war waged by Charles IX and the Guises against the Huguenots. On 10 May, 1567, he said to the Spanish Ambassador, Don Juan de Luniga: "The masters of France are meditating something which I can neither advise nor approve and which conscience upbraids: they want to destroy by underhand means the Prince of Condé and the Admiral." To reestablish political peace and religious unity by the royal sword was the inexorable dream of Pius V who must not be judged according to our modern standards of toleration; but this end, worthy as he deemed it, could not justify the proposed means of attainment; he would sanction no intriguing, and five years previous to the Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day, he disapproved the dishonest "means" by which Catherine dreamed of getting rid of Coligny.

B. Cardinal Alessandrino, sent from the Holy See to Paris, in 1572

Some historians have wondered whether Cardinal Alessandrino, sent by Pius V to Charles IX in February, 1572, to persuade the king to join a Catholic league against the Turks, was not an accomplice in Catherine's murderous designs. In February Alessandrino, who had vainly endeavoured to prevent the marriage of Margaret of Valois with the Protestant Henry of Bourbon, closed his report with these words: "I am leaving France without accomplishing anything whatever: I might as well not have come." Let us be mindful of this tone of discouragement, this acknowledgment of failure. In March he wrote: "I have other special matters to report to His Holiness but I shall communicate them orally . . . ." When the cardinal returned to Rome Pius V was dying, and he expired without learning what were the "special matters" to which Alessandrino had alluded. Whatever they may have been they certainly have no bearing upon the conclusion that Pius V had been previously informed of the massacre. A life of this pontiff, published in 1587 by Girolamo Catena, gives a conversation that took place a long time afterwards between Alessandrino and Clement VIII in which the cardinal spoke of his former ambassadorship. When he was endeavouring to dissuade the king from Margaret's marriage to Henry, the king said: "I have no other means of revenging myself on my enemies and the enemies of God." This fragment of the interview has furnished those who hold that the massacre was premeditated with a reason for maintaining that the solemnizing of the nuptials in Paris was a snare prearranged with the concurrence of the papal nuncio. The most reliable critics contest the perfect authenticity of this interview, chiefly because of the very tardy account of it and of its utter incompatibility with the discouragement manifested in Alessandrino's notes written the day after the conversation had taken place. The arguments against the thesis of premeditation as we have considered them one by one seem to us sufficiently plausible to permit us to exclude all hypothesis according to which, six months ahead of time, Alessandrino was confidentially apprised of the outrage.

C. Salviati, Nuncio at Paris in 1572

At the time of the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, Salviati, a relative of Catherine de' Medici, was the pope's nuncio at Paris. In December, 1571, Pius V had entrusted him with a first extraordinary mission, and at the time Catherine, according to what was subsequently related by the Venetian Ambassador, Michaeli, "had secretly bade him tell Pius V that he would soon see the vengeance that she and the king would visit upon those of the religion (of the Huguenots)". Catherine's conversation was so vague that the following summer, when Salviati came back to France as nuncio, she thought he must have forgotten her words. Accordingly she reminded him of the revenge that she had predicted, and neither in December, 1571, nor in August, 1572, was Salviati very explicit in his correspondence with the Court of Rome as, on 8 September, 1572, three weeks after the massacre, Cardinal Come, Secretary of State to Gregory XIII, wrote to Salviati: "Your letters show that you were aware of the preparations for the blow against the Huguenots long before it was dealt. You would have done well to inform His Holiness in time." In fact on 5 August, Salviati had written to Rome: "The Queen will rap the Admiral's knuckles if he goes too far" (donnera à l'Admiral sur les ongles), and on 11 August: "Finally, I hope that God will give me the grace soon to announce to you something that will fill His Holiness with joy and satisfaction." This was all. A subsequent letter from Salviati revealed that this covert allusion was to the scheme of vengeance that Catherine was then projecting in regard to Coligny's assassination and that of a few Protestant leaders: however, it seems that at the Court of Rome the reference was supposed to be to a re-establishment of cordial relations between France and Spain. The replies of the Cardinal of Come to Salviati show that this last idea was what absorbed the attention of Gregory XIII and that the Court of Rome gave but little heed to Catherine's threats against the Protestants. Notwithstanding that Salviati was Catherine's relative and that he was maintaining a close watch, all documents prove, as Soldan, the German Protestant historian, says, that the events of 24 August were accomplished independently of Roman influence. Indeed, so little did Salviati foresee the Massacre of St. Bartholomew itself that he wrote to Rome the day after the event: "I cannot believe that so many would have perished if the Admiral had died of the musket-shot fired at him . . . . I cannot believe a tenth of what I now see before my very eyes."

D. The attitude of Gregory XIII on receiving the news of the Massacre of St. Bartholomew

It was on 2 September that the first rumours of what had occurred in France reached Rome. Danes, secretary to Mandelot, Governor of Lyons, bade M. de Jou, Commander at Saint-Antoine, to inform the pope that the chief Protestant leaders had been killed in Paris, and that the king had ordered the governors of the provinces to seize all Huguenots. Cardinal de Lorraine, when thus informed, gave the courier 200 écus and Gregory XIII gave him 1000. The pope wanted bonfires lighted in Rome, but Férals, the French Ambassador, objected on the ground that official communication should first be received from the king and the nuncio. On 5 September Beauvillier reached Rome, having been sent thither by Charles IX. He gave an account of the Massacre of St. Bartholomew and begged Gregory XIII to grant, antedating it, the dispensation required for the legitimacy of the marriage of Margaret of Valois and Henry of Navarre, solemnized three weeks previously. Gregory XIII deferred discussing the subject of the dispensation and a letter from the Cardinal de Bourbon dated 26 August and a despatch from Salviati, both received at this time, duly informed him of what had taken place in France. Wrote the Cardinal de Bourbon,

Said Admiral was so wicked as to have conspired to kill said King, his mother, the Queen and his brothers . . . . He (the Admiral) and all the ringleaders of his sect were slain . . . . And what I most commend is the resolution taken by His Majesty to exterminate this vermin.

In his letter describing the massacre Salviati said: "I rejoice that it has pleased the Divine Majesty to take under His protection the King and the Queen-mother." Thus all the information received from France gave Gregory XIII the impression that Charles IX and his family had been saved from great danger. The very morning of the day that Beauvillier had brought him Salviati's letter, the pope held a consistory and announced that "God had been pleased to be merciful". Then with all the cardinals he repaired to the Church of St. Mark for the Te Deum, and prayed and ordered prayers that the Most Christian King might rid and purge his entire kingdom of the Huguenot plague. He believed that the Valois had just escaped a most terrible conspiracy which, had it succeeded, would have unfitted France for the struggle of Christian against Turk. On 8 September a procession of thanksgiving took place in Rome, and the pope, in a prayer after mass, thanked God for having "granted the Catholic people a glorious triumph over a perfidious race" (gloriosam de perfidis gentibus populo catholico loetitiam tribuisti).

A suddenly discovered plot, an exemplary chastisement administered to insure the safety of the royal family, such was the light in which Gregory XIII viewed the St. Bartholomew massacre, and such was likewise the idea entertained by the Spanish Ambassador who was there with him and who, on 8 September, wrote as follows: "I am certain that if the musket-shot fired at the Admiral was a matter of several days' premeditation and was authorized by the King, what followed was inspired by circumstances." These circumstances were the threats of the Huguenots, "the insolent taunts of the whole Huguenot party", alluded to by Salviati in his despatch of 2 September; to put it briefly, these circumstances constituted the conspiracy. However, the Cardinal of Lorraine, who belonged to the House of Guise and resided in Rome, wished to insinuate that the massacre had been planned long ahead by his family, and had a solemn inscription placed over the entrance to the Church of St. Louis des Français, proclaiming that the success achieved was an answer "to the prayers, supplications, sighs and meditation of twelve years"; this hypothesis, according to which the massacre was the result of prolonged hypocrisy, the outcome of a protracted ruse, was shortly afterwards maintained with great audacity in a book by Capilupi, Catherine's Italian panegyrist. But the Spanish Ambassador refuted this interpretation: "The French," wrote he, "would have it understood that their King meditated this stroke from the time that he concluded the peace with the Huguenots, and they attribute to him trickery that does not seem permissible even against heretics and rebels." And the ambassador was indignant at the Cardinal of Lorraine's folly in giving the Guises credit for having set a trap. The pope did not believe any more than did the Spanish Ambassador in a snare laid by Catholics, but was rather convinced that the conspiracy had been hatched by Protestants.

Just as the Turks had succumbed at Lepanto, the Protestants had succumbed in France. Gregory XIII ordered a jubilee in celebration of both events and engaged Vasari to paint side by side in one of the Vatican apartments scenes commemorative of the victory of Lepanto and of the triumph of the Most Christian King over the Huguenots. Finally, he had a medal struck representing an exterminating angel smiting the Huguenots with his sword, the inscription reading: Hugonottorum strages. There had been a slaughter of conspirators (strages) and the information that reached the pope was identical with that spread throughout Europe by Charles IX. On 21 September Charles IX wrote to Elizabeth of England concerning the "imminent danger" from the plot that he had baffled; on the next day he wrote as follows to La Mothe-Fénélon, his ambassador at London: "Coligny and his followers were all ready to visit upon us the same fate that we dealt out to them"; and to the German princes he sent similar information. Certainly all this seemed justified by the decree of the French magistracy ordering the admiral to be burned in effigy and prayers and processions of thanksgiving on each recurring 24 August, out of gratitude to God for the timely discovery of the conspiracy. It is not surprising, therefore, that, on 22 September, Gregory XIII should have written to Charles IX: "Sire, I thank God that He was pleased to preserve and defend Your Majesty, Her Majesty, the Queen-mother and Your Majesty's royal bothers from the horrible conspiracy. I do not think that in all history there is mention of such cruel malevolence." Nor again is it astonishing that the pope should have despatched Cardinal Orsini to Charles IX with congratulations on his escape. From Rome again Cardinal de Pellevé wrote to Catherine de' Medici: "Madame, the joy of all honest people in this city is complete, and never was there more glad-some news than that of Your Majesty being free from danger." The discourse delivered 3 December by Muret, the Humanist, was a veritable hymn of thanksgiving for the discovery of the plot contrived against the king and almost all the royal family.

The Huguenot party having plotted regicide had to be punished, and its punishment seemed once more to put France in condition to combat the Turks; such was the twofold aspect under which Rome considered the massacre. Besides, the pope's joy did not last long. A rather involved account by Brantôme leads us to think that, becoming better informed, he grew angry at the news of such barbarity, and it is certain that when, in October, 1572, the Cardinal of Lorraine wished to present Maurevel, who had fired on Coligny on 22 August, Gregory XIII refused to receive him, saying: "He is an assassin." Doubtless by this time the vague despatches sent by Salviati during the weeks preceding the massacre had, in the light of events, become more comprehensible and rendered it clearer that the origin of these tragic events was the assault of 22 August; without ceasing to rejoice that Charles IX had eventually escaped the conspiracy then commonly asserted in France and abroad, Gregory XIII judged the criminal, Maurevel, according to his deserts. The condemnation by Pius V of the "intrigues" against Coligny and the refusal of Gregory XIII to receive Maurevel "the assassin" establish the unbending rectitude of the papacy, which, eager as it was for the re-establishment of religious unity, never admitted the pagan theories of a certain raison d'état according to which the end justified the means. As to the congratulations and the manifestations of joy which the news of the massacre elicited from Gregory XIII, they can only be fairly judged by assuming that the Holy See, like all Europe and indeed many Frenchmen, believed in the existence of a Huguenot conspiracy of whose overthrow the Court boasted and whose punishment an obsequious parliament had completed.

Earlier authorities: Mémoires de Marguerite de Valois (coll. Petitot, XXXVII); Discours du Roi Henri III (coll. Petitot, XLIV); Mémoires de Tavanne (coll. du Panthéon littéraire); Correspondance de la Mothe-Fénelon, VII (Paris, 1840); ed. LA FERRIÈRE, Lettres de Catherine de Médicis, IV (Paris, 1891); Négociations diplomatiques de la France avec la Toscane, III; THEINER, Annales ecclesiastici, I (Rome, 1856); MARTIN, Relations des ambassadeurs vénétiens Giovanni Michieli et Sigismond Cavalli (Paris, 1872); Archives curieuses de l'histoire de France (series I, VII, 1835).

Modern works: SOLDAN, La France et la St. Barthélemy, tr. SCHMIDT (Paris, 1855); WHITE, The Massacre of Saint Bartholomew, preceded by a History of the Religious Wars in the Reign of Charles IX (London, 1868); BORDIER, La St. Barthélemy et la critique moderne (Geneva, 1871); LOISELEUR, Trois énigmes historiques (Paris, 1883); LA FERRIÈRE, La Saint Barthélemy, la veille, le jour, le lendemain (Paris, 1892); VACANDARD, Etudes de critique et d'histoire religieuse (3rd ed., Paris, 1906).

GEORGES GOYAU

Medal of Saint Benedict

A medal, originally a cross, dedicated to the devotion in honour of St. Benedict.

One side of the medal bears an image of St. Benedict, holding a cross in the right hand and the Holy Rule in the left. On the one side of the image is a cup, on the other a raven, and above the cup and the raven are inscribed the words: "Crux Sancti Patris Benedicti" (Cross of the Holy Father Benedict). Round the margin of the medal stands the legend "Ejus in obitu nro praesentia muniamus" (May we at our death be fortified by his presence). The reverse of the medal bears a cross with the initial letters of the words: "Crux Sacra Sit Mihi Lux" (The Holy Cross be my light), written downward on the perpendicular bar; the initial letters of the words, "Non Draco Sit Mihi Dux" (Let not the dragon be my guide), on the horizontal bar; and the initial letters of "Crux Sancti Patris Benedicti" in the angles of the cross. Round the margin stand the initial letters of the distich: "Vade Retro Satana, Nunquam Suade Mihi Vana — Sunt Mala Quae Libas, Ipse Venena Bibas" (Begone, Satan, do not suggest to me thy vanities — evil are the things thou profferest, drink thou thy own poison). At the top of the cross usually stands the word Pax (peace) or the monogram I H S (Jesus).

The medal just described is the so-called jubilee medal, which was struck first in 1880, to commemorate the fourteenth centenary of St. Benedict's birth. The Archabbey of Monte Cassino has the exclusive right to strike this medal. The ordinary medal of St. Benedict usually differs from the preceding in the omission of the words "Ejus in obitu etc.", and in a few minor details. (For the indulgences connected with it see Beringer, "Die Ablässe", Paderborn, 1906, p. 404-6.) The habitual wearer of the jubilee medal can gain all the indulgences connected with the ordinary medal and, in addition: (1) all the indulgences that could be gained by visiting the basilica, crypt, and tower of St. Benedict at Monte Cassino (Pius IX, 31 December, 1877); (2) a plenary indulgence on the feast of All Souls (from about two o'clock in the afternoon of 1 November to sunset of 2 November), as often as (toties quoties), after confession and Holy Communion, he visits any church or public oratory, praying there according to the intention of the pope, provided that he is hindered from visiting a church or public oratory of the Benedictines by sickness, monastic enclosure or a distance of at least 1000 steps. (Decr. 27 February, 1907, in Acta S. Sedis, LX, 246.) Any priest may receive the faculties to bless these medals.

It is doubtful when the Medal of St. Benedict originated. During a trial for witchcraft at Natternberg near the Abbey of Metten in Bavaria in the year 1647, the accused women testified that they had no power over Metten, which was under the protection of the cross. Upon investigation, a number of painted crosses, surrounded by the letters which are now found on Benedictine medals, were found on the walls of the abbey, but their meaning had been forgotten. Finally, in an old manuscript, written in 1415, was found a picture representing St. Benedict holding in one hand a staff which ends in a cross, and a scroll in the other. On the staff and scroll were written in full the words of which the mysterious letters were the initials. Medals bearing the image of St. Benedict, a cross, and these letters began now to be struck in Germany, and soon spread over Europe. They were first approved by Benedict XIV in his briefs of 23 December, 1741, and 12 March, 1742.

GUERANGER, Essai sur l'origine, la signification et les privileges de la medaille ou croix de S. Benoit (Poitiers, 1862; 11th ed., Paris, 1890); CORBIERRE, Numismatique Benedictine (Rome, 1901); KNIEL, Die St. Benediktsmedaille, ihre Geschichte, Bedeutung, Ablasse u. wunderbare Wirkungen (Ravensburg, 1905).

MICHAEL OTT

College of Saint Bonaventure

At Quaracchi, near Florence, Italy, famous as the centre of literary activity in the Order of Friars Minor, was founded 14 July, 1879, by Mgr. Bernardino del Vago, Archbishop of Sardis, then minister general of the order. The first director and superior of the college was Father Fidelis of Fauna, under whose scholarly and energetic management the new edition of the works of St. Bonaventure was inaugurated. Upon his death in 1881, Father Fidelis was succeeded by Ignatius Jeiler, of the province of Saxony. Besides being a man of profound piety, Father Jeiler possessed an intimate knowledge of scholastic philosophy and theology, especially that of St. Bonaventure, and was thus eminently fitted to take up the work of his predecessor. Two years before his death in 1904 Father Jeiler was succeeded by Leonard Lemmens, already well-known for his many contributions to Franciscan history. The series of works that have in recent years been published at Quaracchi, and edited by the "Patres editores", as they are usually called, have gained for them an enviable reputation for critical scholarship. Foremost among these, besides the "Opera Omnia" of St. Bonaventure, is the "Analecta Franciscana", edited in greatest part by Quinctianus Muller, O.F.M. (d. 1902), which contains a collection of chronicles relating to the early history of the order and of which four volumes have thus far (1885-1907) appeared. Besides these, the "Bibliotheca Franciscana scholastica medii aevi", of which three volumes have been published (1903-04), and the "Bibliotheca Franciscana ascetica medii aevi", inaugurated in 1904 with a critical edition of the writings of St. Francis, have placed the student of medieval literature under heavy obligations to the Quaracchi friars. As well as continuing the "Annales" of Wadding, the twenty-fifth volume of which appeared in 1899, the Fathers of the college have edited a number of other publications of a purely devotional and literary character. In 1903 a new critical edition of the work of Alexander of Hales was undertaken, which is to be followed by the other Franciscan scholastics. The "Acta Ordinis", a monthly in Latin, and the official organ of the order, and the new "Archivum Franciscano-Historicum", are published at Quaracchi.

St. Anthony's Almanac (1906); CARMICHAEL in The Month (Jan., 1904).

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Saint Boniface

(SANCTI BONIFACII)

Archdiocese; the chief ecclesiastical division of the Canadian West, so-called after the patron saint of the German soldiers who were among its first settlers.

SUCCESSIVE AREAS

It commenced its official existence as the vicariate-apostolic of the north-west in 1844, though Bishop Provencher, its titular, had been there with episcopal rank since 1822. At that time it comprised the entire territory west of the Great Lakes and as far north as the Pole. The same circumscription became a diocese without changing name on 4 June, 1847, but received in 1852 the title of Diocese of St. Boniface. In May, 1862, all the territory tributary to the Arctic Sea was detached therefrom and made into the Vicariate-Apostolic of Athabasca-Mackenzie. On 22 Sept., 1871, the See of St. Boniface was raised to the rank of an archbishopric, while, out of the north-western portion of its territory, a new diocese was being carved, with headquarters at St. Albert, near Edmonton. The northeastern part of this area further became in 1890 the Vicariate-Apostolic of the Saskatchewan, and this arrangement left to the Archdiocese of St. Boniface 109° W. long. for its western boundary, while in the north this ran along 52° N. lat. as far as the eastern limit of Manitoba, following afterwards the northern end of Lake Manitoba and the Nelson River to Fort York. The eastern boundary was 91° W. long. With the formation of the Diocese of Regina (4 March, 1910) new delimitations became necessary. They are the following: in the south the international boundary as far as 91° W. long.; thence north to a line continuous with the northern limits of Manitoba, as far as the line dividing this province from Saskatchewan, which now becomes the western limit of the archdiocese.

POPULATION AND ORGANIZATION

The Catholic population within the present area is 87,816. Though partaking of the cosmopolitan character proper to the Canadian West, the various groups in this population are more compact. Thus the 29,595 diocesans of French extraction control four counties absolutely. The nationality most numerously represented is that of the Galicians, who number 32,637. The English speaking Catholics live mostly in towns, and are estimated at 9485. The same might almost be said of the Poles, who number 9369. The Germans count 2062 souls, and the Indians about 2000. In 1853, when Mgr Taché succeeded Bishop Provencher, the entire diocese, vast as it then was, counted but two parishes with as many unorganized annexes, and three Indian missions with resident priests, Besides the bishop, 4 secular and 7 Oblate priests attended to the spiritual needs of the Catholic population. At the time of the accession of the present archbishop the number of parishes had grown to thirty-five, though the area of the diocese had in the meantime been considerably diminished. There were then 85 churches or chapels, with 67 priests, of whom 31 belonged to the secular clergy. To-day, with a still more reduced territory, the archdiocese counts 1 archbishop, 1 Roman prelate, and 162 priests, of whom 95 are members of the regular clergy. Apart from the two dignitaries, 138 of the priests have French for their mother-tongue; 9 are English-speaking; 6 are Poles, 5 Germans, 2 Dutch, 2 Galicians, and 1 Italian. The religious orders of men in the archdiocese are the following: Oblates of Mary Immaculate, 47 priests; Jesuits, 12; Canons Regular of the Immaculate Conception, 11; Trappists, 10.; Sons of Mary Immaculate, 9; Redemptorists, 4; Clerics of St. Viator, 2; Basllians of the Ruthenian Rite, 2. Independently of these two last, the Galician population is ministered to by 2 French priests who have adopted the Ruthenian Rite, as well as by a few Redemptorists and some Oblates, while 3 more French priests are in Austria preparing for the same ministry.

INSTITUTIONS

The institutions of the archdiocese are: 1 college under the Jesuits, with 350 pupils; 1 lower seminary (founded 1909) with 45 pupils; 1 Oblate juniorate; 2 general hospitals; 1 maternity hospital; 1 house of refuge for girls; 3 orphan asylums; 1 asylum for old people; and 6 Indian boarding schools. The State-supported Catholic schools having been officially abolished in 1890 (see Manitoba), the two cities of Winnipeg and Brandon, where the majority of the population is Protestant, force the Catholics to pay double taxes, since the latter have to maintain their own schools as well as those of the Protestants. But, in virtue of an agreement between the present archbishop and the Government, the country schools continue to be conducted along Catholic lines. The American Brothers of the Society of Mary direct the English parochial schools of Winnipeg and St. Boniface, while French Brothers of the Cross of Jesus render the same services at St. Pierre. As to the Orders of women within the archdiocese, they are: Grey Nuns (first arrived in 1844); Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary; Sisters of Notre Dame des Missions; Sisters of Providence; Sisters of St. Joseph; Sisters of Our Lady of the Cross; Sisters of the Five Wounds of Our Saviour; Sisters of Mercy; the Franciscan Missionaries Of Mary, and the Oblate Sisters of the Sacred Heart and Mary Immaculate, founded by the present archbishop.

HISTORY

The principal events in the history of the archdiocese are intimately connected with the lives of its bishops, which will be found under the heads Provencher and Taché. In addition to these and to the data already furnished in the course of the article are to be mentioned the burning (14 Dec., 1860) of the first stone cathedral, whose "turrets twain" have been sung by the poet Whittier. A new and somewhat more modest edifice was soon after put up, which had to be razed to make room for the monumental cathedral erected by Taché's successor, Archbishop Adélard L. P. Langevin, O.M.I. The new temple is a massive stone building of Byzantine style, with a reproduction of the "turrets twain) if the poet. With its sacristy it measures 312 feet in length and 280 feel along, inside with a proportionate width. Its first stone was laid on 15 Aug., 1906, and the edifice was solemnly blessed 4 Oct. 1908. In the modest church which it replaced the First Provincial Council of St. Boniface took place in 1889, with six bishops in attendance. The present incumbent of the see was b. at St. Isidore de Laprairie, Diocese of Montreal, 24 Aug., 1855, he became an oblate 25 July, 1882, and was consecrated at St. Boniface 19 March, 1895.

Quite a galaxy of brilliant public men have shed lustre on the still young Diocese of St. Boniface. Without mentioning several French half-breeds who occupied high posts on the bench or in the provincial legislature, we may name M. A. Girard, who was successively Member of Parliament, speaker of the Assembly and Premier of Manitoba; Joseph Royal, a writer of note, who, after having been a member of the Manitoba Government was appointed Governor of the North-West Territories; James McKay, a convert, who filled the role of President of the Council in the Girard Cabinet; Joseph Dubuc, who was successively legislator, Crown minister, and speaker of the legislature, and ended his public career as Chief Justice of his adoptive province.

The Official Catholic Directory (New York, 1911); and especially unpublished documents furnished by the Archdiocese of St. Boniface; MORICE E, History of the Catholic Church in Western Canada (Toronto, 1910).

A.G. MORICE

Saint-Brieuc

( Briocum)

Diocese; comprises the Department of the Côtes du Nord. Re-established by the Concordat of 1802 as suffragan of Tours, later, in 1850, suffragan of Rennes, the Diocese of Saint-Brieuc was made to include: (1) the ancient diocese of the same name; (2) the greater portion of the diocese of Tréguier; (3) a part of the old Diocese of St. Malo, Dol, and Quimper, and the (4) parishes of the of the Diocese of Vannes. In 1852 the Bishops of Saint-Brieuc were authorized to add to their title that of the ancient See of Tréguier.

[Ancient] Diocese of Saint-Brieuc

An Irish saint, Briocus (Brieue), who died at the beginning of the sixth century founded in honour of St. Stephen a monastery which afterwards bore his name, and from which sprang the town of Saint-Brieuc. An inscription later than the ninth century on his tomb, at Saint-Serge at Angers, mentions him as the first Bishop of Saint-Brieuc. According to Mgr. Duchesne certain trustworthy documents prove that it was King Nomenoe who, about the middle of the ninth century, made the monastery the seat of a bishopric. Among the Bishops of Saint-Brieue, the following are mentioned: St. Guillaume Pinchon (1220-34), who protected the rights of the episcopate against Pierre Mauclerc, Duke of Brittany, and was forced to go into exile for some time at Poitiers; Jean du Tillet (1553-64), later Bishop of Meaux; and Denis de La Barde (1641-75)

Diocese of Tréguier

St. Tudgual, nephew of St. Brieuc, was appointed by the latter at the close of the fifth century, superior of the monastery of Tréguier, which he had founded. The biography of St. Tudgual, composed after the middle of the ninth century, relates that King Childebert had him consecrated Bishop of Tréguier, but Mgr Ducheane holds that it was King Nomenoe who, in the middle of the ninth century, raised the monastery of Tréguier to the dignity of an episcopal see. The Diocese of Saint-Brieuc and Tréguier pays special honour to the following saints: St. Jacut, first Abbot of Landouart (died about 440); St. Mandez, member of a princely Irish family (sixth century); St. Briac, disciple of St. Tudgual; founder of the monastery around which the town of Boulbriac grew up (sixth century): St. Osmanna, an Irish princess, who took refuge and died near Saint-Brieue (seventh century); St. Maurice of Cornwall (1117-91), founder and first Abbot of Carnoet, in the Diocese of Quimper; St. Yves (1253-1303), born near Tréguier, ecclesiastical judge of the Diocese of Rennes, then of the Diocese of Tréguier, where he gained the name of "advocate of the poor". He was patron of the lawyers' confraternity, erected at Paris in the church of St. Yves des Bretons. His tomb, destroyed during the Revolution, was re-erected in 1890 in the cathedral of Tréguier, whither it draws many pilgrims. Numerous synods were held at Tréguier in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, and passed important regulations for the discipline of the Breton churches. Among the natives of the Diocese of Saint-Brieue are — Duclos (b. 1700 d. 1772), the historian of Louis XI (b. at Dinan); Ernest Renan (b. at Tréguier, 1823; d. 1892). The Benedictine historian Dom Lobineau died at the Abbey of St. Jacut, 1727. The town of La Roche Derrien, in the diocese, was the scene of the great battle between Jean de Montford and Blessed Charles of Blois (1346), after which the latter was taken as prisoner to England.

The principal pilgrimages in the Diocese of Saint-Brieuc are: Notre-Dame de Bon Secours at Guingamp the sanctuary of which was enriched by the munificence of the Dukes of Brittany; Notre Dame d'Espérance, at Saint-Brieuc, a pilgrimage dating from 1848; Notre Dame de La Fontaine at Saint-Brieuc, dating from the establishment of an oratory by Saint-Brieuc, and revived in 1893 to encourage devotion to that Saint; Notre Dame de Guyaudet, near St-Nicholas du Pélem. Notre Dame de LaRonce, at Rostrenen, a sanctuary raised to the collegiate dignity by Sixtus IV in 1483.

Before the application of the law of 1901 against the congregations there were in the Diocese of Saint-Brieuc, Eudists, Franciscans, Priests of the Immaculate Conception, Marists, Marianites, Salesians, Fathers of the Holy Ghost and the Holy Heart of Mary, Hospitaller Brothers of St. John of God, and various orders of brothers. Several congregation of nuns were founded in the diocese, particularly the Filles du Saint Esprit, hospitallers, teachers and nurses of the poor, founded in 1706 at Plerin by Mme. Balavoine and Renée Burel, with their mother-house at Saint-Brieuc; the Filles de Ste Marie de la Présentation, teachers and hospitallers, founded in 1836 by Abbé Fleury, their mother-house at Broons; the Filles de La Providence, a teaching body, founded by Abbé Jean-Marie de Lamennais, with its mother-house at Saint-Brieuc; the Filles de La Divina Providence, teachers and hospitallers, with their mother-house at Crehen. The Franciscan Missionaries of Mary was founded in 1880 at St. Joseph des Châtelets, near St-Brieuc, to assist the missionaries. It has (1911) seminary to prepare sisters for the foreign missions; houses of the institute have been established in China, India, Japan, Canada, Belgian Congo, and Madagascar. At the close of the nineteenth century the redirected in the diocese of Saint-Brieuc, 1 crèche, 33 schools, 1 school for the deaf and dumb, 2 boy' orphanages, 13 girls' orphanages, 1 penitentiary for boys, 7 homes for the poor, 13 hospitals or hospices, 6 houses of nuns devoted to nursing the sick the their own homes, 2 houses of retreat, 1 hospice for incurables, and 2 asylums for the insane. At the time of the destruction of the Concordat (1905) the Diocese of Saint-Brieuc contained 609,349 inhabitants, 48 parishes, 354 succursal parishes, 395 vicariates, towards the support of which the State contributed.

Galla christ (nova, 1856) XIV, 1085-1106; 1119-36; instrum., 261-7 RUFFLET, Annales Briochines ou abrégé chronologique de l'histoire ecclésiastique, civile et littéraire du diocèse de St-Brieuc, ed. ROPARTZ (Saint-Brieuc, 1850); GUIMART, Histoire des évêques de Saint-brieuc (Saint-Brieuc, 1852); GESLIN DE BOURGOGNE AND DE BARTHÉLEMY, Anciens évêché de Bretagne: Diocèse de Saint-Brieuc (6 vols., Paris, 1855-64); TREVAUX, L'Eglise de Bregagne, (Paris, 1939); CHEVALIER, Topo-bibl., pp. 2676-77; 3154.

GEORGE GOYAU

Saint-Claude

( Sancti Claudii).

The Diocese of Saint-Claude comprised in the eighteenth century only twenty-six parishes, subject previously to the Abbey of Saint-Claude, and some parishes detached from the Dioceses of Besançon and Lyons. By the Concordat of 1802, the territory of this diocese was included in that of Besançon. Later the Concordat of 1817 re-erected the Diocese of Saint-Claude giving it as territory the Department of Jura, and making it suffragan to Lyons. The Abbey of Saint-Claude, the cradle of the diocese, was one of the most distinguished in the Christian world. Between 425 and 430 the hermits of Saint Romanus and Saint Lupic withdrew into the desert Condat, where Saint-Claude now stands, and there founded the monastery of Condat: other monks were; attracted to them, the land was cleared, and three new monasteries were founded: those of Lauconne, on the site of the present village of Saint Lupicin; La Balme, where Yole, the sister of Sts. Romanus and Lupicinus, assembled her nuns; and Romainmoutier, in the present Canton of Vaud. After the death of St. Romeanus (d. about 460), St. Lupicinus (d. about 480), St. Mimausus, St. Oyent (d. about 510), St Antidiolus, St. Olympus, St. Sapiens, St. Thalasius, St. Dagamond, St. Auderic, and St. Injuriosus were abbots of Condat, which was distinguished also by the virtues of the holy monks, St=2E Sabinian, St. Palladius, and St. Valentine (fifth century), St. Justus, St. Hymetierus, and St. Point (sixth century). The rule which was followed at the beginning in the monastery of Condat was drawn up between 510 and 515 and adopted by the great monastery of Agaune; later the rule of St. Benedict was introduced at Condat. Flourishing schools arose at once around Condat and from them came St. Romanus, Archbishop of Reims, and St. Viventiolus, Archbishop of Lyons. In the early years of the sixth century the peasants who gathered around the monastery of Condat created the town which was to be known later by the name of Saint-Claude.

The Life of St. Claudius, Abbot of Condat, has been the subject of much controversy. Dom Benott says that he lived in the seventh century; that he had been Bishop of Besançon before being abbot, that he was fifty-five years an abbot, and died in 694. He left Condat in a very flourishing state to his successors, among whom were a certain number of saints: St. Rusticus, St. Aufredus, St. Hipplytus (d. after 776), St Vulfredus, St. Bertrand, St. Ribert, all belonging to the eighth century. Carloman, uncle of Charlemagne, went to Condat to become a religious; St Martin, a monk of Condat was martyred by the Saracens probably in the time of Charlemagne. this Emperor was a benefactor of the Abbey of Condat; but the two diplomas of Charlemagne, formerly in possession of the monks of Saint-Claude, and now preserved in the Jura archives, dealing with the temporal interests of the abbey, have been found by M. Poupardin to be forgeries, fabricated without doubt in the eleventh century. A monk of Condat, Venerable Manon, after having enriched the abbey library with precious manuscripts was, about 874, appointed by Charles the Bald, head of the Palace school where he had among his pupils, St. Radbod, Bishop of Utrecht. Two abbots of Condat, St. Remy (d. 875) and St. Aurelian (d. 895), filled the archiepiscopal See of Lyons. In the eleventh century the renown of Abbey of Condat was increased by St. Stephen of Beze (d. 1116) by St. Simon of Crepy (b. about 1048), a descendant of Charlemagne; this saint was brought up by Mathilda, wife of William the Conqueror, was made Count of Valois and Vexin, fought against Philip I, King of France, and then became a monk of Condat. He afterwards founded the monastery of Monthe, went to the court of William the Conqueror to bring about reconciliation with his son, Robert, and died in 1080.

The body of St. Claudius, which had been concealed at the time of the Saracen invasions, was discovered in 1160, visited in 1172 by St. Peter of Tarentaise, and solemnly carried all through Burgundy before being brought back to Condat. The abbey and the town, theretofore known as Oyent, were thenceforeward called by the name of Saint-Claude. Among those who made a pilgrimage to Saint-Claude were Philip the bold, Duke of burgundy, in 1369, 1376, and 1382, Philip the Good in 1422, 1442, and 1443, Charles the Rash in 1461, Louis XI in 1456 and 1482, blessed Amadeus IX, Duke of Savoy, in 1471. In 1500 Anne of Brittany, wife of Louis XII, went there in thanksgiving for the birth of her daughter Claudia. The territory of Saint-Claude forme a veritable state; it was a member of the Holy Empire, but it was not a fief, and was independent of the Countship of Burgundy. In 1291, Rudolph of Hapsburg named the dauphin, Humbert de Viennois, his vicar, and entrusted him with the defense of the monastery of Saint-Claude. In the course of time, the Abbey of Saint-Claude became a kind of Chapter, to enter which it was necessary to give proof of four degrees of nobility The system of "commendam" proved injurious to the religious life of the abbey. Among the commendatory abbots of Saint-Claude were Pierre de la Baume (1510-44) during whose administration Geneva fell away from the faith; Don Juan of Austria, natural son of Philip IV (1645-79), and Cardinal d'Estrées (1681-1714). The Abbey of Saint-Claude and the lands depending on it became French territory in 1674, on the conquest of La Franche-Comté. At that the inhabitants of La Franche-Comté took him as their second regional patron, and associated him everywhere with St. Andrew, the first patron of the Burgundians. Benedict XIII prepared and Benedict XIV published a Bull on 22 January, 1742, decreeing the secularization of the abbey and the erection of the episcopal See of Saint-Claude. The bishop, who bore the title of count, inherited all the seignorial rights of the abbot. Moreover the bishop and the canons continued to hold the dependents of the old abbey as subject to the mortmain, which meant that these men were incapable of disposing of their property. The lawyer, Christian, in 1770, waged a very vigorous campaign in favour of six communes that protested against the mortmain, and disputed the claims of the canons of Saint-Claude to the property rights of their lands. Voltaire intervened to help the communes. The Parliament of Besançon, in 1775, confirmed the rights of the Chapter; but the agitation excited by the philosophers apropos of those subject to the mortmain of Saint-Claude, was one of the signs of the approaching French Revolution. In March, 1794, the body of St. Claudius was burnt by order of the revolutionary authorities.

Dole, where Frederick Barbarossa constructed in the twelfth century an immense castle in which he sojourned from time to time, but which has now disappeared, and where Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy, established in 1422 a parliament and a university -- transferred in 1691 to Besançon by Louis XIV -- deserves mention in religious history. The Jesuits opened at Dole, in the sixteenth century, a celebrated establishment known as the Collège de l'Arc, the most important in France after the Collège de la Flèche. Anne de Sainctonge (1567-1621) founded there an important branch of the Ursulines, which left its mark in the history of primary education in France. The celebrated chemist, Pasteur (1822-95), was a native of Dole. Among the saints connected with the history of the diocese are: St. Anatolius, Bishop of Adana, in Cilicia, who died a hermit near Salins in the diocese (fifth century); St. Lautenus (477-547), founder of the monastery bearing his name; St. Bernond, who established the Benedictine abbey of Gigny and rebuilt in 926 the Benedictine abbey of Baume-les-Moines (ninth-tenth century); St. Colette of Corbie (1381-1447) (q.v.), foundress of the Poor Clare convent at Poligny in which town her relics are preserved; her friend Blessed Louise of Savoy (1462-1503), niece of Louis XI, King of France, and daughter of Blessed Amadeus IX of Savoy, wife of Hugue de Chalon, Lord of Nozeroy, then a Poor Clare in the monastery of Orbe founded by St. Colette; her relics were transferred to Nozeroy, and afterwards to Turin; Blessed John of Ghent, surnamed the hermit of Saint-Claude, celebrated in the fifteenth century for his prophecies in 1421 and 1422 to Charles VII and Henry V, King of England, relative to the deliverance of France and the birth of a dauphin; St. Francis de Sales; Ste Jane de Chantal, whose important interview at Saint-Claude in 1604 determined the foundation of the Visitation order; Venerable Frances Monet, in religion Françoise de Saint-Joseph (1589-1669); Carmelite nun at Avignon and miracle worker, born at Bonas in the diocese; Blessed Pierre François Néron, martyr, a native of the diocese (nineteenth century).

The principal pilgrimages in the Diocese of Saint-Claude are: the Church of St-Pierre at Baume-les-Moines, where numerous relics are preserved; Notre-Dame-de-Mont-Roland, end of the eleventh century; Notre-Dame-Miraculeuse, at Bletterans, 1490; Notre-Dame-de-la-Balme at Epy, sixteenth century; Notre-Dame-Libératrice, at Salins, 1639; Notre-Dame-de-Mièges, 1699; Notre-Dame-de-l'Ermitage, at Arbois, seventeenth century; Notre-Dame-du-Chêne, at Cousance, 1774. Before the application of the Law of 1901 against the congregations there were in the Diocese of Saint-Claude, Jesuits, and various teaching orders of brothers; the Trappists still remain there. Among the congregations of nuns which were first founded in the diocese are: the Soeurs du Saint-Esprit, teachers and hospitallers, with their mother-house at Poligny, and the Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis of the Immaculate Conception, teachers and hospitallers, with their mother-house at Lons-le-Saunier. At the close of the nineteenth century the religious congregations directed in the diocese 39 day nurseries, 2 asylums for invalids, 6 boys' orphanages, 1 home for the poor, 1 asylum for Magdalenes, 14 hospitals or hospices, 3 dispensaries, 23 houses of nuns devoted to nursing the sick in their own homes, 1 house of retreat, 2 hospices for incurables, and 1, asylum for the insane. At the end of the Concordat period (1905) the Diocese of Saint-Claude contained 261,288 inhabitants, 34 parishes, 356 sucursal parishes, 24 vicariates, towards the support of which the State contributed.

Gallia christiana (nova, 1728), IV, 241-254; BENOÎT Hist. de l'abbye et de la terre de S. Claude, (Montreuil-sur-mer, 1890); POUPARDIN, Etude sur les deux diplômes de Charlemagne pour l'abbaye de S. Claude in Moyen-âge (1903); LARBEY DE BILLY, Hist. de l'Université du comté de bougogne, (Bresançon, 1814); BEAUNE AND D'ARBAUMONT, Les universités de Franche-Comté, (Dijon, 1870); PUFFENEY, Hist. de Dole, (Besançon, 1882); PIDOUX, Hist. de la confrérie de Saint Yves des avocats, de la Sainte Hostie miraculeuse et de la confrérie du Saint Sacrement de Dole, (1902).

GEORGES GOYAU

Diocese of Saint Cloud

(SANCTI CLODOALDI),

A suffragan of the Archdiocese of St. Paul, Minn., comprises the counties of Stearns, Sherburne, Benton, Morrison, Mille Lacs, Kanabec, Grant, Pope, Stevens, Isanti, Traverse, Douglas, Wilkin, Otter-Tail, Todd, Wadena, in the State of Minnesota, an area of 12,251 square miles. The bishop resides in St. Cloud, Stearns county. In 1680 Father Hennepin visited the Indians at Mille Lacs, and for one hundred and seventy years no other priest came to these regions. In 1851, when this part of Minnesota was thrown open to white settlers, the history of the Diocese of St. Cloud begins. In 1852 Rev. Francis Pierz (Pirc), a native of Carniola, Austria, came from his former Indian missions at Lake Superior to Minnesota to labour among the Chippewa Indians. Finding the country well adapted to agriculture, he announced the fact in some Catholic German papers, and thus caused a large immigration of German Catholics, especially to Stearns county. In 1856 Bishop Cretin of St. Paul sent three Benedictines, Fathers Demetrius de Marogna, Cornelius Wittmann, and Bruno Riss, to attend the ever-ìncreasing numbers of settlers. They settled on a piece of land near the present city of St. Cloud, where they built a small log house and chapel. In 1857 they erected a college, and opened a school with five pupils. A change of location, however, was desirable, hence land was secured around St. John's Lake, and in 1866 a college and monastery were permanently established. They have now flourishing parishes and a university with more than three hundred students. The first abbot, Rt. Rev. Rupert Seidenbusch, was made Vicar Apostolic of Northern Minnesota (1875). He resided in St. Cloud until 1888 when, on account of poor health, he resigned. He built the present pro-cathedral and died 3 June, 1895. The present Diocese of St. Cloud was created in 1889 with Rt. Rev. Dr. Otto Zardetti as its first bishop. Dr. Zardetti, a native of Switzerland, was born 24 Jan., 1846. He was ordained priest 21 Aug., 1870, and in 1881 became professor of dogma in the St. Francis Seminary, near Milwaukee. In 1886 he was made vicar-general of Bishop Marty of Yankton. As Bishop of St. Cloud, he was extremely active, and renowned as a pulpit orator. In Feb., 1894, he was made Archbishop of Bucharest in Rumania and died at Rome 9 May, 1902. When he took charge of the Diocese of St. Cloud, he found about 30,000 souls in the charge of 69 priests, 52 religious and 17 diocesan. When he resigned, there were about 40,000 souls in the charge of 33 secular priests and 16 religious, besides 19 religious in the monastery. His successor was Rt. Rev. Martin Marty, O.S.B., also a native of Switzerland. In 1879 he was appointed Vicar Apostolic of Dakota, residing in Yankton, in 1889 first Bishop of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and 31 Dec., 1894, was transferred to St. Cloud. He took charge of the new see 12 March, 1895, but died 19 Sept., 1896. Rt. Rev. Mgr. Jos. Bauer was administrator of the diocese until 28 Sept., 1897, when the present bishop, James Trobec, arrived as third bishop of the diocese. There are about 62,000 souls; 125 priests, 78 secular and 47 religious; 115 churches and 12 chapels; 1 university; 2 academies; 4 hospitals; 1 home for old people; 1 orphan asylum; parochial schools wherever possible. The religious communities represented in the diocese are the Benedictines and the Holy Cross Fathers; the Benedictine Sisters, who number about 400 and have charge of parochial schools, a hospital, and a home for the aged; the Sisters of St. Francis, who have charge of an orphan asylum and three hospitals; the Sisters of St. Mary of the Presentation.

The Diocesan Chronicle.

JAMES TROBEC.

Jean-François Buisson de Saint-Cosme

(Or JEAN-FRANÇOIS BISSON DE SAINT-COSME)

Born in Quebec, Canada, February, 1667; killed, 1707. Entering the SÈminaire des Missions Etrangères of Quebec, he was ordained in 1690 and after serving for a time at Minas, Nova Scotia (then Acadia), was assigned to the western mission. He laboured for a time at the Cahokia (Tamaroa) mission in Illinois, until succeeded by Father Jean Bergier, probably about 1698, after which he followed Fathers Montigny and Davion, of the same seminary, to the lower Mississippi, and took up his residence among the Natchez, about the present Natchez, Mississippi, establishing the first mission in the tribe, apparently about the end of 1699. The tribes of this region, however, were generally obdurate and neither secular missionaries nor Jesuits met with success, so that by the end of 1704 all but the Natchez mission had been abandoned, leaving Father St-Cosme alone. After several years of unrequited labour, he was finally murdered, with three French companions and a slave, while descending the Mississippi, being attacked while asleep by a party of the savage Shetimasha. To avenge this death, Bienville, Governor of Louisiana, summoned the Natchez and other friendly tribes to take up arms against the Shetimasha, with the result that the latter tribe was almost exterminated. A cousin of the same name was also a priest in Quebec (b. 1660; d. 1712).

Shea, Catholic Missions (New York, 1854); Jesuit Relations, ed. Thwaites, LXV, note (Cleveland. 1896-1901); La Haye, Journal historique (New Orleans, 1831).

JAMES MOONEY

Abbey of Saint-Denis

The Abbey of Saint-Denis is situated in a small town to which it has given its name, about four miles north of Paris. St-Denis (Dionysius), the first bishop of Paris and his companions martyred in 270, were buried here and the small chapel built over the spot became a famous place of pilgrimage during the fifth and sixth centuries. In 630 King Dagobert founded the abbey for Benedictine monks, replacing the original chapel by a large basilica, of which but little now remains. He and his successors enriched the new foundation with many gifts and privileges and, possessing as it did the shrine of St-Denis, it became one of the richest and most important abbeys in France. In 653 it was made exempt from episcopal jurisdiction. A new church was commenced in 750 by Charlemagne, at the consecration of which Christ, according to popular tradition, was supposed to have assisted in person. During the ninth century irregularities crept in and the monks transformed themselves into canons with a relaxed rule. Abbot Hilduin tried in vain to reform them and was obliged to retire for a time, with a few of the more fervent monks, to a neighboring priory. At length, however, he succeeded in bringing about a better state of things and was able to resume the government of his abbey. From that time forward its splendour and importance continued to increase under the wise rule of a succession of great abbots, to whom the right of pontificalia was granted by Alexander III in 1179. Most famous perhaps amongst these was Suger, the thirty-sixth of the series (1122-52). Besides being a great ecclesiastic he was also a great statesman and acted as Regent of France whilst King Louis VII was absent on the Crusades. The present church of St-Denis was commenced by him about 1140 and marks the beginning of the Gothic tendency in architecture and its transition from the Romanesque style. Further additions and alterations under succeeding abbots resulted in producing one of the finest Gothic buildings in France (see GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE).

The abbey figured prominently in the history of France and its abbots were for several centuries amongst the chief seigneurs of the kingdom. The "Oriflamme", originally the banner of the abbey, became the standard of the kings of France and was suspended above the high altar, whence it was only removed when the king took the field in person. Its last appearance was at the battle of Agincourt in 1415. Joan of Arc hung up her arms in the church of St-Denis in 1429. Many kings and princes and other noble persons were buried there and three of the Roman pontiffs stayed in the abbey at different times: Stephen II in 754, Innocent II in 1131, and Eugenius III in 1146. Another great abbot, Matthieu de Vendome, acted as administrator of the kingdom when St. Louis went to the Crusades in 1269. After the Council of Trent the Abbey of St-Denis became the head of a congregation of ten monasteries, and in 1633 it was united, with its dependent houses, to the new Congregation of St-Maur, when its conventual buildings were entirely reconstructed. In 1691 Louis XVI suppressed the abbacy and united the monastery with its revenues to the royal house of noble ladies at St-Cyr, founded by Madame de Maintenon. The abbey was finally dissolved at the revolution, when much damage was done to the church and tombs. It was subsequently restored, under Napoleon III, by Viollet-le-Duc. The relics of St-Denis, which had been transferred to the parish church of the town in 1795, were brought back again to the abbey in 1819. It is now a "national monument" and one of the show-places of Paris. Many of the chartularies and other manuscripts relating to its history are now either in the Archives Nationales or the Bibliotheque Nationale.

STE. MARTHE, "Gallia Christiana," VII (Paris, 1744); DOUBLET, "Histoire de l'abbaye de Saint-Denys" (Paris, 1625); FELIBEIN, "Histoire de St-Denys" (Paris, 1706); DAVID, "Les Grandes Abbayes de l'Occident" (Lille, 1907); BEALE, "The Churches of Paris" (London, 1893).

G. CYPRIAN ALSTON

Saint-Denis

Diocese erected in 1850 as suffragan of Bordeaux, includes the Island of Réunion in the Indian Ocean about 350 miles cast of Madagascar. This island is 1000 sq. miles in area, and was discovered by the Portuguese, 8 February, 1513; it was originally called Sancta Appollonia, and later changed to Mascareigne from the name of their leader Mascarenhas. In 1638 a Frenchman named Gaubert hoisted the French flag there, and in 1642 Pronis, representing the Compagnie de Lorient, took possession of it in the name of the King of France. In 1646 twelve Madagascar colonists who had revolted were transported there, and in 1649 Flacourt, Pronis's successor, changed the name from Mascareigne to Island of Bourbon; from 1654 to 1658 an attempt was made by Antoine Thaureau, seven Frenchmen, and six negroes to colonize the west coast; in 1665 Regnault, who had been appointed governor of the island by the King, arrived with three ships bringing 20 labourers, a merchant, and 200 sick People, the first colonists of the island. The first apostles of Réunion were P. Louis de Matos, a Portugese, who on his return journey from Brazil built the chapel of Our Lady of the Angels (1667), and P. Jourdié, a Lazarist father, who remained on the island from 1667 to 1670. In 1674 P. Bernardin, a Capuchin, arrived from India; he drew up laws for hunting, planted cotton, taught the young girls to sew and spin, and was governor of the island from 1686 to 1689. In 1689 he went to France to lay the needs of the island before Louis XIV. In 1703 Cardinal MailIard de Toumon, on his way to India, called at Réunion and administered confirmation.

