__________________________________________________________________ Title: The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 6: Fathers of the Church-Gregory XI Creator(s): Herbermann, Charles George (1840-1916) Print Basis: 1907-1913 Rights: From online edition Copyright 2003 by K. Knight, used by permission CCEL Subjects: All; Reference LC Call no: BX841.C286 LC Subjects: Christian Denominations Roman Catholic Church Dictionaries. Encyclopedias __________________________________________________________________ THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA AN INTERNATIONAL WORK OF REFERENCE ON THE CONSTITUTION, DOCTRINE, DISCIPLINE, AND HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH EDITED BY CHARLES G. HERBERMANN, Ph.D., LL.D. EDWARD A. PACE, Ph.D., D.D. CONDE B PALLEN, Ph.D., LL.D. THOMAS J. SHAHAN, D.D. JOHN J. WYNNE, S.J. ASSISTED BY NUMEROUS COLLABORATORS IN FIFTEEN VOLUMES VOLUME 6 Fathers of the Church to Gregory XI New York: ROBERT APPLETON COMPANY Imprimatur JOHN M. FARLEY ARCHBISHOP OF NEW YORK __________________________________________________________________ Fathers of the Church Fathers of the Church + The Appeal to the Fathers + Classification of Patristic Writings o Apostolic Fathers and the Second Century o Third Century o Fourth Century o Fifth Century o Sixth Century + Characteristics of Patristic Writings o Commentaries o Preachers o Writers o East and West o Theology o Discipline, Liturgy, Ascetics o Historical Materials + Patristic Study The word Father is used in the New Testament to mean a teacher of spiritual things, by whose means the soul of man is born again into the likeness of Christ: "For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I have begotten you. Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ" (I Cor., iv, 15, 16; cf. Gal., iv, 19). The first teachers of Christianity seem to be collectively spoken of as "the Fathers" (II Peter, iii, 4). Thus St. Irenaeus defines that a teacher is a father, and a disciple is a son (iv, 41,2), and so says Clement of Alexandria (Strom., I, i, 1). A bishop is emphatically a "father in Christ", both because it was he, in early times, who baptized all his flock, and because he is the chief teacher of his church. But he is also regarded by the early Fathers, such as Hegesippus, Irenaeus, and Tertullian as the recipient of the tradition of his predecessors in the see, and consequently as the witness and representative of the faith of his Church before Catholicity and the world. Hence the expression "the Fathers" comes naturally to be applied to the holy bishops of a preceding age, whether of the last generation or further back, since they are the parents at whose knee the Church of today was taught her belief. It is also applicable in an eminent way to bishops sitting in council, "the Fathers of Nicaea", "the Fathers of Trent". Thus Fathers have learnt from Fathers, and in the last resort from the Apostles, who are sometimes called Fathers in this sense: "They are your Fathers", says St. Leo, of the Princes of the Apostles, speaking to the Romans; St. Hilary of Arles calls them sancti patres; Clement of Alexandria says that his teachers, from Greece, Ionia, Coele-Syria, Egypt, the Orient, Assyria, Palestine, respectively, had handed on to him the tradition of blessed teaching from Peter, and James, and John, and Paul, receiving it "as son from father". It follows that, as our own Fathers are the predecessors who have taught us, so the Fathers of the whole Church are especially the earlier teachers, who instructed her in the teaching of the Apostles, during her infancy and first growth. It is difficult to define the first age of the Church, or the age of the Fathers. It is a common habit to stop the study of the early Church at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. "The Fathers" must undoubtedly include, in the West, St. Gregory the Great (d. 604), and in the East, St. John Damascene (d. about 754). It is frequently said that St. Bernard (d. 1153) was the last of the Fathers, and Migne's "Patrologia Latina" extends to Innocent III, halting only on the verge of the thirteenth century, while his "Patrologia Graeca" goes as far as the Council of Florence (1438-9). These limits are evidently too wide, It will be best to consider that the great merit of St. Bernard as a writer lies in his resemblance in style and matter to the greatest among the Fathers, in spite of the difference of period. St. Isidore of Seville (d. 636) and the Venerable Bede (d. 735) are to be classed among the Fathers, but they may be said to have been born out of due time, as St. Theodore the Studite was in the East. I. THE APPEAL TO THE FATHERS Thus the use of the term Fathers has been continuous, yet it could not at first he employed in precisely the modern sense of Fathers of the Church. In early days the expression referred to writers who were then quite recent. It is still applied to those writers who are to us the ancients, but no longer in the same way to writers who are now recent. Appeals to the Fathers are a subdivision of appeals to tradition. In the first half of the second century begin the appeals to the sub-Apostolic age: Papias appeals to the presbyters, and through them to the Apostles. Half a century later St. Irenaeus supplements this method by an appeal to the tradition handed down in every Church by the succession of its bishops (Adv. Haer., III, i-iii), and Tertullian clinches this argument by the observation that as all the Churches agree, their tradition is secure, for they could not all have strayed by chance into the same error (Praescr., xxviii). The appeal is thus to Churches and their bishops, none but bishops being the authoritative exponents of the doctrine of their Churches. As late as 341 the bishops of the Dedication Council at Antioch declared: "We are not followers of Arius; for how could we, who are bishops, be disciples of a priest?" Yet slowly, as the appeals to the presbyters died out, there was arising by the side of appeals to the Churches a third method: the custom of appealing to Christian teachers who were not necessarily bishops. While, without the Church, Gnostic schools were substituted for churches, within the Church, Catholic schools were growing up. Philosophers like Justin and most of the numerous second-century