In 1711 Clement XI entrusted the island to Lazarist missionaries, who began work there in 1714. In 1848 the island took the name of Réunion, slavery was abolished, and two years later the see was established. The first bishop was Julien Desprez (1850-57), afterwards Archbishop of Toulouse and cardinal. In March, 1851, he set out in the corvette "Cassini". The captain in charge, François de Plas, the ensign Jaussier, and the lieutenant Alexis Clerc, afterwards became Jesuits; Clerc died a victim of the Paris Commune. Gauléjac, a midshipman on the same vessel, in after life became a Carthusian. The Réunion priests are trained in Paris at the Seminary of the Fathers of the Holy Ghost and Sacred Heart of Mary which serves as diocesan seminary. In 1905 (at the breach of the Concordat) the island contained one parish served by the Holy Ghost Fathers; the Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny, a nursing and teaching order, had 28 establishments there, and the Daughters of Mary, also a nursing and teaching order, conducted 10 establishments; the population was 173,000; there were 54 parishes and 74 priests.

Histoire abrégé de l'Ile Réunion, depuis sa découverte jusqu'en 1880 (Saint-Denis, 1883); GUET, Les origines de l'Ile Bourbon (Paris, 1885); Histoire du Cardinal Desprez (Paris, 1897).

GEORGES GOYAU

Saint-Dié

(SANCTI DEODATI)

Diocese comprising the Department of the Vosges. Suppressed by the Concordat of 1802 and then included in the Diocese of Nancy, it was re-established nominally by the Concordat of 1817, and in fact by a papal Bull of 6 October, 1822, and a royal ordinance of 13 January, 1823, as a suffragan of Besançon. The Treaty of Frankfort (1871) cut eighteen communes from the Department of the Vosges, and added them to the Diocese of Strasburg. The Diocese of St-Dié originated in the celebrated abbey of that name. St. Deodatus (Dié) (b. towards the close of the sixth century; d. 679) came from Le Nivernais, or, according to some authorities, from Ireland; attracted by the reputation of St. Columbanus he withdrew to the Vosges, sojourning at Romont, and Arentelle, and made the acquaintance of Sts Arbogast and Florentius. For some time he was a solitary at Wibra, doubtless the present Katzenthal on Alsace, but being persecuted by the inhabitants, he went to the Vosges and founded a monastery, which he named Galilée on lands (called "Juncturae") given to him by Childeric II. The town of St-Dié now stands on this site. At the same time, Leudin Bodo, Bishop of Toul, founded to the north of Galilée the monastery of Bonmoutier and to the south that of Etival; Saint Gondelbert, perhaps after resigning the Archbishopric of Sens, had just founded the monastery of Senones to the east. These four monasteries formed, by their geographical position the four extremities of a cross : Later, Saint Hidulphus, Bishop of Treves (d 707), erected between them at the intersection. of the two arms of the cross, the monastery of Moyenmoutier. Villigod and Martin (disciples of St-Dié), Abbot Spinulus (Spin), John the priest, and the deacon Benignus (disciples of St. Hidulphus) are honoured as saints. in the tenth cent of the Abbey of St-Dié grew lax, a Frederick I, Duke of Lorraine, expelled the Benedictines, replacing them by the Canons Regular of St Augustine. Gregory V, in 996, agreed to the change and decided that the grand preévôt, the principal dignitary of the abbey should depend directly upon the Holy See.

During the sixteenth century, profiting by the long vacancy of the See of Toul, the abbots of the several monasteries in the Vosges, without actually declaring themselves independent of the Diocese of Toul, claimed to exercise a quasi-episcopal jurisdiction as to the origin of which, however, they were not agreed; in the eighteenth century they pretended to be nullius dioceseos. In 1718, Thiard de Bissy Bishop of Toul, requested the election of a see at St-Dié Leopold; Duke of Lorraine, was in favour of this step, but the King of France opposed it; the Holy See refrained for the time from action. In 1777 a Bull of Pius VI erected the abbey of St-Dié into an episcopal see, and cut off from the Diocese of Toul (see NANCY, DIOCESE OF) the new Diocese of St-Dié, which, until the end of the old régime, was a suffragan of Trier. Louis Caverot, who died as Cardinal Archbishop of Lyons, was Bishop of St-Dié from 1849 to 1876.

The Abbey of Remiremont was founded about 620 by Saint Romaric, a lord at the court of Clotaire II, who, having been converted by Saint Amé, a monk of Luxeuil, took the habit at Luxeuil; it comprised a monastery of monks, among whose abbots were Sts. Amé (570-625), Romaric (580-653), and Adelphus (d. 670), and a monastery of nuns, which numbered among its abbesses Sts. Mactefelda (d. about 622), Claire (d. about 652), and Gébétrude (d. about 673). At a later period the Benedictine nuns were replaced by a chapter of ninety-eight canonesses who had to prove 200 years of nobility, and whose last abbess, under the old régime, was the Princess de Bourbon Condé, sister of the Duke of Enghien; she was prioress of the Monastery of the Temple at her death.

Besides the saints mentioned above and some others, bishops of Nancy and TouI, the, following are honoured in a special manner in the Diocese of St-Dié; St Sigisbert, King of Austrasia (630-56); St. Germain, a hermit near Remiremont, a martyr, who died Abbot of Grandval, near Basle (618-70); St. Hunna, a penitent at St-Dié (d. about 672); St. Dagobert, King of Austrasia, slain by his servant Grimoald (679) and honored as a martyr; St. Modesta, a nun at Remiremont, afterwards foundress and abbess of the monastery of Horren at Trier (seventh century); St. Goéry, Bishop of Metz (d. about 642), whose relics are preserved at Epinal and who is the patron of the butchers of the town; St. Simeon, Bishop of Metz (eighth century), whose relics are preserved at Senones; Sts. William and Achery, hermits near Ste. Marie aux Mines (ninth wife of Charles the Fat, who died as Abbess of Andlau in Alsace; Blessed Joan of Arc, b. at Domremy in the diocese; Venerable Mére Alix le Clerc (b. at Remiremont, 1516; d. 1622) and St. Peter Fourier (b. at Mericourt, 1555; d. 1640), curé of Mattaincourt, who founded the Order of Notre-Dame. Elizabeth de Ranfaing (b. at Remiremont, 1592; d. 1649) founded in the Diocese of Toul the congregation of Our Lady of Refuge; Catherine de Bar (b. at St-Dié, 1614; d. 1698), known as Mére Mechtilde of the Blessed Sacrament, at first an Annunciade nun and then a Benedictine, founded at Paris, in 1654, the Order of the Benedictines of the Perpetual Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament; following in her footsteps Elizabeth Brem (1609-68) known as Mother Benedict of the Passion (1609-68), a Benedictine nun at Rambervillers, established in that monastery the Institute of the Perpetual Adoration. The remains of Brother Joseph Formet, known as the hermit of Ventron (1724-84), are the object of a pilgrimage. Venerable Jean Martin Moye (1730-93), founder in Lorraine of the Congrégation de la Providence for, the instruction of young girls and apostle of Su-Tchuen, was director for a brief period of the seminary of St-Dié, and established at Essegney, in the diocese, one of the first novitiates of the Soeurs de la Providence (hospitallers and teachers), whose, mother-house at Portieux ruled over a large number of houses before the Law of 1901. Grandclaude, a village teacher who was sent to the Roman College in 1857 by Bishop Caverot, contributed, when a professor in the grand seminaire of St-Dié, to the revival of canon law studies in France.

It is interesting to note how at St-Dié, about the beginning of the sixteenth century, the newly discovered continent received the name of America. Vautrin Lud, Canon of St-Dié and chaplain and secretary of Renée II, Duke of Lorraine, set up a printing-establishment at St-Dié in which two Alsatian geographers, Martin Waldseemüller and, Mathias Ringmann, began at once to produce an edition of a Latin translation of Ptolemy's "geography". In l5O7 Renée II received from Lisbon the abridged account, written in French, of the four voyages of Vespucci. Lud had this translated into Latin by Basin de Sandaucourt. The printing of the translation was completed at St-Dié on 24 April, 1507; it was prefaced by a short writing entitled " Cosmographiae introductio", certainly the work of Waldseemüler, and was dedicated to Emperor Maximilian. In this preface Waldseemüller proposed the name of America. A second edition appeared at St-Dié in August, 1507, a third at Strasburg in 1509, and thus the name a of America was spread about. The work was re-edited with an English version by Charles Herbermann (New York, 1907). M Gallois has proved that in 1507 Waldseemüller inserted this name in two maps, but that in 1513, in other maps Waldseemüller, being better informed, inserted the name of Columbus as the discoverer of America. But it was too late; the name of America had been already firmly established.

The principal pilgrimages of the diocese are: Notre-Dame de St-Dié, at St-Dié, at the place where St. Dié erected his first sanctuary; Notre-Dame du Trésor, at Remiremont; Notre-Dame de Consolation, at Epinal; Notre-Dame de la Brosse, at Bains; Notre-Dame de Bermont, near Domremy, the sanctuary at which Joan of Arc prayed; and the tomb of St. Peter Fourrier at Mattaincourt. There were in the diocese before the application of the Law of 1901 against the congregations: Canons of Lateran; Clerks Regular of Our Saviour; Eudistes; Franciscans, Fathers of the Holy Ghost and the Holy Heart of Mary; various teaching orders of brothers. Among the congregations of nuns founded in the diocese may be mentioned besides the Sisters of Providence, the Soeurs du Pauvre Enfant Jésus (also known as the Soeurs de la bienfaisance chrétienne), teachers and hospitallers, founded in 1854 at Chemoy l'Orgueilleux; the mother-house was transferred to Remiremont. At the close of the nineteenth century the religious congregations in the diocese directed: 7 créchés; 55 day nurseries; 1 orphanage for boys and girls; 19 girls' orphanages; 13 workshops; 1 house of refuge; 4 houses for the assistance of the poor, 36 hospitals or hospices; 11 houses of nuns devoted to the care of the sick in their own homes; and 1 insane asylum. The Diocese of St-Dié had, in 1905 (at the time of the rupture of the Concordat), 421,104 inhabitants; 32 parishes; 354 succursal parishes; and 49 vicariates supported by the State.

Gallia christ. nova, XIII (1785), 1064-7, 1377-83, 1407-19; MARTIN, Hist. des dioceses de Toul, de Nancy et de St-Dié (3 vols., Nancy, 1900-3); DIDELOT, Remiremont, les saints, le chapitre, la revolution (Nancy, 1888); L'HOTE, La vie des Saints, bienheureux, venerables et autres pieux personnages du diocese de St-Die (2 vols., St-Dié, 1897); GALLOIS, Americ Vespuce et les géographe de St-Dié in Bull. de la Soc. de Géogr. de l'Est (1900).

GEORGES GOYAU

Charles Sainte-Claire Deville

Geologist, b. at St. Thomas, West Indies, 26 February, 1814; d. in Paris 10 October, 1876. Going to Paris at an early age, he entered the Ecole des Mines and studied there. His first work in the scientific field included a series of explorations in the Antilles, in which he gave special attention to seismic and volcanic phenomena. He returned in 1855, and three years later visited Vesuvius and Stromboli in pursuit of his volcanic studies. He evolved the theory that volcanic eruptions are due to the entrance of sea water into the fissures of the earth's crust; coming in contact with hot rocks, it produces the explosive and eruptive manifestations. This was confirmed in his mind by the fact that so many volcanoes are near the sea-coast. In 1857 he became a member of the Académie des Sciences of Paris. He was an assistant to Elie de Beaumont in the Collége de France, and succeeded him as professor in 1875. Previous to this (in 1872) he had been made Inspector General of the Meteorological Service. He established a chain of meteorologic stations through France and Algiers, and was first president of the observatory in Mountsouris, one of this chain. He replaced Dufrémy in the Académie des Sciences. He also did much work in chemistry, notably in the analysis of minerals and also in molecular physics. Since 1862 he had been an officer of the Legion of Honour. His works, including papers and notes in "Comptes Rendus" and in the "Annales de Chimie" are very numerous; the most important are the following: "Etudes géologiques sur les Iles de Ténériffe et de Fogo" (1846), not completed; "Voyage géoIogique aux Antilles et aux Iles de Ténériffe et de, Fogo" (1847); "Lettres à M. Elie de Baumont sur l'éruption du Vésuve"; "Comptes Rendus d l'Académie des Sciences" (1855); "Eruptions actuelles du volcan de Stromboli"; "Recherches sur les principaux phénomènes de metéorologie et de physique terrestre aux Antilles" (1861).

POGGFENDORFF, Biograph. lliterar. Handwörterbuch, III (1898), 2; VAPEREAU, Dict. univ. des contemporains, V (1st ed.); KNELLER, Das Christentum u. die Vertreter der neueren Naturwissenchaften (Freiburg, 1904), tr. KETTLE (St. Louis, 1911).

T. O'CONOR SLOAN

Henri-Etienne Sainte-Claire Deville

Chemist, b. at St. Thomas, West Indies, 11 March, 1818; d. at Boulogne, 1 July, 1881; brother of the preceding. Finishing his classical studies in Paris, he built himself a laboratory there and worked for eight years without teachers or students. He acquired much fame by his work, and in 1844 the government entrusted him with the organization of the faculty of sciences of Besançon. He was professor and dean there from 1845 to 1851. In 1851 he was called to Paris as maître des conférences in the Ecole Normale Supérieure replacing Balard. In 1853 he replaced Dumas in the Sorbonne and succeeded him as professor in 1859. In 1861 he was made a member of the Academy of Sciences. His work in mineral chemistry entitles him to be considered one of the great chemists of the second half of the nineteenth century. He discovered the phenomenon of dissociation, his first notion of this going back to 1857. He discovered nitrogen pentoxide, the anhydride of nitric acid. Woehler, the great German chemist, had discovered aluminum in 1827. Deville worked on the metallurgy of the metal, and devised a means of preparing it by decomposing aluminium sodium chloride with metallic sodium. This was the first commercial process of producing the metal, which was for some time almost a curiosity, but whose uses are now so extensive. Napoleon III was greatly interested in the new metal, the "silver of clay". Debray was associated with him in his work; and it is interesting to see how, after over fifty-six years, the metal has been introduced on a large scale into mechanical use. In the technical field he worked upon the use of petroleum and heavy oils as fuels, where he was also a leader in one of the prominent movements of the present day, the use of crude petroleum as fuel for the production of steam. Many of his memoirs are published in the "Comptes rendues" and "Annales". Among his works we may cite: "De l'aluminium, ses propriétés, sa fabrication" (Paris, 1859); Métallurgie du platine et des métaux qui l'accompangnent" (Paris, 1863).

GAY, Henri St. Claire-Deville, sa vie et ses travaux (Paris, 1889); VAPEREAU, Dictionnaire universel des contemporains; POGGENDORFF, Biographisches literarisches Handworterbuch, III (1898) 2.

T. O'CONOR SLOANE

Abbey of Sainte-Geneviève

The Abbey of Sainte-Geneviève, in Paris, was founded by King Clovis who established there a college of clerics, later called canons regular. How long these clerics observed the regular life is unknown, but in 1147 secular canons officiated in the church. King Louis VII and Pope III, having witnessed some disorders, determined to restore the regular discipline and at first thought to call monks, but as the canons preferred some of their own order, the pope consented. At the request of Sugerus and St. Bernard, Gildwin, the first Abbot of St-Victor's, St. Bernard, Gildwin, the first Abbot of St-Victor's where the canonical rule had been recently established, consented to send Odo, the Prior of his abbey. There were difficulties, but order finally prevailed and some of the canons joined the reform. Among these was the young Canon William, already known for his virtues and learning. At the request of Absalon, Bishop of Roskild, in Denmark, who when a student at Ste-Geneviève's had known him, William was sent to that country to reform a monastery of canons in the Isle of Eskil. In spite of untold trials, obstacles, and persecutions he succeeded in his enterprise and even founded another monastery, which he dedicated to the Holy Paraclete. He died in 1206, and was canonized by Honorius III. It was natural that close relations should exist between Ste-Geneviève's and its foundations in Denmark. Peter, a young man who made his profession at the abbey, became Bishop of Roskild; Valdemar, brother of King Knut, died at Ste-Geneviève's; and Abbot Stephen of Tournai wrote to William and his friends to obtain lead for the roof of his abbey.

Like the Abbey of St-Victor, Ste-Geneviève's became a celebrated seat of learning. St-Victor's, Ste-Geneviève's, and Notre-Dame were the cradle of the University of Paris. Abelard at different epochs lectured in this abbey-school. By right and custom the two sister-abbeys frequently exchanged subjects. Peter de Ferrière, Abbot of St-Victor's was at one time prior of Epinay, a priory of Ste-Geneviève's; William of Auxerre, a professed canon of St-Victor's in 1254, held the office of cellarer, and became Abbot of Ste-Geneviève's; and Marcel, successively canon at St-Victor's and Ste-Geneviève's, was in 1198 made Abbot of Cisoing. Like most religious houses, this abbey, falling into the hands of abbots in commendam, relaxation and disorders were the consequence. In the beginning of the seventeenth century Cardinal de La Rochefoucauld undertook its reform. He brought from Senlis a holy man, Charles Faure, who had already restored the canonical rule in the ancient Abbey of Silvanect. Once more the Rule of St. Augustine was faithfully observed at Ste-Geneviève's which became the mother-house of the Gallican congregaton. Charled Faure, died in 1644. The second spring of the abbey was perhaps even more glorious than the first. By the middle of the seventeenth century the abbot-general of the congregation had under his jurisdiction more than one hundred abbeys and priories. Men like Fronteau, chancellor of the university and author of many works, Laleman, Chapponel, Reginier, Chengot, Beurier, du Moulinet, founder of the national library, and Augustine Hay, a Scotchman who wrote the "Scotia sacra" and officated at Holyrood, Scotland, in 1687, were sons of the French congregation. When in 1790 the revolutionary assembly declared all religious vows void, and opened the doors to all the inmates of the monasteries, there were thirty-nine canons at Ste-Geneviève's. This was the end of that illustrious abbey and school.

BONNARD, Histoire de l'abbaye de St-Victor de Paris (1907); Gautier, Adam de St-Victor (Paris, 1858; Marion Histoire de l'Eglise (Paris, 1908); Vuillemin, Vie de S. Peirre Fourier (Paris, 1897).

A. ALLARIA

Saint-Flour

( Floropolis)

Diocese comprising the Department of Cantal, and is suffragan of the Archbishopric of Bourges. Re-established by the Concordat of 1802, by which the Department of Haute-Loire was brought into this diocese, this department was detached from it in 1823 by the reestablishment of the See of Le Puy. The traditions relative to St. Florus (Flour), who is said to have been the first Bishop of Lodève and to have died at Indiciat (later Saint-Flour) while evangelizing Haute-Auvergne, have been the subject of numerous discussions. In two documents concerning the foundation of the second monastery of St-Flour, drawn up in 1013 and 1031, and in a letter written to Urban IV in 1261 by Pierre de Saint-Haon, prior of Saint-Flour, St. Flour is already considered as belonging to the Apostolic times, and the "Speculum sanctorale" of Bernard Gui in 1329 relates at length the legend of this "disciple of Christ". M. Marcellin Boudet believes it more likely that St. Flour lived in the fifth century, and that it was he who attended the Council of Arles in 450 or 451.

At the close of the tenth century there was already a monastery at Indiciat. A local seigneur, Astorg de Brezons, surnamed "the Red Bull", gave this monastery to Odilo, Abbot of Cluny, and the donation was confirmed by Gregory V (996-99). Amblard de Brezons, his nephew, surnamed "le Mal Hiverné", seized the monastery and destroyed all of it except the church. Amblard and Astorg, from 1010 to 1013, gave this church and its fief to St. Peter's at Rome, together with the monastery of Sauxillages, governed by Odilo; but later Amblard considered this donation as void, and constructed a fortress, a remnant of which is now the sacristy of the cathedral, upon the site of the old monastery; afterwards Amblard, seized with remorse at Rome, between 1025 and 1031 gave back to Odilo all he possessed, and a large monastery was again founded. Urban II, after the Council of Clermont (1095), consecrated the church of this new monastery. The church collapsed in 1396, and no remains of it exist. Pope Callistus II passed some time there. In August, 1317, John XXII detached Haute-Auvergne from the see of Clermont and raised St-Flour to the rank of a bishopric, the first ordinary of which was his chaplain Raymond de Montuéjols. Among his successors were Pierre d'Estaing (1361-67), afterwards Archbishop of Bourges and cardinal in 1370; Louis-Siffrein-Joseph de Salamon (1820-29), former counseiller-clerc to the Parliament of Paris, who during the Revolution had secretly acted in France as the pope's agent, a rôle concerning which he has left very important memoirs.

The Abbey of Aurillac was celebrated: it was founded by St. Géraud, Count of Aurillac, who in 898 brought thither monks from Vabres; it soon became well known, according to John of Salisbury, as a centre of literacy and scientific studies: Gerbert (later Sylvester II), and Guillaume d'Auvergne, friend and confidant of Saint Louis, studied there. St. Odo, Abbot of Cluny, from 926 to 943, was at first a monk at Saint-Pierre de Mauriae, and, according to some, Abbot of Aurillac. St. Peter Chavanon, founder in 1062 of the monastery of Pébrac, in the Diocese of Le Puy, was for some time superior of the Abbey of Chazes, near Vic. The tragic poet de Belloy (1727-95), author of the celebrated tragedy on the Siege of Calais, was born at Saint-Flour. Louis-Antoine de Noailles (1651-1729), Archbishop of Paris, was born at Laroquebrou in the diocese. Abbé Jean Chappe d'Auteroche (1722-69), astronomer, who in 1769 went to California to observe the transit of Venus and died there of a contagious disease, was a native of Mauriae. Abbé de Pradt (1759-1837) was born at Allanche. The Diocese of Saint-Flour is remarkable among the French dioceses for the great number of its sanctuaries and pilgrimages dedicated to the Blessed Virgin. There are sixty-five, of which the following are the more important: Notre-Dame de Claviers, at Moussages, the statue of which is the most ancient in the diocese; Notre-Dame des Miracles, at Mauriac, sixth century; o Notre-Dame de Frodière, at Saint-Flour, eleventh century; Notre-Dame de' Laurie, at Laurie, an eleventh-century sanctuary; Notre-Dame de Bon Secours at Marmanhac; Notre-Dame de Quezac, which is visited annually by between 20,000 and 30,000 pilgrims; Notre-Dam de Vau Claire, at Molompise — these three dating-back to the twelfth century; Notre-Dame de Valentines at Ségur, belong to the thirteenth century; Notre-Dame de Turlande at Paulhenc, Notre-Dame de Villedieu, both dating to the fourteenth century; Notre-Dame de Pitié at Chaudesaigues; Notre-Dame de Puy Rachat, at Nieudan; Notre-Dame des Oliviers, at Marat, all three dating back to the fifteenth century; Notre-Dame d'Aubespyre, at Aubespeyre; Notre-Dame dela font Sainte, at St. Hippolyte, visited annually by between 10,000 and 12,000 pilgrims; Notre-Dame de Pailherols; Notre Dame aux Neiges, at Aurillac, all four dating back to the sixteenth century; Notre-Dame de Guérison, at Enchanet; Notre-Dame de Lescure, both dating back to the eighteenth century.

The "Revue catholique des églises" published in 1905, an interesting monograph of the diocese; it shows that 50 percent of the men go to Mass each Sunday, 25 per cent go every second Sunday, and 70 per cent fulfill their Easter duty. An interesting work is the "Œuvre des bergers", which assembles several hundred shepherds from the neighbouring regions each year at Pailherols and La Font Sainte for a day's religious exercises, the only one which they can have during the five months that they pass alone in the mountains. Before the application of the law of 1901 on the associations, there were in the Diocese of Saint-Flour Lazarists and various teaching orders of brothers. Some congregations of nuns have their mother-houses in the diocese, in particular: the Soeurs de Saint Joseph, with their mother-house at Saint-Flour; the Petites Soeurs des Malades, with their mother-house at Mauriac; the Soeurs de l'Enfant Jesus, dites de l'instruction; and the Soeurs de la Sainte Famille, with their mother-house at Aurillac. At the close of the nineteenth century the religious congregations directed in the diocese, 1 crèche, 12 refuge halls, 1 school for the deaf and dumb, 1 boys' orphanage, 6 girls' orphanages, 1 home for honest poor girls, 1 hospice for incurables, 1 asylum for the insane, 1 dispensary, 1 house of retreat, I house of nuns devoted to nursing the sick in their own homes, 13 hospitals or hospices. At the time of the destruction of the concordat (1905) the Diocese of Saint-Flour contained 230,511 inhabitants, 24 parishes, 288 succursal churches, and 190 vicariates towards the support of which the State contributed.

Gallia Christiana nova (1720), 419-437. and instr., 127-162: BOUDET, La lgene de St. Florus d'après les textes les plus anciens; additions aux nouveax Bollandistes in Annales du Midi (1895); IDEM, La Légende de St. Florus et ses fables (Clermont,1897); CHAUMEIL, Biographie des personnes remarquables de la Haute Auvergne, précédé d'un essai sur l'histoire religieuse de cette demi-province, (Saint-Flour, 1867); FROMENT, Esquisse historique sur le monastère et la ville de St-Flour in Revue d'Auvergne (1885); CHABAU, Pèlerinages et sanctuaires de la Sainite vierge dans le diocèse de St-Flour, (Paris, 1889); ROUCHY, Le diocèse de St. Flour in Revue catholique des èglises (1905).

GEORGES GOYAU

Saint Francis Mission

(Properly Saint François de Sales, Quebec)

A noted Catholic Indian mission village under Jesuit control near Pierreville, Yamaska district, Province of Quebec, Canada. It was originally established (1683) at the falls of the Chaudière, on the south side of the St. Lawrence, above Quebec, as a refuge for the Abnaki and Pennacook Indians who were driven from New England by the wars of that and the subsequent colonial period: these tribes were French in sympathy and, especially the Abnaki, largely Catholic in religion through the efforts of the Jesuit missionaries. The Algonquin, Montagnais, and Micmac of Canada as well as the Nipmuc and others of southern New England were also largely represented, but from the final preponderance of the Abnaki their language became that of the mission. In 1700 the mission was removed to its present situation. After the destruction of Norridgewock and the death of Father Sebastian Rasle at the hands of the New England men in 1724, the majority of the Abnaki removed to Canada and settled at Saint Francis, which became thenceforth a centre of Indian hostility against New England. In 1759 a strong New England force under Major Rogers surprised and destroyed the settlement, including the mission church and records, killing 200 Indians. It was soon rebuilt and still exists as one of the oldest mission settlements of Canada. In the war of the Revolution and again in the war of 1812, a number of the men fought on the British side. Among the Jesuit workers at St. Francis the most distinguished name is that of the venerable Father Joseph AubÈry, in charge from 1709 until his death in 1755, who before coming to the mission had served ten years with the Micmac of Nova Scotia. Having mastered the Abnaki language he wrote much in it, his most important contribution being a manuscript French-Abnaki dictionary, which is still preserved in the archives of the mission. Owing to the former migratory habit of the Indians the population of the mission varied greatly at different periods, but is estimated to-day (1911) at approximately three hundred souls, all of mixed blood, and more French than Indian in characteristic, although they still retain their old language in their homes. Their chief industry is basket-making, which furnishes a comfortable income. (See also PENOBSCOT INDIANS; MISSIONS, CATHOLIC INDIAN, OF THE UNITED STATES. — New England.)

Jesuit Relations, ed. Thwaites (73 vols., Cleveland, 1896-1901), particularly Abnaki, Lower Canada, Quebec; Annual Reports of Dept. of Ind. Affairs, Ottawa (Canada); Maurault, Hist. des Abenakis (Quebec, 1866); Shea, Catholic Missions (New York, 1855); Pilling, Bibliography of the Algonquian Languages (Bur. Amer. Ethnology. Washington, 1891).

JAMES MOONEY

Saint Gall

(The Diocese of Saint Gall; Sangallensis)

A Swiss bishopric directly subject to the Holy See. It includes the Canton of St. Gall and, as a temporary arrangement, the two half-cantons of Appenzell Outer Rhodes and Appenzell Inner Rhodes. In 1910 its statistics were: 9 deaneries, each directed by a dean; 117 parishes; 116 additional cures of souls; 128 Catholic teachers; 233 secular priests; 46 regular priests; about 169,000 Catholics; and a non-Catholic population of 152,000. The bishop is elected by the cathedral chapter within three months after the see falls vacant. According to the concordat of the Canton of St. Gall with the Holy See, he must be a secular priest of the diocese and must be approved by the Catholic collegium of the cantonal great council. The bishop has a cathedral chapter of five resident and eight honorary canons, with a cathedral dean as its head. The resident canons have charge of the cathedral services and the care of the cathedral parish, in which they are aided by 3 coadjutors and 3 vicars. Besides the chapter there is also a vicar-general. For the training of the clergy there is a seminary for priests at St. Gall which, however, is limited to the actual practical seminary course of a six months term. As a rule the students of theology attend for their academic training the theological faculties of the Universities of Innsbruck and Fribourg in Switzerland. The male orders are represented in the diocese only by 4 Capuchin monasteries. The female orders in the diocese are: 1 house of Benedictine nuns; 2 of Cistercian nuns; 2 of Dominican nuns; 8 of Franciscan nuns; 1 of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd; 2 of the School Sisters of the Holy Cross; 1 of Premonstratensian nuns; 1 of the Italian-Missionary Sisters of St. Francis; and numerous houses of Sisters of Charity of the Holy Cross (Ingenbohl Sisters). The most noted church of the diocese is the cathedral, the church of the former Benedictine abbey (see above). Among other of pilgrimage are: the Wildkirchlein, on the Santis; the little monastery of Notkersegg, near St. Gall; the parish church at Kirchberg, in the District of Toggenburg; and Dreibrunnen, near Wil. Catholic associations are highly developed; a Catholic congress is held annually in the diocese. There are 12 Catholic newspapers, of which the "Ostschweiz", published at St. Gall, is the most important.

HISTORY

The Abbots of St. Gall had exercised nearly all the rights of episcopal jurisdiction within their territory. After the suppression of the ancient abbey. there was evident need of a reorganization of ecclesiastical affairs, which had sunk into a deplorable decay, and the plan was proposed to replace the abbey by a Diocese of St. Gall. At that era a part of the present territory of the diocese belonged ecclestically to the Diocese of Chur, and another part to the Diocese of Constance. In 1815 the Swiss part of the Diocese of Constance was separated from Constance by Pope Pius VII, and placed under the provisional administration of Provost Goldin of Beromüster, in the Canton of Lucern. On the death of the provost in 1819 this district fell to the Diocese of Chur. The arrangement, however, was only intended to be a temporary one. After long negotiations the desired Diocese of St. Gall was established in 1823, but it was connected by personal union with the Diocese of Chur. However, the abbey church of St. Gall that was raised to a cathedral received a separate cathedral chapter and an independent seminary. The Bishop also was obliged to live alternately at Chur and at St. Gall. This double diocese satisfied neither the inhabitants of the Grisons nor those of St. Gall. The former wanted their bishop for themselves, the latter feared that the Bishop of Chur might regard St. Gall merely as an appendage of his old diocese and look down on it. Moreover, the government of the Canton of St. Gall meddled incessantly in ecclesiastical matters and in the Church's right of jurisdiction, and demanded for itself the right of approval (placetum regium) in all more important discipline. When therefore the bishop, Count von Buolschauenstein (1823-35), died, the governments of both cantons refused to recognize his successor, and the Catholic collegium of the great council of St. Gall appointed an episcopal administrator, Father Zürcher, for the Catholics of the canton. Finally Gregory XVI, at the request of the Canton of St. Gall, suppressed the double diocese and erected in 1836 a Vicariate Apostolic of St. Gall; the vicar Apostolic was Johann-Peter Mirer of Upper Saxony, parish priest of Sargans.

Negotiations concerning the erection of a separate Diocese of St. Gall were soon begun with Rome in order to bring this state of affairs to an end. It was, however, only after great difficulties that an agreement was made that was satisfactory both to the Holy See and to the Canton of St. Gall. In 1845 the Concordat was signed by the papal nuncio and the authorities of the canton; on 12 April, 1847, Pius IX issued the Bull of circumscription, and on 29 June Mirer was consecrated in the cathedral as first Bishop of St. Gall. The new bishopric had soon a hard fight to wage with the Liberal party, which had gained ascendancy in the canton from 1855, as to the rights and liberties of the Church. The bishop, a highly talented and very orthodox man, was ably and vigorously supported in this struggle by Father Greith, Gallus Baumgartner (father of the celebrated Jesuit Alexander Baumgartner) the jurist Leonhard Grün (president of the Catholic administrative council), and the advocate J.J. Müller. Yet, notwithstanding all their efforts, they could not prevent the suppression of the newly-established Catholic lyceum, the wasting of a part of the diocesan funds, or the combination of the Catholic cantonal school with the Protestant town gymnasium to form a school in which both religions were placed on a parity, to put an end to ecclesiastical influence in education. These actions were the result of the terrorism of the Liberal Party (see on these events Greith, "Die Lage der katholischen Kirche unter der Herrschaft des Staatskirchentums in Sankt Gallen", St. Gall, 1858). The diocese, however, maintained itself notwithstanding the storms, and Catholic religious life developed and flourished greatly. A large part of the credit for this prosperity was due to Karl Johann Greith, who was elected bishop after Mirer's death in 1862. Not long after his consecration Greith was also made provisional administrator of the Canton of Appenzell, which, after the dissolution of the Diocese of Constance, had up to then been administered by Chur. This provisional administration has become in fact, although not legally, a permanent condition.

After a few years of quiet new discords broke out in the diocese in connection with the Old-Catholic movement in Switzerland, and Greith was accused of contravening the concordat and the constitutional oath. It did not, indeed, go as far as the deposition of the bishop, as Liberals demanded, but the episcopal seminary for boys, which Greith had founded and maintained at a great sacrifice of money and time, was closed in 1874 by the government, and has not so far been reopened. Soon after this, civil marriage was introduced by the law of the Swiss Confederation, and the religious education of the young was endangered by the introduction of irreligious school books, and by forcibly putting both religions on a parity in the schools. Greith was succeeded by his vicar-general Augustinus Egger (1882-1906). A widely-read author and a skilful orator, he deserves much credit for what he did to encourage Catholic life, not only in his own diocese but also in the whole of Switzerland. During his administration the extreme Radical government of the Canton of St. Gall was replaced by a moderate one, and the new constitution of 1890 has brought about a more satisfactory state of affairs between Church and State. According to Article 24 of the constitution the ecclesiastical authorities alone have charge of religious and purely ecclesiastical matters. The Catholic and Protestant districts of the canton settle their own denominational organization subject to the approval of the great council, the Catholic organization being in harmony with the laws of the Catholic Church. Authorities chosen by each denomination have charge of denominational matters of a mixed nature as well as of the administration of the denominations, of the state. Augustine Egger was succeeded in 1906 by the present bishop, Ferdinand Rüegg, b. 20 Oct., 1847, consecrated 10 June, 1906.

BAUMGARTNER, Geschichte des schweizerischen Friestaats und Kantons Sankt Gallen (3vols., Zurich and Einsiedeln, 1868-90) ZARDETTI, Requies Sancti Galli (Einsiedln, 1881); BAUMGARTNER, Gallus Jakob Baumgartner, Landammann von Sankt Gallen, und die neuere Staatsentwicklung der Schweiz 1797-1869 (Freiburg im Br., 1892); DIERAUER, Politische Geschichte des Kantons Sankt Gallen 1803-1903 (St. Gall, 1904); OESCH, Dr. Karl Johann Greith, Bischof van Sankt Gallen (St. Gall, 1909); GSCHWEND, Die Echtung des Bistums Sankt Gallen (2 vols., Stans, 190.0); Mitteil ungen zur vaterlandichen Gechichte, herausgegeben vom Historischen Verein Sankt Gallen (St. Gall, 1862-); FÄH, Die Kathedrale in St. Gallen (2 pts., St. Gall, 1896 and 1900).

JOSEPH LINS

Orders of St. George

Knights of St. George appear at different historical periods and in different countries as mutually independent bodies having nothing in common but the veneration of St. George, the patron of knighthood. St. George of Lydda, a martyr of the persecution of Diocletian in the fourth century, is one of those military saints whom Byzantine iconography represented as a horseman armed cap-à-pie, like the flower of the Roman armies after the military reform of Justinian in the sixth century. The pilgrim knights of Europe, encountering in the East these representations of St. George, recognized their own accoutrements and at once adopted him as the patron of their noble calling. This popularity of St. George in the West gave rise to numerous associations both secular and religious. Among secular orders of this name which still exist must be mentioned the English Order of the Garter, which has always had St. George for its patron. Though Protestantism suppressed his cult, the chapel of St. George at Windsor has remained the official seat of the order, where its chapters assemble and where each knight is entitled to a stall over which his banner is hung. A second royal order under the double patronage of St. Michael and St. George was founded in England in 1818 to reward services rendered in foreign or colonial relations. In Bavaria a secular Order of St. George has existed since 1729, and owes its foundation to the prince elector, better known by the title of Charles VII which he bore as emperor for a brief period. The present Russian Order of St. George dates from 1769, having been founded in the reign of Catherine II, as a military distinction.

There formerly existed regular orders of St. George. The Kingdom of Aragon was placed under his patronage, and in gratitude for his assistance to its armies King Pedro II founded (1201) the Order of St. George of Alfama in the district of that name. Nevertheless this order received the approbation of the Holy See only in 1363 and had but a brief existence. With the approval of antipope Benedict XIII it was amalgamated with the Aragonese Order of Montesa, and thereafter known as the Order of Montesa and St. George of Alfama. Equally short-lived was the Order of St. George founded in Austria by the Emperor Frederick III and approved by Paul II in 1464. This needy prince was unable to assure a sufficient endowment for the support of his knights, and the pope gave him permission to transfer to the new order the property of a commandery of St. John and a Benedictine abbey in the town of Milestadt, to which the emperor added some parishes in his patronage. Nevertheless the knights had to rely for support on their personal possession, therefore they did not make a vow of poverty, but simply of obedience and chastity, and, owing to this lack of resources, the order did not survive its founder. It was succeeded by a secular Confraternity of St. George founded under the Emperor Maximilian I with the approbation of Alexander VI in 1494, which likewise disappeared, in the disturbances of the sixteenth century.

CH. MOELLER

Saint George's

(SANCTI GEORGII)

Diocese in Newfoundland. Beginning at Garnish it takes in the western portion of the south coast and then stretches along the Gulf of St. Lawrence, northwards, almost as far as the Straits of Belle Isle, lying between 55° 20' and 59° 30' west longitude and between 47° 30' and 51° 20' north latitude. Until 1892 the diocese was practically confined to the historic French shore, so long the bone of contention between politicians, and repeatedly the subject of international conferences. In consequence of the provision of Anglo-French treaties, any attempt to establish permanent settlement on the coast was for along time discountenanced; but the lucrative herring fishery encouraged adventurers to ignore the treaties, and by 1850 a population of about 2000 had pitched their log cabins in its landlocked bays, beyond the reach of civilization and civil authority. Until 1850 there was no resident Catholic priest on the coast. Religious consolation the people had not, except when the chaplain of the French warship paid a visit, at long intervals. Dr. Mullock of St. John's visited the coast in 1848, and again in 1852. On 7 Sept., 1850, the first resident priest arrived, Rev. Alexandre Belanger (d. 7 Sept.1868). Owing to the difficulty of traveling, his missionary activities were confined to St George's bay. He visited the Bay of Islands in 1863 and again in 1868. Mgr Sears in his report to the Society for the Propagation of the Faith informs us that the hardships attending the latter visit ended the career of the heroic Frenchman. On 2 November, 1868, the real apostle and social reformer of this unknown wilderness arrived in the person of the Rev. Thomas Sears of the Antigonish diocese. Enthusiastic and practical, he recognized the resources and the possibilities of the West, and pleaded the claims of the Coast so successfully with the Insular Government, that a mail steamer was despatched in May, 1872. In 1878 the magistracy and the police were established. In 1870 the territory was erected into a prefecture, and in 1871 Father Sears was nominated prefect Apostolic; in 1881 he received the dignity of domestic prelate. During the seventeen years of his apostolate, churches, presbyteries, and schools were built, but the hardships, then inseparable from missionary adventures on the coast, shattered his constitution, never very rugged, and he died 7 Nov., 1885. He was succeeded by Dr. M. F. Howley. In 1892 the prefecture was elevated to the rank of vicariate and Dr. Howley became titular Bishop of Amastrio. At the same time the extensive district of Fortune Bay was placed under his jurisdiction. In 1893 he introduced a new foundation of Sisters of Mercy for which the diocese is indebted to the generosity of a wealthy convert, Mrs. Henrietta Brownell of Bristol, Rhode island. He was transferred to St. John's (25 Dec., 1894) and on 20 Oct., 1895, his successor, Dr. McNeil, was consecrated at Antigonish. A period of great material progress followed the completion of the transinsular railway. In 1904 the vicariate was made a diocese and he became its first bishop. He was transferred to the See of Vancouver in Feb., 1910, and was succeeded by Rt. Rev. M. F. Power, whose consecration took place 25 July, 1911. The diocese has 10 priests; 36 churches and chapels; 2 convents; 51 schools attended by 1659 pupils; a population of about 11,000.

M.G. SEARS

Saint Hyacinthe

(SANCTI HYACINTHI)

Diocese in the Province of Quebec, suffragan of Montreal. In answer to a petition from the Fathers of First Council of Quebec to the Holy See, portions of the Dioceses of Montreal and Quebec were formed into a separate bishopric by a papal Bull dated 8 June, 1852. At first the new diocese was limited to the south side of the Richelieu River, and contained the greater portion of the Eastern Townships, a tract of land granted in the latter part of the eighteenth century to the American loyalists, but now a part of the Sherbrooke Diocese. Later three parishes on the north side of the Richelieu River were annexed. To-day the diocese embraces the counties of Bagot, Iberville, Missisquoi, Richelieu, Rouville, Saint Hyacinthe, and a part of the counties of Brome (2 parishes), and Verchères, (3 parishes).

St. Hyacinthe, the titular city, is a typical French Canadian industrial town; it stands on the banks of the Yamaska, thirty-five miles from Montreal, and has a population of 10,000. Right Rev. J. C. Prince, Coadjutor Bishop of Montreal, was the first Bishop of St. Hyacinthe. Bishop Prince took possession on 3 November, 1852, and from the outset encountered great difficulties. The old seminary building was turned into a cathedral and residence; unfortunately, it was burned in May, 1854. The bishop built a new residence as well as a chapel-cathedral. Bishop Prince showed untiring activity, founding twenty new parishes, establishing several missions, and in 1853 introducing from France the Sisters of the Presentation. He died on 5 May, 1860, at the age of fifty-six.

By papal Decree dated 22 June of the same year, Right Rev. Joseph La Rocque, titular bishop of Cydonia, and Coadjutor of Montreal, the second bishop, was appointed. From November, 1856, to July, 1857, he had administered the diocese during the prolonged illness of Bishop Prince, but now, overwhelmed by the responsibility forced on him, and suffering from a series he petitioned the Holy See to be relieved of this burden. His request was granted on 17 August, 1865. As titular Bishop of Germanicopolis and vicar-general, he remained in his diocese, at the monastery of the Sisters of the Precious Blood (a community which honoured him as its founder), until his death on 18 November, 1887, at the age of seventy-nine.

The vacancy was filled on 20 March, 1866, by the Right Rev Charles La Rocque, cousin of the former bishop, who for twenty-two years was pastor of St. John's. The new bishop was a highly-cultured man with rare financial ability; realizing that the debts of his cathedral called for unusual measures, he closed the episcopal palace and retired with his staff to Beloeil, where he combined the duties of bishop and pastor of this parish till his death on 25 July, 1875. Bishop La Rocque assisted at the Vatican founding the Sherbrooke Diocese. He opened the first house of the Dominicans in Canada by giving them a parish in his titular city, and had the satisfaction of effectively reducing the cathedral debt and placing the diocese on a satisfactory money basis.

The fourth bishop, Mgr. Louis-Zéphirin Moreau, was consecrated on 16 January, 1876. He had come from Montreal in 1852 as secretary to Bishop Prince. Bishop Moreau reopened the episcopal residence and on 4 July, 1886, dedicated the stone cathedral which he had built with the money amassed by the economy of his predecessor. His cathedral chapter was installed in August, 1876, by the Most Rev. Dr. Conroy, Bishop of Ardagh and first Papal Delegate to Canada. On Bishop Moreau's invitation the Marist Brothers came from France and established their novitiate in the diocese; he also founded a community to take charge of rural schools for boys and girls, under the name "Les Soeurs de St. Joseph". After seventeen years of administration he was given as coadjutor the Right Rev. Maxime Decelles (d. July 1905); the latter was consecrated titular bishop of Druzipara on 9 March 1893, and entered on his administration of the Diocese of St. Hyacinthe immediately on the death of Bishop Moreau (24 May, 1901). During his administration he opened the patronage of St. Vincent de Paul, and agitated the question of a new and larger cathedral. The execution this idea was left to his successor, who was consecrated by Archbishop Bruchesi on 15 February, 1906. Bishop Bernard is now in his sixty-third year. From 1876, either as secretary, archdeacon, or vicar general, he was constantly a member of the administration. In a series of ten volummes he has compiled and published with additional biographical notes the letters of the preceding bishops of St. Hyacinthe to the clergy and faithful of the diocese. Notwithstanding delicate health, since his elevation to the episcopate he has proved himself an indefatigable worker and an ardent apostle of temperance. He placed the patronage of St. Vincent de Paul on a stable basis, and, at the cost of $200,000, completely and beautifully restored and enlarged the old cathedral.

In the episcopal city of St. Hyacinthe are the following: College-Seminary (dating from 1811) with 400 students, all following a classical curriculum; the mother house of the Sisters of Charity (the Grey Nuns) with 400 members who have charge of the Hotel Dieu; the mother house of the Sisters of the Presentation, with 600 members; the mother-house of Sisters of the Precious, Blood; the central monastery of the Dominican Fathers; the mother-house of the Sisters of St. Joseph; the convent of the Sisters of St. Martha, a community in charge of the domestic arrangements of the seminary; the novitiate of the Marist Brothers; the Institute of St. Vincent de Paul; a commercial college and an academy, both conducted by the Brothers of the Sacred Heart.

The Diocese of St. Hyacinthe has 74 parishes, and a population of about 120,000, of whom 108,000 are Catholics. The clergy number 183 secular and 18 regular priests. The religious communities number 337 men and 861 women. In the diocese are: 2 superior teaching institutions, the Seminary of St. Hyacinthe and the Petit Séminaire de Sainte-Marie de Monnoir, both under the direction of secular priests; 6 commercial colleges; 56 academies; 435 primary schools. Six hospitals and asylums provide for charitable wants.

Mandements des Evêques de St. Hyacinthe; Histoire du Séminaire de St. Hyacinthe; the Catholic Directory, (1911); Le Canada ecclésiastique, (1911).

C.P. CROQUETTE

College of Saint Isidore

The College of Saint Isidore, in Rome, was originally founded for the use of Spanish Franciscans during the pontificate of Gregory XV. In the year 1625 the buildings passed into the hands of Father Luke Wadding, who, after making numerous additions and alterations, and with the sanction of the General of the Friars Minor and of the Sovereign Pontiff, converted them into a college for the education of Irish Franciscan students. Within a few years, Wadding had provided accommodation for, and had gathered within the walls of the new college, a community of over thirty religious; and some years later the number had increased to fifty. Wadding was fortunate in being able to assure the success of the new undertaking by attracting to the college as professors some of the ablest members of the order at the time, all of them countrymen of his own. These included such men as Hickey, Fleming, Ponce, Walsh, and some years later Harold, Molloy, and Bonaventure Baron. The last mentioned alone has to his credit no fewer than twenty-two volumes, in the various domains of philosophy, theology, history, and poetry. It is easy to understand what prestige such distinguished teachers must have brought to the college. In fact, within thirty years of its foundation, we find no fewer than seventy of its alumni engaged as professors in various schools of the order. But its claim to recognition does not rest less in the stimulus which it gave to the study of Scotistic philosophy and theology during the seventeenth century than in the number of highly trained and efficient teachers which it sent forth. Its professors were all convinced adherents of the Franciscan school and it is no exaggeration to say that, at a time when the doctrines of Scotus were beginning to lose favour even amongst Franciscans themselves, they found no more ardent nor able defenders than the professors of St. Isidore's College. It is to Wadding and his fellow-workers in the college that we owe the first complete edition of the Subtile Doctor's works, namely, the Lyons edition of 1639. While sending forth, year after year, numbers of zealous workers into the Irish mission, the college continued to possess amongst its professors men of acknowledged learning and merit.

On the occupation of Rome by the French in 1798, St. Isidore's suffered the fate of other British institutions in the city. The friars were expelled, and the college and adjoining garden confiscated and put up for auction. They were bought in by the Prince of Piombino, who let the rooms out to lodgers, with the exception of a few which were reserved for one of the fathers who had volunteered to keep watch over the place until the advent of better times. These came with the return of the pope in 1814. The college was soon restored to its rightful owners, and the year 1819 saw Father Hughes installed as superior over a fresh band of students who had come from Ireland to fill the places of those who had been expelled in 1798. Since then St. Isidore's has remained in undisturbed possession of the Irish Franciscans, for whom it still serves as the theological and philosophical training-house of their students. Amongst its alumni may be mentioned Dr. Egan (d. 1814), first Bishop of Philadelphia; Drs. Lambert (d. 1817), Scallan (d. 1830), and Mullock (d. 1869), the two former vicars Apostolic, and the latter second Bishop of St. John's, Newfoundand; Dr. Hughes, Vicar Apostolic of Gibraltar; and Drs. Geoghegan (d. 1864) and Shiel (d. 1872), bishops of Adelaide, Australia. The college library is famous for its collection of rare and valuable books. Owing to Wadding's position as annalist of the Franciscan Order and agent with the Holy See for his native country during the stormy period of the Insurrection of 1641, the archives of St. Isidore's became the repository of many precious documents relating to Franciscan subjects and to the civil and ecclesiastical history of Ireland during the seventeenth century. Such among the valuable MSS. belonging to the sister college of St. Anthony's, Louvain, as escaped destruction or dispersion during the French Revolution also found, for a time, a domicile in St. Isidore's. They included many of those old Irish MSS. saved from destruction by Brother Michael O'Clery, during his tours of Ireland in search of material for the "Annals of the Four Masters". They are sometimes referred to as the "St. Isidore MSS." After the taking of Rome by the Piedmontese in 1870, these, together with such others as had any bearing on the civil or ecclesiastical history of Ireland, were for greater security removed to the convent of the order at Merchant's Quay, Dublin, where they are now preserved.

HAROLD, Life of Wadding, prefixed to his Epitome Annalium Ordinis Minorum (Rome, 1662); MSS. materials in the College Archives; GAMS, Series Episcoporum (Ratisbon, 1873).

J.C. HANRAHAN

Order of Saint James of Compostela

(SANTIAGO DE LA ESPADA).

Founded in the twelfth century, owes its name to the national patron of Spain, St. James the Greater, under whose banner the Christians of Galicia began in the ninth century to combat and drive back the Mussulmans of Spain. Compostela, in Galicia, the centre of devotion to this Apostle, is neither the cradle nor the principal seat of the order. Two cities contend for the honour of having given it birth, León in the kingdom of that name, and Uclés in Castile. At that time (1157-1230) the royal dynasty was divided into two rival branches, which rivalry tended to obscure the beginnings of the order. The Knights of Santiago had possessions in each of the kingdoms, but Ferdinand II of León and Alfonso VIII of Castile, in bestowing them, set the condition that the seat of the order should be in their respective states. Hence arose long disputes which only ended in 1230 when Ferdinand III, the Saint, united both crowns. Thenceforth, Uclés, in the Province of Cuenca, was regarded as the headquarters of the order; there the grand master habitually resided, aspirants passed their year of probation, and the rich archives of the order were preserved until united in 1869 with the "Archivo historico nacional" of Madrid. The order received its first rule in 1171 from Cardinal Jacinto (later Celestine III), then legate in Spain of Alexander III. Unlike the contemporary orders of Calatrava and Alcántara, which followed the severe rule of the Benedictines of Citeaux, Santiago adopted the milder rule of the Canons of St. Augustine. In fact at León they offered their services to the Canons Regular of St. Eloi in that town for the protection of pilgrims to the shrine of St. James and the hospices on the roads leading to Compostela. This explains the mixed character of their order, which is hospitaller and military, like that of St. John of Jerusalem. They were recognized as religious by Alexander III, whose Bull of 5 July, 1175, was subsequently confirmed by more than twenty of his successors. These pontifical acts, collected in the "Bullarium" of the order, secured them all the privileges and exemptions of other monastic orders. The order comprised several affiliated classes: canons, charged with the administration of the sacraments; canonesses, occupied with the service of pilgrims; religious knights living in community, and married knights. The right to marry, which other military orders only obtained at the end of the Middle Ages, was accorded them from the beginning under certain conditions, such as the authorization of the king, the obligation of observing continence during Advent, Lent, and on certain festivals of the year, which they spent at their monasteries in retreat.

The mildness of this rule furthered the rapid spread of the order, which eclipsed the older orders of Calatrava and Alcántara, and whose power was reputed abroad even before 1200. The first Bull of confirmation, that of Alexander III, already enumerated a large number of endowments. At its height Santiago alone had more possessions than Calatrava and Alcántara together. In Spain these possessions included 83 commanderies, of which 3 were reserved to the grand commanders, 2 cities, 178 boroughs and villages, 200 parishes, 5 hospitals, 5 convents, and 1 college at Salamanca. The number of knights was then 400 and they could muster more than 1000 lances. They had possessions in Portugal, France, Italy, Hungary, and even Palestine. Abrantes, their first commandery in Portugal, dates from the reign of Alfonso I in 1172, and soon became a distinct order which Nicholas IV in 1290 released from the jurisdiction of Uclés. Their military history is linked with that of the Spanish states. They assisted in driving out the Mussulmans, doing battle with them sometimes separately, sometimes with the royal armies. They also had a regrettable share in the fatal dissenssions which disturbed the Christians of Spain and brought about more than one schism in the order. Finally they took part in the maritime expeditions against the Mussulmans. Thus arose the obligation imposed upon aspirants to serve six months in the galleys, which obligation still existed in the eighteenth century, but from which exemption was easily purchased. Authority was exercised by a grand master assisted by a Council of Thirteen, which elected the grand master and had the right to depose him for due cause; they had supreme jurisdiction in all disputes between members of the order. The first grand master, Pedro Fernández de Fuente Encalato, died in 1184. He had had 39 successors, among them several Spanish Infantes, when, in 1499, Ferdinand the Catholic induced the pope to assign to him the administration of the order. Under Charles V, Adrian VI annexed to the crown of Spain the three great military orders (Alcántara, Calatrava, and Santiago) with hereditary transmission even in the female line (1522). Thenceforth the three orders were united under one government, though their titles and possessions remained separate. To discharge the detail of this administration, Charles V instituted a special ministry, the Council of Orders, composed of a president named by the king, whom he represented, and six knights, two delegates from each order. To this council belonged the presentation of knights to vacant commanderies and jurisdiction in all matters, civil or ecclesiastical, save the purely spiritual cases reserved for ecclesiatical dignitaries. Thus ended the autonomy of the orders (see CALATRAVA, MILITARY ORDER OF). Their symbol was a red cross terminating in a sword, which recalls their title de la Espada, and a shell (la venera), which they doubtless owed to their connection with the pilgrimage of St. James.

ISLA, Regla de la Orden y cavalleria de Santiago (Antwerp, 1598); Bulario de la Orden de Santiago (Madrid, 1791); LLAMAZARES, Historia de las cuatro ordenes militares (Madrid, 1862); DE LA FUENTE, Historia eclesiatica de Espana (Madrid, 1874).

CH. MOELLER

Saint-Jean-de-Maurienne

(DIOCESE OF MAURAMANENSIS)

Includes the arrondissement of Saint Jean-de-Maurienne in the Department of Haute Savoie. The diocese was suppressed by the Concordat of 1802, and its territory joined to the Diocese of Chambéry under the French Empire, then in 1825 under Piedmontese rule it was cut off from Chambéry and made a special diocese, which with the rest of Savoy became French territory, 14 June, 1860. It is suffragan of Chambéry. Gregory of Tours, in his "De Gloria Martyrum", relates how the church of Maurienne, belonging then to the Diocese of Turin, became a place of pilgrimage, after the holy woman Thigris or Thecla, who was a native of Valloires, had brought to it from the East a finger of St. John the Baptist. Saint Gontran, King of Burgundy, took from the Lombards in 574 the valleys of Suse and Maurienne, and in 576 founded near the shrine a bishopric, which was suffragan of Vienne. Its first bishop was Felmasius. In 599 Gregory the Great made futile attempts to make Queen Brunehaut listen to the protests of the Bishop of Turin against this foundation. A letter written by John VIII in 878 formally designated the Bishop of Maurienne as suffragan of Tarentaise, but the metropolitans of Vienna continued to claim Maurienne as a suffragan see, and under Callistus II (1120) they carried their point. Local tradition claims as bishops of Maurienne: St. Emilianus, martyred by the Saracens (736 or 738); St. Odilard, slain by the Saracens (916) together with St. Benedict, Archbishop of Embrun. After the Saracens had been driven out, the temporal sovereignty of the Bishop of Maurienne appears to have been very extensive, but there is no proof that such sovereignty had been recognized since Gontran's time. At the death of Rudolph III, Bishop Thibaut was powerful enough to join a league against Conrad II of Franconia. The emperor suppressed the See of Maurienne, and gave over its title and possessions to the Bishop of Turin (1038); but this imperial decree was never executed.

Among the bishops of Maurienne were: St. Ayroldus (1132-46), once a monk of the Charterhouse of Portes; Louis de La Palud (1441-50), who as Bishop of Lausanne had taken an active part at the Council of Basle in favour of the antipope, Felix V, who named him Bishop of Maurienne in 1441; and afterwards cardinal; he was confirmed in both appointments by Nicholas V in 1449; John of Segovia (1451-72), who at the Council of Basle as representative of the King of Aragon had also worked for Felix V, and was appointed by him cardinal in 1441; ten years later Nicholas V gave him the See of Maurienne; he is the author of "Gesta Concilii Basileensis"; William d'Estouteville (1473-80) was made cardinal in 1439 and as a pluralist held among other titles those of Maurienne and Rouen; Louis de Gorrevod (1499-1550) was made cardinal in 1530; Hippolyte d'Este (1560), made cardinal in 1538, acted as legate of Pius IV to the Council of Poissy, and built the famous Villa d'Este at Tivoli; Charles Joseph Fillipa de Martiniana (1757-79), made cardinal in 1778, was the first to whom Bonaparte, after the battle of Marengo, confided his intention of concluding a concordat with Rome; Alexis Billiet (1825-40), made cardinal in 1861. Emmanuel Philibert, Duke of Savoy, took solemn possession of a canonry in the cathedral of Maurienne in 1564.

Among the saints specially honoured in, or connected with, the diocese are: Saint Aper (Avre), a priest who founded a refuge for pilgrims and the poor in the Village of St. Avre (seventh century); Blessed Thomas, b. at Maurienne, d. in 720, famous for rebuilding the Abbey of Farfa, of which the third abbot, Lucerius, was also a native of Maurienne; St. Marinus, monk of Chandor, martyred by the Saracens (eighth century); St. Landry, pastor of Lanslevillard (eleventh century), drowned in the Arc during one of his apostolic journeys; St. Bénézet, or Benoit de Pont (1165-84), b. at Hermillon in the diocese, and founder of the guild of Fratres Pontifices of Avignon; Blessed Cabert or Gabert, disciple of St. Dominic, who preached the Gospel for twenty years in the vicinity of AiguebelIe (thirteenth century). The chief shrines of the diocese are: Notre Dame de Charmaise, near Modane, Notre Dame de Bonne Nouvelle, near St-Jean-de-Maurienne, which dates from the sixteenth century, and Notre Dame de Beaurevers at Montaimon, dating from the seventeenth century. The Sisters of St. Joseph, a nursing and teaching order, with mother-house at St-Jean-de-Maurienne, are a branch of the Congregation of St. Joseph at Puy. At the end of the nineteenth century, they were in charge of 8 day nurseries and 2 hospitals. In Algeria, the East Indies, and the Argentine they have houses controlled by the motherhouse at Maurienne. In 1905 (end of the Concordat), the Diocese of St-Jean-de-Maurienne had 61,466 inhabitants, 10 parishes, 76 auxiliary parishes, and 28 curacies, remunerated by the State.

Gallia christ., nova, XVI (1865), 611-52, and instr. 289-322; DUCHESNE, Fastes épiscopaux, I, 207-10, 233-35; ANGLEY, Hist. du diocese de Maurienne (S. Jean de Maurienne, 1846); TRUCHET, Hist. hagiologique du diocése de Maurienne (Chambéry, 1867); DE MARESCHAL DE LUCIANE, Souveraineté temporelle des évêques de Maurienne au moyen age in Mémoires de l'académie des sciences de la Savoie (1892); PASCALEIN, Le pouvoir temporal des évêques de Maurienne in Revue Savoisienne (1899); CHEVALIER, Topo-bibl., 1877-78.

GEORGES GOYAU

Ambrose Saint-John

Oratorian; b. 1815; d. at Edgbaston, Birmingham, 24 May, 1875; son of Henry St. John, descended from the Barons St. John of Bletsoe. He was educated at Westminster School, and Christ Church, Oxford, where he graduated M. A. and where he formed his lifelong, intimate friendship with Newman. In 1841 he became curate to Henry Wilberforce, first at Walmer, subsequently at East Farleigh. He then joined Newman at Littlemore which he left, to be received into the Church about a month before Newman's conversion in October, 1845. After a short time spent with Newman at Maryvale he accompanied him to Rome where they were ordained priests. Having become Oratorians they began mission work in Birmingham (1847), removing to the suburb of Edgbaston in 1852. There he devoted himself entirely to zealous missionary labours, taking a leading part in the work of the Oratory and its famous school. He was an excellent classical scholar and a remarkable linguist both in Oriental and European tongues. His death was caused by overwork in translating Fessler's book on infallibility when Newman's discussion with Gladstone was pending. He was a man of marked individuality and Newman's tribute to him in the "Apologia" will never be forgotten.

Except the biographical sketch prefixed to the new edition of the Raccolta, which work he originally compiled, there is no connected sketch of his life, but references to him will be found in Gasquet, Lord Acton and his Circle (London, 1906). The information given above has been kindly supplied by the Rev. F. Bacchus, Cong. Orat. See also Gorman, Converts to Rome (London, 1910).

Edwin Burton

Saint John

(SANCTI JOANNIS)

Diocese in the Province of New Brunswick, Canada. The diocese includes the following counties: Albert, Carleton, Charlotte, Kings, Queens, St. John, Sunbury, Westmoreland, York, and a portion of Kent. The City of St. John is the oldest incorporated city in British North America, its charter dating back to 1785; it is also the largest city in New Brunswick. Among the earliest Catholic missionaries to visit New Brunswick, which was then part of Acadia, were the Jesuit Fathers, Biard and Massé, in 1611. They remained until after the destruction of Port Royal by Argall in 1613, and were succeeded by Recollects. With the erection of Quebec into a diocese, special interest was attached to the Acadian missions. Mgr. St. Vallier left the St. Lawrence, 7 May, 1686, proceeded to the St. John, and reached Medoetec, an Indian village eight miles below Woodstock. There the bishop established a mission, and left it under the direction of Father Simon, a Recollect. Subsequently another mission was formed at Aukpaque. After the death of Fathers Simon and Moireau, the missions on the St. John passed into the hands of the Jesuits, among whom were Fathers Aubery, Loyard, Danielou, Loverga, Audren, and Germain. The Indian church at Medoctec was probably the first erected in New Brunswick. On the original site of this church a small stone tablet was discovered in June, 1890, bearing a Latin inscription the translation of which reads: "To God, most Good and Great, in honour of St. John the Baptist, the Maliseets erected this church A.D. 1717, while Jean Loyard, a priest of the Society of Jesus, was Procurator of the mission." After the Peace of St. Germain-en-Laye (1632), and notably after the Treaty of Breda (1667), there arrived from France colonies of Catholic immigrants, the progenitors of the Acadians now scattered over New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. About 1767 Rev. Charles-Franqois Bailly, afterwards Coadjutor Bishop of Quebec, ministered to the Catholics along the St. John River. The first native Acadian priest was Rev. Joseph M. Bourg. Born in 1744, he fled during the expulsion (1755) with his parents to the Isle of St. John, but was eventually deported to France; after some years he returned to Quebec, where he was ordained by Mgr. Briand in 1773. Appointed Vicar-General of Acadia, he had an immense area to govern, with little assistance. In 1813 Bishop Plessis of Quebec received into his diocese an Irish Dominican, Rev. Charles D. Ffrench. a convert and son of an Anglican bishop, and assigned him to duty in St. John. He celebrated Mass in the City Court Room on Market Square. A church was built soon afterwards, and at the suggestion of Bishop Plessis it was dedicated to St. Malachy: it was opened for worship on 1 Oct., 1815. With the influx of Irish immigrants the number of Catholics rapidly increased. The first resident priest of St. John was Rev. Joseph Morrisset; he was succeeded by Rev. Patrick McMahon, and in 1828 Rev. John Carroll, the last priest prior to the establishment of a diocese in the Maritime Provinces, was sent from Quebec.

Between 1820 and 1827 the Micmac Indians and Acadian settlers at Richibucto were ministered to by Rev. Franeois-Norbert Blanchet, who afterwards became first Archbishop of Oregon City. In Aug., 1829, Charlottetown (Prince Edward Island) was created an episcopal see, with New Brunswick under its jurisdiction. Thirteen years later New Brunswick - was formed into a separate diocese; its first bishop. was Dr. William Dollard (b. in Ballytarina, Co. Kilkenny, Ireland; d. 29 Aug., 1851), a man of apostolic virtue and a typical pioneer bishop. He made his theological studies at Quebec, and was sent as a missionary to Cape Breton, and afterwards to Miramichi. He was Vicar-General of the Diocese of Charlottetown, and was consecrated bishop at Quebec, 11 June 1843. His successor was Right Rev. Thomas L. Connolly (b. at Cork, Ireland), who, after receiving his preliminary education at Cork became a novice in the Capuchin Order, and was sent to Rome to complete his studies. He was ordained in the cathedral at Lyons in 1838, and for the next four years was stationed at the Capuchin Church, Dublin. In 1842 he volunteered for the Foreign Missions, and his services were accepted by the Right Rev. William Walsh (afterwards Archbishop of Halifax). Consecrated Bishop of New Brunswick 15 Aug., 1852, Dr. Connolly arrived in St. John, his episcopal city, 11 Sept., of the same year. One of the first duties he undertook was the building of a cathedral; but it was not until Christmas Day, 1855, that the building was ready for Divine service. In June 1854, the cholera appeared at St. John, and did not abate until after the middle of August. It is estimated that 600 Catholics died of it; as a consequence, about 150 orphans were thrown on the bishop's hands. To care for them, he organized a diocesan sisterhood known as the Sisters of Charity. In 1859 Dr. Connolly was promoted to Halifax in succession to Archbishop Walsh.

A division was then made of the Diocese of New Brunswick; the southern portion (the present See of St. John) being assigned to Right Rev. John Sweeny (b. in 1821 at Clones, Co. Monaghan, Ireland; d. 25 March, 1901). John Sweeny had emigrated with his parents in 1828; his classical studies were made at St. Andrew's College, near Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, after which he went to Quebec for theology. He was ordained in Sept., 1844, and was first assigned to St. John, whence he went from time to time throughout the country on missions. His next labours were at Chatham and Barachois. He was vicar-general successively under Bishops Dollard and Connolly, and administrator of the diocese on both occasions where the see was vacant. On 15 April, 1860, he was elevated to the episcopate; and in 1870 he went to Rome to attend the Vatican Council. Under him the cathedral was completed; it was consecrated on 16 July, 1885. Bishop Sweeny was noted for his wisdom, tact, and administrative abilities. The Catholic settlement of Johnville, Carleton County, was established by him, and grew into a flourishing colony under his encouragement. In the summer of 1899 he applied to Rome for a coadjutor, and Rev. Timothy Gassy, pastor of St. Dunstan's Church, Fredericton, was appointed. In Jan., 1901, Bishop Sweeny retired to St. Patrick's Industrial School, Silver Falls.

Bishop Casey, the present incumbent (b. at Flume Ridge, Charlotte County, New Brunswick, 1862), received his early education in the public schools of St. Stephen, New Brunswick, and afterwards studied at St. Joseph's College, Memramcook, and at Laval University, Quebec; he was ordained priest 29 June, 1886. His consecration as titular Bishop of Utina and coadjutor to Bishop Sweeny took place in the cathedral at St. John, 11 Feb., 1900. since the beginning of Bishop Casey's administration a new school has been erected in the city; and fifteen new churches in different parishes have been dedicated.

There are two religious orders of men in the diocese: the Redemptorists, who arrived in July, 1884, and who are in charge of St. Peter's Church in North St. John; and the Fathers of the Holy Cross at Memramcook, who have conducted the University of St. Joseph's College since 1864. There are three communities of women: the Sisters of Charity, the Religious of the Good Shepherd, and the Little Sisters of the Holy Family. Diocesan priests number 52; priests of religious orders, 25. There are 2 orphan asylums; 2 academies, 1 home for the aged, and 1 college. The Catholic population is about 58,000.

RAYMOND, Glimpses of the Past (St. John, 1905); Jesuit Relations (Cleveland, 1896-1901); CAMPBELL, Pioneer Priests of North America (New York, 1909); MACMILLAN, History of the Church in Prince Edward Island (Quebec, 1905); CLEMENT, History of Canada (Toronto, 1897) HAY, A History of New Brunswick (Toronto, 1903); LAWRENCE, Footprints (St. John, 1883); MAGUIRE, The Irish in America (New York, 1868); The Freeman, files; PLESSIS, Journal de la Mission de 1811 et de 1812; IDEM, Journal de la Mission de 1815; Le Foyer Canadien (Quebec, May-Nov., 1865); La Semaine Religieuse (Quebec, March, April, May, 1904) CHOUINARD, Histoire de la Paroisse de Saint-Joseph de Carleton, Baie des Chaleurs (Rimouski, 1906).

ANDREW J. O'NEILL

Diocese of St. Joseph

( Sancti Josephi)

The City of St. Joseph, Missouri, was founded by Joseph Robidoux, a Catholic, who in 1830 became sole proprietor of the trading post at the mouth of what is now called Roy's Branch, just above the Blacksnake Hills. In 1838 an itinerant Jesuit visited the obscure trading post at this place and said Mass in the rude log house of Robidoux. In 1840 Rev. Father Vogel administered to the spiritual wants of the faithful. Robidoux, alive to the importance of his trading post, began preparations to form a town. The population was about two hundred at that time. He had surveys and plats made by Fred W. Smith, a Catholic. Smith named his plat St. Joseph; it was taken to St. Louis and recorded on 26 July, 1843. The first permanent pastor was the Rev. Thomas Scanlon, who began his labours in 1847. On 17 June, 1847, a brick church was begun and in September of the same year was dedicated by Archbishop P.R. Kenrick of St. Louis. The "Overland Period" was the most important one in the infancy of St. Joseph. Early in the spring of 1849 began the rush to California. As a starting point St. Joseph offered advantages which no other place possessed. There was at that time a population of 1900 souls.

At the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore in 1866, St. Joseph was among the new episcopal sees proposed. Rev. John J. Hogan was chosen its first Bishop, 3 March, 1868. The area assigned to the new diocese was that part of the State of Missouri lying between the Missouri and Chariton Rivers. On Investigation the bishop-elect found that there were in the Diocese of St. Joseph 600 families, about 3000 souls, attended by five secular priests. The church edifices were of the poorest kind; the largest (pro-cathedral) was a low, narrow, brick building, built at three different times. Bishop Hogan was consecrated by Archbishop P. R. Kenrick, 13 September, 1868, and at once took charge of his new field of labour. In 1869 ground was broken for a new cathedral which, three years later, was opened for Divine service. The number of priests increased gradually, religious consciousness and enthusiasm were awakened, churches were built, parish schools erected, and charitable institutions founded. On 10 September, 1880 Bishop Hogan was transferred to the newly-erected Diocese of Kansas City, Mo., and appointed Administrator of St. Joseph. When he resigned his administration of the Diocese of St. Joseph, in 1893, the Rt. Rev. M. F. Burke, D.D., was transferred from the Diocese of Cheyenne, Wyoming, to St. Joseph. His reception by clergy and laity was most enthusiastic. Under his able administration great progress has been made in the material to well as in the spiritual upbuilding of the diocese. A heavy debt on the cathedral has been liquidated, an episcopal residence built, a school of the cathedral parish erected at a cost of $60,000, new missions opened and new parishes organized.

The City of St. Joseph has at present 8 parishes with 12 resident pastors, 6 parish schools attended by 1340 pupils, 1 commercial-college conducted by the Christian Brothers, 1 academy for the education of young ladies conducted by the Ladies of the Sacred Heart conducted by the Sisters of Charity. Catholic population: 10,000. Outside of the City of St. Joseph may be mentioned the Benedictine Abbey at Conception, established in 1874; the Conceptión Classical College conducted by the Fathers of the Abbey; the Franciscan Fathers at Chillicoth and Wien; two charitable hospitals, one at Chillicoth conducted by the Sisters of St. Mary, the other at Maryville conducted by the Sisters of St. Francis; an academy for the education of young ladies at Chillicothe conducted by the Sisters of St. Joseph; the mother-house and academy of the Benedictine Sisters of Perpetual Adoration at Clyde; an orphan asylum at Conception; twenty churches with resident priests; thirty-two mission stations; and seven parochial schools. By a decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Consistory, dated Rome, 16 June, 1911, the territory containing the Counties of Adair, Clark, Knox, Lewis, Macon, Marion, Monroe, Ralls, Radolph, Shelby, Schuyler, Scotland, and that part of Chariton County east of the Chariton River was detached from the Archdiocese of St. Louis and attached to the Diocese of St. Joseph. By reason of this extension the Diocese of St. Joseph now comprises the whole northern part of the State of Missouri, extending from the Missouri to the Mississippi River, and is bounded on the south by the Counties of Howard, Boone, Audrain, and Pike. By the increase of territory 16 parishes have been added, and 20 more priests have been affiliated with the diocese. The Catholic population is (1911) about 34,000.

HOGAN, On the Mission in Missouri (Kansas City, 1892); LINNENKAMP, Historical Souvenir of the Immaculate Conception Parish (St. Joseph, 1907); Official Catholic Directory (1910).

C. LINNENKAMP

St. Louis (Missouri)

(SANCTI LUDOVICI)

Created a diocese 2 July, 1826; raised to the rank of an archdiocese 20 July, 1847. It comprises that portion of the State of Missouri bounded on the north by the northern lines of the Counties of Pike, Audrain, Boone, and Howard, on the west by the western lines of the Counties Howard, Boone, Cole, Maries, Phelps, Texas and Howell, on the south by the State of Arkansas, and on the east by the Mississippi River, a territory of 26,235 square miles.

HISTORY

The City of St. Louis was founded in 1764 by Pierre Liguest Laclède, a French nobleman, who came to Louisiana in 1755 and entered commercial life in New Orleans. In 1762 the firm of Maxent, Laclède and Co. were given the exclusive privilege of treating with the Indians of the North-west, and in the same year Monsieur Laclède with some companions came p to Fort Chartres in the interest of the firm. The Treaty of Paris in 1763 put an end to the privilege, and Monsieur Laclède purchased the interest of his partners, left Fort Chartres and landed on the west bank of the Mississippi, where in 1764 he selected a spot, at that time a wilderness, and here laid the foundation of St. Louis. He built the first house, employing Indian women and children in digging out the cellar and carrying the earth away in their blankets. By the Treaty of Paris, France ceded to Spain all of Louisiana west of the Mississippi, but there was no formal occupation by the Spanish until 1770. St. Louis therefore during the first years of its existence belonged to the Diocese of Santiago de Cuba, a jurisdiction that extended throughout Louisiana. There were but two priests in the St. Louis territory: Father Luke Collet, a Recollect, and the Jesuit Father Meurin; the former died in 1765 leaving but one priest in the Mississippi Valley, the veteran Father Sebastian Louis Meurin. The story of good old Father Meurin is replete with tales of hardship and sacrifice made for the French and Indians of Illinois and Missouri. In 1766, finding the task too great, he wrote the Bishop of Quebec: "Ste Geneviève is my residence. Thence I go every spring and visit the other villages. I return again in the autumn and whenever I am summoned on sick calls. I am only sixty-one years old, but I am exhausted, broken by twenty-five years of mission work in this county and of these nearly twenty years of malady and disease show me the gates of death. I am incapable, therefore, of long application or bodily fatigue. I cannot accordingly supply the spiritual necessities of the country, where even the stoutest men could not endure. It would need four priests. If you can give me only one, he should be appointed to Cahokia, and with the powers of vicar-general." In 1768 Fr. P. Gibault, Vicar General of Quebec, was sent to his aid and laboured with him until the formal occupation of Louisiana by the Spaniards.

Father Gibault continued his visits until the coming of the Capuchin Fathers from New Orleans in 1772, and Father Meurin remained on the east side of the Mississippi River. Prior to Father Gibault's coming, there was no church building in this territory. The records at Cahokia show that at St. Louis Father Meurin in 1766 baptized, under condition, in a tent for want of a church, Marie, lawful daughter of John Baptiste Deschamp and of Marie Pion; and again, that he conferred the same sacrament upon Antoine, son of Lisette, a Pawnee slave, on 9 May of the same. year, Father Gibault, soon after his arrival, undertook the erection of a small church built of upright logs. This modest edifice was rapidly completed and dedicated on 24 June, 1770. With the advent of the Capuchins in 1772, Father Valentine of that order became the flat resident priest of St. Louis and remained until 1776. He was succeeded by Father Bernard, also a Capuchin, who remained for thirteen years and during his stay organized St. Charles and St. Ferdinand. From 1789 to 1793 there are no records to show that St. Louis had a resident priest. In 1793 Pierre Joseph Didier, a Benedictine monk, assumed charge and remained until 1799. In 1800 the territory of Louisiana was receded to France and three years later transferred by Napoleon to the United States. Thus we find that St. Louis and the Louisiana territory during its early days was subject to the jurisdiction of: the Vicariate Apostolic of Canada, 1658-1674; the Diocese of Quebec, 1674-1759; the Diocese of Santiago in Cuba, 1759-1787; the Diocese of Havana, 1787-11793; the Diocese of Louisiana and the Floridas, 1793-1826. The territory east of the Mississippi was subject to: the Vicariate Apostolic of Canada, 1658-1674; the Diocese of Quebec, 1674-1784; the Prefecture Apostolic of the thirteen states of the Union, 1784-1789; the Bishop of Baltimore, 1789-1808; the Diocese of Bardstown, 1808-1834.

In 1800 Rev. Thomas Flynn was made parish priest of St. Louis, remaining in that position until 1808 when he removed to Ste Geneviève. Again from 1808 until 1811, when Father Savigne took charge, we find the parish without the service of a priest. Father Savigne's ministry extended over a period of six years, and during these years the city grew to such an extent as to require the labours of a priest who could devote to it his entire time and attention. In 1810 the population numbered 1400 — mostly French with some Spaniards and a constantly increasing influx of Americans. Thus far St. Louis had been but a struggling village, the surrounding country but a wilderness that re-echoed to the warwhoop of the savage or resounded with the crack of the ranger's rifle. Now things were to assume a more important aspect, so that five years later we hear of the Diocese of St. Louis. St. Louis as a diocese had its origin amidst the early ecclesiastical troubles and disputes of the Diocese of Louisiana and the Floridas. The Diocese of St. Christopher of Havana, Louisiana, and the Floridas was erected in 1787, and Rt. Rev. Joseph de Trespalatios was appointed the first bishop; thus St. Louis was under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Havana. On 25 April, 1793, the Diocese of Louisiana and both Floridas was created; New Orleans was designated as the cathedral city, and the Rev. Louis Peñalver y Cardenas was appointed the first bishop. He arrived at New Orleans on 17 July, 1795. On 24 Sept., 1815, Rt. Rev. Louis William Du Bourg was consecrated Bishop of Louisiana and the Floridas, and immediately after proposed the erection of the See of St. Louis then in Upper Louisiana (sometimes called Louisiana Superior, sometimes "Alta Louisiana"). Very soon after, however, he requested the withdrawal of this proposal owing to the serious and complicated troubles caused by the trustees (Marguilliers and three misguided priests of the cathedral church in New Orleans).

Open menaces of violence and other serious threats prompted him to solicit the Propaganda to permit him to take up his residence at St. Louis and to continue St. Louis as part of the Louisiana jurisdiction. Rome granted the request, and on 5 Jan., 1818, he came to St. Louis accompanied by Bishop Flaget, of Bardstown, Ky. He was received here with Mat welcome, was installed with the usual solemnities by Bishop Flaget, and took possession of the pro-cathedral, a poor wooden structure in ruinous condition. The same year he founded at St. Louis a Latin Academy which later developed into the University of St. Louis (q.v.). On 13 Aug., 1822, the Very Rev. Joseph Rosati, vicar-general for Bishop Du Bourg, was appointed by Pius VII titular Bishop of Tenagre, and created Vicar Apostolic of the territories of Mississippi and Alabama. This appointment Father Rosati declined, giving to the Propaganda as reasons the paucity and penury of the people of Mississippi and Alabama; the utter impossibility of a priest being able to sustain himself at Natchez; Bay St. Louis being too poor to erect even an unpretentious church building, and no other city in the two states being sufficiently well-equipped with church or resources worthy of a bishop. He also emphasized the importance of his continuing as president of the seminary, as no priest was at hand equal to the task of assuming its direction. His arguments and the protests of the Bishop of Baltimore prevailed. The Brief "Quum superiori anno" dated 14 July, 1823, addressed to Bishop Du Bourg, revoked the appointment and suppressed the vicariate. Father Rosati, however, was not to escape episcopal honours. He was appointed coadjutor to Bishop Du Bourg by Apostolic Brief dated 22 June, 1823, and by instructions of said Brief was to reside in St. Louis. The Brief recited that after three years the Diocese of Louisiana was to be divided, New Orleans and St. Louis to be named episcopal sees, Bishop Du Bourg to have his choice of either, and Bishop Rosati preside over the destinies of the other. Father Rosati received these documents on 4 Dec., 1823, and letters from the Propaganda told him that he must submit to the dignity he had thus far sought to escape. Bishop Du Bourg was then in Louisiana, and selected for the consecration services the Church of the Ascension in Donaldsonville, La., a central position, where many clergy might assemble. Here the Very Rev. Father Rosati was consecrated titular Bishop of Tenagre on 25 March, 1824, by Bishop Louis-Guillaume-Vatentin Du Bourg, assisted by the Very Rev. Louis Sibourd, V.G., and the Rev. Anthony de Sedella, O.M. Cap., rector of the cathedral church of New Orleans.

Not long after, Bishop Du Bourg found the task imposed upon him beyond his strength, and, discouraged by the difficulties which arose to thwart his projects and harassed by bitter opposition in his own city (which in some of his writings he styled "vera nova Babylonia"), he resigned his see and departed for Europe in April, 1826. Pending this the Propaganda had, on 26 June, 1826, voted the erection of S. Louis as a diocese, which action was approved of by the pope on 2 July, of the same year. On the same day the resignation of Bishop Du Bourg was formally accepted, and letters were forwarded to Bishop Rosati, asking him to accept the vacant see. This he earnestly requested to be allowed to decline, pleading his lack of acquaintance with the clergy and people of Louisiana and his familiarity with the districts of Missouri, Illinois, and Arkansas. He urged the appointment of Rev. Leo de Neekere, a Belgian Lazarist, as Bishop of New Orleans, and sought the intervention of Bishop Du Bourg to have this effected. His objection was sustained, and finally on 20 March, 1827, Pope Leo XII transferred him from the See of Tenagre to that of St. Louis, and requested him to continue the administration of New Orleans until such time as other provision might be made.

At this period the Diocese of Louisiana comprised, roughly speaking, the territory extending from the Gulf of Mexico to the Dominion of Canada and from the Mississippi River to the Rocky Mountains. Owing to the existing indefinite lines of demarcation it was at times difficult and even impossible to decide with certainty the exact confines of the diocese. The uncertainty of jurisdiction, which necessarily arose from this, influenced Rome to advise all bishops in the United States and Canada to constitute their neighbouring bishops their vicars-general; so in the archives of the diocese we find documents appointing Bishop Rosati vicar-general to the Bishops of Quebec, Bardstown, St. Boniface, New Orleans, Cincinnati and Dubuque. The State of Illinois was part of the Diocese 1808, yet Bishop Flaget in exercising his episcopal functions along the Mississippi in the State of Illinois ministered to the wants of Catholics on the western side of the river, and so also Bishop Du Bourg, when residing at St. Louis, gave his attention to the faithful in Illinois, and in this Bishop Rosati also followed the example set. However, in the year 1832, Bishop Rosati wrote to Rome that as the western half of Illinois had hitherto been cared for by the ordinary of St. Louis it would prove more expedient to attach it to the See of St. Louis not only de facto but also de jure. Pursuant to this suggestion Rome, when erecting the See of Vincennes, in the year 1834, divided the State of Illinois and attached the western half to St. Louis and the eastern half to Vincennes; thus it remained until the year 1844 when the Diocese of Chicago was established.

The Diocese of St. Louis at the time of its erection, as is found in Bishop Rosati's report to the Propaganda, dated 1 Nov., 1825, comprised the northern portion of the so-called "Louisiana Purchase" including Arkansas. In Missouri Bishop Rosati mentions the city, St. Louis, where there was but a single priest, and, as he says, need of at least two more. Here the church begun by Bishop Du Bourg was still unfinished. Financial depression having driven away some and prevented others from paying their subscriptions, suit was entered for payment of the church debt and permission asked of the State to sell the bishop's house and other church properties to meet the obligation. Thus the conditions prevalent were by no means encouraging; finally, in 1822, part of the church property was sold, including the parochial residence, as also a building in course of construction for an academy. The purchaser gave Bishop Rosati a time in which to redeem it, and to secure necessary means he sent to Europe Rev. Francis Neill, in the hope that generous Catholics there would aid him in saving the property. In his report to Rome, Bishop Rosati (besides St. Louis, which he styled the most important city of the State and one of great possibilities) mentions the following others: Carondelet, or Vide Poche, with a hundred very poor families of French origin; Florissant, cared for by Father Van Quickenbom S.J., who was in charge of five scholastics, and at the same time directed a school for Indian boys; St. Charles, Portage des Sioux, Dardenne (now St. Peter's); Côte sans Desain, a French village distant about ninety miles from St. Louis; La Mine di Plumb (Old Mines, with about 200 French families; St. Michael's (Fredericktown); Ste Geneviéve with resident priest; the Barrens (French Bois Brulé, Latin Sylva Cremata), consisting then of about 200 families attended by one of the Fathers of St. Mary's Seminary, with 16 students of theology in attendance. Here too was located the Loretto Convent with 17 sisters and some postulants; though struggling with difficulties and lack of funds the sisters maintained a free school and cared for 24 orphans. The last Louisiana town mentioned in the report was New Madrid, with 80 French families. In Illinois Bishop Rosati notes Kaskaskia with 150 families, and Prairie du Rocher, with church and resident priest, the Rev. Father Olivier, aged seventy-five years, who was almost blind and unable to render any services to the parish. "I have offered him a room in the seminary", writes the bishop, "he is a saint who has spent, himself for many years in the service of Catholics about these parts."

Aside from this report we find, in other documents extant, mention made of Ap Creek (1816); Cape Girardeau (1816); Potosi (1816); Mine La Motte (1816); Harrisonville (1818); Osage Indian Nation Missions in Kansas (1822) with Rev. Ch. de La Croix as pastor. In 1818 Rev. Michael Portier was resident at Brazeau, Mo., and in 1822 Rev. Hercules Brassock at Drury, Ill., but as no mention of these names is found before or after this time we can only conclude that these fathers were residing with English-speaking families with the purpose probably of learning English. The report of Bishop Rosati was dated 1825, the diocese was established in 1826; yet the parishes and missions remain the same in 1826 as in 1825 and so continue until 1831. In 1827 we count 1 bishop, 4 secular priests, 8 Lazarist fathers, 8 Jesuit fathers; a total of 20 priests. In 1831 there were 11 churches with and 8 churches without resident priests; 20 missions; 1 bishop; 16 secular priests; 8 Lazarist Fathers; 11 Jesuits; a total of 35 priests. The Catholic population numbered 8000. It should be noted that on 20 Aug., 1818, Ladies of the Society of the Sacred Heart, including Madame Philippina Duchesne, Superior, Octavia Berthold, and Eugenia Audet, with two lay sisters arrived in St. Louis and soon after located at St. Charles, Mo. In October of the same year the Lazarist Fathers came from Bardstown, Ky., and settled permanently at the Barrens. On 31 May, 1823, two Jesuits, Fathers Charles vanQuickenborn and Peter Timmermans, with seven scholastics and three lay brothers, arrived, and soon after located in Florissant, Mo., while on the same day of the same year twelve Sisters of Loretto took up their permanent residence at the Barrens in Perry County. On 25 November, 1829, four Sisters of Charity arrived at St. Louis from Emmitsburg Maryland, and began their labours in conducting a Hospital, to found which Mr. John Mullanphy had given houses and lots and other properties: On 30 May of the same year Bishop Rosati approved of the foundation of the Visitation Nuns at Kaskaskia, Ill.; these later, in 1844, settled at St. Louis, being compelled to leave Kaskaskia because of the great flood of that year. On 5 March, 1836, Rev. James Fontbonne arrived at St. Louis with seven Sisters of St. Joseph from the Diocese of Lyóns, France. Four Ursuline Nuns arrived on 4 Sept., 1848. The Rev. Joseph Paquin was the first priest to own Missouri as his native state. He was born at New Madrid, 4 Dec., 1799. The first bishop to be consecrated in the Cathedral of St. Louis by the Rt. Rev. Bishop Rosati was the Rt. Rev. Michael Portier, titular Bishop of Oliensis an Vicar Apostolic of Alabama and the two Floridas, the consecration taking place 5 Nov., 1826.

Joseph Rosati

Born at Sora in the Kingdom of Naples on 12 Jan., 1789, he resolved even in his early days to consecrate his life to the service of God. In his youth be entered the novitiate of the Fathers of the Congregation of the Mission at Rome, was there professed, and ordained a priest. No record of his ordination is extant, due, no doubt, to the fact that Napoleon at the time held sway in the Eternal City and he commanded the expulsion and suppression of the Lazarist Fathers. It is evident, however, that it must have been either in 1811 or 1812, as documents show that on 19 Nov., 1812, the usual sacerdotal faculties were given him by the Cardinal Vicar of Rome. His first charge was as assistant to the Rev. Felix de Andreis, C.M. This we find him occupying when in the year 1815 Bishop Du Bourg was consecrated in Rome. A few days after his consecration Bishop Du Bourg arranged with the cardinal prefect to have a colony of Lazarist Fathers go to America to found a seminary and take up missionary work in his new diocese. Rev. Felix de Andreis was appointed superior of this band, and he selected as his associate the Rev. Joseph Rosati and the Rev. John B. Aquaroni. They, together with four lay brothers and two secular priests, the Revs. Joseph Carreti and Andrew Ferrari, and also four ecclesiastical students, on 18 Oct., 1815, departed from Rome for their future field of labour. Bishop Du Bourg, detained at Rome on important and serious business, could not accompany them. He, therefore, before their departure, appointed Father de Andreis his vicar-general and Father Rosati director of the seminarians, noting in the appointment of the latter that, should Rev. de Andreis die, Father Rosati was to succeed him as vicar-general.

On 7 Jan., 1816, the colonists arrived at Bordeaux, took up their residence in the archiepiscopal palace and remained there several months, applying themselves to the study of the French and English languages. Finally, 12 June, 1816, they embarked at Bordeaux for Baltimore and landed there 27 July, 1816; thence they proceeded by stage to Pittsburg, and here were delayed several weeks because low water in the Ohio River, finally arriving at Bardstown during October of 1817. Bishop Flaget received them most cordially and with every mark of affection, and placed at their disposal part of his seminary. Here they remained studying English under the tutorship of Bishop David, then coadjutor to Bishop Flaget. Father Rosati in a very short time had advanced sufficiently to be able to preach and hear confessions in the English language, and aside from his occupation as professor of philosophy and theology in the seminary, devoted himself to parochial work. When in June 1817, word was received that Bishop Du Bourg had sailed from Bordeaux and would arrive at Annapolis about 14 September on his way to St. Louis, Bishop Flaget and Fathers de Andreis and Rosati, with one lay brother, set out on horseback from Bardstown, Ky., to St. Louis, a distance of over three hundred miles, there to arrange a reception for the bishop. After the installation of Bishop Du Bourg at St. Louis, Bishop Flaget and Father Rosati returned to Bardstown, leaving Father de Andreis and Brother Blanca at Ste Geneviève, Mo. Father Rosati remained at Bardstown as rector of the seminary until October, 1818, when by order of Bishop Du Bourg the seminary was transferred to the Barrens, Perry County, Mo. Father Rosati was its first president and also pastor of the village church. On 15 Oct., 1820, the venerated de Andreis died and was succeeded by Father Rosati as superior of the Lazarist Fathers and as vicar-general of Bishop Du Bourg. Admirably did he accomplish the work devolving on him by virtue of his new appointment. Soon, without any conscious effort, he found himself surrounded by a body of enthusiastic and willing colabourers, and his ability and scholarship were soon manifest throughout the land.

In 1821 Bishop Du Bourg intended separating Mississippi and other territory from his diocese and pleaded for the appointment of Father Rosati as vicar Apostolic. This dignity of the latter's humility prompted him to decline, but later on Rome nominated him titular Bishop of Tenagre, and coadjutor to Bishop Du Bourg. He was enjoined under obedience to accept the nomination, and he remained in this office until the establishment of the Diocese of St. Louis, when he was placed in charge of its destinies and entrusted with the administration of the See of New Orleans. His worth as bishop can be gleaned from the results of his administration. Numerous religious orders were introduced, and during his time and partly by his efforts, the Jesuit Fathers established their novitiate at Florissant, Mo., and founded the western province of the order. In 1827 Bishop Rosati transferred to them the College at St. Louis which has since grown into the present University of St. Louis. The Religious of the Sacred Heart, the Visitation Nuns, and the Sisters of St. Joseph grew and developed by his advice and under his guidance. A home for the orphans, an institute for deaf-mutes and the St. Louis Mullanpby Hospital were made possible by his zeal and untiring efforts. In the year 1831 he began the building of the cathedral church, a beautiful, stately, and at the same time costly, structure, the cornerstone of which was solemnly blessed and laid by him on 1 Aug., 1831.

The solemn consecration of the cathedral took place on 26 Oct., 1834, Bishop Rosati himself being the consecrator, assisted by Bishops Flaget of Bardstown, Purcell of Cincinnati, and Bruté of Vincennes in presence of many priests and a great concourse of people. Here too, only two days later, he consecrated the venerated Bishop Bruté. Even to-day the cathedral stands, a monument of the faith and devotion of the Catholics of old St. Louis, the wonder and the admiration of all because of its purity of architecture and solidity of construction. In the midst of his distracting and arduous duties Bishop Rosati yet found time for study and literary work. As a writer he was clear and convincing and many of the ablest and most learned documents of the Four Provincial Councils of Baltimore are the results of his pen. He was a prudent, efficient administrator and an eloquent speaker, speaking equally well in Italian, French, and English. His audiences included men of every rank and station and so convincing were his words and so impressive his personality, that his converts during the year 1839 numbered 299. His confessional was always surrounded by penitents and in and out of the confessional he was accessible to all who sought his friendship or advice. He permitted himself to call no time his own, but at all hours was upon any person; thus be came to wield a might influence for good.

On 25 April, 1840 the Fourth Provincial Council of Baltimore and after its close departed for Rome, where he was most graciously received by Pope Gregory XVI. Appointed by the pope Apostolic Delegate to Hayti, he was commissioned to adjust the relationship between the Holy See and the Republic of Hayti; he accepted the appointment. In doing so, however he did not fail to note the danger of leaving his far extended and yet undeveloped diocese during so long a time without a leader; consequently he so advised the appointment of a coadjutor. This Rome agreed to and asked him to name his choice, he thereupon proposed the name of the Very Rev. Peter Richard Kenrick, vicar-general to the Rt. Rev. Francis Patrick Kenrick of Philadelphia; at the same time he drew attention to the fact that only a short time before he had petitioned Rome to appoint as his coadjutor the Very Rev. John Timon, C.M., and that Father Timon had declined the honour. Now, he argued, in order to prevent a recurrence, of the same nature it might be well to oblige Father Kenrick under obedience to accept the office. That Rome acted on the suggestion is clear from a letter of the Rt. Rev. Francis Patrick Kenrick, dated Philadelphia, 4 June, 1841, addressed to Bishop Rosati in which we read: "the positive wishes of His Holiness have, I believe, secured my brother's full acquiescence". Before going to Hayti Bishop Rosati returned to the United States, and on 30 Nov., 1841, at the cathedral church at Philadelphia, he consecrated the Rt. Rev. Peter Richard Kenrick titular Bishop of Drass and coadjutor of the Diocese of St. Louis. Having arranged the affairs of his diocese, and informed himself as well as possible regarding matters at Hayti, he set sail from New York, 15 Jan., 1942, and landed at Port au Prince on the twenty-ninth day of the same month, where he was received with every mark of respect. Success crowned his efforts in so far as he was able to convince the president of the advisability of signing a Concordat which should be submitted to the Holy See for approval.

He left Hayti 22 February, 1842, landed at Brest, France, on Easter Sunday, and from there proceeded to Rome to report the result of his endeavours to the pope. The remainder of the year he spent in Europe. In the spring of 1843, the Concordat having been signed at Rome, he journeyed to Paris to arrange for his return trip to Hayti. It is of interest to note that on his trip to Paris he met and travelled with the papal nuncio to Brussels, the Most Rev. Vincenzo Gioacchino Pecci, titular Archbishop of Damietta, afterwards the illustrious Leo XIII, and that the latter in 1881, in speaking of this meeting, said that never during his days had he met with a prelate so saintly (nessuno si santo) and so imbued with filial love and respect for the pope. When Bishop Rosati reached Paris his health, long before undermined by the privations and exposures of his missionary life in the Far West, gave way; he was stricken with an acute attack of lung trouble, which he had contracted during the previous month of February, and, acting on the advice of his physicians, he returned to Rome, where he died in the House of the Congregation of the Fathers of the Mission on 25 Sept., 1843. Coming to Missouri in the primeval days of its settlement, when it had scarcely a vestige of Catholicity, he left the diocese in a flourishing and prosperous condition. Preparatory to the first Diocesan Synod of St. Louis, convoked by him, and opened 21 April, 1839, he issued a call for a diocesan census, the result of which shows: a Catholic population of 31,503; 3 convents of the Ladies of the Sacred Heart, with 42 sisters; 1 orphan asylum and hospital in charge of the Sisters of Charity (19 sisters); 4 convents of the Sisters of Loretto, with 30 sisters; 2 convents of the Sisters of St. Joseph, with 11 sisters; 1 convent of Visitation Nuns, with 19 sisters; 4 ecclesiastical seminaries, with 30 clerics; 3 colleges; 7 charitable institutions. In 1842 we find 39 churches with resident priests; 6 chapels; 36 churches without resident priests; 60 missions; 2 Bishops; 29 secular priests; 21 Lazarist Fathers; 28 Jesuits; a total of 80 priests. The Catholic population at this time is give as 100,000. Bishop Rosati died 25, Sept. 1843, and was succeeded by Peter Richard Kenrick.

First Archbishop, Peter Richard Kenrick (1841-1895)

Some lives there are that mark an epoch — lives which by virtue of their striking power or unique position, or both, stand apart and form landmarks in history. Such was the life of Peter Richard Kenrick, the Second Bishop and the first Archbishop of the Diocese of St. Louis.

On 20 July, 1847, St. Louis was raised to the rank of an archdiocese and Bishop Kenrick became its first archbishop. No suffragans, however, were assigned to him as at the time other archiepiscopal sees were under contemplation in the territory. On 25 May, 1850, he issued a call for the Second Diocesan Synod and on the twenty-fifth of the following August, 43 priests of the diocese assembled in council. This synod, which was the only one held during his life, passed regulations which obtained during his administration. He also presided at the two Provincial Councils convoked by him, the first 7 Sept., 1855, the second, 5 Sept., 1858; a third was called for May, 1861, but was postponed because of the impending Civil War. On 3 May, 1857, Archbishop Kenrick consecrated the Rt. Rev. James Duggan his coadjutor. One year later Bishop Duggan was transferred to the See of Chicago.

In the spring of 1872 Archbishop Kenrick secured the appointment of the Very Rev. Patrick J. Ryan as his second coadjutor. The consecration services were held in St. Louis and Father Ryan, on 14 February, 1872, was consecrated titular Bishop of Tricomia and coadjutor to the Archbishop of St. Louis with the right of succession. Bishop Ryan remained coadjutor until 8 June, 1884, when he was promoted to the Archiepiscopal See of Philadelphia. After the departure of Archbishop Ryan, Archbishop Kenrick resumed, unaided, the administration of his diocese. In 1893, because of age and infirmities incidental thereto, he found it impossible to continue alone the administration and Rome sent him as coadjutor with the right of succession, the Right Rev. John J. Kain, Bishop of Wheeling, W. Va. Three years later, on 3 March, 1896, Archbishop Kenrick died in the archiepiscopal residence at St. Louis. He was a man of great learning, of modest, unassuming manner, never too reserved and never too familiar, in fact a spiritual man, a man of great soul, to whom littleness and meanness were unknown. He seldom came forward except in defence of Catholic truth and of Catholic interests that were attacked, and then rather in writing than in public meetings. His main work lay hidden from the public eye; this work was to organize, consolidate, and expand his diocese; to foster the ecclesiastical spirit among his priests; to counsel wisely and prudently his brother bishops, his clergy and people of every rank and condition. For such work it was that he became so well-known and so highly esteemed, and that his name ranks so high in the history of the Church in America.

During the life of Archbishop Kenrick the expansion of the Church in the Diocese of St. Louis was unprecedented. Prior to 1843 there were but three churches in the City of St. Louis: the cathedral, SS. Mary's and Joseph's, and the Church of St. Francis Xavier, and only 39 throughout the entire diocese. At the time of his death we find 58 parish churches in the City of St. Louis and 108 outside the city a 26 chapel, and 97 mission churches, with a Catholic population of nearly 200,000. In 1849, he introduced the Christian Brothers; in 1862, the Franciscan Fathers; in 1866, the Redemptorist Fathers; in 1869, the Alexian Brothers; in 1884, the Passionist Fathers; in 1848, the Sisters of the Good Shepherd; in 1849, the Ursuline Nuns; in 1856, the Sisters of Mercy; in 1858, the Notre Dame Sisters; in 1863, the Discalced Carmelites in 1869, the Little Sisters of the Poor; in 1872, the Sisters of St. Mary and the Sisters Of St. Francis; in 1880, the Oblate Sisters of Providence, and in 1882, the Sisters of the Precious Blood. In 1843 he founded a monthly Catholic magazine, "The Catholic Cabinet and Chronicle of Religious Intelligence", in 1850 a weekly publication called "The Shepherd of the Valley", which was discontinued in 1854. To systematize works of charity he established in 1847 the St. Vincent de Paul Society, which organization grew and expanded and still continues its noble work in aiding the destitute and distressed. In 1892 "The Queen's Daughters" were organized, a society of ladies who devote their energies to forming sewing classes among the poorer people, teaching the scholars useful and beneficial arts, and providing clothing and other necessaries for the poor and deserving. Archbishop Kenrick furthermore organized the New Cathedral Board, the Catholic Orphan Board, the Calvary Cemetery Board, and the Diocesan Seminary Board, each of which he duly incorporated. He secured the property and building of the Visitation Nuns in the City of St. Louis for the new Kenrick Seminary and began the fund for the erection of a new cathedral. During his episcopate sixteen new sees were formed and established out of the original Diocese of St. Louis: Little Rock, 1843; Santa Fé and St. Paul, 1850; Leavenworth, 1851; Alton and Omaha, 1857; Green Bay, La Crosse, St. Joseph, and Denver, 1868; Kansas City, 1880; Davenport, 1881; Wichita, Concordia, Cheyenne, and Lincoln, 1887: At the time of his death in 1896 diocesan statistics show: city parishes, 61; parishes outside the City of St. Louis, 114; missions with churches, 94; stations, 40; chapels with attending chaplains, 27; archbishops, 2; diocesan priests, 229; regulars, 121; total priests, 350; Catholic population, 200,000.

Second Archbishop, John Joseph Kain (1895-1903)

He was born at Martinsburg, Berkeley County, W. Va., 21 31 March, 1841. After attending the Martinsburg Academy, he entered St. Charles College at Ellicott City, Md., where he finished his Classical studies. He made his theological studies at St. Mary's Seminary, Baltimore, and was there ordained priest on 2 July, 1866. His first appointment was as pastor of Harper's Ferry, W. Va., and with it as a centre he ministered to the spiritual wants of the Catholics of eight counties. After nine years' pastorate, when only thirty-four years of age, he was selected by Rome to succeed Bishop Whelan of Bishop of Wheeling, W. Va. He was consecrated in the Cathedral of Wheeling 23 May, 1875. In 1893 Rome created him Archbishop of Oxyrynchia and coadjutor to Archbishop Kenrick, and on 31 Aug., of the same year, he came to St. Louis. He was appointed to the see of the Diocese of St. Louis, 21 May, 1895. During his administration he manifested the same strenuous and efficient efforts that had characterized his labours in his former diocese. During Sept, 1893, he opened the new Kenrick Seminary and in Sept., 1896 he presided over the Third Diocesan Synod. At this Synod he introduced into the diocese the Third Baltimore Council legislations, and redistricted and readjusted parish boundaries and regulated diocesan matters in general. He also began the reorganization of the parochial school system. In September, 1902 he held the Fourth Diocesan Synod in which diocese legislation was further perfected. Other notable works of this energetic prelate were the purchasing of the new cathedral site on Lindell Boulevard, the establishment of the new cathedral parish, the erecting of the new cathedral chapel and parochial residence, and the preliminary financing of the new cathedral project. In all his works he showed himself possessed of a great courage and determination, and accomplished for the diocese by his energy, labour and endurance that which his venerable predecessor had during his late years planned, but because of his great age failed to accomplish. Archbishop Kain was a man of great earnestness and prudence of his counsels as well as for the intensity of his convictions; an admirable exemplar of progressive conservatism and conservative progressiveness. He held a high place in the American hierarchy, as is evidenced fm the fact of his being chosen from among the bishops of the country in 1884 as procurator of the Third Council of Baltimore, and that in 1895 he was selected to deliver the sermon in the cathedral at Baltimore on the occasion of the conferring of the cardinal's biretta on His Eminence Cardinal Satolli, the first Apostolic Delegate to America. In 1902 his health failed, and Rome sent him at his request as coadjutor, with right of succession, the Rt. Rev. John Joseph Glenon, D.D., titular Bishop of Pinara, and coadjutor Bishop of Kansas City. Mo. Archbishop Kain died at Baltimore, 13 Oct., 1903. At the time of his death the diocesan census showed: city churches, 68; churches outside the city with resident pastors, 124; missions 58; 1 archbishop; 1 bishop; 268 diocesan priests; and 174 regulars; total 442. Catholic population, 220,000.

Third Archbishop, John Joseph Glennon (1903-)

He was born Kinnegad, Parish of Clonard, Co. Meath, Ireland. He completed his studies at All Hallows College, Ireland, came to America in 1883, and was ordained a priest of the Diocese of Kansas City in the cathedral of that city on 20 Dec., 1884. In 1893 he was appointed vicar-general of the diocese, and on 29 June, 1896, was consecrate titular Bishop of Pinara and coadjutor to Bishop Hogan of Kansas City, Mo. He was transferred to St. Louis as coadjutor with the right of succession on 27 April, 1903, and succeeded to the See of St. Louis on 13 October of the same year. During the time of his administration the Archdiocese of St. Louis has advanced with rapid strides, both in temporal and spiritual matters. Many churches and institutions have been established and built, and Church legislation has been amplified and perfected by the Fifth and the Sixth Diocesan Synods called and presided over by him during the months of September of the years 1905 and 1908; also various charity organizations have been systematically perfected, and new ones founded to answer the needs of the poor, especially in congested districts. During his time we note the organization of the "Ephpheta Society" (1909), a society whose object is to care for the Catholic deaf-mute children of the poor and provide means for their education; the establishment of Father Dunne's Newsboys' Home in 1905; Father Dempsey's Hotel for Homeless Men in 1906; the introduction of the Helpers of the Holy Souls in 1903; the Brothers of Mary (Western Province College and novitiate in 1908); and the establishment of Catholic settlement schools, and day nurseries in 1910. To this prelate has been entrusted the task of giving to St. Louis what had been the dream of Kenrick and the ambition of Kain — a cathedral worthy of the name and prestige of the Archdiocese of St. Louis. Soon after taking up Archbishop Kain's crosier, he set to work drafting plans and collecting funds for the erection of the cathedral, the corner-stone of which was laid on Sunday, 18 Oct., 1908, by the Most Rev. Apostolic Delegate Diomede Falconio, D.D., titular Archbishop of Larissa. On this occasion seventy-nine city parishes participated in the grand parade, making the largest demonstration ever seen in the city; it was also of extraordinary character in the nationalities represented.

The exterior of the cathedral is an original conception, Byzantine in sentiment, developed in a beautiful gray granite which lends itself happily to majestic piling, and is simple but romantic in expression. The openings are treated in receding colonnades, architraves, and archivolts, with profuse and elaborate carved and sculptured decorations, each motif being from a special design, original in character. The great central dome, forming the main central feature and rearing its cross 247 feet above the terrace, the main facade with its imposing gable and deep receding central rose-window, and three great main entrances below, flanked on either side with imposing isolated towers giving great breadth to the facade, present a front of great dignity and charm. The sides, with many gabled entrances, one-story chapels and great clerestory windows, the suppressed towers at the angle of the dome and central transepts form a beautiful combination, giving fine light-and-shadow effects. The building is roofed with a sea-green glazed tile; the typana of all the arches, illuminated with mosaics in subdued colours, impart warmth and interest to the whole. The building has great bronze doors with sculptured panels depicting Biblical subjects. The interior is of a purely Byzantine type, an original composition in colours never before attempted in this type of church architecture. The general plan consists of two minor domes, a large central dome, and a nave, with transepts and apse, surrounded with spacious ambulatories, through which the circuit of the church may be made without crossing the more sacred parts of the building. There are spacious chapels with groined and vaulted ceilings to the right and left of the sanctuary; these are dedicated to the Blessed Sacrament and the Blessed Virgin. Other chapels of equal importance are on either side of the front minor dome, while, two transepts form chapels dedicated to St. Louis and St. George. In the ambulatory circling these transepts are Stations of the Cross in bronze. The colonnades are of rare imported coloured marbles, the caps and bases of which are finished in gold with shadowed blues and reds. The ceilings, spandrels and arch balustrade are decorated with highly illuminated glass mosaics, of varied interlacing geometric patterns and religious emblems. The interior presents an ever-changing, vista of design and colour when observed from different points of view.

The statistics of the diocese (1911) are as follows: archbishop, 1; diocesan priests, 314; regular clergy, 214; Jesuits, 83; Passionists, 12; Redemptorists, 40; Franciscans, 32; Lazarists, 42; Servite Fathers, 2; Brothers of Mary, 3; total priests, 528; churches in city, 83; churches outside city with resident priests, 151); total, 242; churches without resident priests, 98; total churches, 340; stations, 66; chapels, 120; seminary for diocesan clergy, 1; students, 250; seminaries of religious orders, 7; students, 900; colleges and academies for boys, 8; students, 2500; academies for young ladies, 22; other institutions of higher education for females, 15; females educated in higher branches, 5000; parishes with parochial schools in the city, 69; number of pupils in city, 20,936; parochial schools outside of city, 110; pupils, 9645; total schools, 179; total pupils, 30,581; newsboys' home, 1; hotel for working men, 1; orphan asylums, 7; orphans, 1500; House of the Good Shepherd, 1; children in preservation class, 250; deaf-mute asylums, 2; pupils, 190; industrial schools, 3; pupils, 300; total number of young people under Catholic care, 40,321; hospitals and infirmaries, 16; patients during the year about 10,000; asylums, 4; homes for aged, 2; Catholic population, about 375,000.

The statistics of the diocese at the time of this writing, June, 1911, are as above quoted, but by "Brief of the Consistorial" dated Rome, 16 June, 1911, the northern portion of the diocese has been detached and affiliated to the Diocese of St. Joseph, Mo. This will necessitate a readjustment of the above figures which cannot just now be done with any degree of accuracy. The territory affected comprises 11 counties: Clark, Adair, Knox, Lewis, Macon, Shelby, Marion, Chariton, Randolph, Monroe, and Ralls. In the counties named there are numbered 15 parishes with 16 missions and 20 diocesan and 3 regular priests.

ROSATI, Relazione, letters to the Propaganda and Private Letters; IDEM, Diocesan Archives; SHEA, Hist. of the Catholic Church in the U.S., I (Akron, 1888), passim; THORNTON, Historical Sketch of the Church in St. Louis; WALSH, Jubilee Memoirs (St. Louis, 1891); Encycl. of the Hist. of St. Louis (St. Louis, 1899); Catholic Directory (Milwaukee).

JOHN J. TANNRATH

University of St. Louis

The University of St. Louis, probably the oldest university west of the Mississippi River, was founded in the City of St. Louis in 1818 by the Right Reverend Louis William Du Bourg, Bishop of Louisiana. Since 1827 the institution has been under the direction of the Society of Jesus. On 16 November, 1818, Bishop Du Bourg opened St. Louis Academy, putting it in charge of the Reverend Francois Niel and others of the secular clergy attached to St. Louis Cathedral; in 1820 the name of the institution was changed to St. Louis College. The college was successful, but the secular clergy, owing to their numerous ecclesiastical duties, found it difficult to attend to this professorial work. In consequence Bishop Du Bourg, who had been President of Georgetown College, soon began to formulate plans to put St. Louis College in care of the Society of Jesus, for he realized that its existence would be precarious without some such guarantee for supplying a corps of trained professors. He therefore made application to the Provincial of the Jesuits in Maryland, but his request could not be granted, as the establishments of the Society at Georgetown and elsewhere in the eastern states fully occupied all the members at that time. However, early in 1823, Bishop Du Bourg visited Washington to consult with James Monroe, President of the United States, and John C. Calhoun, Secretary of War, on the Indian affairs of his diocese. Mr. Calhoun suggested that he invite the Maryland Jesuits to give him their assistance in this difficult pioneer work. Bishop Du Bourg thereupon once more entered into negotiations with the Provincial of Maryland offering to make over to the Society of Jesus his cathedral property in St. Louis, which comprised church and college, as well as a farm near Florissant, Mo., for an Indian seminary, if the Jesuits would establish themselves in his diocese. The provincial accepted that part of the proposition which referred to the Indian seminary, but stated that priests could not be spared for the St. Louis educational project. Accordingly in June, 1823, the Jesuits from Whitemarsh, Md., took up their abode in Florissant where they opened an Indian seminary. In 1824 they yielded to Bishop Du Bourg's earnest solicitations to take over St. Louis College, but the transfer was not actually effected until 1827.

The last session of St. Louis College under the management of the secular clergy was that of 1826-27. The Jesuits decided to erect new college buildings on property given by Bishop Du Bourg, and in the interval the pupils of St. Louis College were accommodated at Florissant. Thence they were transferred to the new establishment in St. Louis where classes were opened under Jesuit masters on 2 November, 1829. In its new environments the college flourished, and in 1832 received its charter as a university by act of the Missouri Legislature. President Verhaegen at once began to organize the post-graduate faculties. In 1834 the school of divinity was established, which continued its courses until 1860. A faculty of medicine was constituted in 1836 and was eminently successful until 1855 when, owing to the Know-Nothing movement, its separation from the university was deemed advisable. A law school was organized in 1843 but was closed four years later. In 1889 the work of reconstructing these faculties was begun. The school of philosophy and science was opened in 1889; the school of divinity in 1899; the school of medicine in 1903; the dental college, school of advanced science, and institute of law in 1908; the department of meteorology and seismology in 1909; and the school of commerce and finance in 1910. Although founded in the pioneer days of education in the West, the old professional schools of the university did excellent work. Dr. William Beaumont, widely known for his observations in the case of Alexis St. Martin, was among the first professors of the medical school. Rush Medical College of Chicago owes its existence to an early professor at the school, Dr. Brainard, and the Cooper Medical College of San Francisco was founded by an alumnus, Dr. Cooper. Another student of those early days, Dr. L.C. Boisliniere, wrote a text-book on obstetrics, which is still of considerable value. In 1848 Dr. M.L. Linton organized the first medical monthly in America, "The St. Louis Medical and Surgical Journal." Buckner, Barret, Garesche, and Sharp, of the old Law School, were men of national prominence in their day. Eight American prelates have had intimate connections with the university: Du Bourg of Louisiana, as founder; Rosati of St. Louis, as patron and benefactor; Van de Velde of Chicago and Carrell of Covington, as presidents; Miège, Vicar Apostolic of Indian Territory, as a professor; de Neckere of New Orleans, Harty of Manila, and Chartrand, Auxiliary of Indianapolis, as students. Other students of the university who rose to prominence in ecclesiastical affairs are the Very Rev. A.M. Anderledy, General of the Society of Jesus, and the Reverends Joseph Keller and R.J. Meyer, English assistants to the General of the Society. Fathers Carrell, Heylen, Smarius, Damen, and Conway were noted preachers connected with the university.

From an early date, members of the faculty devoted themselves to writing. Walter H. Hill, S.J., was among the first to write text-books on scholastic philosophy in English, and his works are still widely used. "The Happiness of Heaven," by Florentine Boudreaux, S.J., and "The Imitation of the Sacred Heart," by Peter Arnoudt, S.J., have gone through many editions (the most recent, 1910), and have been translated into most modern languages. Joseph Keller, R.J. Meyer, F. Garesché, and Joseph Fastre, all of the Society, wrote on ascetical subjects, while the writings of Pierre Jean de Smet did much to bring the Indian Missions into public notice. Within recent years books and studies on philosophy, theology, apologetics, ecclesiastical history, pedagogy, and canon law have been published by the Jesuit professors, Poland, Otten, Higgins, Coppens, Gruender, Conway, Rother, Martin, Conroy, and Fanning. Fathers Coppens and McNichols have issued textbooks on English literature. Father Thomas Hughes is well known as an authority on the history of the Jesuits, and is the author of "Loyola and the Educational System of the Jesuits." Fathers Finn, Copus, and Spalding are the authors of books of fiction for the young which have an extensive circulation. Professors Harris and Steele have published text-books on law, Professor Harris' work on "Wills" being noteworthy among recent contributions on the subject. Professors Eycleshymer, Thompson, Lyon, Neilson, Chaddock, Engman, and Loeb have written on medical topics. Scientific studies have been published by the Jesuit professors, de Laak, Monaghan, Borgmeyer, and Coony. Among the alumni who have won distinction in the field of history may be mentioned, E.B. O'Callaghan, Lucien Carr, Paul Beckwith, and Firmin Rozier; and in general literature, John Lesperance, Conde B. Pallen, and Irwin Russell.

Through its early missionaries who founded many settlements throughout the West, and through its alumni, many of whom have risen to high rank in civil and professional life, the university has contributed much to the upbuilding of Church and State in the West. Within a few years after the coming of the Jesuits to St. Louis more than forty establishments had been made; the work of de Smet, who founded missions as far to the North-west as Oregon, is famous. Adrian and Christian Hoecken, Ponziglione and others from the university evangelized Indians and whites throughout the West; many of these early missions became the centres of flourishing communities. In education the direct influence of the university has been wide, no less than thirteen colleges and professional schools having been founded by its professors or alumni. Degrees have been conferred from 1834 to 1911 as follows: Doctors, Ph.D., 27; LL.D, 33; M.D., 935; D.D.S., 107; Mus.D., 1; total, 1103. Masters, M.A., 175; M.S., 1; total, 176. Bachelors, B.A., 402; B.S., 75; Ph.B., 5; LL.B., 59; B.F.A., 2; B.C.S., 1; total, 544. Grand total of degrees conferred, 1823. During this period 722 members of the Society of Jesus completed the full courses of the schools of divinity and philosophy.

PRESENT STATUS

St. Louis University consists of the college, the school of divinity, the school of philosophy, the school of advanced science, the department of seismology and meteorology, the school of medicine, the school of dentistry, the institute of law, and the school of commerce and finance. In December, 1910, the General of the Society of Jesus, Very Rev. F.X. Wernz, by official act constituted St. Louis University a collegium maximum. This is a title conferred in recognition of the university's rank among Jesuit educational institutions.

The University Library contains more than 70,000 volumes, among them many rare and valuable works. There are also special libraries in each department of the university. The museum contains specimens illustrating the fields of geology, palaeontology and ethnology; the art collection though small contains some paintings of considerable merit. The "Fleur de Lis," a literary publication, and a number of philosophical, literary, and scientific societies, several of which publish their proceedings, furnish the student added opportunities for mental development; the Sodality of the Blessed Virgin Mary and other religious organizations offer additional aids to piety. University athletics are controlled by a students' association working in connection with the Faculty Board of Athletics. The gymnasium is fairly equipped and a splendid campus has been recently secured. The Alumni Association with records dating from 1828 is well organized and helps much to promote loyalty to the university. The General Catalogue, issued annually, and the Announcements published by the schools from time to time during the year, furnish detailed information in regard to the university.

FANNING, Hist. Sketch of St. Louis Univ. (St. Louis, 1908); IDEM, Diamond Jubilee of St. Louis Univ. (St. Louis, 1904); HILL, Hist. Sketch of St. Louis Univ. (St. Louis, 1879); KENNY in The Catholic Church in the U.S. (New York, 1910); BILLON, Annals of St. Louis (St. Louis, 1886); CHITTENDEN AND RICHARDSON, Life of Pierre Jean De Smet (New York, 1905); CLARKE, Bishops of the Catholic Church in the U.S. (New York, 1889); HOGAN, Thoughts about St. Louis (St. Louis, 1854); HYDE AND CONARD, Hist. of St. Louis (St. Louis, 1891); SCHARF, Hist. of St. Louis (Philadelphia, 1883); SHEPARD, Autobiography (St. Louis, 1869); ed. THORNTON, Catholic Institutions in St. Louis (St. Louis, 1911); ed. THWAITE, Early Western Travels (Cleveland, 1906); Annales de l'Association de la Foi (March, 1825, Nov., 1827); Archives of the Province of Missouri (1826); Donahoe's Magazine (Nov., 1904); Fleur de Lis (1898), passim; Woodstock Letters (1876), passim; Missouri Republican, files for 1818; Catalogues, Bulletins, Announcements of St. Louis University.

PAUL L. BLAKELY

Monastery of Saint Lucius

(LUZI)

Located in Chur, Switzerland. The Church of St. Lucius was built over the grave of this saint, whose relics were preserved in it until the sixteenth century. Originally the church was the cathedral. St. Valentinian enlarged it in the first half of the sixth century and built the crypt which is still in existence. In the ninth century a new cathedral was built by Bishop Tello in a former Roman fortress and St. Luzi was temporarily a branch of the Benedictine Abbey of Pfäfer. About 1140 it became a Premonstratensian abbey. At the time of the schism of the sixteenth century Theodore Schlegel, Abbot of St. Luzi, was especially energetic and skillful in defending the Catholic Faith. He was executed by the Protestants after terrible torture on 23 January, 1529. The monks were driven out and the monastery remained empty for a hundred years, the relics of St. Lucius being taken to the cathedral. Community life was continued at Bendern in Liechtenstein. In 1624 the monastery was restored and continued to exist until the beginning of the nineteenth century. By the decision of the Imperial Delegates at Ratisbon the possessions of the monastery in Liechtenstein and Vorarlberg were given in 1802 to the Prince of Orange. Consequently the monastery had no further means of existence. In 1806, therefore, the abbot and community transferred the monastery and all its rights to the episcopal seminary; this transfer was confirmed in the same year by Pius VII. The seminary was transferred to the former monastery, where it still exists; it has four courses of theology and seven professors.

MAYER, St. Luzi bei Chur (Einsiedeln, 1907).

J.G. MAYER

University of Saint Mark

The highest institution of learning in Peru, located at Lima, under the official name of Universidad Mayor de San Marcos. It is reputed as being the oldest university in the New World having been created by a royal decree of 12 May, 1551, wherein Charles V granted 350 gold dollars to the priors of the Dominican order to establish in Lima an Estudio General, and conferred upon it all the prerogatives enjoyed by the University of Salamanca. This decree was confirmed by a Bull of Pope Pius V, dated 25 July, 1571. Until 30 December of the same year, the school remained under the control of the Dominican fathers, when it became independent with the right to choose its own rector. The first one elected was Dr. Gaspar de Meneses, a layman. In 1574, after a new site had been purchased at a cost of 600 gold dollars, the name Saint Mark was chosen by lot for the institution. Thenceforward, the university acquired a greater importance, and two years later a new plan of studies adequate to the times, was adopted, with the following classes: two of Spanish grammar; one of native languages, which were then considered necessary for the propagation of the Gospel; three of theology; three of jurisprudence; two of canon law, and two of medicine. The number of students who came to Lima to follow the courses of the university increased rapidly and at one time reached 1200. As the cost of graduation was exceedingly high (about $10,000), instruction in Saint Mark, as in other colonial universities of the times, was confined to the aristocratic and wealthy classes, among which there prevailed an intense fondness for literary pursuits. These fees have been gradually reduced and the total now amounts to 50 soles ($25) for the degree of Bachelor, and 100 ($50) for that of Doctor.

The popularity of the institution continued until the time when Peru became independent (1825) and then followed a short period of inactivity, after which the university was reorganized by President Ramon Castilla (28 Aug., 1861). From the year of its autonomy, the university has been directed by a council composed of the rector as its chairman, a vice-rector, the dean and a delegate from each faculty, and the secretary of the University. The rector is elected by the professors with the approval and consent of the council, and each faculty chooses its own dean, regulates its course of studies, and issues its respective degrees. As at present constituted, Saint Mark consists of six faculties. Jurisprudence confers the degree of Doctor of Laws, with a course of five years comprising the following subjects: philosophy of law, civil law, criminal law, ecclesiastical law, mercantile law, mining and agricultural laws, law procedure, Roman law, and forensic practice. Medicine grants the diploma of Bachelor of Medicine in five years, and the title of "physician and surgeon" after two additional years of hospital practice, the subjects covered being descriptive anatomy, medical physics, public, private and international hygiene, medical and analytical chemistry, natural and medical history, general anatomy and microscopic technique, pharmacy, physiology, pathology, clinics, bacteriology, therapeutics, materia medica, surgery, nosography, ophthalmology, operative medicine, gynaecology, pediatrics, obstetrics, legal medicine, etc.; this same faculty issues the titles of pharmacist, dentist, and obstetrician, with courses of studies covering three years. In theology the degree of Doctor is obtained after a six years' course in the subjects of dogmatic theology, moral theology, church history, liturgy and ecclesiastical calculation, sacred oratory, the Bible and pastoral theology. The faculty of sciences is divided into three separate sections: (1) mathematical sciences, (2) physics, and (3) natural sciences, the course in each of which comprises a period of three years. Before admission to the faculty of medicine, students are required to pass two years in natural sciences, and likewise, those desiring to enter the school of engineers (independent of the university) must have studied mathematics two years. The faculty of letters confers the degree of Doctor, its course covering four years with these subjeots: philosophy, history of ancient and modern philosophy, aesthetics and history of art, Spanish literature, sociology, history of civilization, history of Peruvian civilization, and pedagogy; two years in this faculty are required for admission to that of jurisprudence. The faculty of administrative and political economy confers the degree of Doctor, and its course of three years includes the following studies: constitutional law; public and private international law, administrative law, political economy and economical legislation of Peru; maritime law, diplomacy, history of the treaties of Peru, consular legislation, finance, financial legislation of Peru, and statistics. The official organ of the university is the "Revista Universitaria", a monthly publication, which has since 1906 replaced the "Anales". At the present time the number of professors of the University of Saint Mark is 80.

GARLAND, Peru in 1906 (Lima, 1907), 111; Report of the U. S. Commissioner of Education (Washington, l908), l51, WRIGHT The Old and New Peru (Philadelphia, 1908).

JULIAN MORENO-LACALLE

College of Saint Omer

The well-known Jesuit college at St. Omer -- oftener spoken of under the anglicized form of St. Omers or St. Omer's -- was founded by Father Parsons in 1592 or 1593. All Catholic education having been prohibited in England, several colleges had been founded by Englishmen on the Continent -- at Douai, Rome, and Valladolid; their primary object was the education of the clergy. Father Parsons recognized the need of a college intended in the first instance for the laity, and for this purpose he chose a spot as near as possible to England. St. Omer was twenty-four miles from Calais, in the Province of Artois, then subject to the King of Spain. The first students were obtained by the removal of a small establishment which had been set up by Father Parsons at Eu, in Normandy. Other boys quickly arrived from England and within ten years of its foundation the college numbered over a hundred scholars. Thirty years later this number had been doubled. The character of the college was kept as English as possible, notwithstanding that several of the early rectors were Spanish. The buildings consisted of a large house joined to several smaller ones, and in 1610 a regular chapel was added. The whole was burnt down in 1684; but it was rebuilt on a comprehensive scale. A second fire, in 1725, led to further improvements in rebuilding and the greater part of the college then constructed is still standing. The college continued its work for over a century and a half. Many devout Catholics received their education within its walls, over twenty of whom won the crown of martyrdom.

In 1678 the Province of Artois passed into the hands of the French; but the Government was friendly to the college, which continued to prosper till the year 1762, when the Parliament of Paris decreed the expulsion of all Jesuits from France, and proposed to place the college under the direction of secular priests. In order to defeat this scheme, the Jesuits determined to remove the whole establishment. The boys expressed their willingness to accompany their masters, and by one of the most dramatic adventures in the history of any school, they succeeded in escaping from France, and reassembling at Bruges. Here the college was carried on until the suppression of the Society throughout the world in 1773. Even then, the college did not finally come to an end. Most of the boys escaped, and many of them reassembled in the academy carried on by English ex-Jesuits under the protection of the prince-bishop at Liège. From there they were driven by the Revolution in 1794, and the Penal Laws in England having by that time been modified, they returned to their own country, where by the generosity of Mr. Thomas Weld, one of their former pupils, they were presented with the mansion and property at Stonyhurst, which celebrated college thus claims a descent from that established at Saint Omer by Father Parsons.

In the meantime, the French Government finding itself in possession of the building at St. Omer, but without either masters or scholars, invited the clergy of the English College at Douai to undertake its management. After some hesitation, they consented to do so, feeling that this was the only way to save it from the French, and hoping some day to restore it to its rightful owners. They accordingly transferred their preparatory school there and this became the nucleus of what was practically a new college. Their action was much traversed by the Jesuits, and a long altercation ensued. The facts were laid before the Holy See, and though no final decision was given, the Roman authorities refused to censure the action of the Douai clergy. In its new form, the college became fairly prosperous, the scholars numbering over one hundred. The learned Alban Butler was president from 1766 to 1773, and died in the college. At the outbreak of the Revolution, however, it came to an end. The students and professors were imprisoned at Anas, in August, 1793, whence they were afterwards removed to Doullens, in Picardy, and joined to the Douai community. After the fall of Robespierre, they were removed to Douai, and in February, 1795, they were set at liberty. They returned to England, and the president, Dr. Stapleton, became the head of the new College of St. Edmund at Old Hall. He was followed by two of the professors and a few of the scholars; but the college there was based chiefly on the traditions of Douai, and the secular College of St. Omer practically came to an end. After the restoration of the French monarchy, the building was restored to the executors of Dr. Stapleton, and by them sold to the French Government. It is used to this day as a military hospital.

GERARD, Stonyhurst College (London, 1894); KEATING AND GRUGGEN, Stonyhurst (London, 1901); FOLEY, Records S. J. (London, 1877-83); DODD, Church Hist. of England, ed. TIERNEY (London, 1839-43); WARD, History of St. Edmund's College (London, 1893); BURTON, Life of Challoner (London, 1909); IDEM, Dawn. of Catholic Revival (London, 1909); PETRE, English Colleges on the Continent (Norwich, 1849); BLED, Les Jesuits Anglais a St. Omer; DESCHAMPS DE PAS, Historie de St-Omer (Arras, 1880). Several contemporary pamphlets concerning the dispute between the Jesuits and Seculars when the latter accepted the college: HOSKINS, Expulsion of English Jesuits out of St. Omer's; REEVE, Plain and Succinct Narrative etc.; HODGSON, Dispassionate Narrative etc.

BERNARD WARD

Abbey of Saint-Ouen

Located in Rouen, France, this abbey was a Benedictine monastery of great antiquity dating back to the early Merovingian period. Its foundation has been variously credited, among others, to Clothair I and to St. Clothilda, but no sufficient evidence to settle the question is forthcoming. It was dedicated at first to St. Peter when the body of St. Ouen, Archbishop of Rouen (d. 678), was buried there; the name of St. Peter and St. Ouen became common and finally St. Ouen only. The history of the abbey, on record from A.D. 1000, presents nothing of an exceptional nature. The list of abbots is in "Gallia Christiana" XI, 140. In 1660 the monastery was united to the Congregation of St. Maur, and when suppressed, in 1794, the community numbered twenty-four.

The chief interest of Saint-Ouen lies in its glorious church, which surpasses the Cathedral of Rouen in size and beauty, and is one of the few among the greater French churches completely finished. The present building, the third or fourth on the same site, was begun in 1318 by Abbot Jean Roussel, who had completed the choir with its chapels in the Decorated style, and a large portion of the transepts, by his death, twenty-one years later. The nave and central tower, more flamboyant in design, were finished early in the sixteenth century after the original plan. Unhappily the west facade, which had been planned on a unique and most beautiful scheme, was left unfinished. Although nothing could have been simpler than to execute the original designs still existing, the whole of the old work was swept away about the middle of the last century and an ugly pretentious modern design put up instead. Internally the church is 416 feet long, 83 feet wide, and 104 feet high, the central tower, crowned with an exquisite octagonal lantern, being 285 feet in height. Within, the effect is remarkably light and graceful, "the windows seem to have absorbed all the solid wall", and the roof rests simply on the pillars and buttresses, the intervening spaces being huge masses of glass. Fortunately most of the old glass has been preserved, and its silvery white and jewels of color give the final touch to one of the finest interiors in-the world.

POMMERAYE, Historie de l'abbaye royale de S.-Ouen de Rouen (Rouen, 1662), Gallia Christiana, XI (Paris, 1759), 135-55; Antiqua statuta archimonasterii Rotomagensis S. Audoeni in MARTENE, Thes. nov. anecdot. (Paris, 1717), IV, 1205; Chronique des abbes de S. Ouen de Rouen, ed. MICHEL (Rouen, 1840); GILBERT, Description historique de l'eglise de St-Ouen de Rouen (Rouen, 1822); COOK, The story of Rouen (London, 1899).

G. ROGER HUDLESTON

Saint Paul (Minnesota)

(SANCTI PAULI)

Archdiocese comprising the counties of Ramsey, Hennepin, Chisago, Anoka, Dakota, Scott, Wright, Rice, Lesueur, Carver, Nicollet, Sibley, Meeker, Redwood, Renville, Kandiyohi, Lyon, Lincoln, Yellow Medicine, Lac-Qui-Parle, Chippewa, Swift, Goodhue, Big Stone, and Brown, which stretch across the State of Minnesota from east to west, in about the center of its southern half.

During the Seventh Provincial Council of Baltimore (5-13 May, 1849) the fathers petitioned the Holy See to erect a bishopric in what was then the village of St. Paul. No action was taken on the matter in Rome for over a year, owing to revolutionary disturbances and the absence of Pope Pius IX (1846-78) in Gaeta consequent thereon. The See of St. Paul was actually established on 19 July, 1850. Its jurisdiction extended over an area of some 166,000 square miles, i.e. over what was then the Territory of Minnesota (established 3 March, 1849). The constituent parts were: a larger western part, to the west of the Mississippi, formerly part of the Diocese of Dubuque, and a smaller eastern part, between the Mississippi and St. Croix rivers, formerly part of the Diocese of Milwaukee. The size remained the same even after the admission of the State of Minnesota into the Union (11 May, 1858), and up to the erection of the Vicariate Apostolic of Northern Minnesota (12 Feb., 1875), of the Vicariate Apostolic of Dakota (12 Aug., 1879), and of the Diocese of Winona (3 Oct., 1889), when it was reduced to its present area. At the time of its erection the Diocese of St Paul was assigned to the province of St. Louis, afterwards (12 Feb., 1875) to that of Milwaukee. On 4 May, 1888, it became itself an archdiocese, and as such comprises at present the suffragan Sees of Duluth, Crookston, St. Cloud, and Winona, in Minnesota; Fargo and Bismarck, in North Dakota; Sioux Falls and Lead, in South Dakota.

The diocese was named after the town of St. Paul, which had its origin late in the thirties of last century, along the left or eastern bank of the Mississippi, near the military post of Fort Snelling. Father Lucien Caltier had built a log chapel there, and had opened it for services on 1 Nov., 1841. The rude oratory was placed under the invocation of St. Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, and the name was then attached to the settlement itself.

The earliest Catholic record of what became afterwards the Diocese of St. Paul is in the Rune Stone, discovered in 1898 near Kensington, Minnesota. A strange inscription on it tells us of a visit made in 1362 by thirty Norsemen to the above locality, where ten of them were slain by the natives, and the remainder addressed a salutation to the Blessed Virgin Mary and called upon her for protection. Although not all the Scandinavian scholars are agreed on the authenticity of this text, still the internal evidence seems to be all in its favour; and nothing has been found so far to contradict its contents. Minnesota is a classic land in the history of early Catholic voyageurs and missionaries. The first, as far as records go, were Groseilliers and Radisson, who spent some time on Prairie Island (1654-56) and in the neighbourhood of Knife lake, Kanabee County (1659-60). In 1679-80 Du Lhut visited the countries around Lake Mille Lacs, the western extremity of Lake Superior, and the Mississippi. It was during these journeys that he met the Recollect Father Louis Hennepin and his two companions Michel Accault and Antoine Auguelle, and rescued them from their captivity among the Sioux Indians. During an excursion down the Mississippi Hennepin beheld and named the Falls of St. Anthony in what is now Minneapolis. Nicolas Perrot, in 1683, established a small trading post, Fort Perrot, near the site of the present town of Wabasha, Minnesota; and in 1689 he proclaimed the sovereignty of the French king over the regions of the upper Mississippi. In his company was the Jesuit Father Joseph-Jean Marest, who spent considerable time among the Sioux about the years 1689 and 1702. A contemporary of Perrot, Le Sueur, established in 1695 a trading on Prairie Island, and in 1700 another, Fort L'Huillier, on the Blue Earth River, about three miles from its junction with the Minnesota. In 1727 a post, Fort Beauharnois, was established on the western shore of Lake Pepin, near the present town of Frontenac, Minnesota; the missionaries stationed there were the Jesuit Fathers Michel Guignas and Nicolas de Gonnor. Another, Fort St. Charles, was erected in 1732 on the southern shore of Northwest Angle Inlet, Lake of the Woods, by the explorer de Lavérendrye. The missionaries of the post were the Jesuit Fathers Messaiger and Aulneau, the latter of whom met a cruel death at the hands of savage Sioux. Religious ministrations were, of course, the chief object of the missionaries. Even the lay voyageurs did what they could towards the religious betterment of the natives. Groseilliers and Radisson instructed the older people in the elements of Christianity, and baptized a number of children whom they believed in danger of death.

No permanent settlements were made within the area of the Diocese of St. Paul until some time after the organization of the Government of the United States. In Sept., 1818, a mission was opened at Pembina, North Dakota, for the Catholic settlers, who had gone there from Lord Selkirk's colony near St. Boniface, Manitoba. The first priest, Father Dumoulin, and his immediate successors were sent from St. Boniface, the nearest episcopal see. Within the years following upon 1826 many settlers of the Red River valley were compelled to depart, owing to floods, grasshoppers, and other afflictions; and a number of them, generally Canadian and Swiss French, came to the vicinity of what is now St. Paul. Bishop Loras of Dubuque, accompanied by Father Pelamourgues, visited the few Catholics in 1839; in 1840 he sent them a resident priest in Father Lucien Galtier, who in 1844 was replaced by Father Augustine Ravoux, for more than sixty years a priest in the Diocese of St. Paul. The first Bishop of St. Paul was Rt. Rev. Joseph Cretin (1851-57), Vicar-General of the Diocese of Dubuque, appointed 23 July, 1850. His consecration took place at Belley, France, 26 Jan., 1851; on 2 July of the same year, he took possession of his episcopal see; his death occurred on 22 Feb., 1857. The small log chapel built by Father Galtier was soon, replaced by a large structure of brick and stone, which contained accommodations for church, school, and residential purposes. Another stone building was begun in 1855, but not finished until after the bishop's death; it is still used as the cathedral of St. Paul. The Catholic population, which consisted of several hundred, or perhaps a thousand, grew considerably in numbers, and counted about 50,000 at the end of the bishop's career. The increase was largely due to the bishop's own efforts, who invited Catholic settlers to the fertile plains of Minnesota. In addition to the French Canadians large contingents of Irish and German Catholics arrived, who located in St. Paul, in places along the Mississippi, St. Croix, and Minnesota Rivers. Wherever it was possible parishes or missions were organized, and provided with resident priests, or at least visited occasionally by priests from other stations. At his arrival in St. Paul Bishop Cretin found only a couple of priests with small congregations at St. Paul, Mendota, and Pembina; at his death there were 29 churches and 35 stations with about 20 priests attending to the spiritual needs of the Catholic people. Great efforts were made for the education of the young and for the preparation of worthy candidates for the priesthood. in Pembina there were the Sisters of the Propagation of the Faith. The Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet came to St. Paul 3 Nov., 1851, and soon opened schools for both elementary and higher education at St. Paul and St. Anthony Falls. In 1855 the Brothers of the Holy Family took charge of a school at St. Paul for boys in both the grammar and higher grades. The Benedictine Fathers from St. Vincent, Pennsylvania, sent some of their men to Minnesota in 1856, and soon a college was opened near St. Cloud in Stearns County. A seminary was conducted in the bishop's own house, where the necessary training was imparted to young Levites of the sanctuary. Works of charity or of general benefit to society were not neglected. A hospital was founded at St. Paul by the Sisters of St. Joseph; the St. Vincent de Paul Society and other similar associations were organized; and a Catholic temperance society was established in 1852. Among the more noteworthy Catholic pioneers were Jean-Baptiste Faribeault, Antoine Pépin, Vital and Gervais Guérin, Joseph Turpin, Abraham Perret, Benjamin and Pierre Gervais, Joseph and his son Isaac Labissonniére, Pierre and Sévère Bottineau, August L. Larpenteur, Louis Robert, Charles Bazille, and William F. Forbes. Of the early priests, apart from Fathers Galtier and Ravoux, the following may be mentioned: Thomas Murray, Daniel J. Fisher, John McMahon, Francis de Vivaldi, Dennis Ledon, Marcellin Peyragrosse, George Keller, Claude Robert, Louis Caillet, Felix Tissot, Anatole Oster, Francis Pierz, Michael Würzfeld, Demetrius Marogna, O.S.B., and Cornelius Wittman, O.S.B.

After the death of Bishop Cretin tho of St. Paul remained vacant for over two years. Father Augustine Ravoux was appointed administrator; under his regime the present stone cathedral was completed and opened for service in 1858. The second Bishop of St. Paul was Rt. Rev. Thomas Langdon Grace, O.P. (1859-84). He was born, 16 Nov., 1814, at Charleston, South Carolina, entered the seminary at Cincinnati in 1829, and the priory of St. Rose, Kentucky, in 1830, where on 12 June, 1831, he made his religious profession as a member of the Order of St. Dominic. In 1837 he went to Rome for further studies, and was ordained there to the priesthood by Cardinal Patrizi, 21 Dec., 1839. After his return to America in 1844 he was employed in the ecclesiastical ministry first in Kentucky, and afterwards for thirteen years at Memphis, Tennessee. In 1859 he. was called to the Bishopric of St. Paul by Pius IX; his consecration took place at St. Louis, 24 July, 1859; and on 29 July following he took possession of his see, over which he presided until the day of his resignation, 31 July, 1884. He was then made titular Bishop of Menith, and afterwards, 24 Sept., 1889, titular Archbishop of Siunia; his death occurred on 22 Feb., 1897.

Several modifications were introduced in the territorial arrangement and the direction of the diocese during his incumbency. By the creation of the Vicariates of Northern Minnesota and Dakota the northern part of Minnesota and the territory west of Minnesota were erected into new ecclesiastical jurisdictions. In 1875 Bishop Grace received a coadjutor in the person of Rev. John Ireland, then rector of the cathedral. The number of the Catholic people in the diocese continued to grow, largely through the bishop's activity in inviting settlers; at the time of his resignation in 1884 it amounted to about 130,000. In addition to the races already represented there came also many Catholics from Bohemia and Poland. The number of priests grew with the increase of the people, and they were so chosen as to correspond to the needs of the flock; in 1884 they were 153 in all. Side by side with the diocesan clergy there laboured fathers of the Benedictine Order, Jesuits, Franciscans, Dominicans, and Oblates. Charitable institutions were kept up and multiplied wherever necessary. Hospitals were opened at Minneapolis and New Ulm, orphan asylums were erected at St. Paul and Minneapolis, and homes were established for the aged poor. The education of the children was promoted in all possible ways. Catholic schools were founded and provided with Catholic teachers; the Brothers of the Christian Schools were called to St. Paul; and new academies for girls were opened. The growing needs in the field of charity and education necessitated the coming of more religious women. In the course of time the Congregations of St. Benedict, St. Dominic, St. Francis, Notre Dame, the Visitation the Grey Nuns, the Good Shepherd, the Sisters of Christian Charity, the Poor Handmaids of Jesus Christ, and the Little Sisters of the Poor furnished their quota. Like his predecessor, Bishop Grace never lost sight of the education of candidates for the priesthood. In 1860 he opened a preparatory school for young boys who felt a vocation for the priesthood. Among its pupils was Rt. Rev. John Shanley, late Bishop of Fargo. Unfortunately, after some years of existence it had to be given up for lack of accommodations.

To Bishop Grace succeeded his coadjutor, the Rt. Rev. John Ireland, D.D. (1884-). He was born at Burnchurch, Co. Kilkenny, Ireland, 11 Sept., 1838, and came to St. Paul with his parents in 1852. Bishop Cretin sent him to Meximieux and Hyres, France, where he completed his college and seminary course; he was ordained to the priesthood at St. Paul, 21 Dec., 1861. During the Civil War he served as chaplain to the Fifth Minnesota Regiment, and was afterwards stationed at the cathedral. In 1875 he was appointed titular Bishop of Maxonea and coadjutor to Bishop Grace of St. Paul, in whose cathedral he received the episcopal consecration, 21 Dec., 1875. Upon the resignation of his predecessor he became Bishop of St. Paul; and on 15 May, 1888, he was raised to the metropolitan dignity as Archbishop of St. Paul. The ecclesiastical Province was organized with the suffragan Sees of Duluth, St. Cloud, Winona, Jamestown (Fargo), and Sioux Falls, to which were added afterwards those of Lead (1902), Crookston, and Bismarck (1910). The creation of the Diocese of Winona diminished the territory of the archdiocese by the southern section of Minnesota. In 1910 an auxiliary bishop was appointed in the person of Rt. Rev. John J. Lawler, titular Bishop of Greater Hermopolis. The Catholic population kept steadily on the increase, so that at present it numbers about 260,000. Much of this growth is due to the archbishop's own efforts. From the day of his consecration as bishop he organized a systematic movement for the colonization of different parts of Minnesota. Various settlements such as De Graff, Clontarf (Swift Co.), Adrian (Nobles Co.), Avoka, Fulda (Murry Co.), Graceville (Big Stone Co.), Minneota, and Ghent (Lyon Co.), owe their origin and prosperity to his labours. With the increase of the people grew also the number of priests, which at present exceeds 300. Of the religious orders, one, that of the Marist Fathers, was added to the existing ones. The charitable institutions were maintained and increased. The work of temperance found always a most zealous advocate in the archbishop. Catholic education received from him a liberal and wise patronage. Catholic grammar and high schools were multiplied and rendered more efficient. A new departure in the higher education of women was made by the Sisters of St. Joseph in the opening of St. Catharine's College in 1905. To the religious communities engaged in teaching was added another, that of the Felician Sisters.

The training of the candidates for the priesthood is imparted in two institutions. On 8 Sept., 1885, the Seminary of St. Thomas opened its gates to students of both the college and seminary curriculum, with an attendance of 27 in theology and philosophy, and of 39 in the classics. St. Thomas continued to house the two departments until in 1894, when it was continued as a college; and its growth has been so marvellous, that during the past year it enrolled nearly 700 students. The seminary was transferred, in Sept., 1894, to new quarters, the St. Paul Seminary, built and endowed by the munificence of St. Paul's great citizen, James J. Hill. In the year of its opening it numbered about 60 students, and last, year it had on its list 165 seminarians, representing 19 dioceses in the United States. In 1905 the St. Paul Catholic Historical Society was organized with headquarters in the seminary. The following events illustrate the growth of the Diocese and the Province of St. Paul within recent years. On 2 June, 1907, the corner-stone was laid for the new cathedral of St. Paul; and a year afterwards, 31 May, 1908, a similar ceremony was performed with reference to the new pro-cathedral of Minneapolis. The chapel of the Seminary of St. Paul witnessed, 19 May 1910, a scene extremely rare, if not unique, in the annals of ecclesiastical history. Six bishops received on that day their consecration, all six destined for service in the one Province of St. Paul. The present condition of the diocese may best be gauged from the following statistics: archbishop, 1; bishop, 1; diocesan priests, 275; priests of religious orders, 40; churches with resident priests, 188; missions with churches, 62; chapels, 17; theological seminary, 1; college, 1; commercial schools, Christian Brothers, 2; number of pupils in parochial schools, 21,492; boarding-schools and academies for girls, 7; orphan asylums, 3; hospitals, 3; homes for the aged poor, 2; house of the Good Shepherd, 1.

The Metropolitan or American Catholic Almanac; The Official Catholic Directory (Baltimore, New York, Milwaukee); SHEA, The Hierarchy of the Catholic Church in the United States (New York, 1886); REUSS, Biographical Cyclopedia of the Catholic Hierarchy of the United States (Milwaukee, 1898); HOFFMANN, St. John's University (Collegeville, 1907); Acta et Dicta (St. Paul, 1907-11),; UPHAM, Minnesota in Three Centuries, I (St. Paul, 1908); FOLWELL, Minnesota, the North Star State (Boston and New York, 1908); WILLIAMS, A History of, the City of St. Paul (St. Paul, 1876).

FRANCIS J. SCHAEFER

St. Paul-without-the-Walls

( San Paolo fuori le mura).

An abbey nullius. As early as 200 the burial place of the great Apostle in the Via Ostia was marked by a cella memoriæ, near which the Catacomb of Comodilla was established. Constantine, according to the "Liber Pontificalis", transformed it into basilica; in 386 Theodosius began the erection of a much larger and more beautiful basilica, but the work including the mosaics was not completed till the pontificate of St. Leo the Great. The Christian poet, Proudentius, describes the splendours of the monument in a few, expressive lines. As it was dedicated also to Saints Taurinus and Herculanus, martyrs of Ostia in the fifth century, it was called the basilica trium Dominorum. Of the ancient basilica there remain only the interior portion of the apse with the triumphal arch and the mosaics of the latter; the mosaics of the apse and the tabernacle of the confession of Arnolfo del Cambio belong to the thirteenth century. In the old basilica each pope had his portrait in a frieze extending above the columns separating the four aisles and naves. In 1823 a fire, started through the negligence of a workman who was repairing the lead of the roof, resulted in the destruction of the basilica. Alone of all the churches of Rome, it had preserved its primitive character for one thousand four hundred and thirty-five years. The whole world contributed to its restoration. The Khedive of Egypt sent pillars of alabaster, the Emperor of Russia the precious malachite and lapis lazuli of the tabernacle. The work on the principal facade, looking toward the Tiber, was completed by the Italian Government, which declared the church a national monument. The interior of the walls of the nave are adorned with scenes from the life of St. Paul in two series of mosaics (Gagliardi, Podesti, Balbi, etc). The graceful cloister of the monastery was erected between 1220 and 1241. The sacristy contains a fine statue of Boniface IX. In the time of Gregory the Great there were two monasteries near the basilica: St. Aristus's for men and St. Stefano's for women. Services were carried out by a special body of clerics instituted by Pope Simplicius. In the course of time the monasteries and the clergy of the basilica declined; St. Gregory II restored the former and entrusted the monks with the care of the basilica. The popes continued their generosity toward the monastery; the basilica was again injured during the Saracen invasions in the ninth century. In consequence of this John VIII fortified the basilica, the monastery, and the dwellings of the peasantry, forming the town of Joannispolis, which was still remembered in the thirteenth century. In 937, when St. Odo of Cluny came to Rome, Alberico II, patrician of Rome, entrusted the monastery and basilica to his congregation and Odo,/a> placed Balduino of Monte Cassino in charge. Gregory VII was abbot of the monastery and in his time Pantaleone of Amalfi presented the bronze gates of the basilica, which were executed by Constantinopolitan artists. Martin V entrusted it to the monks of the Congregation of Monte Cassino. It was then made an abbey nullius. The jurisdiction of the abbot extended over the districts of Civitella San Paolo, Leprignano, and Nazzano, all of which formed parishes; the parish of San Paolo in Rome, however, is under the jurisdiction of the cardinal vicar.

U. BENIGNI

Basilica of St. Peter

TOPOGRAPHY

The present Church of St. Peter stands upon the site where at the beginning of the first century the gardens of Agrippina lay. Her son, Caius Caligula, built a circus there, in the spina of which he erected the celebrated obelisk without hieroglyphics which was brought from Heliopolis and now stands in the Piazza di S. Pietro. The Emperor Nero was especially fond of this circus and arranged many spectacles in it, among which the martyrdoms of the Christians (Tacitus, "Annal.", XV, 44) obtained a dreadful notoriety. The exact spot in the circus of the crucifixion of St. Peter was preserved by tradition through out the centuries, and in the present Church of St. Peter is marked by an altar. Directly past the circus of Nero ran the Via Cornelia which, like all Roman highways, was bordered with sepulchral monuments. In Christian times a small city of churches and hospices gradually arose here, but without this part of Rome being included in the city limits. When in the year 847 the Saracens pillaged the Basilica of St. Peter and all the sanctuaries and establishments there, Leo IV decided to surround the extensive suburb with a wall, interrupted at intervals by exceedingly strong and well-fortified towers. Two of these towers, as well as a fragment of the wall, are still preserved in the Vatican gardens and afford an interesting picture of the manner of fortification. Owing to this circumvallation by Pope Leo the Vatican portion of the city received the name Civitas Leonina, which it has preserved to the present day (Leonine City). The Vatican Hill rises in close proximity to the river Tiber. Between it, the river, and the mausoleum of Hadrian (Castle of Sant' Angelo) lies a small plain which was not filled with houses until the early Middle Ages. The Vatican territory did not assume a throughly urban character until the end of the fifteenth century.

BASILICA OF CONSTANTINE

The simple sanctuary of the Prince of the Apostles gave place under Constantine the Great to a magnificent basilica, begun in the year 323 but not completed until after his death. The southern side of the ancient basilica was erected upon the northern side of the circus, which in the Middle Ages bore the name Palatium Neronis. It was built in the form of a cross and divided into five naves by four rows of twenty-two columns each. Vast treasures were collected in the course of centuries in this principal sanctuary of Western Christendom: precious mosaic decoration internally and externally, offerings of great value surrounding the tomb of the Prince of the Apostles, magnificent vestments in the wardrobes of the sacristy, richly decorated entablature, and bright but harmoniously coloured pavements, paintings, and whatever else the love and veneration of high and low could conceive in the way of adornment. Connecting the basilica with the Porta di S. Pietro at the Castle of Sant' Angelo was a covered colonnade, through which innumerable pilgrims passed. Provision was made in the Vatican territory for their shelter, and the necessity soon arose of building a palace near the basilica in which the pope could live and receive visitors when sojourning at St. Peter's. Churches and monasteries, cemeteries and hospices arose in great numbers around the tomb of the "fisher of men".

Twelve centuries elapsed between the building of St. Peter's and the first demolition of an important part of the basilica. Its rebuilding during the Early Renaissance is to be regretted, for the plan of the new church became the plaything of artistic humours. It is due to Michelangelo, who saved all that was possible of Bramante's original plan, that something aesthetically satisfactory was created.

HISTORY OF THE BUILDING

Owing to the neglect of the churches at Rome during the papal residence at Avignon, by the fifteenth century the decay of Saint Peter's had progressed to an alarming extent. Nicholas V, an enthusiastic Humanist, therefore conceived the plan of levelling the old church and erecting a new structure in its place. Bernardo Rossellini of Florence was intrusted with the undertaking and in accordance with his plans the new basilica was to completely surround the choir and transept of the old, and to have the ground plan of a Latin cross with an elongated nave. But with the exception of the tribune begun in 1450 and the foundations of the wall surrounding the transept nothing further was built, as the pope died in 1455. Julius II, adopting the idea of reconstructing the basilica, instituted a competition in which Bramante, as is related, gained the prize. His unlimited enthusiasm for the mighty conception of the impetuous pope is attested by his numerous plans and drawings, which are still preserved in the Uffizi Gallery, Florence. Bramante wished to pile the Pantheon upon the Constantinian basilica, so that a mighty dome would rise upon a building in the form of a Greek cross. In the spring of the year 1506 Julius, in the presence of thirty-five cardinals, laid the foundations of this imposing structure, which posterity has spoiled and changed for the worse in an inexcusable manner. Bramante died in 1514. Giuliano da Sangallo and Fra Giacondo da Verona, who together with Raphael continued his work, died in 1516 and 1515 respectively. Raphael, yielding to all manner of influences, undertook changes but did not promote the building to any considerable extent. After his death in 1520 a sharp conflict arose whether the church should remain in the form of a Greek cross, or the nave be extended so as to form a Latin cross.

Antonio da Sangallo, who was appointed architect in 1518, and Baldassari Peruzzi, appointed in 1520, were without fixed plans and attempted all manner of experiments, of which Michelangelo, when he received control in 1548, made an end so far as this was still possible. Bramante's plan seemed to him so excellent that he built in accordance with it. By strengthening the central piers he made it possible for them to bear a dome. He did not live to see the completion of his artistic conception, since only the drum was completed when he died. But in the years which followed the present dome, a sublime masterpiece of unsurpassed beauty, was constructed in accordance with his designs. The faithfulness with which, after the great master's death (1546), Giacomo della Porta continued the building of the dome in accordance with Michelangelo's intentions should be especially emphasized. The building might have been completed at the beginning of the following century if in 1606 Paul V had not decided to carry out the form of the Latin cross. During the twenty years which followed Carlo Maderna constructed the present by no means unobjectionable facade and Bernini wasted time and money in adorning the front with bell-towers, which for artistic reasons had to be removed, in so far as he had completed them. At length on 18 November, 1626, Urban VIII solemnly dedicated the church, of which the actual construction, excepting certain unimportant details, may be considered as completed. Three clearly defined stages in the construction of St. Peter's must therefore be distinguished: (1) Bramante's Greek cross with the dome; (2) Michelangelo, a Greek cross with dome, and in addition a vestibule with a portico of columns; (3) Paul V, a Latin cross with Baroque facade. The longer they built the more they spoiled the original magnificent plans, so that the effect of the exterior as a whole is unsatisfactory. The principle mistake lies naturally in the fact that the unsuitable extension of the nave conceals the dome from one observing the basilica from a near point of view. Only at a considerable distance is Michelangelo's genial creation in its pure and beautiful design revealed to the astonished observer. All the external walls are constructed of splendid travertine, now become gold in colour, which even in bright sunlight gives a quiet, harmonious effect.

ARCHITECTURE

Statistics

The construction of St. Peter's, in so far as the church itself is concerned, was concluded within a period of 176 years (1450-1626). The cost of construction including all the additions of the seventeenth century amounted to about $48,000,000. The yearly cost of maintenance of the gigantic building, including the annexes (sacristy and colonnades), amounts to $39,500, a sum that is only exceeded when actual renewals of the artistic features (such as gilding, repairing the pavement, and extensive marble work on the pilasters) becomes necessary. The basilica is endowed with extensive properties at Rome, wide landed possessions in Middle Italy, and other capital from the income of which the entire support of the Divine Service, the clergy, and the large number of employees, as well as the costs of the building requirements are derived. In accordance with the most reliable contemporary calculations, those of Carlo Fontana, the proportions of the building are as follows: height of the nave, 151.5 feet; width of the same at the entrance, 90.2 feet; at the tribune, 78.7 feet; length of the transepts in interior, 451 feet; entire length of the basilica including the vestibule, 693.8 feet. From the pavement of the church (measured from the Confession) to the oculus of the lantern resting upon the dome the height is 404.8 feet, to the summit of the cross surmounting the lantern, 434.7 feet. The measurements of the interior diameter of the dome vary somewhat, being generally computed at 137.7 feet, thus exceeding the dome of the Pantheon by a span of 4.9 feet. The surface area of St. Peter's is 163,182.2 sq. feet.

Comparative measurements (length):

• Length of St. Paul's, London, 520.3 feet;
• Cathedral of Florence, 490.4;
• Cathedral of Milan, 444.2;
• Basilica of St. Paul, Rome, 419.2;
• St. Sophia, Constantinople, 354.

Comparative measurements (surface area):

• Milan, 90,482 sq. ft.;
• St. Paul's, London, 84,766.5;
• St. Sophia, 74,163;
• Cologne, 66,370.8;
• Antwerp, 53,454.

The vestibule of the basilica is 232.9 feet wide, 44.2 deep, and 91.8 high. On the facade are five portals; in the chapel of the Blessed Sacrament is a door which leads directly into the Apostolic Palace; in the choir chapel and in the vestibule of the left transept are doors leading to the sacristy, besides which there are four others generally used for building and administrative purposes. Besides the two low galleries for the singers in the choir chapel, there are four others of restricted size in the piers of the dome. In addition to the principal altar in the tribune and the four altars in the crypts, the basilica contains twenty-nine altars, under most of which bodies of saints, including several of the Apostles, repose.

Annex Buildings

The colonnades which enclose the most beautiful public place in the world, the Piazza di S. Pietro, form an organic part of the basilica. Constructed in 1667 by Bernini, they surround the piazza in elliptical form, the major axis 1115.4 feet, the minor axis 787.3 feet. For the construction of the colonnades and the equipment of the Piazza di S. Pietro about a million dollars were expended. The covered colonnades which consist of four rows of columns in the Doric style form three passages, the central one of which is the width of an ordinary wagon road. The 248 columns and 88 pilasters are entirely of travertine. Adjoining the elliptical place is a square one which diminishes in extent towards the church. Its sides consist of extensive corridors, of which the one on the right belongs to the Apostolic Palace of the Vatican. The colonnades and corridors are surmounted by 162 figures of saints after designs by Bernini. In the middle of the ellipse towers the celebrated obelisk of Heliopolis. Its removal to the present site took place in 1586. On both sides of the obelisk are two beautiful fountains 45.9 feet in height. The obelisk is 836 feet high, and weighs 360.2 tons. Its apex is adorned with a bronze cross containing a fragment of the True Cross. The irregular quadrangle between the ellipse and the basilica is for the most part occupied by the monumental stairway and its approach, which lead pilgrims to the higher level of the church. The area of this approach alone is greater than that of most churches of Christendom. The sacristy of St. Peter's, the house of the canons and beneficiaries, as well as the papal hospice of Santa Marta are connected with the basilica by two covered passages. The sacristy, which contains very remarkable art treasures, was built in 1775 under Pius VI by Carlo Marchione. The Palazzina, which stands on the Piazza di Santa Marta behind the basilica, belongs directly to St. Peter's. It is for the time being the official residence of the archpriest of St. Peter's, who is always a cardinal.

Description of the Basilica

As may be seen in the accompanying plan, the four principal divisions of the basilica extend from the dome and are connected with each other by passages behind the dome piers. To the right and the left of the nave lie the smaller and lower aisles, the right of which is bordered by four lateral chapels, the left by three chapels and the passage to the roof. The general decoration consists of coloured marble incrustations, stucco figures, rich gilding, mosaic decoration, and marble figures on the pilasters, ceiling, and walls. The panelling of the pavement in geometric figures is of coloured marble after the designs of Giacomo della Porta and Bernini. The extremely long sweep of the nave is closed by the precious bronze baldachino 95 feet high, which Urban VI caused to be erected by Bernini in 1633. Beneath it is the Confession of St. Peter, where the body of the Prince of Apostles reposes. No chairs or pews obstruct the view; the eye roves freely over the glittering surface of the marble pavement, where there is room for thousands of people.

The centre of the entire structure is the tomb of St. Peter (see Confession; Saint Peter, Tomb of). Very interesting also are the high altar in the tribune, enclosing the chair of the Prince of Apostles, and the mighty slab of porphyry upon which the German emperors were formerly crowned. The magnificent holy water basins to the right and to the left, well known from numerous illustrations, are supported by gigantic putti. The barrel vaulting reposes in a beautiful curve upon the pillars and the arches connecting them. Proceeding forwards we also perceive the marble reliefs of many popes on the piers while many of the pier niches contain heroic statues of the founders of the orders, a decoration which extends also over the transepts and the nave of the tribune. At the fourth pier to the right is a very important sitting statue of St. Peter, which has been erroneously ascribed to the thirteenth century, but in truth dates from the fourth or fifth. This is no adaptation of another statue, but was intended to be a statue of the Prince of the Apostles. In the left transept the confessionals of the penitentiaries of St. Peter's reveal in the most beautiful manner the unity of the Faith, by offering the opportunity for confession in the most important civilized tongues of the world. Facing the Confession there stand obliquely before the dome piers the colossal marble statues of Sts. Longinus, Helena, Veronica, and Andrew. From the gallery above the statue of St. Helena the so-called great relics are displayed several times during the year. The most important of these is a large fragment of the True Cross. Above the four galleries of the dome the four Evangelists are depicted in magnificent mosaics after the designs of Cavaliere d'Arpino. In the frieze above stand the proud Latin inscription, the letters of which are six feet high: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and I will give thee the keys of Heaven".

In the tribune of the left transept are three altars of which the middle one is particularly noteworthy because, in the first place, the tomb of the immortal composer Pierluigi da Palestrina lies before it; secondly, because the bodies of the two Apostles Simeon and Judas Thaddeus repose in a stone sarcophagus beneath the altar; and thirdly, because, as the altar-piece of Guido Reni records, the altar marks the spot in the circus of Nero where the cross stood upon which St. Peter breathed his last. The right transept has attained a special importance in most recent ecclesiastical history because in 1870 the Vatican Council held its sessions here until dispersed by the march of the crowned revolution upon Rome. Returning to the entrance we find in the first lateral chapel of the right aisle the place made famous by Michelangelo's "Pietà" (1498). Beside it in the chapel of St. Nicholas is the treasury of the relics of St. Peter, then follows the chapel of St. Sebastian, and finally the roomy chapel of the Sacrament. Among the art treasures here is the tomb of Sixtus IV, a thoroughly simple and impressive bronze monument by Antonio Pollajuolo. From the multitude of sepulchral monuments which adorn the right transept, those of Leo XII, of Countess Matilda of Tuscany, the powerful friend of Gregory VII, and of Gregory XIII, the reformer of the calendar, deserve special mention. Against the dome pier, directly in front of us, stands an altar with the "Communion of St. Jerome" after Domenichino. The passage around the dome to the right is called the Gregorian chapel, because it was decorated under Gregory XIII after the designs of Michelangelo. Next to the monument of Gregory XVI is the altar of the Madonna dell Soccorso, whose picture is from the ancient church of St. Peter. Under the altar-piece reposes the body of St. Gregory of Nazianzus and adjoining it is the colossal tomb of Benedict XIV.

In the opposite passage of the dome pier are Canova's masterpiece, the monument of Clement XIII, and the altar-piece after Guido Reni, representing the Archangel Michael. In the same division on the left side of the church, the monument of Alexander VIII gleams in the distance, and under the altar of the Madonna della Colonna, in an early Christian sarcophagus the mortal remains of Sts. Leo II, Leo III, and Leo IV repose. The altar of St Leo I is surmounted by the colossal marble relief by Algardi, the "Retreat of Attila from Rome", the proportions of which seem too large, even for the Basilica of Saint Peter. Farther on is the monument of Alexander VII, and opposite this is the only oil-painted altar-piece—one by Vareni—of St. Peter's. All the remaining altar-pieces within the church are of mosaic. Passing through the left transept we approach the passage around the fourth dome pier, where on the right, under the monument of Pius VIII, is the entrance to the sacristy, and directly in front, under the monument of Pius VII by Thorwaldsen, is the stairway to the gallery of the singers in the choir chapel. Here the left transept begins, the first lateral chapel of which is used for the prayers of the canons, while the last serves as a baptistery. Adjoining the choir chapel beyond the entrance, at a height of fifteen feet above the pavement, is an enclosed niche in which each deceased pope is interred until his body can be taken to the sepulchre definitively assigned for it. At the present time the body of Leo XIII still reposes here, although his sepulchre in the Lateran has long been finished. The uncertainty of conditions at Rome has rendered it inadvisable as yet to undertake the removal of the body. On the tomb of Leo XI our attention is attracted by an excellent marble relief representing King Henry IV of France abjuring Protestantism. Of similar importance is another relief here upon the monument of Innocent XI, relating to the raising of the Turkish siege of Vienna by John Sobieski, King of Poland. Among the most beautiful funeral monuments of the entire basilica is that of Innocent VIII by Antonio and Pietro Pollajuolo. Adjoining these are the two important tombs of Urban VIII by Bernini and Paul III by Guglielmo della Porta.

Sagre Grotte Vaticane is the name applied to the extended chambers under the pavement of St. Peter's. They are distinguished as the old and the new crypts. The former lie principally under the nave, and are 59 feet wide and 147.6 feet long. They represent the pavement of the old Basilica of St Peter. Numerous graves of popes and emperors, which were in the Basilica of Constantine, are here, so that the low and extended place, 11.4 feet in height, is of the greatest historic interest. Among many others are the graves of the popes: Nicholas I, Gregory V, a German, Adrian IV, an Englishman, Boniface VIII, Nicholas V, Paul II, Alexander VI, and the Emperor Otto II. The heart of Pius IX also reposes here in the simple urn. The new crypts extend about the tomb of the Apostle and lie under the dome. Adjoining the horse-shoe-shaped passage are a number of chapels in which very remarkable antiquities and works of art from the old basilica are preserved. In the middle of the passage just mentioned is the most magnificent of all the early Christian sarcophagi, that of Junius Bassus, to which Waal has dedicated a detailed and richly illustrated monograph, sympathetic in treatment. Two altars are placed here in the closest possible proximity to the sarcophagus in which the body of St. Peter reposes. Admission to the crypts and to Holy Mass at the altar of the Confession which was formerly very difficult, especially to women, is now easy to obtain.

The Ascent of the Dome

It was the former custom to ascend an easy stairway to the roof of the church, but now a spacious elevator carries visitors to the heights. From the roof, which is enlivened with many small cupolas and a few guards' houses, there is a fine panorama and a view of the Eternal City. The great dome has a circumference of about one hundred paces, and if one wishes to mount higher, a stairway between the inner and outer casing of the dome, 308.3 feet in height, leads into the lantern. Entering the external gallery of the lantern, the beholder is astonished by the view that greets the eye. It looks down into the gardens of the Vatican Palace, in which the people walking about seem like dwarfs. The panorama of the city unfolds itself in plastic forms. To the left tower the Sabine mountains; and beyond the extensive sun-bathed Campagna are the beautiful Alban hills with their highest peak, Monte Cavo. On the slope of this chain lie the attractive suburban towns Frascati, Marino, Albano etc., and on the right gleams a silver streak—the sea. Encircling the gallery towards the west, the Vatican gardens lie beneath us, rich and varied in plan, although not artistically laid out. The entire panorama is one of greatest interest.

DIVINE SERVICE IN ST. PETER'S

Although the Lateran Basilica bears the honorary title of the cathedral of the Bishop of Rome, mother and head of all the churches of the earth, this basilica, as Waal correctly observes, has for a thousand years been an isolated church which played a very modest part in the devotions of the Roman pilgrims. It is very different with St. Peter's. The great wealth of the basilica has always made it possible to maintain most magnificent ritual; and its proximity to the inner city, its great size, and its art treasures have always attracted everyone. Besides numerous canons, beneficiaries, and chaplains, the church has at its disposal the Vatican Seminary, the students of which always assist in the church in the celebration of Divine Service. The performances of their vocal choirs, the Capella Giulia, are of a very high artistic order. One liturgical celebration takes place only in St. Peter's and in no other church in the whole world: the Washing of the Altar on Maundy Thursday. At the close of the Matins on this day the so-called papal altar under the great bronze baldachino is sprinkled with oil and wine. In an extended procession the archpriest, his vicar, the canons, the beneficiaries, the chaplains, and the entire clergy approach in order, and symbolically wash the altar with a sprinkler. A solemn benediction with the great relics from the gallery of St. Helena terminates this very impressive ceremony.

The great papal functions which Leo XIII was the first to resume after the sad year of 1870 have since then taken place in St. Peter's with a few exceptions, when the Sistine Chapel or the Sala Ducale were used. Jubilees, canonizations, coronations, and other events in which the pope solemnly presides assemble 40,000 to 50,000 people in the gigantic halls of St. Peter's. They wait patiently for hours until at the appointed time the Vicar of Christ, loftily enthroned upon the sedia gestatoria, blesses the worshipping throng, while in measured steps he is born to the papal altar. A perfect silence prevails, when after long preparations the pope in full pontifical attire begins the actual service. Suddenly the magnificent tones of the Kyrie are intoned by the choir of the Sistine Chapel, who alone have the privilege of singing in the presence of the pope, and always without the accompaniment of an organ. Then the pope turns for the first time to the faithful and chants "Pax vobis" (Peace be with you). At the Elevation silver trumpets resound from Michelangelo's dome.

CHIMES OF ST. PETER'S

As in many cathedral churches, the bells of St. Peter's possess an ample endowment of their own. This serves for their maintenance and to defray the cost of the complicated programme of the chimes. The usual daily service is simple but far more complicated are the chimes for Sundays, fast days, feast days, ember days, feasts with octaves, the anniversary of the death, election, and coronation of the present and the preceding pope, and finally, as a climax, the feast of St. Peter with its chimes seven days before and during its octave. Different chimes are prescribed at the death of a canon than at that of the pope.

THE MAINTENANCE OF THE BASILICA

A building of such colossal extent requires a corps of architects, who conduct the ordinary, as well as the unusual, works on the basilica. They are directed by a head architect, who in conjunction with the economist of St. Peter's, a canon, discusses and arranges everything as far as no special question requires the vote of the chapter. A staff of selected artisans of all kinds, who are in permanent service and are called sampietrini, is directed by a head master, and there are few great institutions in the world which have such a chosen body of clever, reliable, and fearless workmen. Only in the rarest cases is the management of St. Peter's compelled to seek assistance of artisans or workmen who do not belong to the sampietrini. The maintenance of the mighty building is exemplary throughout.

PAUL MARIA BAUMGARTEN

Tomb of St. Peter

The history of the relics of the Apostles Peter and Paul is one which is involved in considerable difficulty and confusion. The primary authorities to be consulted are in opposition to one another, or at least appear to be so. There is no doubt where the bodies now are -- in the tombs of the Vatican and the Ostian Way respectively -- but there is another tomb at the Catacombs of S. Sebastiano which also claims the honour of having at one time received them, and the question is as to the period at which this episode occurred, and whether there was only one or a double translation of the relics. Whatever conclusion we come to, we shall have to discard, or at least to explain away, some of the evidence which exists. The account which we give here is the simplest theory consistent with the evidence, and is based upon one consistent principle throughout; namely, to assume only one translation of the relics -- the one which took place at a known historical date, and for historical reasons which we can understand -- and to refer to this all the allusions to a translation which occur in early authorities, even though some of them seem to have been misplaced in date. There would have been no difficulty in obtaining the bodies of the Apostles after their martyrdom, and the bereaved Christians seem to have followed their usual custom in burying both as near as possible to the scene of their sufferings. Each was laid in ground that belonged to Christian proprietors, by the side of well-known roads leading out of the city; St. Paul on the Via Ostiana and St. Peter on the Via Cornelia. In each case the actual tomb seems to have been an underground vault, approached from the road by a descending staircase, and the body reposed in a sarcophagus of stone in the centre of this vault.

We have definite evidence of the existence of these tombs (trophoea) in these places as early as the beginning of the second century, in the words of the priest Caius (Euseb., "Hist. Eccl.", II, 28). These tombs were the objects of pilgrimage during the ages of persecution, and it will be found recorded in the Acts of several of the martyrs that they were seized while praying at the tombs of the Apostles. For two centuries the relics were same enough in these tombs, public though they were, for the respect entertained by the Romans for any place where the dead were buried preserved them from any danger of sacrilege. In the year 258, however, this protection was withdrawn. Christians from henceforth were specially excepted from the privilege which they had previously enjoyed on account of the use they had made of it to enable them to carry on religious worship. Hence it became necessary to remove the sacred relics of the two great Apostles in order to preserve them from possible outrage. They were removed secretly by night and hidden in the Catacombs of S. Sebastiano, though, probably the fact of their removal was known to very few, and the great body of Roman Christians believed them still to rest in their original tombs. At a later date, when the persecution was less acute, they were brought back again to the Vatican and the Via Ostiana respectively.

When the Church was once more at peace under Constantine, Christians were able at last to provide themselves with edifices suitable for the celebration of Divine Service, and the places so long hallowed as the resting places of the relics of the Apostles were naturally among the first to be selected as the sites of great basilicas. The emperor himself not only supplied the funds for these buildings, in his desire to honour the memories of the two Apostles, but actually assisted in the work of building with his own hands. At St. Paul's, where the tomb had remained in its original condition of a simple vault, no difficulty presented itself, and the high altar was erected over the vault. The inscription, dating from this period, "Paulo Apostolo Martyri", may still be seen in its place under the altar. At St. Peter's, however, the matter was complicated by the fact that Pope St. Anacletus, in the first century, had built an upper chamber or memoria above the vault. This upper chamber had become endeared to the Romans during the ages of persecution, and they were unwilling that it should be destroyed. In order to preserve it a singular and unique feature was given to the basilica in the raised platform of the apse and the Chapel of the Confession underneath. The extreme reverence in which the place has always been held has resulted in these arrangements remaining almost unchanged even to the present time, in spite of the rebuilding of the church. Only, the actual vault itself in which the body lies is no longer accessible and has not been so since the ninth century. There are those, however, who think that it would not be impossible to find the entrance and to reopen it once more. A unanimous request that this should be done was made to Leo XIII by the International Archaeological Congress in 1900, but, so far, without result.

ARTHUR S. BARNES

Saint Petersburg

Saint Petersburg, the imperial residence and second capital of Russia, lies at the mouth of the Neva on the Gulf of Finland. In 1899, including the suburbs, it had 1,439,600 inhabitants; of these 81.8 per cent belonged to the Orthodox Greek Church, 4.8 per cent were Catholics, 7.03 per cent were Protestants, and 1.4 per cent were Jews. As regards nationality 87.5 per cent were Russians, 3.3 per cent were German, 3.1 per cent were Poles, 1.03 per cent were Finns, and 1.03 per cent were Esthonians. In 1910 the population was estimated at over 1,900,000 persons. The district of Ingermannland, that is, the territory between Lake Peipus, the Narova River, and Lake Ladoga, in which St. Petersburg is situated, belonged in the Middle Ages to the Grand Duchy of Novgorod, and later to Moscow. In 1617 the district was given by the Treaty of Stolbovo to Sweden; in 1702 it was rewon by Peter the Great. When Peter in 1703 formed the daring plan to transfer the centre of his empire from the inaccessible Moscow to the Baltic and to open the hitherto isolated Russia to the influence and cultivation of Western Europe by means of a large fortified commercial port, he chose for his new creation the southern end of the present island of Petersburgsky. At this point the Neva separates into two branches, the big and the little Neva; here on 16 (27) May, 1703, he began the citadel of Peter and Paul, the fortifications of which were built first of wood and in 1706 of stone. The Troitzki church was the first wooden church of the imperial city; around it were erected houses in Dutch architectural style for Peter and his friends. As early as 1704 the first habitations were built on the northern bank of the Neva. Some 40,000 men drawn from all parts of the empire worked for several years in the erection of the new city; a large number of them succumbed to the extreme severity of their labours and the deadly mists of the marshy ground. In 1708 St. Petersburg was unsuccessfully besieged by the Swedes. The Russian victory over Charles XII at Pultowa put an end to any danger that might have arisen from Sweden. In 1712 the city was formally made the residence of the Court.

It was Peter's desire that his new capital should not be surpassed in brilliance by the capitals of Western Europe. He intended to follow in its construction the plans of the architect and sculptor Andreas Schlüter, who was called to St. Petersburg in 1713 but died in the following year. In order to make the new capital the equal of Moscow in religious matters, Peter and his successors built a large number of churches and monasteries, often equipped with the most lavish splendour. Peter sought, above all, to establish veneration for the national saint, Alexander Newski, Grand duke of Novgorod, who died in 1261. He therefore built a church near Neva, on the spot where Alexander in 1241 gained the traditionally celebrated victory over the united forces of the Swedes, Danes, and Finns; this victory cannot be proved historically. The bones of the saint were placed in the church with much pomp in 1724. The tsar himself drew up a plan for a monastery and gave to its construction 10,000 roubles from his private fortune, besides state revenues. At Peter's death the city had 75,000 inhabitants. However, a pause now occurred in its development as Catherine I and Peter II preferred the old capital Moscow. Anna Ivanovna (1730-40) was the first ruler to live again at St. Petersburg. During her reign and that of her successor, Elizabeth Petrovna, the city grew greatly and was adorned with striking buildings. Most of the older public buildings, however, belong to the reigns of Catherine II and Paul I, who were great builders. By the favour of the tsars who competed with one another in adorning it with schools and collections, as well as by its advantageous position for commerce and intercourse with Western Europe, St. Petersburg has gradually surpassed its rival Moscow. It has developed into the largest city of the empire, but has assumed more the character of a city of Western Europe than that of a national Russian one.

The history of the Catholic Church at St. Petersburg goes back to the era of the founding of the city. As early as 1703 there were a few Catholics in the city. In 1704 one of the Jesuits, who since 1684 had been able to maintain themselves at Moscow, came to St. Petersburg in order to make the observance of their religious duties easier to the officers and soldiers stationed on the Neva; he had also the spiritual care of over 300 Catholic Lithuanians who had been taken prisoners. From 1710 the Catholics had a little wooden chapel, called the Chapel of St. Catherine, not far from the spot where the monument to Peter the Great now stands. The parish register of the chapel goes back to this year. Later, Franciscans and Capuchins took the place of the Jesuits. Although Peter the Great was kindly disposed to the Catholic community, the Holy Synod, an administrative ecclesiastical board that he had created, was constantly suspicious of them. National disputes having arisen between the Franciscans and Capuchins, the Holy Synod was able to obtain an imperial decree in 1725, compelling all the Capuchins but one to leave the city. This one remained behind in the employ of the French embassy and was permitted to hold services for his countrymen in a chapel designated for the purpose. In 1737 the wooden church burnt down. It was decided to rebuild it in stone and a temporary chapel was arranged. Although the Empress Anna Ivanovna gave a piece of ground, the corner-stone of the new Church of St. Catherine was not laid until 1763 on account of the national feuds within the Catholic community of Germans, French, Italians, and Poles. The construction of the church advanced slowly because of lack of funds. It was built in the Renaissance style by the Italian architect, Vollini de la Mothe, and was formally consecrated by the papal nuncio Archetti in 1783. In 1769 Catherine II confirmed the gifts of her predecessors and released the church, school, and dwelling of the Catholic priests from all taxes and imposts. In the same year she issued the "Ordinatio ecclesiæ petropolitanæ", which settled the legal status of the parish and was a model for the other Catholic parishes of Russia. This ordinance raised the permitted number of Catholic priests from four to six. These were generally Franciscans, who had charge of the welfare of souls at Kronstadt, Jamburg, Riga, and Reval.

The number of Catholics was considerably increased by the French emigrants whom the French Revolution caused to flee to St. Petersburg. Further, the fact that the first archbishop of the newly founded Archdiocese of Mohileff soon transferred his residence to the capital of the empire also contributed to the strengthening of the Catholic Church in St. Petersburg. In October, 1800, the Church of St. Catherine was confided to the Jesuits at the request of the Emperor Paul. The Jesuits opened a school that was soon very prosperous, but their success and the many following conversions aroused the jealousy of the Orthodox. The Jesuits were expelled from St. Petersburg on 22 December, 1815, and from the whole of Russia in 1820. The parochial care of the Catholics of St. Petersburg was given to secular priests, and in 1816 to the Dominicans who have been in the city continuously until the present time. A Catholic Rumanian church was built during the reign of Alexander I. During the forties the number of Dominicans increased to twenty; but the closing of the Polish monasteries, from which they drew new members, reduced their number, and it became necessary to call fathers from Austria and France. Since 1888 secular priests have also been admitted to the cure of souls; still the present number of ecclesiastics is hardly sufficient to meet the needs of the entire Catholic community, the pastoral care, schools, and charitable demands. In addition, there still remains the old limitation of administration by the governmental church consistory, the Catholic collegium, and the department of the state ministry for foreign religions, which exerts a zealous care that an active Catholic life, religious freedom, and efforts for the conversion of those of other faiths should be and remain impossible.

Ecclesiastically, as regards Catholicism, St. Petersburg is the see of the Metropolitan of Mohileff, of the general consistory, of the Roman Catholic ecclesiastical collegium (the highest collegiate church board of administration, which, however, has to obtain the consent of the minister of the interior in all more important matters), of a Roman Catholic preparatory academy for priests, and of an archiepiscopal seminary. The Cathedral of the Assumption of Mary was built in the Byzantine style in 1873 and was enlarged 1896- 1902. The parish Church of St. Catherine was erected in 1763, that of St. Stanislaus in 1825, that of Our Lady in 1867, that of St. Casimir in 1908, and the German parish Church of St. Boniface in 1910. In addition there are 4 public and 10 private Catholic chapels in the city. The cure of souls is under the care of 6 parish priests and administrators, and 15 vicars and chaplains; there are also 2 military chaplains for Catholic soldiers. The orders settled in the city are the Dominicans, Assumptionists, Oblates, Franciscans, and the Sisters of St. Joseph. Besides the clerical educational institutions there is a Catholic gymnasium for boys and one for girls, and a higher school for boys. Catholic religious instruction is given in 30 public intermediate schools for boys, 11 military schools, and 28 schools for girls. According to the year-book of the Archdiocese of Mohileff the number of Catholics is 87,500.

St. Petersburg, published by the city government in Russian (St. Petersburg, 1903); Suworin, Ganz Petersburg (St. Petersburg, 1906), in Russian; Baumgartner, Durch Skandinavien nach Sankt Petersburg (3rd ed., Freiburg, 1901); Zabel, St. Petersburg (Leipzig, 1905), in the compilation Berühmte Kunststätten; Aminoff, St. Petersburg (Stockholm, 1910); de Harnen and Dobson, St. Petersburg Painted and Described (London, 1910). Concerning the Catholic Church in St. Petersburg see Theiner, Die neuesten Zustande der katholischen Kirche beider Ritus in Polen u. Russland (Augsburg, 1841); Tolstoi, Le catholicisme romain en Russie (Paris, 1863); Literæ secretæ Jesuitarum (St. Petersburg, 1904); Encyclopedia Koscielna, XIX, s. v.; Godlewski, Monumenta ecclesiastica petropolitana, III (St. Petersburg, 1906-09); Elenchus omnium ecclesiarum, etc. archidiœ;cesis Mohylovensis (St. Petersburg, 1910); various articles in periodicals, especially in Echos d'Orient, Bessarione, and Revue catholique des églises.

Joseph Lins

Saint-Pierre and Miquelon

(INSULARUM S. PETRI ET MIQUELONENSIS).

Prefecture apostolic comprising the only French possession in North America, a group of islands situated 48°46' N. lat., and 58°30 W. long. (Paris standard), having an area of 177 square miles. Geologically and geographically connected with Newfoundland, it was once likewise so historically. Known to the earliest Breton and Basque fishermen, this group already bore its present name when Jacques Cartier identified it in 1535, The first settlement dates from 1604. In 1689 Bishop St-Vallier visited it from Placentia, blessed a chapel, and left a priest in charge. The Recollects sent to Placentia (1691) attended this mission. The islands were successively ceded to England (Treaty of Utrecht, 1712), restored to France (Treaty of Paris, 1763), thrice captured by the English (1778, 1793, and 1808), and thrice retroceded to France (Treaties of Versailles, 1783, of Amiens, 1802, and of Ghent, 1814). Many Acadians fled thither after the dispersion of Grand Pré (1755) and the fall of Louisbourg (1757). The first missionaries who came after the Treaty of Paris were the Jesuits Bonnecamp and Ardilliers, with dubious jurisdiction from the Bishop of La Rochelle (1765). The islands now separated from the jurisdiction of Quebec were erected by Propaganda into a prefecture Apostolic, and formed the first mission confided by Rome to the Seminary of the Holy Ghost. MM. Girard, prefect, and de Manach, who sailed the same year, were driven by a storm to Martinique. They were replaced (1766) by MM. Becquet and Paradis, likewise of the Holy Ghost Seminary, or Spiritains, as well as several of the following. In 1775 the prefect, M. Paradis, with his companion and 300 families were expelled by the English. M. de Longueville succeeded him in 1788. In 1792 M. Allain, vice-prefect, and his companion, M. Le Jamtel, were forced by the French Revolution to leave for the Magdalen Islands, with a number of Acadians who, remaining faithful to the King of France, refused to take the oath of the Constitution. The former inhabitants returning in 1816, M. Ollivier, who accompanied them, applied for jurisdiction to the Bishop of Quebec. He was appointed vice-prefect in 1820. His successors, with the same title, were MM. Charlot (1841), Le Helloco (1854), Le Tournoux (1864), Tiberi (1893); the two last named belonged to the newly-restored Congregation of the Holy Ghost.

The present titular is Mgr Christophe-Louis Legasse, b. at Bassussary, France, 1859, appointed in 1898, prelate of His Holiness in 1899. His chief work was the erection of the cathedral of St-Pierre, his residential town. The population, almost exclusively Catholic, varies from 4000 in winter to 8000 in summer, owing to the presence of the fishing crews. They are all Bretons, Normans, and Basques. Besides the six resident missionary priests, the fishermen, on the great banks are visited every month by a chaplain on board a hospital ship which also distributes their mail. There are 7 churches or chapels, 4 stations, 6 schools, those for boys managed until 1903 by 16 Brothers of Ploermel (Christian Instruction); 37 Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny (teaching and nursing) were subsidized by the Government until 1903. A classical college opened by the Holy Ghost Fathers in 1873 was closed in 1892.

ROY, Une epave de 1763 in Le Journal de Quebec (1888): GOSSELIN, Mgr de St-Vallier (Evreux, 1898); Archives of Propaganda, of the archbishopric (Quebec), of the Seminary of the Holy Ghost, of La Marine (Paris).

LIONEL LINDSAY

Louis de Rouvroy, Duc de Saint-Simon

Born 16 January, 1675; died in Paris, 2 March, 1755. Having quitted the military service in 1702, he lived thereafter at the Court, becoming the friend of the Ducs de Chevreuse and de Beauvilliers, who, with Fenelon, were interested in the education of the Duke of Burgundy, grandson of Louis XIV. At the death of Louis XIV, he was named a member of the council of regency of the young king, Louis XV, and in 1721 was sent as ambassador to Madrid. When the Duke of Bourbon became minister, December, 1723, Saint-Simon went into retirement. It was principally between 1740 and 1746 that he wrote his celebrated "Memoirs". As a history of the reign of Louis XIV they are an ex- tremely precious document. The edition with commentary by Boislisle, and of which twenty-two volumes have already appeared (1911), is an incomparable monument of learning. Saint-Simon aired his hatreds, which were bitter and numerous; he was an adversary of equality, which he described as "leprosy"; he dreamt of a kind of chamber of dukes and peers which would control and paralyze royal despotism, and allow the States-General to assemble every five years to present the humble remonstrances of the people.

Whatever the historical value of the "Memoirs" may be, they are, by their sparkling wit, one of the most original monuments of French literature; and the "Parallele des trots premiers rois Bourbons", written by Saint-Simon in 1746, the year in which he finished the record of the reign of Louis XIV, is an admirable piece of history. On all religious questions he should be read with great precaution. Very hostile to the Jesuits, and favorable to the Jansenists, he contributed greatly to the creation of legends concerning personages such as Mme de Maintenon and Michel Le Tellier. These legends had a long existence. The reproach, historically false, of having instigated the violent measures of persecutions against the Jansenists, which he hurled against Le Tellier, was all the more strange coming from his pen, since Saint-Simon himself, on the day following the death of Louis XIV, was one of the most rabid in demanding of the regent severe measures against Le Tellier and other Jesuits. Father Bliard has shown how much care is necessary in judging Saint-Simon's assertions regarding the religious questions of his day. The historian Emile Bourgeois, who can not be charged with prejudice in favor of religion, wrote in his turn, in 1905: "History has given up the habit, too hastily acquired, of pinning her faith to the word of Saint-Simon." And Bourgeois proved how inaccurate were the statements of Saint-Simon by showing what use the latter made in his "Memoirs" of documents of the diplomatist Torcy.

SAINT-SIMON, Memoires, ed. BOISLISLE (22 vols., Paris 1876-1911); SAINT-SIMON, Ecrits inedits, ed. FAUGERE (6 vols. Paris, 1880-3); SAINT-SIMON, Lettres et depeches sur l'ambassade d'Espagne, 1721 1722, ed. DRUMONT (Paris, 1880); BASCHET, Le duc de Saint-Simon, son cabinet et ses manuscrits (Paris, 1874); CHERUEL, Saint-Simon considere comme historien de Louis XIV (Paris, 1865); BOISSIER, Saint-Simon (Paris, 1892); BLIARD, Les memoires de Saint-Simon et le Pere Le Tellier (Paris, 1891); BOURGEOIS, La collaboration de Saint-Simon et de Torcy, etude critique sur les Memoires de Saint-Simon in Revue historique, LXXXVII (1905; PILASTRE, Lexique de la langue de Saint-Simon (Paris, 1905).

GEORGES GOYAU

Saint-Simon and Saint-Simonism

Claude Henri de Rouvroy, Comte de Saint-Simon, was born in Paris, 17 Oct., 1760; died there, 19 May, 1825. He belonged to the family of the author of the "Memoirs". At an early age he showed a certain disdain for tradition; at thirteen he refused to make his first Communion and was punished by imprisonment at Saint Lazare, whence he escaped. During the War of Independence he followed his relative, the Marquis de Saint-Simon, to America, took part in the battle of Yorktown, was later made prisoner, and recovered his liberty only after the Treaty of Versailles. Before leaving America, being as yet only twenty-three years old, he presented to the Viceroy of Mexico the plan of a canal between the two oceans. In 1788 he drew up important schemes for the economic improvement of Spain. During the Revolution he grew rich by speculation, was imprisoned for eleven months, and under the Directory, though leading a prodigal and voluptuous life, continued to dream of a scientific and social reform of humanity, gathering about him such scholars as Monge and Lagrange, and capitalists with whose assistance he proposed to form a gigantic bank for the launching of his philanthropic undertakings. He married Mlle. de Champgrand in August, 1801, and divorced her less than a year later in the hope of marrying Mme. de Staël, who had just become a widow, but she refused. In 1805, completely ruined by his disordered life, he became a copyist at the Mont de Piété, relying for his living on his activity as a writer; failing in this, he led a life of borrowings and make-shifts, and in 1823 attempted to kill himself. Fortunately for him he made the acquaintance of the Jew Olinde Rodrigues who became enamoured of his social ideas and assured him his daily bread till the end of his life. When dying, Saint-Simon said to Rodrigues: "Remember that to do anything great you must be impassioned". Ardent passion is what characterized Saint-Simon and explains the peculiarities of his life and of his system. This precursor of socialism was not afraid to be a fanatic and even to pass for a fool, while he retained his feudal pride and boasted of having Charlemagne among his ancestors.

The "Lettres d'un habitant de Genève à ses contemporains" (1803), the "Introduction aux travaux scientifiques du XIXe siècle" (1808), and the "Mémoire sur la science de l'homme" (1813) show his trust in science and savants for the regeneration of the world. The second of these works is a hymn to Bonaparte who created the university and the institute. In 1814, assisted by the future historian, Augustin Thierry, Saint-Simon published a treatise entitled, "De la réorganisation de la société européene," in which he dreamed of a politically homogeneous Europe, all of whose nations should possess the same institutions, relying on England to take the initiative in this federation. Later he turned his attention to political economy. The "Industrie", which he founded, brought out in relief the conflict waged throughout Europe between the military and feudal class on the one hand and the working class on the other. The same idea was emphasized in the "Censeur européen", edited by Charles Comte and Dunoyer, but while the "Censeur européen" distrusted scholars and learned men, Saint-Simon's originality consisted in trying to combine manufacturing industry and what he called "literary industry", and create a moral code which all men should study. idea displeased Augustin Thierry and he abandoned Saint-Simon, who in 1817 (the date set by Monsieur Pereire) took as his secretary, Auguste Comte, then 18 years old, the future founder of Positivism. Influenced by the writings of Joseph de Maistre, whose "Le Pape" appeared in 1819, and by those of Bonald, Saint-Simon and Auguste Comte, reacting against the individualist ideas of the French Revolution, recognized the necessity in modern society of a power similar to the medieval theocracy. The "positive scientific capacity" was to replace the ancient ecclesiastical power; there should be "no more governors to command" but "administrators to exercise a directing function"; in a society become an industrial association; the governmental, or military régime under which the people was "subject" should give way to the administrative or industrial régime in which the people is to be associated. Saint-Simon drew political conclusions; he found that the working people occupied too small a place in the electoral body and desired that power should be vested in committees composed of the directing elements of the industrial world. Thus he was in no wise a democrat; he would have only the heads of the industrial hierarchy elected by the people, but would have them recruited by co-option by choosing from the lower ranks of society those who deserve an elevation of their condition. Liberal economists long considered that between their liberalism and Saint-Simon's industrialism, which accorded so many prerogatives to an industrial hierarchy, there was little difference; but Saint-Simonism as it was developed by his disciples was destined to be a socialist school.

In Saint-Simon there was always a double tendency: his positivist and scientific studies impelled him to found a purely practical and demonstrable moral code, while his sentimental and mystical tendencies led him to desire a religion. He believed that Christianity had greatly forwarded morality, but he declared that its reign was at an end. His religious tendency grew by degrees; he declared that the crisis was reached which had been predicted by the Old Testament, prepared for by the Biblical societies, and expected by the Jews for eighteen centuries, which was to end in the establishment of a truly universal religion, in the adoption by all nations of a pacific social organization and the speedy betterment of the condition of the poor. Such was the dream developed in his book, "Le nouveau christianisme", which death prevented him from finishing. The Saint-Simonian School under the influence of the book in which Sismondi made known the great labour crisis of England, considered it necessary to perfect their master's doctrine. In making the most intense industrial production the unique aim of society, Saint-Simon had not foreseen that the problem was much more complex. Must production be carried on even when there are no consumers? The liberals replied in the affirmative for there are always consumers; but Fourier said no, the necessary condition of an increased production is a better distribution of labour and of wealth among the workers. The former Carbonaro, Bazard (1791-1832), Enfantin (1796-1864); and Olinde Rodrigues, in the review "Le Producteur", which they founded, attacked the regime of competition and went so far as to aim at the theories of Adam Smith; then in 1829 Bazard's conferences published under the title, "Exposition de la doctrine de Saint-Simon" marks the Credo of the School. The Saint-Simonians thought that two survivals of the feudal system enslaved the working-man— at interest and inheritance; these two survivals should disappear.

By degrees the Saint-Simonian School became a sort of Church. Enfantin assumed the rôle of pope; Bazard and later Rodrigues separated from him when preaching the rehabilitation of the flesh, he wished to associate with him the "priest-woman", the "mother", in the government of Saint Simonism. The ceremonies he performed at Menilmontant, his trial and imprisonment in 1832, the journey to Constantinople undertaken by his disciple Barrault in search of the "woman-mother" excited ridicule. Nevertheless Enfantin, whose last work only appeared in 1861, exercised great influence over many of the best minds. Saint-Simonism left its mark on such men as the philosopher Jean Reynaud, Buchez, who in 1848 played an important political part, the religious critic Gustave d'Eichthal the economists Barrault and Michel Chevalier, the publicists Edouard Charton and Maxime du Camp, General Lamoricière and Baron Blanc, future minister of Italy. The industrial movement of the nineteenth century was to a large extent promoted by engineers imbued with Saint-Simonian doctrines; the railways of France, the financial establishment of the Second Empire were due to Saint-Simonian influences.

The Saint-Simonians foresaw that industry would be more and more concentrated in great syndicates and that the State as the organ of social centralization would intervene more and more. What they did not foresee was that industrial production would become democratic. They had, beforehand, intuition of what we call trusts and deals, but they did not foresee labour unions, and they were thus less clear-sighted than Ketteler, Manning, and Leo XIII. Lamartine describes Saint-Simonism as "a daring plagiarism which emerges from the Gospel and will return thither", and Isaac Pereire, the last of the Saint-Simonians, in a work entitled, "La question religieuse" (1878), urged the recently-elected Pope Leo XIII to undertake the direction of universal social reform. This, the last echo of Saint-Simonism was, as it were, an appeal to the "Rerum Novarum".

Expos. de la doctrine saint-simonienne (Paris. 1829); Œuvres de Saint-Simon et d'Enfantin, XLVII (Paris, 1865-78); WEILL, Un précurseur du socialisme: Saint-Simon et son œuvre (Paris, 1894); IDEM, L'école saint-simonienne, son histoire, son influence jusqu'à nos jours (Paris, 1896); PEREIRE, Des premiers rapports entre Saint-Simon et Auguste Comte in Revue Historique, XCI (1906); GEORGE DUMAS, Psychologie de deux messies positivistes, Saint-Simon et Auguste Comte (Paris, 1905); WEISENGRÜN, Die socialwissenschaftlichen Ideen Saint Simon's; ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Socialismus (Basle, 1895); CHARLETY, Hist. du saint-simonisme, 1825-1864 (Paris, 1896); HALÉVY, La doctrine économique de Saint-Simon et des Saint-Simoniens in Revue du mois (1908); BOOTH, Saint Simon and Saint Simonism (London, 1871).

GEORGES GOYAU.

Society of Saint-Sulpice

Founded at Paris by M. Olier (1642) for the purpose of providing directors for the seminaries established by him (see OLIER). At the founder's death (1657) his society, approved by religious and civil authority, was firmly established. The Paris seminary and three in the provinces (Viviers, Le Puy, Clermont) were opened to young ecclesiastics to give them besides the elements of the clerical sciences lessons and examples in sacerdotal perfection. The work in Montreal was inaugurated and four priests appointed to carry it on, while a novitiate called the Solitude had been opened to recruit directors for the seminaries. Alexandre Le Ragois de Bretonvilliers, the successor of Olier (1657-76) drew up the Constitution of the Society and secured its approval by Cardinal Chigi, legate a latere and nephew of Alexander VII. The object of the society was to labor, in direct dependence on the bishops, for the education and perfection of ecclesiastics. They were to be taught philosophy and theology, chant and liturgy, but especially mental payer and the Christian virtues. Several chapters dealt with the organization and government of the society. The number of subjects should be restricted, fervour being worth more than number. The spiritual and temporal government is vested in a superior general assisted by twelve assistants, like him elected for life. Together they constitute the general assembly empowered to elect by majority of votes the superior-general, his assistants, and among the latter four consultors, who shall be his constant advisers, sign the public acts, and represent the whole society. The other members are admitted by the superior and his council. They take no vows, but renounce all prospect of eccelesiastical dignities. Changes and appointments are made by the superior-general. Every Sulpician should be animated by great zeal for the glory of God and the sanctification of the clergy, should profess detachment and abnegation, practice poverty, be submissive especially to bishops.

De Bretonvilliers transferred the Solitude of Vaugirard to the Château d'Avron, which was a family possession, where it remained until M. Tronson, his successor, established it at Issy, where it is at present. He enacted that the community of priests of the parish of Saint-Sulpice should continue subject to a superior. This community numbered from sixty to eighty members until the French Revolution. There Fénelon exercised the sacred ministry for three years and he spoke from experience when he declared that there was nothing he venerated more than Saint-Sulpice. M. Tronson assumed the direction of the society in 1676 and retained it until 1700. He was remarkable for the breadth of his knowledge, his practical mind, and his deep piety. He was jealously vigilant to ward off the Jansenistic scourge from his society and the ten seminaries under his care. At a time when the error since called Gallicanism spread everywhere he was a Roman, as the present expression is, in as far as was compatible with the submission to the bishops which his society professed.

During the eighteenth century the society carried on its work amid the difficulties which Jansenism and philosophism, by corrupting minds, incessantly aroused. Francois Leschassier (1700-25) had to defend the seminary of Paris against Archbishop de Noailles, an avowed and militant Jansenist. Under his successors, Maurice Le Peletier (1725-31) and Jean Couturier (1731-70), although new seminaries were opened in the dioceses of France, the spirit of the age crept into that of Paris, in consequence of the weakening of morals at the Court, contact with the world, and the great number of sons of the nobility who had become seminarians. At this period Saint-Sulpice was charged with the spiritual direction of schools of philosophy and even of petits séminaires both at Paris and Angers, always with the object of preparing the pupils for the priesthood. When the Revolution broke out the seminary of Paris alone had trained more than five thousand priests, and more than half the bishops who faced that dreadful tempest (about fifty) had been in Sulpician seminaries Claude Bourachot (1770-77) and Pierre Le Gallic (1777-82), who governed with the mournful presentiment of the Revolution, were succeeded by Andre Emery, the man providentially chosen to guide the society during those dark days. He beheld the seminaries closed, his brethren scattered, hunted, and compelled to seek safety in exile, but he had the great consolation, at a time of frequent defections, of seeing them all faithful to their promises. Not one of them took the oath to the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, and eighteen of them died for their faith. The life of this illustrious priest belongs to the whole Church, whose rights he defended with unshakable firmness against Napoleon I (see EMERY). After the Concordat he reopened the seminary of Paris. He should be regarded as the restorer of the Society of M. Olier.

During the nineteenth century the Society of Saint-Sulpice has quietly continued its work of clerical training while sharing all the vicissitudes of the Church in France. The following superiors general have governed it: M. Duclaux (1811-26); Garnier (1826-45), a noted Hebrew scholar; de Courson (1845-50); Carriere (1850-64), an eminent theologian; Caval (1864-75); J. H. Icard (1879-93); and Captier (1893-1900), the founder and first superior of the procure of Saint-Sulpice at Rome. Living within the walls of its seminaries, which, constantly increasing, numbered twenty-six in 1900, the Society of Saint-Sulpice has, so to speak, no history. Its mem- bers, absorbed in their professional duties, share the life of the seminarians, being solicitous to train them not only in the ecclesiastical sciences, but also in priestly virtues, and this more by their own daily examples than by the lessons which they teach. A good Sulpician constitutes himself everywhere and always the companion and the model of the future priests, in their pious exercises, recreations, meals, and walks, briefly in all the details of their life.

That such a life is eminently fruitful is proved by the numerous prelates, distinguished priests, founders of religious orders, missionaries and religious from Sulpician seminaries, but it will be readily understood that it furnishes few facts of history. For the Church of France Saint-Sulpice has been a great school of ecclesiastical dignity, love of study, regularity, and virtue. Pius X paid the society this tribute: "Congregatio Sulpicianorum fuit salus Galliae" (Audience of 10 Jan., 1905, to the pastors of Paris). The recent persecutions brought about in France by the separation of Church and State did not fail to attack it. A circular of Minister Combes (1904) declared Saint-Sulpice unfitted to teach in seminaries. At the same time the old seminary of Paris was taken away from it. Nevertheless the society was not dissolved. It subsists in its essential organs, and its members, in most instances in the seminaries of their native dioceses, continue work of devotion to the clergy and the Church.

At different dates the society extended branches to American soil, to Canada in 1657, to the United States in 1791. (See SULPICIANS IN THE UNITED STATES.)

M. Olier had desired to go to Canada to work for the conversion of the savages; this he was unable to do, but in union with several pious persons, among them Jérôme Le Royer de la Dauversière, he founded the Society of Notre-Dame de Montréal. The undertaking was inspired by the desire to found a city in honor of the Blessed Virgin (Villemarie in the Island of Montreal) which should serve as headquarters for the Indian missions and as a stronghold against the Iroquois. The manner in which Maisonneuve accomplished this foundation is well known. In 1657 the dying Olier sent four of his disciples to the mission of Villemarie, where the colonists were asking for them. They were led by M. De Queylus and thenceforth the Sulpicians shared the vicissitudes of the Montreal colony. Two of them, Vignal and Lemaitre, were slain by the Iroquois (1660). In 1663 the associates of Notre-Dame, reduced to eight by death and weary of a colony which yielded only expenses, ceded their rights and duties to the Society of Saint-Sulpice, which was thenceforth owner and lord of the Island of Montreal. It paid 130,000 livres in debts and pledged itself never to alienate the property of the island. M. de Bretonvilliers gave no less than 400,000 livres of his personal fortune for the maintenance of the colony and M. Faillon has calculated that from 1657 to 1710 the seminary of Paris transmitted to that of Montreal not less than 900,000 livres or one million dollars. Personal devotion was added to these expenses. Eleven Sulpicians were laboring at Montreal in 1668, teaching boys, exercising the sacred ministry, or doing missionary work among the savages. MM. Trouvé and de Fénelon founded the mission of Kenté on Lake Ontario. Dollier de Casson and Brehan de Gallinée explored the region of the Great Lakes (1669), of which they made a map. In 1676 was opened the mission of the Mountain on the site of the present seminary, where M. Belmont built a fort (1685). The brandy traffic necessitated the removal of this fixed mission and in 1720 it was transferred to Lac-des-Deux-Montagnes, where it is at present. At the end of the seventeenth century the Sulpicians had created and organized in the vicinity of Montreal six parishes which they zealously administered, besides supplying them with churches, presbyteries, and schools.

During the eighteenth century the history of the society in Canada continued closely linked with that of Montreal, in all of whose works it assisted by its resources and devotion. The number of priests increased to meet the needs of the time, and at the conquest (1760) they numbered thirty. They were headed by worthy men: Vachon de Belmont (1700-31), who succeeded Dollier de Casson; Louis Normant du Faradon (1731-59), who assisted Ven. Mère d'Youville in the foundation of the Grey Nuns; Etienne Montgolfier, who had the difficult task of governing his community during the period of conquest. To the Sulpicians who remained after the Treaty of Paris (1763) the seminary of Saint-Sulpice ceded its possessions in Canada on condition that they would carry on the work of M. Olier. Being unable to recruit their numbers the Sulpicians of Montreal would have become extinct had not the English Government humanely opened Canada to the priests persecuted by the French Revolution. Twelve Sulpicians reached Montreal in 1794. After lengthy disputes the possessions of the society coveted by the English agents were recognized by the British Crown (1840) and the Sulpicians were free to continue undisturbed their work for the Church and society. Besides the Collège de Montréal, founded in 1767, and which performed important services after the conquest, they founded a higher seminary (1840) for the education of the clergy. In this house several thousand priests have been trained for the priesthood. They have since founded (1894) for the benefit of the clergy a seminary of philosophy at Montreal, opened the Canadian College at Rome for higher ecclesiastical study, and quite recently (1911) have organized the School of St. John the Evangelist for the recruiting of clergy in the Archdiocese of Montreal. Since 1866 the society has gradually abandoned the administration of its parishes in Montreal, at present retaining only those of Notre-Dame and Saint-Jacques in the city and that of Oka in the diocese. That it does not, nevertheless, stand aloof from any of the great undertakings in the city which it founded is manifested by the Laval University and the public library.

Separated from Saint-Sulpice as regards material possessions, the Montreal community maintains its spiritual alliance with Paris. The superior-general or his representative makes periodically the canonical visitation of the Canadian houses. They are governed by a superior elected every five years, who is assisted by a council of twelve, four of whom, called assistants, are his habitual advisers.

As will be readily perceived the principal Sulpician work in both France and America is that of seminaries. The Sulpician is either the model of the pastor in the ministry or the trainer of the priest within the seminaries. His manner of life has been described above; his instruction and method will here be treated briefly. The sole directing principle of the studies at Saint-Sulpice is the most filial docility of judgment and will towards the pope, not only when he defines, but when he expresses a preference or gives directions and counsels. Mindful of their responsibility for priestly souls the Sulpicians teach their pupils, not the novelty which may send them astray, nor their personal opinions which have no guarantee of certitude, but the truth stamped with the seal of the Church and issuing thence warranted and authentic. In Holy Scripture they treat the books they explain as Divine books, avoiding the exaggerations of critical research and abiding by the interpretation of the text. In dogmatic theology they set forth the truth, at the same time warning their pupils against Rationalistic and Modernistic theories and minimizing insinuations. In apologetics they follow the historical method; in philosophy they recognize no master save St. Thomas.

Although the kind of instruction given at Saint-Sulpice tends to produce men whose knowledge is more solid than brilliant, more deep than extensive, there has been no lack of remarkable professors in any branch of ecclesiastical learning. Out of the seven hundred and thirty members which the society had numbered down to 1790 no less than one hundred and fifteen had secured their doctor's degree at the Sorbonne. Doctrine is surely more valuable than learning, and no book written by a Sulpician has ever been placed on the Index. Among the theologians were Delafosse (1701-45) and de Montaigne (1687-1767), who wrote remarkable dogmatic treatises published in the theology of Honoré Tournely; Legrand (1711-87), as famous for his dogmatic writings as for his refutation of the philosophical errors of his time, Rey and Rony, authors of valuable treatises published at Lyons; Peala (1787-1853), the continuator of the ecclesiastical conferences of Le Puy; Vieusse (1784-1857), author of the "Compendiosae institutiones theologicae" of Toulouse; Carrière (1795-1864), author of authoritative treatises on marriage, contracts, justice, etc.; Vincent (1813-69), author of the so-called "Clermont Theology". De Lantages (1616-94) and De la Chétardye (1634-1714) wrote justly-esteemed catechisms and conversations or ecclesiastical instructions. Among the Sulpicians whose works were addressed to the general faithful were Blanlo (1617-57), author of "Enfance chrétienne"; Guisain (1627-82), author of the "Sages entretiens" of a soul desirous of salvation; Lasausse (1740 1826), author of many works of piety; Hamon (1795-1874), whose "Meditations" are much used; Riche (1824-92), author of works intended to assist piety. Among those who had chiefly in view the perfection of the clergy were, after Olier himself, M. Tronson (1622-1700), whose "Examens particuliers" is a masterpiece of spiritual psychology and whose "Forma cleri", treatise on obedience, and other works are useful to the clergy; Fyot de Vaugimois (1689-1758), who wrote "Conversations with Jesus Christ before and after Mass" (1721), very popular at that time, and a host of other works for the sanctification of priests; Boyer (1768-1842), the author of ecclesiastical retreats; Vernet (1760-1843), who wrote many works to enliven the piety of religious and priests, such as the "Nepotien"; Hamon (1795-1870), the biographer of Cardinal Cheverus and St. Francis de Sales; Galais (1802-54), "Le bon séminariste" (1839); Renaudet (1794-1880), wrote various works on asceticism, also meditations; Gamon (1813-86), author of the lives of holy priests; Bacuez (1820-92), "Manuel du séminariste en vacances".

Among the scholars and learned men in various branches were: Laurent-Josse Le Clerc (1677-1736), historian, theologian, controversialist, and author of the "Bibliothèque de Richelet" (1727), of a "Lettre critique sur le Dictionnaire de Bayle" (1731), and of various and learned writings; Grandet (1646-1724), who wrote "Les saints prêtres français du XVIIe siècle", and numerous historical or devotional works; Emery (q.v.); Gosselin (1787-1858), who published the life and works of Fénelon, and wrote numerous historical works; Le Hir (1811-68), one of the most learned Hebrew scholars of the nineteenth century; Pinault (1793-1870), who composed remarkable physical and mathematical treatises; Faillon (1800-70), author of the lives of de Lantages and Olier, of "Monuments inédits sur l'apostolat de Marie-Madeleine en Provence", and of numerous historical works on Canada and Montreal; Moyen (1828-99), who compiled a "Flora of Canada" and various scientific works; Grandvaux (1819-85), who published Le Hir's works after his death, and was very learned in all branches of ecclesiastical knowledge; Richou (1823-87), noted for his works on church history and Scripture; Brugere (1823-88), a theologian and historian of wide knowledge; Icard (1805-93), known for his writings on catechisms, canon law, and various spiritual subjects. To these names must be added those of Caron (1779-1850), a liturgist, who published the "Manuel de cérémonies selon le rit de Paris" (1846); Parisis (1724-81); and Manier (1807-71), who issued philosophical courses.

GOSSELIN, Vie de M. Emery (Paris, l861), Introduction, 1-102; ICARD, Traditions de la compagnie des pretres de Saint-Sulpice (Paris, 1886); BERTRAND, Bibliothèque sulpicienne ou Histoire litteraire de la comp. de Saint-Sulpice (Paris, 1900); Bulletin trimestriel des anciens eleves de Saint-Sulpice (1896-1911); Memorial volume of the centenary of St. Mary's Seminary of St Sulpice (Baltimore, 1891); Golden Jubilee of St. Charles' College (Baltimore, 1898); SHEA, History of the Catholic Church in the United States (New York, 1886-92).

A. FOURNET

Abbey of Saints Vincent and Anastasius

(TRIUM FONTIUM AD AQUAS SALVIAS, TRE FONTANE, or THREE FOUNTAINS).

Located near Rome. Connected with, and belonging to the monastery are three separate sanctuaries. The first, the Church of St. Paul of Three Fountains, was raised over the spot where St. Paul was beheaded by order of Nero. Legend says that the head severed from the body, rebounded, striking the earth in three different places from which fountains sprang forth, flowing to the present day, and located within the sanctuary itself. The second, originally dedicated to the Blessed Virgin, under the title "Our Lady of Martyrs", is built over the relics of St. Zeno and his 10,203 legionaries, who were martyred here at the order of Diocletian, in 299. In this church is the altar "Scala Coeli", from which the church receives its present name. Within is the church and monastery dedicated to Sts. Vincent and Anastasius, built by Pope Honorius I in 626, and given to the Benedictines, who were to care for the two older sanctuaries, as well as their own church. The abbey was richly endowed, particularly by Charlemagne, who bestowed on it Orbitello and eleven other towns, with a considerable territory, over which its abbot exercises ordinary jurisdiction (abbatia nullius).

Towards the middle of the seventh century the persecutions inflicted on the Eastern monks by the Monothelites obliged many of them to seek shelter in Rome, and to them this abbey was committed as a refuge. These continued in possession until the tenth century, when it was given to the Cluniacs. In 1140 Pope Innocent II withdrew the abbey from them, and entrusted it to St. Bernard, who sent there a colony from Clairvaux, with Peter Bernard of Paganelli as their abbot, who five years later became Pope Eugene III.

At the time Innocent granted the monastery to the Cistercians, he had the church repaired and the monastic quarters rebuilt according to the usages of the order. Of the fourteen regular abbots who governed the abbey, several, besides Blessed Eugene III, became cardinals, legates, or bishops. Pope Honorius III, in 1221, again restored the Church of Sts. Vincent and Anastasius and personally consecrated it, seven cardinals at the same time consecrating the seven altars therein. Cardinal Branda (1419) was the first commendatory abbot, and after him this office was often filled by a cardinal. Popes Clement VII and VIII as cardinals held this position. Leo X, in 1519, authorized the religious to elect their own regular superior, a claustral prior independent of the commendatory abbot, who from this time forward was always to be a cardinal. From 1625, when the abbey was affiliated to the Cistercian Congregation of St. Bernard in Tuscany, until its suppression at the Napoleonic invasion (1812) the local superior was a regular abbot, but without prejudice to the commendatory abbot. The best known of this series of regular abbots was the second, Dom Ferdinand Ughelli, who was one of the foremost literary men of his age, the author of "Italia Sacra" and numerous other works.

From 1812 the sanctuaries were deserted, until Leo XII (1826) removed them from the nominal care of the Cistercians, and transferred them to the Friars Minor of the Strict Observance. The purpose of the pontiff, however, was not accomplished; the surroundings were so unhealthful that no community could live there. In 1867 Pius IX appointed his cousin Cardinal Milesi-Ferretti, Commendatory Abbot of Sts. Vincent and Anastasius, who endeavored to restore, not only the material desolation that reigned in the neglected sanctuaries, but also to provide that they be suitably served by ministers of God. To further this end he obtained that their care be again committed to the Cistercians. A community was sent there in 1868 from La Grande Trappe to institute the regular life and to try to render more healthful the lands, which from long neglect had been called the tomba (graveyard) of the Roman Campagna. Assisted by Pius IX, so long as he held the temporal sovereignty, and by other friends, especially Mgr de Mérode, they were able to supply their ordinary needs. The usurpation of 1870 deprived Pius IX of the power to aid them, and later, when the Italian Government confiscated religious properties, they suffered with the others. They remained at Three Fountains, at first renting and later (1886) definitively purchasing it from the Government, with an additional tract of 1234 acres. They inaugurated modern methods for the elimination of the malarial conditions that had been such an obstacle to health in the past, especially by planting a large number of eucalyptus and other trees, an experiment insisted upon by the Government in the contract of sale. The trial proved a success, so that the vicinity is now nearly as healthful as Rome itself. The present commendatory abbot is Cardinal Oreglia di S. Stephano, dean of the Sacred College; and the Administrator is the Most Reverend Dom Augustine Marre, Abbot-General of the Reformed Cistercians.

UGHELLI, Italia Sacra (Venice 1717-21); BACCETI, Septimianae Historiae libri septem (Rome, 1724); BLESER, Guide du voyageur catholique a Rome (Louvain, 1881); MONBET, L'Abbaie des Trois Fontaines situee aux Eaux Salviennes (Lyon, 1869); MANRIQUE Annales Cist. (Lyon, 1642); LE NAIN, Essai sur 1'histoire de l'Ordre de Citeaux (Paris, 1696); JANAUSCHEK, Originum Cisterciensium, I (Vienna, 1878); OBRECHT, The Trappists of the Three Fountains in Messenger of the Sacred Heart (New York, 1894); LISI, Trappa delle Tre Fontane (Rome 1883); GAUME, Les Trois Rome (Paris, 1842); Archives of the Abbey of Tre Fontane.

EDMOND M. OBRECHT

Order of Saint Sylvester

The Order of Saint Sylvester is neither monastic nor military but a purely honorary title created by Gregory XVI, 31 Oct., 1841. The idea of placing this title, borrowed from the Middle Ages, under the patronage of a pope of the fourth century is explained by the existence of a fabulous order of Constantine the Great claiming the approval of his contemporary, Sylvester I, which enjoyed a usurped authority at Rome from the seventeenth century. To end this abuse, Gregory XVI created an authentic title of Knights of St. Sylvester, to be conferred in recognition of some service rendered to the Church, the order being limited to 150 commanders and 300 Roman knights, besides foreigners of whom the number is unlimited. The members have no privileges beyond that of wearing a decoration which consists of a gold enamelled Maltese cross with the image of St. Sylvester on one side and the other the inscription: "1841 Gregorius XVI restituit."

CH. MOELLER

Diocese of Saint Thomas

(SANCTI THOMAE IN INSULA)

The Diocese of Saint Thomas, comprising the Islands of São Thomé and Principe, in the Gulf of Guinea, was erected on 23 November, 1584, as suffragan of Lisbon; in 1676 it was made subject to the Metropolitan of San Salvador, Brazil, and in 1844 to Lisbon once more. The last bishop, Bartolomeo de Martyribus, a Carmelite of Sandomir, was preconized on 8 March, 1816, and died in 1847. The see then remained vacant. Since 1865 it has been ruled as a vicariate. São Thomé, lying one hundred and fifty miles off the African mainland at 0°28' N. lat. and 6°42" E .long., has an area of three hundred and fifty-eight square miles and a population of 37,776 inhabitants (in 1900). It is very fertile, and is noted for its cocoa. The capital, São Thomé, situated on the Bay of Santa Anna, contains 6000 inhabitants. The island, when discovered on 21 December, 1470, by João de Santarem, was uninhabited; in 1485 João de Paiva and in 1493 Pereira attempted to colonize it. Most of the present inhabitants are of African slave origin. About 1544 a ship carrying a cargo of Angolares was wrecked at Sete Pedras and 3000 of their descendants still live in the south-west. The Capuchins arrived in 1659 and established a definite mission in 1688. Principe, lying ninety miles north-east of São Thomé and discovered in 1471, had an area of 42 square miles and a population of 4327. Its chief town is São Antonio. The diocese contains 8 parishes and 22,000 Catholics. Owing to the development of the cocoa trade in recent years the population, recruited chiefly from Africa, is estimated to have increased by over 20,000 since the last official census (1910).

NEGREIROS, Ila de San Thomé (Paris, 1901).

A.A. MACERLEAN

University of Saint Thomas

(SANTO TOMÁS)

University in Manila, founded in 1619 by the Dominican Miguel de Benavides, Archbishop of Manila. In 1645 Innocent X granted it the title of pontifical university, and in the same year it received the title of royal university from Philip IV of Spain. Attached to the university is the College of San Juan de Letran. After a five years' course in this college, including Latin, Greek, English, mathematics, natural history, botany, mineralogy, physics, chemistry, and philosophy, the successful student receives the Degree of Bachelor of Arts. The university has the right of conferring the doctorate in theology, philosophy, in civil and canon law, medicine, pharmacy, literature, and science. The departments of the university are all within the "walled city". The university attained its greatest prosperity in 1897, just at the commencement of the Spanish-American war. In that year the number of students enrolled in the various courses was as follows: divinity, 15; canon law, 5; civil law, 572; medicine, 361; pharmacy, 90; philosophy and literature, 51; sciences, 14; that year, however, owing to the revolution, the numbers very notably decreased until within the last two years, when there was a marked increase in attendance, the schools of medicine and pharmacy being particularly well attended. In connection with the university there is an excellent museum of natural history. The exhibits of this museum have been awarded special premiums at the expositions of Paris, Madrid, the Philippine Islands, Hanoi in Cochinchina, and St. Louis. The museum contains excellent material for the study of anatomy, anthropology, diplogenesy, Philippine ethnology, zoology, botany, mineralogy, and numismatics. The zoological specimens and their varieties number over 10,000. These have been carefully catalogued in a notable work, "Catálogo sistemático de toda la fauna de Filipinas", arranged by the Reverend Casto de Elera, O.P., who for many years held the chair of natural history in the university. The classes of medicine are held in St. Joseph's College and in the San Juan de Dios hospital, both founded in the seventeenth century. The medical department has well-equipped laboratories. The courses of pharmacy are given in St. Joseph's College. The library contains more than 25,000 volumes. The university is under the direction of a corporation formed by Dominicans; the rector is always a member of that order, though secular professors are appointed for the chairs of civil law, medicine and pharmacy. The faculty numbers 60 professors and 220 assistant teachers and masters in the various departments of the university.

JOHN J. THOMPKINS

Saint Thomas of Guiana

(GUAYANA; DE GUAYANA).

Diocese; suffragan of Caracas, erected by Pius VI on 19 Dec., 1791, comprises the former state of Bermúdez, districts of Nueva Esparta and Guayana, and territories of Amazonas, Caura, Colón, Orinoco, and Yuruary, in the south and east of Venezuela. The first bishop was Mgr. Francisco de Ybarra, born at Guacata, Venezuela; his successors were: (1) José Antonio Mohedano (1800), born in the Diocese of Toledo; (2) Mgr. José de Silva y Olave (15 March, 1815). After the troubles caused by the wars of independence Leo XII named (3) Mgr. Mariano Talavero, of Santa Fé, vicar Apostolic and titular Bishop of Tricala. Gregory XII restored the episcopate, appointing (4) Mgr. Antonio Fortique (12 July, 1841); (5) José Emanuel Arroyo (1856); and (6) Mgr. Antonio Maria Duran (25 Sept., 1891), the present bishop. The diocese contains over 400,000 Catholics, and a few alien Jews and Protestants; 60 parishes (20 filial); 36 priests; 50 churches and chapels. The Carib Indians occupying Eastern Venezuela were civilized and Christianized by the early Spanish Franciscan missionaries. The episcopal city, Ciudad Bolívar (population 12,000) was established in 1764 by two Jesuits under the governorship of Joaquín de Mendoza, on the right bank of the Orinoco, and called San Tomás de la Nueva Guayana; but owing to a narrowing of the river was commonly known as Angostura. It played an important part in the national history, and Simón Bolivar was elected president there by the Congress of February, 1819; in his honor the city has been renamed Ciudad Bolivar.

MOZANS, Up the Orinoco and Down the Magdalena (New York, 1910).

A.A. MACERLEAN

Saint Thomas of Mylapur

DIOCESE OF SAINT THOMAS OF MYLAPUR (SANCTI THOMAE DE MELIAPOR).

Suffragan to the primatial See of Goa in the East Indies; it, derives its name from the site of its cathedral in which the Apostle, St. Thomas was interred on his martyrdom and the Tamil word Mailapur (i.e. the town of peacocks), which the Greeks rendered as Maliarpha the Portuguese Meliapor, and the English Mylapore.

EARLY HISTORY

The local Indian tradition, largely corroborated by collateral evidence is that the Apostle St. Thomas, after preaching on the west coast of India, passed on to the east coast and fixed his see at Mylapur, which was then a flourishing city. The number of converts, be made having aroused the hostility of the heathen priests, he fled from their anger to the summit of what is now known as St. Thomas's Mount situated in a direct line four miles to the southwest, of Mylapur. Thither he was followed by his persecutors, who transfixed him with a lance as he prayed kneeling on a stone, A.D. 68. From the facts that the Roman Breviary declares St. Thomas to have "crowned the glory of his Apostleship with martyrdom at Calamina" and that no traces of any CaIamina exist, various theories -- some of them probably absurd -- have been put forward to identify Calamina with Mylapur, or with St. Thomas's Mount. The writer of this article once suggested that Calamina might be a modification of Cholamandalam (i.e. the kingdom of the Cholas as the surrounding country was in the beginning of the Christian era). On maturer reflection he has found it far more reasonable to believe that Calamina was an ancient town at the foot of the hill at St. Thomas's Mount, that has wholly disappeared, as many more recent, historic Indian cities have disappeared, built as they were of mud, except for their temples arid palaces which were of exquisitely wrought stone. This much is certain: till Europeans settled in the place there was no Indian name even for the hill. This is shown by the present, Indian name, Faranghi Malai (i.e. hill of the Franks), used to denote both the bill and the town around its base, a service which the English name -- St. Thomas's Mount equally renders. His body was brought to Mylapur and buried in the house in which he had lived, and which was used as a place of worship. A notable portion of the relics of the Apostle was obtained for the church of Edessa, at an early period, by Christian traders from Persia. The Edessene relics were in course of time conveyed to Chios, and finally to Ortona in Italy, where they are yet venerated.

India's maritime trade languished and died out about the fourth century. Though the country was thus cut off from all communication with the external world, the succession of bishops was kept up till the revival of Brahminism at Mylapur in the seventh century, when there was a ruthless massacre of Jains and Christians. The Bishop of Mylapur and his priests were put to death, and the remnant of his flock fled across the country to the mountains of the west. As the sees on the west coast were vacant at the time, the Apostolic succession was interrupted, and on the death of the priests then living, the Christians kept the light of their faith burning by lay baptism, the recitation of their prayers, by wearing a cross, and by surreptitious visits to the tomb of the Apostle in the ruined church at Mylapur; in this they were helped by the fact that shortly after the massacre, Mylapur had been overwhelmed by the sea, which returned to its bed after wrecking the city and causing the Brahmins to flee and build a new Mylapur a mile further inland. This new Mylapur is to this very day almost purely Brahmin. The site of old Mylapur is now a sand dune, and would have been wholly forgotten but for the interest it possessed for the early Indian Christians and their successors.

NESTORIAN PERIOD

India's maritime trade began to revive in the ninth century. The Nestorian merchants from Persia, finding that there were Christians in India, brought out their own priests and subsequently bishops to minister to them, whom the Indian Christians for want of instruction did not know to be in heresy. Presently, a new Nestorian town began to rise on the sand dune that covered old Mylapur, the most prominent feature of which was a chapel over the site of the Apostle's tomb. Hence the Persian and Arabian traders called the town Betumah (i.e. house, church, or town of Thomas. But the Indian Christians called it Tirumailapur (i.e. Holy Mylapur). It is this chapel that the ambassadors of Alfred the Great of England are supposed to have visited (A.D. 883), and which John of Monte Corvino (1200), Marco Polo (1220), Blessed Oderic di Perdone (1318), and Conti (1400) did for a certainty visit. Later Betumah declined, and about 1500 was only a heap of ruins.

FIRST PORTUGUESE MISSIONARIES

Shortly after the discovery of the Cape route to India, caravels of Portuguese Franciscans and Dominicans set out to evangelize the no longer sealed lands of the East, and traversed their surf-beaten coasts in search of suitable centres for their operations. There is a legend which tells how, when a caravel with some Franciscan missionaries engaged in such a search was cruising up the Coromandel Coast, one day towards nightfall their attention was attracted by a light on shore and they decided to land there. They did, without knowing then or for some time after, that they had landed at the ruins of Betumah. But when they attempted to approach the light, it preceded them inland, across the ruins of the Nestorian town, over an empty stretch of ground, past (new) Mylapur and into a forest, where the light vanished. Here the Franciscans established a mission and built a church (still extant) in honour of Our Lady of Light in 1516, whence the locality, no longer a forest, but a wealthy residential quarter, is still known as The Luz -- after Nossa Senhora da Luz (that is, Our Lady of Light). The Dominicans followed in their wake, and in 1520 Fre. Ambrosio, O.P., was consecrated bishop for the Dominican missions at Cranganore and Mylapur.

The following year King John III of Portugal ordered a search to be instituted for the tomb of the Apostle St. Thomas. As long as the tomb, with the counterpart of the Ortona relics, was looked for, nothing was found; however when the search was given up, both were accidentally discovered. The royal commission found traces of the old Nestorian chapel, but nothing of the tomb. But while directing operations to build an oratory commemorative of the spot, and digging deeply in the sandy soil to lay its foundations, it found a masonry tomb, containing what might have been expected to be found in the Apostle's tomb: some bones of snowy whiteness, the head of a lance, a pilgrim's staff, and an earthen vase. This was in 1522. The fact brought ruined Betumah into popularity with the Portuguese, who settled here in large numbers and called the new European town San Thomé (after St. Thomas) and San Thomé de Meliapor, when they wanted to distinguish it from São Thomé the African island, though the town was somewhat distant from Mylapur.

The Portuguese Augustinians were the next missionaries to follow; they took charge of the oratory built over the grave of the Apostle, and built their priory and church adjoining it. In the meantime the Dominican missions in the surrounding country gained so much in importance, that in 1540 Fre. Bernardo da Cruz, O.P., was consecrated and sent out to tend them. There is nothing to show when the Fathers of the Society of Jesus settled at Saint Thomas, but by 1648 they had a college in the place and a church and residence at Mylapur, while St. Francis Xavier spent three months in 1545 at Saint Thomas praying at the grave of the Apostle for light in regard to his projected mission to Japan. All of these missionaries, and those who came after them, had no definite spheres of work, but worked side by side and in dependence on the local ordinaries, when these were in due course appointed. By the end of the sixteenth century they had extended their operations to Bengal and Burma. In 1552 the Diocese of Cochin was erected, and made to include, among other places, Ceylon and the countries bordering the Bay of Bengal. Saint Thomas was thus constituted a parish of the Diocese of Cochin; and the Augustinian church adjoining the chapel over the grave of the Apostle was designated the parish church of Saint Thomas.

CREATION OF THE DIOCESE

At the instance of King Philip II of Portugal, Paul V, on 9 January, 1606, separated rated the Kingdom of Tanjore and the territories to the north of the Cauvery River and bordering the Bay of Bengal, from the Diocese of Cochin and constituted them a distinct diocese with Saint Thomas of Myrapur as the episcopal city and the parish church of Saint Thomas as the cathedral. At the same time the pope appointed Dom Sebastião de San Pedro, O.S.A., who had been presented by the King of Portugal, to be the first bishop of Saint Thomas of Mylapur, and granted Philip and his heirs and successors in perpetuity the right of patronage and presentation to the see, and the benefices that might be created therein, by the mere facts of their creation and dotation. This right and obligation the Crown of Portugal has exercised and discharged to the present, by making the bishops a princely allowance, paying a certain number of priests' salaries, with periodical increases, leave with free passages and pensions, on the lines of the Portuguese Civil Service Code, and contributing to the support of a still larger number of priests on a graduated scale. Bishop Sebastião de San Pedro arrived at Saint Thomas in 1611, but in 1614 was promoted to the See of Cochin. In 1615 he was succeeded by Luiz de Brito e Menezes, likewise an Augustinian, who was transferred in 1628 to the See of Cochin. His successor was Luiz Paulo Paulo de Estrella, O.S.F., appointed in 1534, who died at Saint Thomas on 9 January, 1637. During the next fifty-six years the see continued vacant; for, though no less than nine personages were selected by the Crown for the honour, they either declined it, or were promoted, or died before their election was confirmed by the Holy See. So in the interval the diocese was governed by administrators selected chiefly from the various religious orders and appointed by the archbishops or vicars capitular sede vacante of Goa. But it was only natural that the members of the religious orders as also secular priests of other nations should have desired to share in the work of preaching the Gospel to the heathen; hence in 1622 Gregory XV created the Sacred Congregation de propaganda fide to distribute infidel regions among the religious orders and missionary societies of other nationalities as assistants to the local ordinaries, where there were any, and to supervise their operations. But occasionally the Congregation was misled -- a thing that was easy enough when geographical knowledge was neither as correct nor as extensive as at the present time and this occasioned trouble.

The foundations of the British Indian Empire of the present day were laid, so to say, by Sir Francis Day in the sandy delta of a tiny river, some three and a half miles north of Saint Thomas, with the beginnings of Fort St. George. The British invited the Portuguese of pure and mixed descent to settle in the new township; and as the Portuguese were Catholics, they were ministered to by the clergy from Saint Thomas. In 1642, the Congregation of Propaganda sent out two French Capuchins to establish a mission in Burma. But, when they, landing at Surat and travelling overland, reached Fort St. George, the British persuaded them not to go further, since they judged it prudent to have clergymen differing in nationality from, and independent of, the Portuguese ordinary at Saint Thomas to minister to the Catholics in their settlement. Accordingly, R. P. Ephraim', one of the two, wrote to the Sacred Congregation de propaganda fide representing that there was a prospect of reaping a larger harvest at Fort St. George and the fast rising native town of Madras that was beside it, than in Burma; and in the name of Urban VIII a prefecture Apostolic was established within three and a half miles of the cathedral of Saint Thomas. It is perhaps needless to say that ever after there were continual bickerings between the local ordinaries and the French Capuchins, the former insisting on the Capuchins acknowledging their jurisdiction, a claim which the latter, relying on their papal Brief, refused to recognize.

Both the Portuguese and the British had obtained their charters for their respective forts of Saint Thomas and St. George from the local Hindu chiefs. But the Mohammedans were now extending their power southwards; and before laying siege to Fort St. George they, with the help of the Dutch who bombarded the place from the sea, took Saint Thomas and began the work of demolishing its walls in January, 1697. The Mohammedan governors then settled on the waste land, separating Saint Thomas from Mylapur, which was soon covered with the residences of Mohammedan settlers. In the unchanging East these three townships still exist: as a European quarter, as a Mohammedan quarter and as a Brahmin quarter -- while the casual observer fails to see where Saint Thomas ends and Mylapur begins and uses the names as convertible terms. However, having reduced Saint Thomas and deprived it of its battlements, the Mohammedans did not further trouble the resident Portuguese, who regarded the place as still a Portuguese possession and managed its affairs with an elected council of which the ordinary of the place, for the time being, was the president.

Dom Gaspar Alfonso Alvares, S. J., was the fourth Bishop of Saint Thomas. His presentation was confirmed by the Holy See in 1691, and he was consecrated at Goa in 1693. In the meantime the Capuchins of the French Prefecture Apostolic of Fort St. George spread apace and took charge of the French settlement of Pondicherry. Not to offend the French, Dom Gaspar allowed them to minister to the Europeans and their descendants, but in order to assert his right, placed the Indian Christians in Pondicherry under the care of members of his own Society from France. This led to a number of complaints being addressed to Rome about the interference of the Bishop of Saint Thomas of Mylapur with the work of the missionaries Apostolic, with the result, however, that Clement XI, by his letters "Gaudium in Domino" of 1704, issued an injunction restraining the missionaries from invading the rights of the diocesan. But the Congregation de propaganda fide seems to have followed an altogether different course. In 1706 it issued a Decree in support of its own missionaries, which reversed what the bishop had ordained. Under these circumstances the bishop again appealed to the pope, who, by the Brief "Non sine gravi" of 1711, annulled the Decree of the Congregation and reaffirmed the right of the diocesan to make what arrangements he chose at Pondicherry, which was situated within the limits of his diocese. Presently Cardinal de Tournon, who was on his way to China as legate of the Holy See, having touched at Pondicherry, hearing of the doings of the Capuchins, placed the French Prefecture Apostolic of Madras, the name by which Fort St. George and its surroundings were coming to be better known, under interdict. The Capuchins must have submitted forthwith and the interdict thereupon been removed, as there appears no record of its removal.

In the meantime Dom Gaspar had died (1708). Owing to his advancing years, he had been given a coadjutor with the right of succession, Dom Francisco Laynes, S.J., of the Madura mission, in the Diocese of Cochin. Dom Laynes was consecrated at Lisbon on 19 March, 1708, as Bishop of Sozopolis in partibus. He came out to India the same year, but did not take possession of his see till 1710. Though Bishop Laynes was Portuguese, the Portuguese Augustinians of Bandel defied his authority as their diocesan. He therefore placed Bandel under interdict on 14 July, 1714; on the submission of the Augustinians the interdict was removed (8 October, 1714). Bishop Laynes died at Chandernagore (Bengal) in 1715, and was succeeded by Manoel Sanches Golão, who was appointed in 1717 and reached India in 1719. It was Dom Manoel who welcomed the Italian Barnabites as invaluable co-operators in the work of preaching the Gospel in Burma, though he had regularly served mission stations there. These friendly relations with the Italian Barnabites were always maintained, as they recognized the authority of the diocesans. Bishop Golão was succeeded by Jose Penheiro, S.J., who was consecrated in 1726. He sanctioned the arrangement whereby French Jesuits were to have spiritual charge of Chandernagore, in Bengal. During his time the Barnabite mission in Burma was created a vicariate Apostolic. Bishop Pinheiro died on 15 March, 1744, and was succeeded by Antonio da Incarnacao, O.S.A., who was consecrated at Goa in 1747.

It was about this time (1746) that the French marched on Madras and, making Saint Thomas their head-quarters, attacked and took Fort St. George, which they held and improved till August, 1749, when they restored it to Admiral Boseawen under the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle. Saint Thomas had been nominally a Portuguese possession from 1697, without the semblance of a military force to resist its occupation by a foreign power, as the French did when operating against Madras. To obviate a recurrence of such an eventuality Admiral Boscawen annexed the place and built a redoubt to the south-east of it, thus rendering it a part of Madras, as it still is. The British now regretted having harboured the French Capuchins, as they suspected that the capture of Fort St. George by the French was largely due to the information supplied by them. Consequently R. P. Rene, on whom the suspicion rested most heavily, was deported to Europe, and the others were expelled from the fort and settled in what is now Georgetown (Madras), where the cathedral of Madras now stands, four miles from the cathedral of Saint Thomas.

On the death of Bishop da Incarnacão on 22 November, 1752, Fre. Theodoro de Santa Maria, O.S.A., was presented for the see and confirmed by the Holy See. He belonged to the priory at Saint Thomas, but hesitated to receive episcopal consecration. Two Italian Barnabites destined for the vicariate Apostolic in Burma came with letters of commendation to the bishop-elect, who welcomed and speeded them to their destination. At last Fre. Thedoro, the bishop-elect, renounced the see into the hands of Fre. Bernardo de San Caetano, O.S.A., who was then consecrated bishop. Bishop Bernardo in turn consecrated one of the two Barnabites just mentioned, Dom Percotto, Bishop and Vicar Apostolic of Burma, in 1768. But Bishop Percotto did not reach the field of his labours, as on his voyage back to Burma the vessel foundered.

The Diocese of Saint Thomas of Mylapur was ministered to at this period as follows: -- By the Portuguese Franciscans, Portuguese Dominicans, Portuguese Augustinians, and Portuguese Jesuits. Besides these, there were French Jesuits and Italian Barnabites working in the diocese in harmony with the ordinary, And French Capuchins defying their authority, at least occasionally. One drawback of this total manning of the diocese with the religious orders was the absolute neglect to form an indigenous clergy to meet the emergency that presently arose. For it was at about this time that the Marquess of Pombal suppressed the houses of the Society of Jesus in Portugal and thus cut off the supply of Portuguese Jesuits to the diocese. The emergency became still more acute, when, in 1773, Clement XIV suppressed the Society of Jesus. Withal, the situation was not quite so hopeless as to call for drastic measures in regard to the diocese from without. For it was not till 1834 that the houses of the other religious orders in the Portuguese dominions were suppressed. And as the Diocese of Saint Thomas of Mylapur was situated wholly outside of Portuguese territory, there was nothing to prevent the Portuguese religious orders from thriving there. Nevertheless, as at home vocations became fewer, the houses in India gradually died out, the last to be represented in the diocese being the Portuguese Augustinians in Bengal, the last member of the order dying in 1869.

On the extinction of a religious house in any place, the property and rights of the religious revert to the Church, as represented by the local diocesans. But all Catholic Europe was so incensed against Portugal for the initiative taken by the Marquess of Pombal against the Society of Jesus, that without waiting to weigh the justice of their action in turn, reprisals became the order of the day in the Diocese of Saint Thomas of Mylapur, the Congregation de propaganda fide supporting the missionaries of other nationalities against the Portuguese. On the suppression of the Society of Jesus by the Holy See, the Fathers of the Missions étrangères of Paris were sent out to take charge of the Society's missions in the Dioceses of Saint Thomas of Mylapur and of Cochin, of which Msgr Champenois, Bishop of Dolichum in partibus, was appointed vicar Apostolic. Bishop San Caetano resented this, as he was filling up the places of the Jesuits with Indian secular missionaries from Goa; but his protests were of little avail. In course of time, as the members of the other religious orders died out, these same Indian missioners from Goa assumed charge of their churches under the order of their diocesans, though more often than not there was a dispute between them and the missionaries Apostolic. The latter did not hesitate to misrepresent the Goan missionaries to be ignorant and immoral as a whole though the diocesan seminary at Goa was conducted by the Jesuits until their suppression, and thereafter by members of the other religious orders till 1835. On the other hand, between 1652 and 1843, no less than seven of their fellow-countrymen were deemed worthy of episcopal consecration by the Crown of Portugal, the Holy See, and the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, not to speak of the Venerable Joseph Vaz, who was of their race. Howbeit, since then and up to the present time the majority of the priests working in the diocese have be,. Indian Secular missionaries from Goa.

Bishop San Caetano died in 1780, and was succeeded by Fre. Manoel de Jesus Marie Jose, O.S.A., a native of Goa and the prior of the Augustinian convent there. He was consecrated in 1788, and died at Saint Thomas in 1800. He was succeeded by Fre. Joaquim de Menezes e Athalde, O.S.A., who was consecrated and took charge of his see by procuration in 1805, but before he could come out he was transferred to the Diocese of Funchal. As a result, Fre. Jose de Garca who on the death of Bishop Jesus Maria Jose had been appointed administrator, continued as such till his death on 14 July, 181.7, when Fre. Clemente de Espiritu Santo, O.S.F., was appointed administrator. During the latter's tenure of his office, Madras was visited by Dom Pedro d'Aleantara, O.C., Bishop of Antipheles in partibus and Vicar Apostolic of the Grand Mogul [sic] and visitor Apostolic of the French Capuchin missions, who "according to the mind of the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide declared the Capuchins of Madras to be independent of the Bishop of Saint Thomas of Mylapur not alone in temporal but also in spiritual matters". But the administrator declined to accept his decision, as being a reaffirmation of the Decree of the same Sacred Congregation, which had been annulled. Fre. Clemente resigned the administration of the diocese to Fire. Manoel de Ave Maria, O.S.A., in 1820.

The British power was now paramount on the Coromandel Coast, and English was universally spoken by the Indo-European population that formed the mainstay of the Catholic congregation of Madras, as it always was and still is all over India. Withal, the French Capuchins would not conform to the times, but continued to preach in Portuguese (which had degenerated in Madras to a patois) and Tamil, the language of the Indian Christians. As a result, many Indo-European families gave up the practice of their religion and in time became Protestants. Finding their representations to the Capuchin prefect Apostolic unheeded, a band of young men represented the matter to the Holy See. In response to this appeal the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide raised the French Capuchin prefecture into a vicariate Apostolic and sent out Dr. O'Connor, S A with Irish priests, in 1828 to take over the work of the Frenchmen.

PORTUGUESE CIVIL WAR OF 1826, AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

On the outbreak of the Peninsular wars, King João VI of Portugal, with his elder son Dom Pedro, sought refuge in Brazil. Presently a movement was set on foot to have his younger son, Dom Miguel, proclaimed king, a movement which had the support of the religious orders, but not of the bishops or of the secular clergy. However, João returned to Portugal and quelled the insurrection. In the meantime Brazil proclaimed its independence with Dom Pedro as its emperor an arrangement in which João acquiesced. On the death of João VI the loyalists in Portugal proclaimed Dom Pedro of Brazil King of Portugal; but, as Dom Pedro preferred staying in Brazil, he ceded his right to Dona Maria da Gloria, his younger daughter, appointing his brother, Dom Miguel, as regent till she should grow up, when the regent was to marry her and thus heal the rupture between the loyalists and the adherents of Dom Miguel. The adherents of Dom Miguel, however, proclaimed him king. Dom Pedro came over to Portugal in 1826 to assert his daughter's rights, and finally defeated his brother in 1834. Dom Miguel was perpetually banished and those who sided with him were punished, amongst those to suffer being the religious orders, whose houses were suppressed and properties confiscated.

In consequence of this last measure mainly, diplomatic relations between the Holy See and Portugal were broken off. The Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide deemed the moment opportune to extend the jurisdiction of the Vicar Apostolic of Madras to Saint Thomas of Mylapur and its missions southwards to the River Palar (those south of the Palar being assigned to the Vicar Apostolic of Pondicherry), to declare Burma to be an independent vicariate and to create in the northern part of the diocese (Bengal and the adjoining countries) an independent vicariate Apostolic under Dr. St. Leger, with a staff of British priests. From a certain point of view this action was unfortunate, as under the circumstances it caused the loyalist Portuguese to regard these measures as retaliatory and not as prompted by a desire for the spiritual welfare of the regions concerned. And, indeed there was nothing up to this to show that Portugal had shirked her responsibilities in regard to the diocese, or that the successive ordinaries of the diocese had been found wanting, beyond the mere accusation of those missionaries Apostolic who were sent into their territories and, failing to recognize their authority, had received scant courtesy. Howbeit, when called upon by the Vicar Apostolic of Madras to surrender his churches and submit to him, the administrator replied that he would gladly do so when instructed by the authority that placed him there. The vicar Apostolic then called upon the priests and the subjects of the Diocese of Saint Thomas of Mylapur to submit to him, but they all replied in much the same terms. The same thing happened in the parts of the diocese between the Rivers Palar and Cauvery, and in Bengal; whereupon the vicar Apostolic declared the administrator, priests, and people of the Diocese of Saint Thomas of Mylapur schismatics, and from the fact that a large number of the priests in the diocese were from Goa, defined their action as the "Goan schism". However the Holy See seems not to have taken much notice of the " schism " and diplomatic relations were resumed with Portugal in 1841. Then followed a series of acts unworthy of the Church, when both sides strove to capture or recapture churches that they claimed; when church was built against church, altar raised against altar, and violence and police-courts were a common resort.

On 14 March, 1836, Dom Antonio Tristão Vaz Teixeira was presented by the Crown of Portugal to the Holy See as Bishop of Saint Thomas of Mylapur, and left Lisbon for India a month later. As the Holy See had in the meantime refused to confirm the presentation, the Vicar Capitular of Goa appointed him administrator of the diocese in place of Fre. Ave Maria, who had died on 5 August of the same year. Dom Antonio assumed charge on 15 October following, and died on 3 September, 1852. He was succeeded by Padre Miguel Francisco Lobo, an Indian from Goa (as were all the administrators of the diocese up to 1886), who was appointed on 3 October, 1852.

On the restoration of the Society of Jesus by Pius VII the French Jesuits returned to the parts of the Diocese of Cochin, which their Portuguese brethren had evangelized; though opposed by the authorities of that diocese; and in 1846, the Congregation de Propaganda Fide erected their missions into a vicariate Apostolic. In 1850 the Salesians of Annecy were sent out to take charge of the country between the Rivers Godavery and Mahanuddy, which was at the same time created a vicariate Apostolic. In the same year, the country between the Chittagong and Kabudak River was created a vicariate Apostolic, and committed to the care of the Fathers of the Holy Crow; while at about the same time the Fathers of Missions etrangeres of Paris replaced the Italian Barnabites in Burma. Thus the Diocese of Mylapur was divided up between six vicariates: Madura, Pondicherry, Madras, Vizagapatam, Western Bengal, and Eastern Bengal and Burma.

In 1857 a concordat was entered into between the Holy See and Portugal, pending the execution of which both the vicars Apostolic and the authorities of the diocese were to enjoy pacific possession of the places they actually held. But the Crown of Portugal undertook manifestly too great a burden, to wit, to provide for the spiritual needs of the whole of India, and consequently the concordat remained a dead letter. In 1854 the Royal Missionary College of Bomjardim at Sernache, Portugal was founded for the training of secular priests for the Portuguese missions beyond the seas. Meanwhile the missions of the diocese had been greatly weakened by secessions to the vicars Apostolic. The missions were situated in British territory and as beyond the clergy there were scarcely any Portuguese subjects to be found through- out the diocese there was no particular inducement or the people to cling to the see.

In Madras itself, the Irish vicars Apostolic and missionaries had been educated at Maynooth College, and almost all of them were doctors of divinity. They were socially and intellectually on an equality with the best British talent. Protestants as well as Catholics crowded to hear their sermons in churches and their lectures on scientific matters. When Dr. O'Connor first came out, he brought letters of introduction to the governor and was a guest at Government House. On the first occasion when he drove to St. Mary's of the Angels, the quasi-cathedral of his vicariate wearing a cocked hat and buckled shoes, long coat and knee-breeches, the old ladies protested that he could be no Catholic bishop but the emissary of the Government to make them all Protestants. These things lent prestige to the Catholic name. One of the first things the Irish missionaries did was to open a seminary (to which a college was attached) and ordain IndoEuropean priests, who proved of invaluable help to them. They also brought out the Irish Presentation nuns, whose schools are yet the best in all Southern India. As a result, almost all the Catholic Indo-Europeans and Indians with pretensions to respectability flocked to the vicars Apostolic, till in the end it was deemed opprobrious to term one as belonging to the Diocese of Saint Thomas of Mylapur. Hence in the course of the negotiations preparatory to the fresh concordat of 1886, the cardinal secretary of State was in a position to show that out of 1,167,975 Catholics in British India, the Portuguese missions of the Diocese of Saint Thomas of Mylapur could actually claim only some 30,000 subjects, with a proportionate number of churches, one seminary from which a priest was occasionally ordained, one high school at Saint Thomas, two middle schools at Tuticorin and Manapad, and a number of elementary schools; while any single vicariate Apostolic had a better equipment. But of these 30,000 souls which were all that were left to the Portuguese of the once flourishing diocese, it has truly, though scarcely laudably, been said that "they loved the Portuguese more than their own immortal souls ".

PRESENT CONDITION

Such was the state of affairs when in 1886 a fresh concordat was entered into between the Holy See and Portugal, which showed itself disposed to accommodate itself to the changed conditions of the times. The concordat was preceded by negotiations with England, to make sure that the British Government would not object to the continuance of the Portuguese royal patronage in its Eastern possessions. Accordingly, the Primacy of the East of the archbishops of Goa was reaffirmed, while in addition they were accorded the honorary title of Patriarchs of the East Indies and the substantial privilege of presiding at the plenary councils of the East Indies, which were ordinarily to assemble at Goa, while the special relations existing between the Archdiocese of Goa and its suffragan dioceses were to be continued. But the limits of the original Portuguese dioceses were contracted, the Diocese of Saint Thomas of Mylapur being assigned two distinct pieces of territory on the Coromandel Coast, separated from each other by a distance of some 150 miles. The first is a triangle of an area of some 800 square miles, in the northern angle of which Saint Thomas is situated; the other is roughly the ancient Kingdom of Tanjore. In addition, both by the concordat and certain appendixes thereto, the diocese was given five churches in the Archdiocese Of Madras -- the old vicariates Apostolic having been converted into dioceses as a sequel to the concordat by the Constitution "Humanae salutis" of 1886, of Leo XIII -- three churches in the Archdiocese of Calcutta (Western Bengal), five churches in the Diocese of Dacca (Eastern Bengal), and twenty-four churches in the Diocese of Trichinopoly (which originally belonged to the Diocese of Cochin), with their congregations.

The first bishop appointed to Saint Thomas of Mylapur on the conclusion of the new concordat was the princely Dom Henrique Jose Reed da Silva, who was at the time coadjutor to the Archbishop of Goa, and who took possession of his see in 1886. He was the first to sign himself for the sake of brevity, Bishop of Mylapur, a practice which his successors have adopted. Hence the diocese is at the present time better known in India as the Diocese of Mylapur. His was the arduous task of gathering the broken shreds of the old historic diocese, putting them together, and rendering it once again the thing of beauty it was. His first care was to reform the diocesan seminary, and in order to have an efficient body of European priests with their heart in their work, he brought out a number of young boys from Portugal and gave them a collegiate course in English, in the college to which he had raised the existing high-school, previous to their entering upon their ecclesiastical course of studies. His successors are reaping the benefit of his policy. He opened a convent of European nuns at Saint Thomas, and another of Indian nuns in Mylapur, which have since thrown out branches into various parts of the diocese. He invited English-speaking priests to join his diocese (a call to which the present writer responded) and established the "Catholic Register", a weekly newspaper. His courtly manners and noble bearing made him a favourite in society. Soon the people felt it an honour to be able to point to him as their bishop. He pulled down the old cathedral, the chapel over the grave -- of St. Thomas, and the old Augustinian priory, that had nothing antique to commend them, and built the present magnificent cathedral in the centre of which, between the nave and chancel, lies the grave of St. Thomas. Despite the good he was accomplishing, he incurred the ill-will of certain parties connected with the churches situated in other dioceses, and when he found the accusations brought against him accepted without demur in Europe, he resigned and retired to Portugal, as titular Bishop of Trajanopolis.

He was succeeded by Dom Antonio Jose de Souza Barroso, who, within a few months of his arrival at Saint Thomas, was promoted to the See of Oporto. Bishop Barroso was succeeded by the present bishop, Dom Theotonio Manuel Ribeiro Vieira de Castro, who was presented on 12 June, 1899, and confirmed by Leo XIII ten days later. He was consecrated at Oporto on 15 August, 1899, and reached Saint Thomas on 23 December. The tercentenary of the creation of the diocese occurred in January, 1906, in which almost all of the archbishops and bishops of the vast tract that constituted the original Diocese of Saint Thomas of Mylapur took part in person in addition to the delegate Apostolic and other prelates, numbering fifteen bishops in all. It is instructive to note, that with the single exception of the Archdiocese of Madras, all of the dioceses into which the original Diocese of Saint Thomas of Mylapur is divided are served by non-British clergy, save for the Indian and few Indo-European priests, where there are any. But even in the Archdiocese of Madras, though it is served by the British Missionary Society of St. Joseph, the majority of the priests and the coadjutor bishop are from the Continent. Dacca is served by the Fathers of the Holy Cross from Notre Dame, Indiana, United States of America.

According to the latest available statistics, there are in the diocese some 72,000 Catholics, 20 European and 51 Indian priests, I seminary. For boys there are: 2 high schools at Saint Thomas, one being for Indo-Europeans, the other for Indian Christians; 3 orphanages, one for Indo-Europeans at Saint Thomas, another for Indian Christians at Tanjore, managed by the Salesians, and the third at Calcutta for Indian Christians. For girls: 2 convents of the Franciscan Missionary Nuns of Mary, at Saint Thomas and at St. Thomas's Mount, which maintain schools and orphanages attached to them both for IndoEuropeans and Indians, the latter of whom are mainly looked after by Indian Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis; 6 convents of Indian nuns of the diocesan Institute of Our Lady of Help, in populous centres, with schools and boarding establishments for Indian caste girls; there are also 8 middle-schools and 57 primary schools. The conversions for the year ending 30 September, 1907 totalled about 200, of which 135 were from heathenism, 63 from Protestantism and 8 from Mohammedanism. The catechumens under instruction at the same time numbered 141. Thus is Portugal in the beginning of the twentieth century continuing the work inaugurated on the Coromandel Coast in the beginning of the sixteenth, in the days when the Vasco de Gamas, Cabrals, and de Albuquerques were not the mere shadowy heroes of the past, but walked the earth in living flesh and did their deeds of daring.

JAM S. DOYLE

Jean-Baptiste de Saint-Vallier

Second Bishop of Quebec, b. at Grenoble, France, 14 Nov. 1653; d. at Quebec, Canada, 26 Dec., 1727; son of Jean de La Croix de Chevrières, and Marie de Sayne. He was educated at the local seminary and took the degree of Doctor of Theology at the Sorbonne at the age of nineteen. While acting as almoner to Louis XIV his regularity and piety not only preserved him from the dangers of the Court, but maintained and redeemed others, who were edified by his charity and zeal toward the poor and infirm. He accompanied the king in a campaign to Flanders and devotedly attended the wounded and dying. Through humility he successively refused the Sees of Tours and Marseilles, preferring a field of missionary labor and hardship. He was chosen to replace Bishop Laval on his resignation (1684), and pending the reception of his Bulls, he left for Canada as vicar-general (1685). At first his bearing towards the seminary and the other institutions showed a disposition to continue his predecessor's policy. His zeal moved him to visit every parish between Quebec and Montreal, and even distant Acadia. Under the title "Etat présent de l'Eglise et de la colonie de la Nouvelle-France" (Paris, 1687), he published a glowing account of the piety and devotedness of the clergy, and of the morality of the people. The contrast between Laval's paternal rule, and St-Vallier's often untimely zeal and anxiety to reform caused apprehension. His consecration (1688) promoted the king's liberality in behalf of the incipient Church and the propagation of the Faith. The young pastor's activity spent itself in creating parishes, building churches, and founding homes for the poor, beginning with "La Providence (1689), which was to develop into the general hospital (1692). In 1689 he visited Newfoundland and founded at Placentia a Franciscan convent. When Phipps (1690) besieged Quebec, the bishop hastened back from Montreal to comfort his flock, and published for the occasion a mandement full of faith and patriotism. In 1692, to Laval's displeasure, he altered the system of joint administration of the diocese by bishop and seminary.

In 1694 St-Vallier went to France for the third time to exonerate himself from the charges brought against him. In spite of the king's desire to retain him, he returned to Quebec (1697), and finished constructing his spacious palace, destined to give hospitality to all the clergy. That same year, he founded at Three Rivers a monastery of Ursulines, who combined hospital work with teaching. He likewise approved the charitable foundation of the Charron Brothers, which lasted till 1745. In 1689, he had summoned to Quebec the Sisters of Marguerite Bourgeoys who still teach there. He encouraged the extension of the Faith by confiding to the Jesuits the Illinois, Miami, Sioux, and Ottawa missions; Ile Royale to the Recollects, and the Tamarois mission, on the left bank of the Mississippi, to the Quebec seminary (1698), one of whose missionaries represented Mgr SaintVallier as vicar-general for the Louisiana region, then comprised, as well as all the vast territory included in the future "Louisiana Purchase", within the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Quebec. He visited Rome (1701), and on his return voyage was captured by the English. During his five years of captivity he exerted his zeal in behalf of the Catholics of his neighborhood. Although released in 1709, his departure from France, where he again refused to relinquish Quebec for a richer see, was delayed till 1713. His venerable predecessor had died in 1708. St-Vallier was firm in doctrine and in perfect union with Rome. The results of his zeal for ecclesiastical discipline still abide. He published a "Rituel du diocèse de Québec" (Paris, 1703); "Catéchisme de Québec (Paris, 1702), presided at four synods (1690, 1694, 1698, 1700), and issued a great number of mandements, letters, and other episcopal documents, over one hundred of which have been published in the collection of "Les mandements des évêques de Québec". He died after forty years' episcopate, nearly half of which he was forced to spend far from his diocese. Though his overbearing zeal and excessive desire to perform all the good that he had in view occasionally elicited measures that were displeasing and even offensive, these were fully outbalanced by his generosity towards the poor, and his genuine disinterestedness.

Mandements des eveques de Quebec (Quebec, 1887); TETU, Les eveques de Quebec (Quebec, 1889); Mgr de St-Vallier et l'Hospital-General de Quebec (Quebec, 1882); GOSSELIN, Mgr de St-Vallier et son temps (Evreux, 1898); HOWLEY, Ecclesiastical History of Newfoundland (Boston, 1888).

LIONEL LINDSAY

Abbey of Saint-Victor

In the year 1108, the famous William of Champeaux, archdeacon of Notre-Dame in Paris, who had been lecturing to crowds of students, relinquishing his chair, retired to a small hermitage dedicated to St. Victor, the martyr soldier, near the city. Here he was followed by many of his disciples, Abelard among them, and induced again to take up his lectures. Hence the origin of the Royal Abbey and School of St. Victor. With some of his followers, William had become a canon regular, but, at the request of St. Bernard he was made Bishop of Chalons in 1113, and was succeeded at St. Victor's by Gildwin, a man, as the "Necrologium" records, of piety and learning, and zealous in promoting the canonical order. The abbey, by the generosity of popes, kings, queens, and noblemen, was soon richly endowed. Numerous religious houses of canons regular were reformed by its canons. Ste. Geneviève (Paris), Wigmore in Wales, St. Augustine's (Bristol), 1148), St. Catherine's (Waterford), St. Thomas's (Dublin), St. Peter's (Aram, Naples) were of the number. No less than forty abbeys of the order of St. Victor are mentioned in his last will by King Louis VIII, who left all his jewels for the erection of the abbey church and 4000 pounds to be equally divided among them. At the general chapter which was convened every year, there were present some 100 abbots and priors. Before the abbey was 160 years old, several cardinals and at least eight abbots, all sons of St. Victor's, were at the head of as many abbeys, among them John, Abbot of Ste. Geneviève (Paris), and Andrew, an Englishman, Abbot of Wigmore.

The traditions of William of Champeaux were handed on, and St. Victor's became a centre of piety and learning. The school, with those of Ste Genevieve and Notre-Dame, was the cradle of the University of Paris. To that celebrated school flocked crowds of students from all countries. Among them were men like Hugh of Blankenburg, better known as Hugh of St. Victor, called the St. Augustine of his time; Richard, a Scotchman, the mystic doctor; Adam, the greatest poet of the Middle Ages; Peter Comestor, the historian; Peter Lombard, the magister sententiarum; Thomas, Abbot of St. Andrew's (Verceil), to whom St. Francis sent St. Anthony of Padua for his theological studies; another Thomas, prior at the abbey who, nearly fifty years before his namesake of Canterbury, gave his life for justice sake. To St. Victor's came, only four months before his martyrdom, the same St. Thomas à Becket and addressed his brother canons on the words: "In pace factus est locus ejus". The "Scotichronicon" records that in 1221 a canon of St. Victor's, in his capacity of papal legate, visited Ireland and Scotland, where at Perth he convoked all the ecclesiastical dignitaries to a general convention which lasted four days.

The time came when abbots in commendam were introduced and signs of decay were manifested. Towards the end of the fifteenth century some efforts were made to reform the abbey with canons brought from the newly-established Windesheim congregation. A few years later Cardinal de Larochefoucauld again attempted to reform it, but in vain. The canons, moreover, were implicated in the Jansenist movement, only one, the Venerable Jourdan, remaining faithful to the old spirit and traditions. At that time there lived at St. Victor Santeul, the great classical poet, whose Latin proses were adopted by the Gallican Liturgy. The end of the abbey came with the French Revolution. In 1800 the church and the other buildings were sold, the famous library was dispersed, and a few years later everything had disappeared. There are still a few convents of canonesses, at Bruges, Ypres, and Neuilly, who keep the rule and spirit which they originally received from the Abbey of St. Victor's.

BONNARD, Ilist. de l'abbaye royale de St. Victor de Paris (1907); GAUTIER, Adam de St. Victor (Paris, 1858); BONNEAU, Notice des chanoines de l'eglise (Paris, 1908).

A. ALLARIA

Achard de Saint-Victor

Canon regular, Abbot of St-Victor, Paris, and Bishop of Avranches, b. about 1100; d. 1172. By some authorities he is said to have been of English extraction, by others to be of the noble Norman family of de Pertins, of Domfront. He completed his studies at the school of St-Victor's and entered the cloister there. On the death (1155) of the first abbot, Gilduin, he was elected to fill the vacant post, at a time when the royal abbey was almost at the zenith of its glory and power. Two years later the Cathedral Chapter of Seez, composed of canons regular, elected Achard for their bishop, and the choice was duly confirmed by Adrian IV. But Henry II intervened and intruded his chaplain Frogier, or Roger. However, subsequent relations between Achard and the Plantagenet were quite cordial, and the abbot used his influence at the English Court to compel the royal treasurer, Richard of Ely, to disemburse for the benefit of the poor some moneys which he was unjustly detaining; his letter to Henry II on the matter is still extant. When, in 1162, Achard was raised to the vacant See of Avranches, henry made no objection to his consecration, and that same year Bishop Achard stood godfather to his daughter Elinor born at Domfront. But the French king, Louis VII, was by no means pleased to see such a shining light of the Parisian Church pass over into Norman territory, as is evident from a letter he then addressed to the prior of St-Victor's. In 1163 Achard was in England assisting at the solemn translation of Edward the Confessor in Westminster Abbey.

The chief monument of his ten years' episcopate was the Premonstratensian Abbey of the Holy Trinity, Lucerne, the foundation stone of which he laid 91164) and where at his own request he was buried, with this simple inscription: "Hic jacet Achardus episcopus cujus caritate ditata est paupertas nostra." His brethren of St-Victor's celebrated his memory in the following lines: "Huju oliva domus, Anglorum gloria cleri—Jam dignus celesti luce foveri—Felix Achardus florens etate senile—Presul Abrincensis ex hoc signature ovili". Not the least gem in Achard's crown is the memory of his unwavering friendship for St. Thomas a Becket through all the years of his persecution. In the chronicles of St-Victor's Achard is termed "Blessed". One treatise (Latin original and eighteenth-century French translation) of Achard's is extant in the Bibliotheque Nationale. Paris. It is a long commentary or sermon on the Temptation of Christ in the wilderness, and in it Achard discusses seven degrees of self-renunciation, which he calls the seven deserts of the soul. Haureau in his "Histoire literaire du maine", I, quotes several passages and terms the tract vrai morceau de style.

BUTLER, Lives of the Saints, 2 May; STANTON, Menology (London and New York, 1892); BONNARD, Histoire de l'Abbaye Royale de St. Victor de Paris (Paris, 1907); PENNOTTO, Hist. Cleric. Canon. (Rome, 1642).

VINCENT SCULLY

Society of Saint Vincent de Paul

An international association of Catholic laymen engaging systematically in personal service of the poor, was founded in May, 1833, when eight young men, students at the Sorbonne, assembled in the office of the "Tribune Catholique" to formulate plans for the organization of a society whose object should be to minister to the wants of the Parisian poor. The master-mind conceiving the project, which was destined to make an indelible impress upon the history of modern charity work, was Frederick Ozanam, a brilliant young Frenchman, lawyer, author and professor in the Sorbonne. With Ozanam's name must be linked that of Père Bailly, editor of the "Tribune Catholique", the first president of the society, and whose wise and fatherly counsels did much to direct properly the activities of his more youthful associates. The society's establishment was due partly to the desire of the founders to furnish a practical refutation of the reproaches directed against Christianity by the followers of Saint-Simon, Fourier, and other popular teachers of the day. "Show us your works!" taunted the St. Simonians. "We admit the past grandeur of Christianity, but the tree is now dead and bears no fruit." To this taunt Ozanam and his companions retorted by forming themselves into a Conference of Charity, later adopting the name of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul.

In organizing the Society, Ozanam, following the inspiration of its chosen patron St. Vincent de Paul, modelled the rule upon the same principles that were in vogue in the seventeenth century. The rules adopted were very simple; it was forbidden to discuss politics or personal concerns at the meetings, and it was settled that the work should be the service of God in the persons of the poor, whom the members were to visit at their own dwellings and assist by every means in their power. The service of the members was to embrace, without distinction of creed or race, the poor, the sick, the infirm, and the unemployed. It is a noteworthy fact that, at the first Vincentian meeting, there was enunciated by Père Bailly a principle of vital importance, now universally accepted wherever organized charity is known, namely that the service of the poor ought to consist not merely of the doling out of alms, but must be made a medium of moral assistance and that each member should help in his special line. Simplicity characterizes the society. The membership is divided into three classes, active, subscribing, and honorary. The active membership is composed of Christian men who desire to unite in a communion of prayers and a participation in the same works of charity. Subscribing and honorary members are those who "cannot devote themselves to the works in which the society is engaged but who assist the active members by their influence, their offerings and prayers". In the make-up of its membership the society is most democratic. Men of all walks of life are engaged in its service; the lawyer, the doctor, the professional and business man freely mingle with the untutored labouring man in relieving the wants of the poor. The conference is the unit of the society and is an integral part of the parish organization. While the clergy are not included in the normal membership, they are always welcomed in the work. The conference exists only with the approval of the pastor who as spiritual director enters actively into the work. Women are excluded from membership, but through auxiliary associations or as benefactresses they may co-operate in the work and share the numerous indulgences. The business of each conference is administered by a president, a vice-president, a secretary, and a treasurer who constitute the board of the conference. The president is elected by the conference, while the other officers are appointed by the president with the advice of the board. The parish conferences hold weekly meetings.

In cities, where there exist several conferences of the society, the control of affairs is vested in a particular council in which the respective conferences have representation. In a number of larger cities a central office is established by the particular council. Special committees are likewise usually created to deal with the larger aspects of charity, relief, and correction, which naturally fall beyond the scope of a parish conference. Over the particular councils and such conferences as are so scattered as to render impracticable the formation of particular councils, there is placed a central or superior council having jurisdiction over a territory embracing within its circumscription the councils of several dioceses or, as in some instances, of an entire country. On each of the four festivals of the society meetings are held by all the conferences embraced in each of the various jurisdictions. Superior councils hold regular monthly meetings and meet oftener as occasion may require. Finally, the scheme of organization provides for the establishment of a council general, which exercises jurisdiction over the entire society, and is established in Paris, France.

In outlining the activities of the society, the founders had an eye to the future needs of human kind, and dictated that "no work of charity should be regarded as foreign to the Society, although its special object is to visit poor families". It is plainly evident from this that the society is given the widest latitude in the selection of the works in which the members may engage and in examining the reports of the various superior councils one marvels at the wonderful array of charitable activities which are therein portrayed. There are committees in charge of fresh-air work for poor children, convalescent homes, support of day nurseries, the custody of paroled prisoners, care of homeless boys, clubs for boys, the visitation of prisoners and the sick in hospitals, the maintenance of chaplains for the purpose of serving Catholic inmates in public institutions, employment bureaus, the care of immigrants, the maintenance of sailors' missions, the finding of homes for orphans, and systematic inspection of their care until maturity. The society also co-operates uniformly with Catholic institutions charities and with other organizations of laymen and lay women engaged in relief work. The spiritual note predominates throughout the work of the society. The service of the poor is undertaken as a spiritual duty belonging to the integrity of Christian life. Throughout all the traditions of the society there is an endeavour to hinder every process by which charity might be made identical with philanthropy or by which the supernatural character of the service of the poor might be lost. The conference takes its name from the parish in which it is formed. The meetings are opened and closed with prayer and a short selection from some spiritual treatise is read. The society has its own feast-days, on which occasions the members receive Holy Communion as a body. By Briefs of Popes Gregory XVI, Pius IX, and Leo XIII numerous indulgences are granted to the society, its benefactors, to the poor assisted by it, and to the fathers, mothers, and wives of the members. An endeavour is made uniformly to cultivate the spirit of St. Vincent de Paul and to follow the discriminating principle of relief given in the spirit of faith taught by him. The note of personal service stands out prominently in the work of the society. The duty of serving the poor, and the need of doing it wisely, is looked upon as one which the individual himself should fulfil; in fact, one of the conditions of active membership is that the conference member shall go personally to visit the poor in their own homes. He combines, when he is true to the spirit and teaching of the society, the function of friendly visitor with that of investigator and the work of upbuilding the dependent as well as that of relieving him.

The rules of the society require that minutes of all meetings be kept carefully and that the reasons for all relief accorded be stated; the conference members in charge of a family are required to study the condition of the family and to give the reasons for the decision leading them to ask relief. Their reasons and their judgment may be questioned by the other members present. These minutes of the meetings, when taken in conjunction with the personal knowledge of the poor families aided, serve every purpose of record-keeping. Every care is taken to respect the privacy of the poor. The records of relief work are not open to inspection except by those who have a well-founded right to the knowledge, and this spirit is so characteristic of the society that it places at the disposal of the spiritual director certain funds which may be used in relieving exceptional cases from which no report of whatsoever kind is made to the society itself. Another characteristic is that of deep-seated reluctance on the part of the society to make known the extent of the work or the generosity of its members in giving either money or personal service to the cause of charity. While all the work of the society is done by its members voluntarily and without remuneration, a readiness to employ paid workers in the specialized activities is developing under the exacting and complicated conditions of modern relief. The funds of the society are procured in a number of ways. At all conference and particular council meetings secret collections are taken up, the proceeds going into the treasury. A box is located generally in a conspicuous place in the parish church to receive contributions from the charitably-disposed. The amounts thus received are applied to the work of the conference. Committees engaged in special works solicit subscriptions. Considerable amounts are received in donations and from bequests. In addition there are large numbers of generous subscribing members.

Two years after the foundation of the society the membership had increased so rapidly that it was no longer possible to continue working alone as one body and in one place; consequently, the founders realized that the time had come when, to regulate matters properly, it was imperative to divide the society into sections or groups arranged geographically. A meeting was held, geographical divisions made, and the rules under which the society has since lived were then adopted. They were of the simplest character, merely embodying in the form of regulations the usages which had been followed and cherished from the inception of the society. There are over 100,000 active members and an equal number of honorary members. The society is represented in every European country, and thriving branches are to be found in China, India, Turkey in Asia, Ceylon, Egypt, Natal, Transvaal, Philippine Islands, Canada. United States, Mexico, Central America, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Argentine Republic, Peru, Ecuador, Uruguay, Paraguay, and British Guiana. Twelve years after the inauguration of the work, the society was introduced on the American continent. To St. Louis, Missouri, must be given the honour of having established in 1845 the first conference of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul in the United States. In 1846 a conference was organized In New York City. In 1856 the work of the society had grown to such proportions in New York that it became necessary to establish a particular council, through which correspondence was opened with the authorities of every Catholic diocese in the United States. As a result other sections of the country gradually entered into the work, and year by year the society gained headway, making its influence felt and accomplishing wonders in the work of uplifting the poor. The following statistics of the work of the society in the United States for the year 1910 will serve to give some slight conception of the progress made: superior councils, 4; central councils, 4; particular councils, 34; conferences, 730; members, 12,062; families relieved, 24,742; visits made, 233,044; situations procured, 2949; amount received (exclusive of balances), $384,549; amount expended, $387,849.

An important step in the reorganization of the administration of the society in the United States was taken at the national conference held in Boston in 1911, when it was unanimously voted to create a council in each archdiocese of the United States, to be known as the metropolitan central council; diocesan councils in each diocese, to be styled diocesan central councils; and one general council for the administration of all, to be known as the superior council of the United States. This plan of reorganization is now being perfected by a committee appointed at the Boston National Conference. Since it has received the unqualified endorsement of the hierarchy of the United States and has been approved by the council general of the society in Paris, the near future probably will see the new plan of administration put into effective operation. While the Society of St. Vincent de Paul quite naturally calls forth a rather extensive literature concerning its spirit, aims, purposes, and works, it produces of itself relatively little literature, owing to its policy of refraining from publishing any extended account of its varied activities. Reports are issued by the local conferences and councils, and the council general in Paris publishes "The Bulletin", which is regarded as the official organ of the society. The official organ of English-speaking countries is "The Bulletin", published monthly by the superior council of Ireland. "The Quarterly", published be the superior council of New York, is the official organ of the society in the United States. Superior councils of the society in some other countries likewise issue similar periodicals.

Rules of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul; Manual of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul; The Bulletin (French); The Bulletin (Irish); The Quarterly (U. S.); O'MEARA, Life of Frederick Ozanam (London, 1879); Society Reports.

THOMAS M. MULRY

George Augustus Henry Sala

Journalist, b. in London, 24 Nov., 1828; d. at Brighton, 8 Dec., 1895, having been received into the Church before death. His grandfather, a native of Rome, came to England in 1776; the family were connected with the stage. Being an unusually precocious child, young Sala began at fifteen to earn his living by draughtsmanship. His versatile talent then passed to scene-painting, illustrating books, etching and engraving, finally finding its real vocation in journalism. Attracting the notice of Dickens, he became a regular contributor to "Household Words" and "All the Year Round", and was sent as special correspondent to Russia.

His literary output was large and various, though his style was criticized as florid. From 1857 he worked for the "Daily Telegraph", acting as special correspondent all over the world. Much of this journalistic work was republished in book form. He was a man of social and convivial habits who prided himself on his extensive knowledge of cookery. Though earning a large income, his expensive tastes caused him frequent embarrassment, and the failure of his magazine, "Sala's Journal", straitened his circumstances in the last years. His love for London, which he knew intimately, characterizes many of his books.

Sala, Life and Adventures of George Augustus Sala, (London, 1895); Yates, Edmund Yates: his Recollections and Experiences (London, 1882); Vizetelly, Glances back through Seventy Years (London, 1893); Lee in Dict. Nat. Biog.

EDWIN BURTON

Salamanca

(SALMANTICENSIS, SALMANTINA, SALMANTICAE),

Diocese in Spain; comprises the civil Provinces of Salamanca, Cáceres, Avila, and LÈon, and is bounded on the north by Zamora, on the east by Avila and Valladolic, on the south by Cáceres, and on the west by Portugal. The episcopal city has a population of 23,000. Its territory formed the southern portion of the ancient Vetonia, and the existence of the city of Salamanca in the Roman period is evidenced by a pretentious bridge over the River Tornes, with twenty-seven arches, measuring 500 paces in length, and probably erected in the time of Trajan.

The See of Salamanca is of unknown origin, probably dating back to the generation immediately after the Apostles, in which generation St. Secundus is said to have founded the Diocese of Avila. Signatures of bishops of Salamanca are found in the Councils of Toledo; in the third council is that of Eleutherius; at the coronation of King Gondemar, that of Teveristus; in the fourth and sixth of Hiccila; in the seventh, eighth and tenth, of Egeretus; in the Provincial Council of MÈrida (metropolis of Salamanca) the signature of Justus;in the twelfth of Toledo that of Providentius; in the thirteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth, of Holemund, probably contemporaneous with the Moslem invasion. Alfonso I the Catholic pushed his conquests as far as Salamanca, and Ordoño I captured the city, but its bishops continued to reside in Asturias, where the Church of San Julian, outside the walls of Oviedo, was assigned to them. Bishop Quindulfus (802) signed a royal deed of gift. Ramiro II, who defeated the Mohammedans at Simancas, began to repeople Saamanca. In 1102 the king's son-in-law Raymond, Count of Burgundy, and his wife Urraca, gave the churces of the city to Don Jerónimo, the count's master, and built the Cathedral of S. María. The celebrated bishop, comrade of the Cid Campeador, died in 1120 and was interred in the newly-built basilica, to which he left the famous "Christ of the Battles" (Cristo de las Batallas).

Later bishops were: Gerardo; Munio, a partisan of Alfonso of Aragón: Berengario, consecrated in 1135 and transferred to Compostela in 1151; Navarro; Ordoño Gonzálo; Pedro Suárez, praised by Alexander III for learning and prudence; and Vitalis, who maintained he validity of Alfoonso IX's marriage with his cousin Teresa of Portugal against the censures of Celetine III and the sentence of the bishops presided over by Cardinal Guillermo in 1197. From his period date the university and the most ancient and famous convents of Dominicans, Franciscans, and Clarisses. In October, 1310, the see being vacant, fifteen prelates of the ancient Province of Lusitania, presided over by the Archbishop of Santiago, assembled in the cathedral of Salamanca to try the case of Templars, and found them innocent in Spain of all the atrocities with which they were charged. Bishop Juan Lucero accompanied King Alfonso XI to the conquest of Algeciras. Later on he became subservient to the caprices of Pedro I the Cruel and annulled (1354) his marriage with Blanche of Bourbon in order to unite him with Juana de Castro. Lucero's successsor, Alsonso Barrasa, on the conrary, supported Henry of Trastamare against Pedro. In May, 1382, a council was held at Salamanca to take action in the matter of the schism of Avignon, and Castile decided in favour of the antipope. In another council (1410) Salamanca again recognized Peter de Luna (Benedict XIII) as pope. At this time Vincent Ferrer laboured to convert the Jews of Saamanca; from 1460 to 1478 St. John of Sahagún enlightened the diocese of his preaching.

Salamanca has two cathedrals; the old, celebrated for its massive strength, was foundned in 1100 by the aforesaid Count Raymond near the River Gate (Puerta del Rio). At the end of the thirteenth century it was not yet finished, and its man entrance, called Del Perdón (of the Pardon), was covered over in 1680 with new Doric and Composite pilasters. In 1847 it was freed of its inartistic choir. Its building occupied so long a time that Gothic ogival arches are supported by its Byzantine foundations. Of its three naves the principal one terminates in the main chapel on the reredos of which is to be seen the "Last Judgment" painting of Nicolás Florentino in 1446 for Bisop Sancho of Castile. In early days none but royal personnages wee permitted to be buried in this main chapel; here lie Mafalda, daughter of Alfonso VIII, Fernando Alfonso, natural son of Alfonso IX of León, Bishop Sancho of Castile, Grandson of Pedro, and his successor, Juan de Vivero. The cloisster of the old cathedral was Romanesque, but in 1780 Jerónimo Quiñones rebuilt it in Renaissance style. Most remarkable of ts four chapels, is that of St. Bartholomew, founded by Diego de Anaya, Bishop of Salamanca until 1480, and then Archbishop of Seville, and founder of the famous Colegio de San BartolomÈ. There are also the chapels of Talavera, which was consecrated to the Mozarabic Rite in 1510 and in which Rodrigo Arias Maldonado de Talavera is buried, and that of St. Barbara, founded in 1384 by Bishop Juan Lucero.

The new cathedral was founded by the Catholic monarchs, who in 1491 sought to build one in Seville, but the idea was not carried into effect until 1508, when Fernando was at Salamanca. This new edifice was erected side by side with the old, leaving the latter intact. Its architects, Antón Egas and Alfonso Rodríguez, had built churches at Toledo and Seville; Juan Gil de Hontañon was master of works. The buildng was begun in 1560, and it was completed in 10 August, 1733. The tower, set on fire by lightning in 1705, was rebuilt by the celebrated JosÈ Churriguera, who made it a monument of the style (Churrigueresque) to which he gave his name. In the chapel at the centre of the rood screen are remains of Bishop Jerónimo, transferred from the old basilica in 1744, and the venerated "Christ of the Battles". In two large silver vessels within the high altar, the relics of St. John of Sahagún and St. Thomas of Villanova are preserved. Besides the cathedrals, a sumptuous church worthy of especial mention is that of the Dominican convent of San Esteban, occupied by the Dominicans since 1256, where, it is said, Christopoher Columbus was entertained in 1484 and where he found Fray Diego de Deza one of his most ardent protectors. The church was rebuilt in the sixteenth century, the first stone was laid on 30 June, 1524, and the work was completed in 1610. The founder of this convent was the Salamancan Fray Juan de Toledo, of the House of Alva, Bishop of Cordoba, and cardinal; here, too, is buried the famous Duke of Alva with his wife María Enriquez de Toledo. Another beautiful church is that of the Jesuits, founded by King Philip III and his consort Margaret of Austria in 1614. The college was converted into an ecclesiastical seminary by Bishop Beltrán in 1779, was made a pontifical university, and is now under the care of the Jesuits. In former times there were numberous hospitals at Salamanca, but in 1851 it was agreed to combine them all into one, under the care of the Brothers of St. John of God, and dedicated to the Trininty. The library of the university and province, containing more than 100,000 volumes is a remarkable one.

Flores, Esp. Sagraada, XIV (2nd ed., Madrid, 1786); Cuadrado, Esp., sus monumentos (Barcelona, 1884); Lafuente, Hist. de Esp. (Madrid,1861).

RAMON RUIZ AMADO

University of Salamanca

This university had its beginning in the Cathedral School under the direction, from the twelfth century, of a magister scholarum (chancellor). From this episcopal origin, probably in 1230, sprang the royal foundation of Alfonso IX of LÈon, who "with was salutary discretion summoned the most experienced masters of sacred letters and established schools" (Lucas de Tuy); which, however, does no signify, as Rashdall infers, that they taught theology. Alfonso IX granted them the privileges alluded to later by St. Ferdinand, who was in reality the founder, the foundation of his father not having endured. On 6 April, 1243, in letters patent, the saintly king took under his protection the professors, students, and their property, granting them an ecclesiastical tribunal for the settlement of their disputes. In his time began that period of unrivalled prosperity for the university, which for so many centuries made it the "glory of Spain" (Denifle). In Toledo on 8 May, 1254, the king granted the university the privileges that are its Magna Carta, appointing curators, placing it under the authority of the bishop, exempting it from the regular authorities, and assigning salaries for the professors. The professors of law received 500 maravedis a year, canon law 300, grammar, logic, and medicine 200. Some have endeavoured to trace an analogy between these privileges and those granted by Ferdinant I and II to the Universities of Bolgna and Naples.

But the fundamental difference that characterized the Spanish university must not be overlooked, that, although a royal foudnation, it was placed under the direction and control of the bishop, the dean, and the chancellor, who conferred the academic titles in the cathedral. The titles were given until 1830 in the name of the pope and king. Doctrinal and ecclesiastical professorships did not, however, contrary to Stein's view, predominate in the university (Denifle). Departments of medicine and juriprudencewere also established, and preference was given to the law, epecially canon law. By petition of theking, 6 Aril, 1255, Alexander IV confirmed the courses at Salamanca, "because in the multitude of the wise is the security of kingdoms, and their govrnments are mantained not less by the advice of the prudent, than by the energy and bravery of the strong". Later he decreed that any accepted teachr in any branch whatsoeveer at Salamanca cold teach his subject in any other university, with the exceptioni of Paris and Bologna, a limitation wich John XXII instituted in 1333. The principles Alfonso the Wise had put into practice in Salamanca, he drew from the "Leyes de Partida", commenced in 1256 and terminated in 1263. Rashdall calls this "a sort of educational code — the first of its kind in modern Europe". In the time of Sancho the Brave the studies declined because the salaries of the professors were not paid. Finally, Ferdinand IV, authorized by Boniface VIII, assigned for this purpjose the "tertia ecclesarum" and from this date, 7 August, 1300, the university entered upon a new era of prosperity.

Classes were once more discontinued from 1306 to 1313, when Clement V commanded the "tertia" to be used in restoring the churches. In 1313 a third of the "tertia" was once more devoted to paying the professors of law, civil and canon, medicine, logic, grammar, and music. In 1355 the minorite friar, Dídaco Lupi, taught theology in Salamanca; but this branch, which in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was to draw the eyes of the entire world to Salamanca, did not flourish there until Benedict XIII introduced it in 1416, and Martin V re-established it in 1422. This pope gave the university its definitive constitution, and numbered it among the four greatest in the world. In 1401 the bishop, Diego de Anaya Maldonado, founded the first college for poor students, which was called the College of San BartolomÈ and later the Old College. This and the colleges of Cuenca, Oviedo, and Fonseca were called "colegios mayores", larger colleges. Aftwerwards a great number of "colegios menores", smaller colleges, secular, regular, and of the four military orders were founded. The Liberals suppressed the "colegios mayores" under the pretext of their decadence but without substituting anyting better, or even equally good, to help the poor students. Following this the "colegios menores" were also closed. The laws of 1845 swept aside the last remaning vestures of these ancient establishments for university training, secularizing them and placing them under the control of the Liberal Government. The number of students at Salamanca in 1584 reached 6778; in 1822 it amounted only to 412, and later it dropped even lower. In the catalogue of its professors figure the names of some celebrated women, such as Doña Beatriz Gallindo and Doña Alvara de Alava.

Chacón, Historia de la Universidad de Salamanca 1569 in EL SEMINARIO ERUDITO, XVIII (MADRID,1789); de la Fuente, Hist.de las Univ. (Madrid, 1899) Denifle, Die Entstehung der Ybuv, /berkubm 1885; Rashdall, The Universities of Europe, II Oxford, 1895.

RAMON RUIZ AMADO

Salamis

A titular see in Cyprus. Salamis was a maritime town on the eastern coast of Cyprus, situated at the end of a fertile plain between two mountains, near the River Pediaeus. It was already an important centre in the sixth century B.C. Its foundation is attributed to Teucer, son of Telamon, King of the Island of Salamis, opposite Attica; others believe it to be of Phoenician origin and derive its name from the Semitic selom, peace. Its fine harbour, its location, and fortifications made it the chief city of the island. In the sixth century B.C. it had kings, allies of the princes of Cyrene; one of them, Gorgus, refused to join in the Ionian revolt, and was expelled by his brother, who took command of the troops of Salamis and the other cities; the battle was fought before Salamis, which fell again into the power of Gorgus. It was besieged by Anexicrates, the successor of Cimon. After the peace of Antacidas, the Persians had to fight for ten years against the valiant king Evagoras, whose panegyric was composed by Isocatres. It was at Salamis in 306 B.C. that the greatest naval battle of antiquity was fought, Demetrius I, Poliorcetes, defeating the Graeco-Egyptian fleet of Ptolemy I. In 295 B.C. Salamis passed under the sway of the kings of Egypt, and in 58 B.C. under that of Rome, at which time it possessed all the eastern portion of the island. When St. Paul landed at Salamis with Barnabas and John, surnamed Mark, returning from Seleucia, there were several synagogues, and it was there he began the conversion of the island (Acts, xiii, 5). Salamis was destroyed by earthquakes, and was rebuilt by Constantius II (337-61), who called it Constantia. It was destroyed by the Arabs in 647 or 648. Its unimportant ruins are near the village of Hagios Sergios, a little north of Famagusta. After its destruction the inhabitants and clergy betook themselves to Famagusta, which became and for a long time remained the residence of the archbishops. At present they reside at Nicosia. In the article on Cyprus (q. v.) are mentioned the principal bishops of Salamis or Constantia; the list of these prelates is given in Le Quien, "Oriens christianus", II, 1043 seq., and more fully in Hackett, "A History of the Orthodox Church of Cyprus" (London, 1901), 651.

SMITH, Dict. Of Greek and Roman Geog.; ENGEL, Kypros, eine Monographie, I (Berlin, 1841), 89; DI CENNOLA, Cypern (London, 1877); IDEM, Salaminia (2nd ed., London, 1884); VON LOHER, Cypern (Stuttgart, 1878); FILLION in VIGOUROUX, Dict. De la Bible, s. v. Salamine.

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Epiphanius of Salamis

Born at Besanduk, near Eleutheropolis, in Judea, after 310; died in 403. While very young he followed the monastic life in Egypt . On his return to Judea he founded a monastery at Besanduk and was ordained to the priesthood. In 367 his reputation for asceticism and learning brought about his nomination as Bishop of Constantia (Salamis) the metropolis of the Island of Cyprus. For nearly forty years he fulfilled the duties of the episcopate, but his activity extended far beyond his island. His zeal for the monastic life, ecclesiastical learning, and orthodoxy gave him extraordinary authority; hence the numerous occasions on which his advice was sought, and his intervention in important ecclesiastical affairs. He went to Antioch, probably in 376, to investigate Apollinarianism and to intervene in the schism that divided that church. He decided in favour of Bishop Paulinus, who was supported by Rome, against Meletius, who was supported by the episcopate of the East. In 382 he assisted at the Council of Rome to uphold the cause of Paulinus of Antioch. About 394, carried away by an apparently excessive zeal, he went to Jerusalem to oppose the supposed Origenism of the bishop, John. In 402 he was at Constantinople to combat the same pretended heresy of St. John Chrysostom. He died on his return journey to Cyprus.

It was at the instance of his correspondents that Epiphanius compiled his works. The earliest (374) is the "Ancoratus", or "The Well-Anchored", i.e. the Christian firmly fixed against the agitations of error. The Trinity and the dogma of the Resurrection are particularly treated by the author, who argues especially against the Arians and the Origenists. There are two symbols at the end of the work: the first, which is the shorter, is very important in the history of symbols, or professions of faith, being the baptismal creed of the Church of Constantia. The second is the personal work of Epiphanius, and is intended to fortify the faithful against current heresies. In the "Ancoratus" Epiphanius confines himself to a list of heresies. Some readers desired to have a detailed work on this question, and Epiphanius composed (374-7) the "Panarion" or "Medicine chest", i.e. a stock of remedies to offset the poisons of heresy. This work is divided into three books comprising in all seven volumes and treating eighty heresies. The first twenty heresies are prior to Jesus Christ; the other sixty deal with Christian doctrine. In reality the number eighty may be reduced to seventy-seven, for among the twenty heresies prior to Christ only seventeen count. Three are generic names, namely Hellenism, Samaritanism, and Judaism. In the editions of the "Panarion" each heresy is numbered in order; hence it is customary to quote the "Panarion" as follows: Epiphanius, Haer. N (the number of the heresy). Necessarily much of the information in this great compilation varies in value. The "Panarion" reflects the character of Epiphanius and his method of working. Sometimes his ardour prevents him from inquiring carefully into the doctrines he opposes. Thus, on his own avowal (Haer., lxxi), he speaks of Apollinarianism on hearsay. At Constantinople he had to acknowledge the Origenist monks whom he opposed that he was not acquainted with either their school or their books, and that he only spoke from hearsay (Sozomen, "Hist. eccl.", VIII, xl). There is, however, in the "Panarion" much information not found elsewhere. Chapters devoted only to the doctrinal refutation of heresies are rare. As an apologist Epiphanius appeared generally weak to Photius.

The "Panarion" furnishes very valuable information concerning the religious history of the fourth century, either because the author confines himself to transcribing documents preserved by him alone or because he writes down his personal observations. With regard to Hieracas (Haer., lxvii), he makes known a curious Egyptian sect by whom asceticism and intellectual work were equally esteemed. In connection with the Meletians of Egypt (Haer., lxviii), he has preserved important fragments of contemporary Egyptian history of this movement. With regard to Arianism (Haer., lxix), if he gives an apocryphal letter of Constantine, he transcribes two letters of Arius. He is the only one to give us any information concerning the Gothic sect of the Audians (Haer., lxx). He has made use of the lost report of the discussion between Photius (Haer., lxxi), and Basil of Ancyra. He has transcribed a very important letter from Bishop Marcellus of Ancyra (Haer., lxxii) to Pope Julius and fragments of the treatise of Acaius of Caesarea against Marcellus. With regard to the Semiarians (Haer., lxxiii), he gives in the Acts of the Council of Ancyra (358) a letter from Basil of Ancyra and one from George of Laodicea, and the stenographic text of a singular sermon of Melitius at the time of his installation at Antioch. In the chapter dealing with the Anomeans (Haer., lxxvi) he has preserved a monograph of Aetius.

For the first three centuries Epiphanius was compelled to use the only literary sources. Some of these have been preserved, such as the great anti-heretical work of St. Irenaeus of Antioch, "Contra Haereses". Other ancient sources utilized by him have been lost, which gives exceptional value to his work. Thus he made use of the "Syntagma" of Hippolytus. The precise determination of all his sources is matter of controversy. His information is especially valuable with regard to the Samaritans (Haer., x-xiii), the Jews (Haer., xiii-xx), the Ebionites (Haer., xxx), and their Gospel; with regard to the Gnostics Valentius (Haer., xxxi) and Ptolemaeus (Haer., xxxiii), whose letter to Flora he quotes; and with regard to the Scriptural criticism of Marcion. The work ends with a long exposition of the Catholic faith. A summary of the "Penarion" is perhaps the work of Epiphanius. A work entitled "Of Measures and Weights" (De mensuribus et ponderibus) has a more general interest than might be imagined from the title. For the time it is a real "Introduction" to the Holy Scripture, containing the history of Biblical texts and Sacred archaeology. The treatise "On the Twelve Precious Stones" is an explanation of the ornaments of the high-priest's breastplate (Ex., xxviii, 17). Mention must finally be made of two letters of Epiphanius preserved in a Latin translation.

In theological matters Epiphanius teaches the doctrine of the Catholic theologians of his time. In the vocabulary of Trinitarian theology he conforms to the language of the Greek Church. He speaks of three hypostases in the Trinity, whereas the Latins and the Paulicians of Antioch speak of one hypostasis in three persons. At bottom it was a mere matter of words, but for some time it occasioned theological dissensions. Ephiphanius clearly teaches that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. The doctrine that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father only prevailed later in the Greek Church. This teaching cannot be traced to Epiphanius (Ancoratus, 8). With regard to the constitution of the Church, he is one of the most explicit of the Greek theologians concerning the primacy of St. Peter ("Ancoratus", 9; "Haer.", lix, 7). Two passages on the Eucharist are famous because they are among those which most clearly affirm the "Discipline of the Secret". The "Secret" was purely pedagogical and often neglected, consisting in grading the doctrinal initiation of catechumens and in not speaking before them of the Christian mysteries save in deliberately vague expressions. Hence the necessity of explaining the words of Epiphanius on the Eucharist ("Ancoratus", 57; "Haer.", xlii, 61). In these two passages, instead of quoting the words of the institution of the Eucharist, the author gives these: "Hoc meum est, hoc." Epiphanius is one of the chief authorities of the fourth century for the devotion to the Blessed Virgin. He expresses himself on the subject in connection with two heresies, of which one diminished, while the other exaggerated, this devotion (Haer." lxxviii, lxxix). A circumstance of his life is well known in the history of images, namely the destruction of an image in the church of Bethel ("Letter to John of Jerusalem" in P.G., XLIII, 390).

His character is most clearly shown by the Origenist controversies, which demonstrated his disinterested zeal but also his quickness to suspect heresy, a good faith which was easily taken advantage of by the intriguing, and an ardour of conviction which caused him to forget the rules of canon law and to commit real abuses of power. He saw in Origen the chief cause of the heresies of his time, and especially of Arianism. He was particularly opposed to his allegorical method, his doctrines concerning the Son, in which he saw the subordination of the Son to the Father, his doctrines concerning the pre-existence of souls and the resurrection ("Ancoratus", 54, 62; "Haer.", lxiv). He did not confine himself to this condemnation of Origen. He reproached the monks and bishops of his time with accepting the Origenist errors. Thence resulted at the end of his life the conflict with John of Jerusalem and with St. John Chrysostom. Apart from the injustice of the controversy, he encroached on the jurisdiction of these bishops. He was made use of by Theophilus of Alexandria, the irreconcilable enemy of Chrysostom. The chief sources relative to this controversy are: St. Jerome, "Contra Joannem Hierosolymitanum" in P.L., XXIII, 355; Idem, "Ad Theophilum" in Pl L., XXII, 736; Epiphanius, "Ad Joannem Hierosolymitanum" in P.G., XLIII, 379; Socrates, "Hist. eccl.", VI, x-xiv; Sozomen, "Hist. eccl.", VIII, xiv-xv. The chief editions of Epiphanius's works are those of Petavius (Paris, 1622); Greek text, Latin tr., and notes reproduced with additions in P.G., XLI-XLIII; and of Dindorf (Leipzig, 1859-62), 5 vols., giving only the Greek text, improved in some parts.

BARDENHEWER, Patrology, tr. SHAHAN (St. Louis, 1903); ZARUCKE, Literarischer Zentralblatt, LXI, no. 16.

LOUIS SALTET

Louis-Siffren-Joseph Salamon

Bishop of Saint-Flour; b. at Carpentras, 22 Oct., 1759; d. at Saint-Flour, 11 June, 1829. After studying law and theology at Avignon, at that time belonging to the Papal States, he was made auditor of the Rota by the favour of Pius VI. This office he resigned for a post in the Parliament of Paris, where he took part in the famous case of the "Diamond Necklace" (1754), which Cardinal de Rohan had purchased for Marie Antoinette. He continued to be a member until the Parliament was abolished (1790). Meanwhile he had kept up a correspondence with the cardinal secretary of State, informing him of all that passed in Paris and could be of interest to Pius VI. When the nuncio, Mgr Dugnani, left Paris towards the end of 1790, the pope appointed Salamon to be his internuncio at the Court of Louis XVI. His devotion to the Church marked him out for persecution, and accordingly he was thrown into prison at the time of the September massacres, 1792. Twice he narrowly escaped death. On his release he wandered about in disguise, acting as vicar Apostolic. In 1801 Mgr Caprara arrived in France as papal legate and appointed him administrator general of the dioceses of Normandy. The new pontiff, Pius VII, did not select him for one of the sees under the Concordat, but made him Bishop of Orthozia in partibus. It was not until after the Restoration that he received a French see at the suggestion of Louis XVIII (1820). His episcopate lasted only nine years, but these were full of work for the restoration of religion. The training of the clergy especially engaged his attention, as he lamented the contrast between the cultured priests of the old rÈgime and those who were brought up during the confusion of the Revolution. His "Memoires" were discovered at Rome and published by AbbÈ Bridier ("MÈmoires inÈdits de l'internonce à Paris pendant la RÈvolution", Paris, 1890). They have been translated by Frances Jackson ("A Papal Envoy during the Terror", London, 1911). His statements are sometimes at variance with established facts.

D ELAPORTE, L'Internonce à Paris, pendant la rÈvolution in Etudes, LII [LIII] (Paris, 1891), 318-22; S CANNELL, The internuncio at Paris during the revolution in Dublin Review, CIX (London, 1891), 107-23.

T.B. SCANNELL

Domingo de Salazar

Born in La Rioja, in the village of La Bastida on the banks of the Ebro, 1512; died in Madrid, 4 December, 1594. He entered the Dominican monastery of San Esteban, Salamanca. Sent to Mexico, where he received the degree of Master in Theology, he was appointed to the professor's chair. His ambition to evangelize the heathen was granted and he devoted himself to the conversion of the natives in the Province of Guajaca. He was characterized here by the same zeal for defending the rights of the Indians that he manifested later in an heroic degree in the Philippines. Salazar was next transferred to Florida, where he passed many years in toil and privation. From Florida he was recalled to Mexico to be prior of his convent and vice-provincial of his order. After forty years of missionary life, he was sent to Madrid on important business connected with the Mexican mission. Political enemies tried to thwart his work and succeeded in having him thrown into prison when he sought audience of the king. It was then that his presence in Madrid was brought to the attention of Philip, who proposed his name to the pope as Bishop of the Philippines. Salazar was loath to accept the dignity; but his missionary spirit prevailed. As he wrote later: "One of the reasons which made me accept this bishopric was the fact that these Islands are near China . . . For a long time I have had the conversion of that kingdom at heart, and with that thought I came to these Islands". He set out for his see via Acapulco, taking with him twenty Dominicans, twelve of whom died before reaching Mexico; of the remainder only one was able to continue the journey to the Philippines. Salazar arrived in Manila in 1581. He espoused the cause of the Filipino with a fearlessness that won for him the titles of the "intrepid Salazar", "the Las Casas of the Philippines". He held a synod of the clergy, which was later confirmed by the pope, erected a cathedral, regulated the internal affairs of the diocese, opened a college, and established a hospital. In his charity to the poor he even pledged his pectoral cross to relieve their necessities. Old age did not lessen his zeal. He was almost eighty when he set out for Spain to plead in person the cause of the natives with the king. His mission was successful; various abuses were corrected, three new dioceses were created, and Manila was elevated to a metropolitan see with Salazar as its first archbishop. He died before receiving the Bull of his appointment and was buried in the Church of Santo Tomás, Madrid. His tomb bears this inscription: "Hic jacet D. Fr. Dominicus de Salazar Ordinis Prædicatorum, Philippinarum Episcopus, doctrina clarus verus religiosæ vitæ sectator, suarum ovium piissimus Pastor, pauperum Pater, et ipse vere pauper. Obiit 4 die Decembris anno 1594."

B LAIR AND R OBERTSON, The Philippine Islands (Cleveland, 1903); F ERRANDO, Historia de los PP. Domínicos en las Islas Filipinas (Madrid, 1870); M ORENO, Historia de la Santa Iglesia Metropolitana de Filipinas (Manila, 1877).

PHILIP M. FINEGAN

Sale

(SALIENSIS)

Diocese in Victoria, Australia, comprises all the territory known as Gippsland. In 1840 Count Strzelecki, an expatriated Polish scientist, accompanied by a young Irishman named James Riley and some attendants, first penetrated this region, which they found to be singularly fertile and teeming with resources, though hitherto regarded as a trackless waste. Its scenery is remarkably beautiful, and it is often called the "Garden of Australia". Still it was colonized but slowly, as the native inhabitants were regarded as fierce and warlike, while many natural obstacles to settlement were offered by the dense forests, lofty mountain ranges, and swift torrents. At the present time, however, it is one of the regions of Australia best known to tourists. It is rich in pasture and timber lands, while its vast mineral wealth is still only partly developed.

The capital is Sale, now the seat of the episcopal see erected in 1887 at the request of the plenary synod. Its first bishop was the present titular Rt. Rev. James Francis Corbett. He was born at Limerick in 1840; his theological studies were made in France, and on his return he worked for some years as a priest in his native diocese. He went to Australia at the invitation of Archbishop Goold of Melbourne, to whom he acted as diocesan secretary while fulfilling the duties of pastor of St. Kilda's. He was assistant secretary of the synod of 1885, and on his appointment to the new see was consecrated by Archbishop Carr of Melbourne 25 August, 1887, in the Church of St. Kilda which he himself had built. On his arrival in his diocese there were within its limits three parochial districts and four priests, three of whom afterwards returned to their former Diocese of Melbourne. There are now (1911) 9 parishes, 18 priests, 47 churches or chapels, and 10 schools with 830 pupils. The Catholic population is 13,521, and there are 61 sisters of Notre Dame de Sion.

M ORAN, Hist. of Cath. Church in Australia (Sydney, s. d.); B ATTANDIER, Annuaire, Pont. (1911).

BLANCHE M. KELLY

Salem

(SALMANSWEILER)

Also called Salomonis Villa on account of the resemblance of its primitive buildings to Solomon's Temple.

Salem is an abbey situated near the Castle of Heiligenberg, about ten miles from Constance, Baden (Germany). The abbey was founded by Gunthram of Adelsreute (d. 1138) in 1136 during the reign of Pope Innocent II and Emperor Lothair II. Gunthram also gave the Abbot of Lucelle the necessary lands for the first Cistercian monastery in Alsace, the latter being a foundation of Bellevaux, first daughter of Morimond. Blessed Frowin, formerly the travelling companion and interpreter of St. Bernard, became its first abbot. He had been professed at Bellevaux, and was of the colony sent to found Lucelle; hence have arisen misunderstandings, some maintaining, erroneously, that Salem was founded from Bellevaux.

Under the wise and prudent administration of Blessed Frowin and his successors, the abbey soon became very prosperous. Extensive and magnificent buildings, erected in three squares, and a splendid church were constructed between 1182 and 1311. Salem was noted as the richest and most beautiful monastery in Germany, being particularly renowned for its hospitality. Amongst its greatest benefactors and patrons were Conrad of Swabia and Frederick Barbarossa. The former placed the abbey under the special protection of himself and his successors — hence the title of "Royal Abbey" which was renewed several times under Barbarossa and his successors; Innocent II also took the abbey under his particular patronage. Its growth was continuous, and even after having made three important foundations — Raitenhauslach (1143), Maristella or Wettingen (1227), and Konigsbrunn (1288) — it numbered 285 monks at the beginning of the fourteenth century. Its abbot, from 1454 on, was privileged to confer subdeaconship on his monks. The abbey gradually declined, though it numbered forty-nine priests and thirteen other choir religious in 1698, when Abbot D. Stephen (d. 1725) became Vicar-General of the Cistercian Congregation of Upper Germany. Caspar Oexle, who, as librarian, had increased the library to 30,000 volumes and a great number of MSS., was elected abbot in March 1802; in September of the same year the abbey was suppressed and given to the Princes of Baden, while the library was added to that of Petershausen, and finally sold to the University of Heidelberg. The church became a parish church; the grand tower with its fifteen bells, the largest weighing 10,000 lbs., was destroyed (1805), and the other buildings were used as the grand duke's castle. Eberhard, its fifth abbot, is honoured as a Blessed of the order. He was made Archbishop of Salzburg, and entrusted with various important missions by the Holy See. Blessed Henry, a lay brother, is also mentioned in the Cistercian menology.

VON WEECH, codex diplomaticus salemitanus (3 vols., Carlsruhe, 1883-95); PETRI, Suevia eccles. (Augsburg, 1698); BUCELINUS, Aquila imperii benedictina (Venice, 1651); Gallia christ., V; Idea chrono-topo-graphica Cong. Cist. S. Bernardi per Superiorem Germaniam (1720); HAUTINGER, Suddeutsche Kloster vor 100 Jahren (Cologne, 1889); SARTORIUS, Cistercium bistertium (Prague, 1700); BRUNNER, Ein Cisterziensbuch (Wurzburg, 1881); BOTTCHER, Germania sacra (Leipzig, 1874); JANAUSCHEK, Orig. Cisterc., I (Vienna, 1877).

EDMOND M. OBRECHT

Salerno

Diocese in Campania, Southern Italy. The city is situated on the gulf of the same name, backed by a high rock crowned with an ancient castle. The surrounding country is well cultivated, and a natural harbour promotes the commerce of agricultural products; breeding of horses is carried on to a considerable extent. There are two mineral springs. The entrance to the cathedral, built by Robert Guiscard, is through a great court surrounded by porticos, with columns of granite and porphyry, where several ancient sarcophagi are preserved. The middle doors are of bronze, beautifully decorated. In 1722 the interior was transformed by Peorio. The beautiful columns were shut up between pilasters of walling, and the pointed arches were ruined. Of the ancient basilica there remains a high marble candelabrum adorned with mosaics; between the choir and the side of the high altar is the chapel of Giovanni da Procida, also adorned with mosaics and containing the tomb of Gregory VII. In the chapel to the right there is a beautiful Pieta, the finest work of Andrea Salerno. Among other treasures of the sacristy is an ivory altar frontal with scenes from the Old and from the New Testament. There is a tradition that the body of St. Matthew, the apostle, is preserved in the crypt under the high altar; the columns of the vault are beautifully incrusted with multi-coloured marbles. Among other churches are: the Annunziata; San Giorgio, which may rightly be called a picture gallery (Life of St. Benedict); and S. Domenico, where an arm of St. Thomas Aquinas is preserved. Charitable institutions were, and still are, numerous.

Salerno was the city of the Salentini. After war with Hannibal (194 B.C.), a Roman colony was established there. In the Social War it was taken by the Samnites. In the eighth century the city was in the power of the Lombard dukes of Benevento; Arichis fortified it and took refuge there, when Charles the Great invaded his duchy. In 840 Siconulfus, brother of the Duke Sicardus who was killed by the partisans of Radelgisus, was proclaimed prince at Salerno, which from that time constituted an independent principality. With the assistance of the Saracens and with the spoils of the churches Siconulfus defended his independence, which was confirmed in 851 by the Emperor Louis II, to whom the prince had sworn allegiance. The chief cities of the principality were Taranto, Cassano, Cosenza, Paestum, Conza, Salerno, Sarno, Cimitile (Nola), Capua, Teano, and Sora. The son of Siconulfus, Sico, was dethroned by his tutor, Petrus, who was succeeded by his son Ademar; the latter, however, was deposed by a conspiracy, tortured, and blinded, while Guaiferius was put in his place (861). In 874 the port of Salerno was so well defended that the Saracens had to abandon the blockade of the city. Guaimarus, son of Guaiferius, struggled (880) against the Saracens and the Byzantines, but on account of his cruelty he was deposed, blinded, and thrown into prison. His son, Guaimarus II, ruled wisely.

Gisulfus became famous through the splendour of his court. He was despoiled by the exiled Prince of Beneventum, Landolfo, but Pandolfo Capo-di-Ferro, Prince of Beneventum, restored Gisulfus (974), who, through gratitude, associated with himself in the principality Pandolfo, son of the liberator, by whom he was succeeded in 978. The latter also was deposed by Mansus III, Duke of Amalfi (981), who was confirmed in the principality by Otho II. The people of Salerno, however, rebelled against him, and gave the throne to Giovanni Lamperto, a descendant of the Dukes of Spoleto. Under his son and successor, Guaimaro III (994-1018), the people of Salerno were helped by about forty Norman warriors to repel the Saracens. Guaimaro IV dreamed of uniting the whole of lower Italy into a single principality; he took Amalfi and Sorrento and warred with Argiro, master of Bari, but was assassinated by the Amalfians in 1031. It was only with the assistance of the Normans that his son Gisulfus III was able to recover his throne. The cruelty of Gisulfus against the Amalfians gave to Robert Giuscard, brother-in-law of Gisulfus, a pretext to wage war and to take possession of Salerno, which was bravely defended (1075). Gisulfus ended his days in the pontifical states. Thus the last Lombard principality of Italy came to an end. At the death of Guiscard his states were divided; Salerno was inherited by Roger, who was succeeded (1111) by his son William; at the latter's death Salerno gave itself to Roger II of Sicily (1127), from whom it was taken by the Emperor Lothair (1137), although the latter was unable to hold it. In 1196 Salerno was again besieged, by land and sea, for having held Constance, wife of Henry IV, a prisoner. For this offense dreadful revenge was taken and Salerno never recovered from the damage done to it in the pillage. The heirs of the first princes of the House of Anjou bore the title of Prince of Salerno; John II invested with it Girolamo Colanna, nephew of Martin V. Charles V suppressed the principality, but the province continued to be called Principality of Salerno.

The medical school of Salerno was famous in medieval history; it was founded neither by Charles the Great nor by the Arabs, the city never having been under the domination of either. Its origin is to be found in the Benedictine monastery of Salerno, established in 794, in which the botanical and the medical works of the ancients were studied. Its fame grew, when about the year 1070 the celebrated Costantino Africano took refuge there. He had studied in the schools of the Arabs in Babylon, at Bagdad, and in Egypt, and was presented by the brother of the caliph of Babylon to Guiscard, who took him as secretary. He gave a new impulse to philosophical and to medical studies by making known in the West the works of the Arabs. Robert I gave laws to the schools of Salerno, which was the first Western school to introduce academic degrees. New regulations were established for it by Frederick II, who ordered that no one should practise medicine without being "licensed" by that school, the fame of which waned after the fifteenth century through the competition of Naples. The school was suppressed in 1811, together with the University of Salerno. Among the famous physicians that it produced were: Garisponto, author of the "Passionarium Salerni"; Cofone (Ars medendi); and Matthaeus Platearius, author of a commentary on the "Antidotarium" of Nicolo Pietro Musandino (thirteenth century). The "Herbarium" of the school of Salerno was disseminated throughout Europe in the twelfth century. In the same century the rules of hygiene of this school were collected and edited in leonine verse; these rules, which even now are not antiquated, were the schools greatest title to praise. The "Anonymus Salernitanus" who continued the history of the princes of Benevento from Erchempertus to 980, Andrea Sabatini a pupil of Raphael, and Andrea da Salerno were natives of this city.

In view of its position, it was natural that Salerno should receive the light of the Gospel at an early date; in fact, various saints, as Antes, Caius, and Fortunatus (28 August), suffered martyrdom there. The age of Bonifacius and four other saints who preceded Gaudentius on the episcopal throne is uncertain; Gaudentius, however, was bishop in 499, which would show that the see was created towards the end of the fourth century. Other bishops were Asterius, who went to Constantinople with Pope Agapitus in 534; St Gaudiosus (eighth century); Petrus (834), formerly Bishop of Canusio, who took refuge at Salerno when the Saracens destroyed his capital, and built the Church of San Giovanni Battista; Bernardus (850), a man of great virtue, who restored several buildings. In 984 Salerno became an archiepiscopal see, the first archbishop being Amato. Other archbishops were: San Alfano (1058-85), who received the exiled Gregory VII; Romualdo Guarna (1153), who took an important part in the ecclesiastical and political affairs of the Kingdom of Naples; Nicolo Agello (1181), taken prisoner by Henry IV to Germany, where he remained for many years notwithstanding the prayers of the popes, especially of Innocent III; Guglielmo de' Godoni (1298), chancellor of the Duke of Calabria, whose successors, to Orso Minutolo (1330), resided at Avignon; Barnaba Orsini (1441), who restored the cathedral; Giovanni Vera (1500), later a cardinal, who was sent on several pontifical legations to France and to England; Girolamo Seripandi (1554), a famous theologian and former general of the Augustinians, whose doctrines on justification, too much akin to those of Luther, were rejected at the Council of Trent, and who afterwards became a cardinal, and died at Trent; Gaspare Cervante (1564), who founded the seminary; Marc Antonio Colonna (1568), who established another college for clerics; his nephew, Marc Antonio Colonna (1574), the author of valuable works; Mario Bolognini (1591), who distinguished himself in France in the controversies with the Huguenots; Giovanni de Torres (1658), who reformed the lives of the clergy; Gregorio Caraffa (1664), a Theatine and a reformer; Antonio Salomone, who, after the annexation of the kingdom of Naples, was imprisoned without reason (1886), and at the beginning of the war with Austria was sent into exile. Since 1818 Salerno has for suffragans the Sees of Capaccio e Vallo, Policastro, Marsico Nuovo, and Nusco. The See of Acerno, which appears a diocese since 1136, is united with it in perpetual administration; among its bishops mention should be made of the Franciscan Antonio Bonito (1493). The archdiocese has: 155 parishes; 60,000 inhabitants; 600 secular priests; 2 institutes for boys and 4 for girls; 11 religious houses for men and 14 for women; and 1 Catholic daily paper.

CAPPELLETTI, Le Chiese d' Italia, XX (Venice, 1857); SCHIPA, Storia del principato longobarda de Salerno (Naples, 1887); DE RENZI, La Scuola Salernitana (Naples, 1857); DAREMBERG, L'Ecole de Salerne (Paris, 1880), text and translation of the rules of hygiene.

U. BENIGNI

The Salesian Society

The Salesian Society, founded by Saint John Bosco, takes its distinctive name from its patron, Saint Francis de Sales. The object for which it was founded may be best seen from the opening words of its constitution: "the Christian perfection of its associates obtained by the exercise of spiritual and corporal works of charity towards the young, especially the poor, and the education of boys to the priesthood." The cradle of the institute may truthfully be said to have been the fields of Valdocco, at that time a suburb but now an integral part of the city of Turin. In the first half of the nineteenth century Italy had not recovered from the disastrous consequences of the false and atheistical philosophical teachings brought into the country at the time of the French Revolution. For this reason education, morality, and religion were then at their lowest ebb. To save the rising generation the Salesian Society was founded. In 1844 Don Bosco began to gather together poor and neglected boys. He found places for them to play in, taught them Catechism and heard their confessions in the open air, afterwards taking them to one of the churches in the city, where he used to say Mass for them and give them holy Communion. These gatherings, called "Festive Oratories", became one of the most important and useful works of the institute in attracting boys. In 1845 the first night-school was opened at Valdocco, and became a permanent institution in the course of a year. It proved such a success that a second one was opened (1847) at Porto Nuovo, and a third at Vanchiglia (1849). In the beginning Don Bosco, for lack of personnel, was forced to make use of the older and more advanced pupils, setting them as teachers and monitors over the others, but necessity soon forced him to form a regular and permanent trained staff. Many of his boys, too, began to develop vocations for the priesthood, and became clerics, while still continuing to assist in the work of education. Much opposition was made to the growing institute, but Mgr. Franzoni, then Archbishop of Turin, took it under his protection, and even the king, Charles Albert, who had heard of Don Bosco's work, became its patron, and it steadily grew. It was, however, found impossible, in many cases, to make a permanent impression on the character of the boys during the short time that they were under the influence of the teachers at the festive oratories and the night-schools. A very large number of the boys had not only to earn their living, but had to learn a trade beforehand to enable them to do so. Thus a new class of boys arose -- the boy-artisans -- which constituted the second division of good works in the rising institute.

In 1852 the Church of Saint Francis de Sales was completed and consecrated, and surrounding it large schools for the students and workshops for boy-artisans began to rise. During all this time the work was developing, and a and of devoted and efficient teachers slowly emerged from the chaos of evolution. About this time Don Bosco was urged to consolidate and perpetuate his work by forming a religious congregation, and in 1857 he drew up its first set of rules. In the following year he went to Rome to seek the advice and support of his benefactor, Pius IX, and in 1859 he summoned the first chapter of the congregation, and began the Society of Saint Francis de Sales. In 1863 and 1864 colleges were opened at Mirabello, Monferrato, and Lanzo. This was a new step, as hitherto the scope of the congregation had been almost entirely restricted to the poor. In 1874 the Rule and Constitutions of the Society were definitively approved by Pius IX, and the Salesian Society took its place among the orders of the Church. The development of the order was very rapid; the first Salesian house outside of Italy was opened at Nice in 1875. In the same year, the first band of Salesian missionaries was sent to South America, and houses were founded in Argentina and Buenos Ayres. In 1876 the Salesian co-operators were organized for the purpose of assisting in the good works of the congregation. They were enriched with many indulgences by Pius IX. The Figli di Maria Ausiliatrice, or the Sons of Mary, Help of Christians, were founded to assist tardy vocations to the priesthood. In 1877 the "Salesian Bulletin", the official organ of the congregation, made its first appearance, its object being to inform the Catholic world of the good works undertaken by the institute and to beg help to support them. The "Bulletin" is now printed in eight different languages.

In 1877 houses were opened in Spezia, Almagro, and Montevideo. In 1879 missionaries were sent to Patagonia, and houses were opened at Navarre, Marseilles, and Saint-Cyr (France). In 1880 the first house in Spain was opened at Utera, and in South America the mission at Viedma, capital of the Rio Negro, was established. In 1883 the first house in Brazil was opened at Nichteroy, and missions were established at Terra del Fuego and the Falkland Islands. In 1887 the first house was opened in Austria at Trent, and in the same year the Salesians established themselves at Battersea in London, England, and a large band of missionaries was sent to Ecuador. On 31 January, 1886, to the great grief of the congregation, Don Bosco died at the age of seventy-two. His successor, Don Rua, continued and developed the work of the congregation, and many more houses were opened in France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Portugal, and South America. In 1889 houses were established in the Holy Land and in Africa. Between 1894 and 1911 houses have been founded in Mexico, Tunis, Venezuela, Patagonia, Lisbon, Bolivia, Colombia, Paraguay, Montpelier, Cape Town, England, Chili, San Salvador, Peru, India, and China. The first mission opened in the United States was at San Francisco in 1898. there are now two in that city, and another at Oakland on the other side of the bay. In New York there were two missions opened respectively in 1898 and 1902. A college was opened at Troy in 1903, but transferred (1908) to Hawthorne, Westchester County, in the State of New York.

Although the real object of the Salesian Society is the Christian education of the young, especially of the poorer and middle classes, it does not refuse any work of charity for which it has suitable members. In carrying out its principal work, instead of the old punitive or repressive system, it adopts the preventive one, thus promoting confidence and love among the children, instead of fear and hatred. The success of this method is seen from the number of vocations drawn from its ranks. The young aspirants are imbued with the Salesian spirit even before joining the congregation. One year is spent in the novitiate, after which triennial vows are taken before the tyro is admitted to his final profession. The growth of the congregation may be seen from the fact that it contains about 320 houses, distributed into 34 provinicalates, of which 18 are in Europe, and the remaining 16 in America. The houses in Asia and Africa belong to European provinces. There has been no diminution except in France, where most of the houses were suppressed during the regime of persecution under Combes. The houses in Portugal were left untouched during the late change in government. In 1910 the second father general of the congregation died, and was succeeded by Don Albera. The main work of the institute is the education and training of boys divided into two classes, students and artisans. The second branch is the missionary one, and it finds its scope principally in South America and Asia. The third branch is engaged in the education of adults for the priesthood and the fourth is occupied in the diffusion of good Catholic literature. The order obtains its support largely from the generosity of the Salesian co-operators, who, as a third order, contribute largely for this purpose, and to whom the "Salesian Bulletin" is sent monthly, to keep them informed on the progress of the work in distant lands, and to urge them to greater generosity.

HEIMBUCHER, Die Orden u. Kongregationen, III (Paderborn, 1908), 491 sqq.; Lives of Don Bosco by LEMOYNE, FRANCESIA, D'ESPINEY; BONETTI, I Cinque Lustri; The Salesian Bulletin.

ERNEST MARSH

Salford

(SALFORDIENSIS)

The Diocese of Salford comprises the Hundreds of Salford and Blackburn, in Lancashire, England, and was erected 29 Sept., 1850. It covers the east and south-eastern portions of Lancashire and embraces the manufacturing towns of Manchester, Salford, Blackburn, Oldham, Bury, Burnley, Rochdale, etc. Its area is practically coextensive with that of the ancient Catholic deanery of Manchester, which was under the jurisdiction of the rector or dean, but its title was taken from Salford instead of Manchester to avoid offending Protestant susceptibilities, as an Anglican See of Manchester had been erected in 1847. The Apostolic Letter of Pius IX, which divided the Lancashire District into the two Sees of Liverpool and Salford, allotted to Salford the Hundred of Leyland in addition to those of Blackburn and Salford, but a papal Brief dated 27 June, 1851, transferred to Liverpool the Hundred of Leyland which included the important Catholic town of Preston.

The Hundred of Blackburn, covering the north-western portion of the diocese, extends twenty-four miles east to west, and fourteen miles north to south. In the chequered history of the Church following on the religious changes of the sixteenth century it had, with Salford, a long roll of recusants and martyrs for the Faith. The ruins of Whalley Abbey, a thirteenth-century Cistercian foundation, still bear their silent witness. Its abbot, John Paslew, was hanged outside its walls in 1537 for taking part in the Pilgrimage of Grace in 1536; and the property was seized for the use of Henry VIII. The first post-Reformation chapel in Blackburn was opened in 1773, and in Manchester in 1774. In 1843 the Rev. James Sharples, rector of St. Alban's, Blackburn, was consecrated Bishop of Samaria and appointed coadjutor to Bishop Brown, the first vicar Apostolic for the Lancashire District. He built at Salford St. John's Church, which was opened in 1848 and which subsequently became the cathedral for the diocese. Dr. Sharples died 16 Aug., 1850, and the first Bishop of Salford in the restored hierarchy was Rt. Rev. William Turner (1790-1872). He was succeeded in 1872 by the Rt. Rev. Herbert Vaughan (1832-1903), whose episcopate was remarkable for its energy, organizing ability and initiation of works to meet the rapid grown and development of the diocese. On his transference to Westminster in 1892, the Rt. Rev. John Bilsborrow (1836-1903) was consecrated third bishop. The Rt. Rev. Louis Charles Casartelli, D.D., M.A., Litt.Or.D., the fourth bishop, was born in 1852, and ordained priest in 1876. He was closely associated with Cardinal Vaughan in the foundation of St. Bede's College, Manchester, in 1876, and was rector of it when he was nominated bishop in 1903. Bishop Casartelli is widely known as a writer on Oriental subjects, was a professor at Louvain, and has always been very active in the theologico-literary field. The Rt. Rev. John S. Vaughan, D.D., Bishop of Sebastopolis, was elected auxiliary bishop in 1909.

Population

The Catholic population is estimated at about 300,000, and this is largely a growth of the latter half of the nineteenth century. Although Catholic memories and traditions lingered in Lancashire long after the Reformation, in 1690 only two Catholics were enrolled on the Manchester Poll Book. Ten years later, thirteen Catholic families, according to the returns of the Bishop of Chester, existed in the parish of Manchester with its area of sixty square miles. In 1775 the number of Catholic baptisms in Manchester was thirty-two, whilst the congregation of St. Chad's Catholic Chapel, which had been opened in 1774, was estimated at 500. A survey made for the statistical society of the various Sunday schools in Manchester and Salford in 1836 returned the number of Catholic schools as ten, with an attendance of 4295 scholars. Similar small beginnings were witnessed it the Blackburn Hundred. In 1793 there is record of twenty-six Catholic baptisms for Blackburn. The number of Catholics in the town in 1804 was estimated at 745, and in 1819 the number had increased to 1200 for the town and district.

Missions and Priests

At the present time there are in the diocese 138 public churches and chapels, 48 convents and private chapels, and 10 chapels of institutions in which Mass is said. The secular clergy number 235, and in addition there are 86 regulars belonging to the Benedictines, Friars Minor, Dominicans, Premonstratensians, Jesuits, Missionary Fathers of St. Joseph, and the Congregation of the Divine Pastor.

Education

A chain of efficient Catholic elementary schools links up the compulsory secular instruction with the Catholic religious teaching given in them. 55,000 children are on the rolls of the 140 Catholic schools, with their 263 departments and a teaching staff of 1591 Catholic teachers. A training college for residential female teachers, conducted by the Order of the Faithful Companions of Jesus, adds to the completeness of the organization for elementary education. For secondary or higher education there are 18 schools and colleges. Stonyhurst, the great Jesuit college, is the successor of the College of St. Omer, which was founded by Father Robert Parsons, S.J., in 1592 and transferred to Lancashire on 29 Aug., 1794.

Works of Charity

One of the great works of Cardinal Vaughan during his Salford episcopate was the founding of the Catholic Protection and Rescue Society in July, 1886. The object was to protect and save the destitute Catholic child whose Faith was in danger. 6569 boys and girls have passed through its homes during the years 1886-1911, and its annual expenditure exceeds x4000. The "Harvest", a monthly publication, is its official organ. Orphanages for girls, institutions for the aged and poor under the Little Sisters of the Poor, night shelters for homeless girls under the Sisters of St. Vincent de Paul, the Sisters of St. Joseph in connection with the Rescue Society, sisters who nurse the poor in their own homes, the Sisters of the Good Shepherd who seek to reclaim the fallen, Nazareth House, industrial schools for boys under the Brothers of the Christian Schools, and Brothers of Mercy, and for girls under the Sisters of St. Vincent de Paul; all these manifest an untiring activity in ameliorating the lot of the poor, the forlorn, and the sick.

The Catholic Federation and Other Organizations

Drastic educational legislation proposed by the government in 1906 and the imperative need for the organization of Catholic forces led to the formation of the Catholic Federation by Bishop Casartelli in 1906. Its primary object is the defence of purely Catholic interests, in which equality of treatment for Catholic schools largely predominates. The official organ is the "Catholic Federationist", which was first issued in Jan., 1910, and is used by the bishop as a vehicle to convey his "message" on current questions.

Other societies are: a local branch of the Catholic Truth Society, the parent society of which was reorganized by Cardinal Vaughan when Bishop of Salford in 1884; the School of Social Science; the Society of St. Vincent de Paul; the Ladies of Charity; the Catholic Needlework Guild; the Catholic Boys' Brigade; the Catholic Philharmonic Society; and the Catholic Women's League, with its notable offshoot "The Mothers' and Babes' Welcome".

Almanac for the Diocese of Salford (Salford, annually since 1877); SNEAD-COX, Life of Cardinal Vaughan, vol. I (London, 1910); O'DEA, The Story of the Old Faith in Manchester (Manchester, 1910); GERARD, Stonyhurst College, Centenary Record (Belfast, 1894); GRUGGEN AND KEATINGE, History of Stonyhurst College (London, 1901); SMITH, Chronicles of Blackburnshire (Nelson, 1910); CURLEY, The Catholic Hist. Of Oldham (Oldham, 1911).

W. O'DEA

Salimbene degli Adami

(OGNIBENE).

Chronicler, b. at Parma, 9 Oct., 1221; d. probably at Montefalcone about 1288. He was a member of a distinguished family and about 1238 entered the Franciscan Order. For a time he led a very troubled and wandering life, as his father sought to withdraw him from the order by violence. At a later date he was for a long while in the monasteries at Florence, Parma, Ravenna, Reggio, and Montefalcone. He came into close connection with many scholars of his age, and was also acquainted with Pope Innocent IV and the Emperor Frederick II. Besides various treatises that have been lost he wrote, towards the end of his life, a chronicle covering the years 1167-1287. This chronicle was first edited in the "Monumenta historica ad provincias Parmensem et Placentinensem pertinentia", III (Parma, 1857), but the part issued only covered the years 1212-87. The first part of the chronicle, covering the years 1167-1212, was edited by L. Clédat in his work "De fratre Salimbene et de eius chronicae auotoritate" (Paris, 1878). A fine and complete edition was edited by Holder-Egger in "Mon. Germ. Hist.: Scriptores", XXXII (Hanover, 1906). Besides a poor Italian translation by Cantarelli there is an incomplete one in English by Coulton with the title "From Francis to Dante" (London, 1906). The chronicle is one of the most useful sources of the thirteenth century for the political history of that time and is also an animated picture of the era; it is of especial importance for the history of the internal disputes in the Franciscan Order. The writer it is true is a very impulsive and easily influenced man, is swayed by the prophecies of Joachim of Fiore, is inclined to be a partisan, especially against the secular clergy, yet at the same time he shows sound historical sense, is an intelligent critic, and regards it as the chief object of his historical writing to present the exact truth.

MICHAEL, Salimbene und seine Chronik (Innsbruck, 1889); POTTHAST, Bibliotheca historica medii aevi (Berlin, 1896), 994.

PATRICIUS SCHLAGER

Ancient Diocese of Salisbury

(SARUM, SARISBURIENSIS).

The diocese was originally founded by Birinus, who in 634 established his see at Dorchester in Oxfordshire, whence he evangelized the Kingdom of Wessex. From this beginning sprang the later Dioceses of Winchester, Sherborne, Ramsbury, and Salisbury. In the time of Bishop St. Headda (676-705) the see was moved to Winchester, and on Headda's death (705) a formal division took place, when the greater part of Wiltshire with portions of Dorset and Somerset were formed into the Diocese of Sherborne of which St. Aldhelm became the first bishop. Ten bishops in turn succeeded St. Aldhelm before the next subdivision of the see in 909, when Wiltshire and Berkshire became the separate see of Ramsbury, restricting the Diocese of Sherborne to Dorsetshire only. The arrangement continued until the two dioceses were again united in 1058 under Herman, who had been made Bishop of Ramsbury in 1045. He lived to transfer his episcopal chair to Old Sarum in 1075. His successor, St. Osmund, built a cathedral there and drew up for it the ordinal of offices, which became the basis of the Sarum Rite (q. v.) It was the seventh Bishop of Sarum, Richard Poore, who determined to remove the cathedral from the precincts of the royal castle of Old Sarum to a more convenient spot. On 28 April, 1220, he laid the foundation stones of the present cathedral, beginning with the Lady chapel which was consecrated on 28 Sept., 1225. Among those present was St. Edmund, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, and at this time treasurer of Salisbury. The cathedral was completed in 1266, having taken nearly half a century to accomplish. It stands alone among English cathedrals in having been built all of a piece, and thus possesses an architectural unity which is exceptional; it is also remarkable as being the first important building in the early English style. The cloisters and chapter house were shortly added; the spire regarded as the most beautiful in Europe is one of the loftiest in the world, and was a later addition, the exact date of which is unknown; prpbably built by 1300. The diocese was divided into four archdeaconries: Salisbury, Berkshire, Wiltshire, and Dorsetshire. In the "Valor Ecclesiasticus" of 1535, over 800 parish churches are recorded.

From the translation of the see to Salisbury the bishops were:

Old Sarum:

• Herman, consecrated 1058, removed the cathedral to Sarum, 1075;
• St. Osmund, 1078;
• vacancy, 1099;
• Roger, 1103;
• Jocelin, 1142;
• vacancy, 1184;
• Hubert Walter, 1189;
• Herbert Poore, 1194.

New Sarum:

• Richard Poore, 1217;
• Robert Bingham, 1229;
• William of York, 1247;
• Giles de Bridport, 1257;
• Walter de la Wyle, 1263;
• Robert de Wykehampton, 1274;
• Walter Scammel, 1284;
• Henry de Braundeston, 1287;
• William de la Corner, 1289;
• Nicholas Longespee, 1292;
• Simon of Ghent, 1297;
• Roger de Mortival, 1315;
• Robert Wyville, 1330;
• Ralph Erghum, 1375;
• John Waltham, 1388;
• Richard Mitford, 1395;
• Nicholas Bubwith, 1407;
• Robert Hallam, 1408;
• John Chandler, 1417;
• Robert Neville, 1427;
• William Ayscough, 1438;
• Richard Beauchamp, 1450;
• Lionel Woodville, 1482;
• Thomas Langton, 1485;
• John Blythe, 1494;
• Henry Deane, 1499;
• Edmund Audley, 1502;
• Lorenzo Campegio, 1524.

In 1534 Cardinal Campegio was deprived of the temporalities and Nicholas Shaxton was schismatically intruded into the see. On Campegio's death, Peter Peto (afterwards cardinal) was nominated but never consecrated. Under Mary, the schismatical bishop, John Capon (or Salcot) was reconciled and held the see till his death in 1557. Peto was again nominated, but did not take possession, and Francis Mallet was named, but ejected by Elizabeth before consecration.

The cathedral was dedicated to Our Lady.

BRITTON, Hist. and Antiquities of Salisbury (London, 1814); DODSWORTH, Historical Account of the See and Cathedral Church of Sarum (LONDON, 1814); CASS, Lives of the Bishops of Sherborne and Salisbury (Salisbury, 1824); PHILLIPPS, Institutiones clericorum in comitatu Wiltoniae (n. P., 1825); ROCK, Church of Our Fathers (London, 1849-53); SCOTT, Salisbury Cathedral: position of high altar (London, 1876), JONES, Fasti Ecclesiae Sarisburiensis (Salisbury, 1879-81); IDEM, Salisbury in Diocesan Histories (London, 1880); IDEM, Charters and documents illustrating the hiatory of the Cathedral, etc., of Salisbury in R. S. (London, l891); WHITE, Saliabury: the Cathedral and See (London, 1896); WORDSWORTH, Ceremonies and processions of Cathedral Church of Salisbury (London, 1901).

EDWIN BURTON

Saliva Indians

The principal of a small group of tribes constituting a distinct linguistic stock (the Salivan), centring in the eighteenth century, about and below the junction of the Meta and Orinoco, in Venezuela, but believed to have come from farther up the Orinoco, about the confluence of the Guaviare in Columbian territory. They were of kindly and sociable disposition, and especially given to music, but followed the common barbarous practice of killing the aged and feeble. They disinterred the bones of the dead after a year, burned them, and mixed the ashes with their drinking water. In their ceremonies they blew upon the batuto, or great clay trumpet common to the tribes of the region. A grammar of their language was composed by the Jesuit Father Anisson. In 1669 the Jesuit Fathers Monteverde and Castan established the first mission in the tribe, under the name of Nuestra Señora de los Salibas, but both dying within a year the Indians again dispersed to the forest. In 1671 other Jesuit missions were established in the same general region, at Carichana, Sinameo and San Lorenzo, together with a small garrison of twelve soldiers at the first-named station, but were all destroyed by two successive invasions of the savage Carib from below in 1684 and 1693. In these two attacks four priests lost their lives, together with the captain of the garrison, his two sons, and others. Forty years later the missions were restored, the principal one, of the Saliva, being established in 1734 at Carichana on the Orinoco, just below the junction of the Meta. Its founder was Father Manuel Roman, superior of the Jesuit missions of the Orinoco, and discoverer of the Casiquiare connexion with the Amazon. The tribe numbered at that time about 4000 souls, only a small part resided at the mission. It was visited and described by Humboldt in 1800. Another Saliva mission, San Miguel de Macuco, on the Meta, had at one time 900 souls. On the expulsion of the Jesuits in 1767-68 the Orinoco missions were placed in charge of Franciscan fathers, but fell into decline. The revolutionary war and the withdrawal of help from the Spanish Government completed their ruin. The mission property was seized, the Indians scattered, and the tribe is now virtually extinct.

JAMES MOONEY

Salmanticenses and Complutenses

These names designate the authors of the courses of Scholastic philosophy and theology, and of moral theology published by the lecturers of the philosophical college of the Discalced Carmelites at Alcalá de Henares, and of the theological college at Salamanca. Although primarily intended for the instruction of the younger members of the order, these colleges, being incorporated in the Universities of Alcalá (Complutum) and Salamanca, opened their lecture rooms also to outsiders. During the Middle Ages the Carmelites, with some notable exceptions, had gone hand in hand with the Dominicans in the matter of Scholastic teaching as against the Franciscan and Augustinian schools; it was therefore natural that in the sixteenth century they should maintain their old allegiance as against the Jesuits. Consequently they made strict adherence to Thomism their fundamental principle, and carried it out with greater consistency than probably any other commentators of the neo-Scholastic period. Although the names of the several contributors to the three courses are on record, their works must not be taken as the views or utterances of individual scholars, but as the expression of the official teaching of the order, for no question was finally disposed of without being submitted to the discussion of the whole college, and in case of difference of opinions the matter was decided by vote. By this means such uniformity and consistency were obtained that it could be claimed that there was not a single contradiction in any of these immense works, although nearly a century elapsed between the publication of the first and the appearance of the final instalment. At the beginning the lecturers contented themselves with writing their quaterniones, many of which are still extant. But at the beginning of the seventeenth century the publication of a complete course was decided upon. The "Logic", written by Diego de Jesus (b. at Granada, 1570; d. at Toledo, 1621) appeared at Madrid, 1608, and was re-written by Miguel de la SS. Trinidad (b. at Granada, 1588; d. at Alcalá 1661), in which form it was frequently printed in Spain, France, and Germany. Nearly all the remaining philosophical treatises were the work of Antonio de la Madre de Dios (b. at Léon, 1588; d. 1640). The whole work was then re-cast by Juan de la Anunciacion (b. at Oviedo, 1633; general from 1694 to 1700; d. 1701), who also added a supplement. It appeared at Lyons in 1670 in five quarto volumes, under the title, "Collegii Complutensis Fr. Discalc. B. M. V. de Monte Carmeli Artium cursus ad breviorem formam collectus et novo ordine atque faciliori stylo dispositus". It superseded all previous editions and various supplements, such as the "Metaphysica in tres lib. distincta" (Paris, 1640) by the French Carmelite, Blasius à Conceptione. Antonio de la Madre de Dios laid the foundation of the dogmatic part of the Salmanticenses by publishing, in 1630, two volumes containing the treatises "De Deo uno", "De Trinitate", and "De angelis". He was succeeded by Domingo de Sta Teresa (b. at Alberca, 1600; d. at Madrid, 1654), who wrote in 1647 "De ultimo fine", "De beatitudine, etc.", and "De peccatis". Juan de la Anunciación, already mentioned, contributed "De gratia", "De justificatione et merito", "De virtutibus theologicis", "De Incarnatione", "De sacramentis in communi", and "De Eucharistia". He left the first volume of "De poenitentia" in manuscript. It was revised and continued by Antonio de S. Juan-Bautista, who, dying at Salamanca in 1699, was unable to carry it through the press. The work was therefore completed by Alonso de los Angeles (d. 1724) and Francisco de Sta Ana (d. at Salamanca, 1707). This last volume, the twelfth, appeared in 1704. The Salmanticenses have ever been held in the highest esteem, particularly at Rome where they are considered a standard work on Thomistic scholasticism. A new edition, in twenty volumes appeared in Paris as late as 1870-83. An abridgment (two large volumes, in folio) for the use of students was published by Pablo de la Concepcion (general from 1724 to 1730; d. at Granada, 1734).

The moral theology of the Salmanticenses was begun in 1665 by Francisco de Jesus-Maria (d. 1677), with treatises on the sacraments in general, and on baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, and extreme unction. The fourth edition (Madrid, 1709) underwent considerable revision on account of the new Decrees of Innocent XI and Alexander VII. It was augmented by a disquisition on the "Bull Cruciata" of José de Jesús-Maria, published by Antonio del SS. Sagramento. Andrés de la Madre de Dios (d. 1674) wrote "De sacramento ordinis et matrimonii" (Salamanca, 1668), "De censuris", "De justitia" and "De statu religioso", with all cognate matters. Sebastian de San Joaquin (d. 1714), the author of two volumes on the Commandments, did not live to see his work through the press. Hence it was completed and published by Alonso de los Angeles, who had also put the last hand to the course of dogmatic theology. St. Alphonsus Liguori esteemed the moral theology of the Salmanticenses; he nearly always quotes them approvingly and follows their lead, though on rare occasions he finds them somewhat too easy going. Lehmkuhl complains that they are not always accurate in their quotations.

HENRICUS A SS. SACRAMENTO, Collectio scrip. ord. Carmel. excalc. (Savona, 1884), passim; HURTER, Nomenclator.

B. ZIMMERMAN

Salmas

A Chaldean see, included in the ancient Archdiocese of Adhorbigan, or Adherbaidjan; we know several Nestorian bishops of the latter, from the fifth to the seventh centuries (Chabot, "Synodicon orientale", 665), and in the Middle Ages (Le Quien, "Oriens christianus", II, 1283), also some Jacobite bishops (Le Quien, op. cit., II, 1565). At a date which is not quite certain, but which goes back at least to the end of the eighteenth century (Guriel, "Elementa linguae chaldaicae", Rome 1860, p. 206), the Chaldean Catholic Archdiocese of Adherbaidjan formed one with that of Salmas, and since then it has continued to exist. The diocese contains 8000 faithful, 10 priests, 13 parishes or stations, and 12 churches or chapels. The seminary is at Ourmiah; the Sisters of Charity direct the primary schools. The town and Province of Salmas in the Persian Adherbaidjan are rich in marble, orchards, and vineyards.

Revue de l'Orient Chrétien, I, 450; Miss. Cathol. (Rome, 1907), 814.

S. VAILHÉ

Alphonsus Salmeron

Jesuit Biblical scholar, born at Toledo, 8 Sept., 1515; died at Naples, 13 Feb., 1585. He studied literature and philosophy at Alcala, and thereafter went to Paris for philosophy and theology. Here, through James Lainez, he met St. Ignatius of Loyola; together with Lainez, Faber, and St. Francis Xavier he enlisted as one of the first companions of Loyola (1536). The small company left Paris, 15 Nov., 1536, and reached Venice, 8 Jan., 1537, and during Lent of that year went to Rome. He delivered a discourse before the Holy Father and was, in return, granted leave to receive Holy orders so soon as he should have reached the canonical age. About 8 Sept., all the first companions met at Vincenza, and all, save St. Ignatius, said their first Mass. The plan of a pilgrimage to the Holy Land was abandoned. Salmeron devoted his ministry in Sienna to the poor and to children. On 22 April, 1541, he pronounced his solemn vows in St. Paul's-Outside-the-Walls, as a professed member of the newly-established Society of Jesus. The autumn of that year, Paul III sent Salmeron and Broët as Apostolic nuncios to Ireland. They landed, by way of Scotland, 23 Feb., 1542. Thirty-four days later they set sail for Dieppe and went on to Paris. For two years Salmeron preached in Rome; his exposition of the Epistle to the Ephesians thrice a week in the church of the Society effected much good (1545). After preaching the Lent at Bologna, he went with Lainez to the Council of Trent (18 May, 1546) as theologian to Paul III. The Dogma of Justification was under discussion. The two Jesuits at once won the hearts and respect of all; their discourses had to be printed and distributed to the bishops. Both set out for Bologna (14 March, 1547) with the Council. After serious sickness at Padua, Salmeron once again took up his council work. The next two years were in great part spent in preaching at Bologna, Venice, Padua, and Verona. On 4 Oct., 1549, Salmeron and his companions, Le Jay and Canisius, took their doctorate in the University of Bologna, so that they might, at the urgent invitation of William IV of Bavaria, accept chairs in Ingolstadt. Salmeron undertook to interpret the Epistle to the Romans. He held the attention of all by his learning and grace of exposition. Upon the death of Duke William, and at the instigation of the Bishop of Verona, much to the chagrin of the faculty of the Academy of Ingolstadt, Salmeron was returned to Verona (24 Sept., 1550). That year he explained the Gospel of St. Matthew. Next year (1551) he was summoned to Rome to help St. Ignatius in working up the Constitutions of the Society. Other work was in store. He was soon (Feb., 1551) sent down to Naples to inaugurate the Society's first college there, but after a few months was summoned by Ignatius to go back to the Council of Trent as theologian to Julius III. It was during the discussions preliminary to these sessions that Lainez and Salmeron, as papal theologians, gave their vota first. When the Council once again suspended its sessions, Salmeron returned to Naples (Oct., 1552). Paul IV sent him to the Augsburg Diet (May, 1555) with the nuncio, Lippomanus, and thence into Poland; and later (April, 1556) to Belgium. Another journey to Belgium was undertaken in the capacity of adviser to Cardinal Caraffa (2 Dec., 1557). Lainez appointed Salmeron first Provincial of Naples (1558), and vicar-general (1561) during the former's apostolic legation to France. The Council of Trent was again resumed (May, 1562) and a third pontiff, Pius IV, chose Salmeron and Lainez for papal theologians. The rôle was very delicate; the Divine origin of the rights and duties of bishops was the be discussed. During the years 1564-82, Salmeron was engaged chiefly in preaching and writing; he preached every day during eighteen Lenten seasons; his preaching was fervent, learned, and fruitful. His writings during this long period were voluminous; Bellarmine spent five months in Naples reviewing them. Each day he pointed out to Salmeron the portions that were not up to the mark, and the next day the latter brought back those parts corrected.

The chief writings of Salmeron are his sixteen volumes of Scriptural commentaries--eleven on the Gospels, one on the Acts, and four on the Pauline Epistles. Southwell says that these sixteen volumes were printed by Sanchez, Madrid, from 1597 till 1602; in Brescia, 1601; in Cologne, from 1602-04, Sommervogel (Bibliothèque de la C. de J., VII, 479) has traced only twelve tomes of the Madrid edition--the eleven of the Gospels and one of the Pauline commentaries. The Gospel volumes are entitled, "Alfonsi Salmeronis Toletani, e Societate Jusu Theologi, Commentarii in Evangelicam Historiam et in Acta Apostolorum, in duodecim tomos distributi" (Madrid, 1598-1601). The first Cologne edition, together with the second (1612-15), are found complete. These voluminous commentaries are the popular and university expositions which Salmeron had delivered during his preaching and teaching days. In old age, he gathered his notes together, revised them, and left his volumes ready for posthumous publication by Bartholomew Pérez de Nueros. Grisar (Jacobi Lainez Disputationes Tridentinae, I, 53) thinks that the commentary on Acts is the work of Perez; Braunsberger (Canisii epist., III, 448) and the editors of "Monumenta Historica S.J." (Epistolae Salmeron, I, xxx) disagree with Grisar. The critical acumen of Salmeron, his judicious study of the Fathers and his knowledge of Holy Writ make his Scriptural exegesis still worth the attention of students. He was noted for his devotion to the Church, fortitude, prudence, and magnanimity. The Acts of the Council of Trent show that he wielded tremendous influence there by his vota on justification, Holy Eucharist, penance, purgatory, indulgences, the Sacrifice of the Mass, matrimony and the origin of episcopal jurisdiction--all most important questions because of the gradual infiltration of some heretical ideas into a small minority of the hierarchy of that time.

WALTER DRUM

Salome

(1) The daughter of Herod Philip and Herodias (Matthew 14:6-8: Mark 6:22; cf. Josephus, "Antiq. Jud.", XVIII, v, 4), at whose request John the Baptist was beheaded.

(2) One of the holy women present at the Crucifixion, and who visited the tomb on the morning of the Resurrection (Mark 15:40; 16:1). In Mark 15:40, we read: "And there were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the Mother of James the Less and of Joseph, and Salome." The parallel passage of Matthew reads thus: "Among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee" (Matthew 27:56). Comparison of the two gives a well-grounded probability that the Salome of the former is identical with the mother of the sons of Zebedee in the latter, who is mentioned also in Matthew 20:20 sq., in connection with the petition in favour of her sons. Beyond these references in the Gospel narrative and what may be inferred from them nothing is known of Salome, though some writers conjecture more or less plausibly that she is the sister of the Blessed Virgin mentioned in John 19:25.

JAMES F. DRISCOLL

Salt

Always used for the seasoning of food and for the preservation of things from corruption, had from very early days a sacred and religious character. The Prophet Eliseus employed it to make palatable the waters of a well (IV Kings, ii, 19 sqq.). The Orientals used it to cleanse and harden the skin of a newborn child (Ezech., xvi, 4); by strewing salt on a piece of land they dedicated it to the gods; in the Jewish Law it was prescribed for the sacrifices and the loaves of proposition (Lev., ii, 13). In Matthew 5:13, salt symbolizes wisdom, though perhaps originally it had an exorcistic signification.