apologists were reasoning about religion, and the great catechetical school of Alexandria was gathering renown. Great bishops and saints like Dionysius of Alexandria, Gregory Thaumaturgus of Pontus, Firmilian of Cappadocia, and Alexander of Jerusalem were proud to be disciples of the priest Origen. The Bishop Cyprian called daily for the works of the priest Tertullian with the words "Give me the master". The Patriarch Athanasius refers for the ancient use of the word homoousios, not merely to the two Dionysii, but to the priest Theognostus. Yet these priest-teachers are not yet called Fathers, and the greatest among them, Tertullian, Clement, Origen, Hippolytus, Novatian, Lucian, happen to be tinged with heresy; two became antipopes; one is the father of Arianism; another was condemned by a general council. In each case we might apply the words used by St. Hilary of Tertullian: "Sequenti errore detraxit scriptis probabilibus auctoritatem" (Comm. in Matt., v, 1, cited by Vincent of Lerins, 2.4). A fourth form of appeal was better founded and of enduring value. Eventually it appeared that bishops as well as priests were fallible. In the second century the bishops were orthodox. In the third they were often found wanting. in the fourth they were the leaders of schisms, and heresies, in the Meletian and Donatist troubles and in the long Arian struggle, in which few were found to stand firm against the insidious persecution of Constantius. It came to be seen that the true Fathers of the Church are those Catholic teachers who have persevered in her communion, and whose teaching has been recognized as orthodox. So it came to pass that out of the four "Latin Doctors" one is not a bishop. Two other Fathers who were not bishops have been declared to be Doctors of the Church, Bede and John Damascene, while among the Doctors outside the patristic period we find two more priests, the incomparable St. Bernard and the greatest of all theologians, St. Thomas Aquinas. Nay, few writers had such great authority in the Schools of the Middle Ages as the layman Boethius, many of whose definitions are still commonplaces of theology. Similarly (we may notice in passing) the name "Father", which originally belonged to bishops, has been as it were delegated to priests, especially as ministers of the Sacrament of Penance. it is now a form of address to all priests in Spain, in Ireland, and, of recent years, in England and the United States. Papas or Pappas, Pope, was a term of respect for eminent bishops (e.g. in letters to St. Cyprian and to St. Augustine -- neither of these writers seems to use it in addressing other bishops, except when St. Augustine writes to Rome). Eventually the term was reserved to the bishops of Rome and Alexandria; yet in the East to-day every priest is a "pope". The Aramaic abbe was used from early times for the superiors of religious houses. But through the abuse of granting abbeys in commendam to seculars, it has become a polite title for all secular clerics, even seminarists in Italy, and especially in France, whereas all religious who are priests are addressed as "Father". We receive only, says St. Basil, what we have been taught by the holy Fathers; and he adds that in his Church of Caesarea the faith of the holy Fathers of Nicaea has long been implanted (Ep. cxl, 2). St. Gregory Nazianzen declares that he holds fast the teaching which he heard from the holy Oracles, and was taught by the holy Fathers. These Cappadocian saints seem to be the first to appeal to a real catena of Fathers. The appeal to one or two was already common enough; but not even the learned Eusebius had thought of a long string of authorities. St. Basil, for example (De Spir. S., ii, 29), cites for the formula "with the Holy Ghost" in the doxology, the example of Irenaeus, Clement and Dionysius of Alexandria, Dionysius of Rome, Eusebius of Caesarea, Origen, Africanus, the preces lucerariae said at the lighting of lamps, Athenagoras, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Firmilian, Meletius. In the fifth century this method became a stereotyped custom. St. Jerome is perhaps the first writer to try to establish his interpretation of a text by a string of exegetes (Ep. cxii, ad Aug.). Paulinus, the deacon and biographer of St. Ambrose, in the libellus he presented against the Pelagians to Pope Zosimus in 417, quotes Cyprian, Ambrose, Gregory Nazianzen, and the decrees of the late Pope Innocent. In 420 St. Augustine quotes Cyprian and Ambrose against the same heretics (C. duas Epp. Pel., iv). Julian of Eclanum quoted Chrysostom and Basil; St. Augustine replies to him in 421 (Contra Julianum, i) with Irenaeus, Cyprian, Reticius, Olympius, Hilary, Ambrose, the decrees of African councils, and above all Popes Innocent and Zosimus. In a celebrated passage he argues that these Western writers are more than sufficient, but as Julian had appealed to the East, to the East, he shall go, and the saint adds Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Synod of Diospolis, Chrysostom. To these he adds Jerome (c. xxxiv): "Nor should you think Jerome, because he was a priest, is to be despised", and adds a eulogy. This is amusing, when we remember that Jerome in a fit of irritation, fifteen before, had written to Augustine (Ep. cxlii) "Do not excite against me the silly crowd of the ignorant, who venerate you as a bishop, and receive you with the honour due to a prelate when you declaim in the Church, whereas they think little of me, an old man, nearly decrepit, in my monastery in the solitude of the country." In the second book "Contra Julianum", St. Augustine again cites Ambrose frequently, and Cyprian, Gregory Nazianzen, Hilary, Chrysostom; in ii, 37, he recapitulates the nine names (omitting councils and popes), adding (iii, 32) Innocent and Jerome. A few years later the Semipelagians of Southern Gaul, who were led by St. Hilary of Arles, St. Vincent of Lerins, and Bl. Cassian, refuse to accept St. Augustine's severe view of predestination because "contrarium putant patrum opinioni et ecclesiastico sensui". Their opponent St. Prosper, who was trying to convert them to Augustinianism, complains: "Obstinationem suam vetustate defendunt" (Ep. inter Atig. ccxxv, 2), and they said that no ecclesiastical writer had ever before interpreted Romans quite as St. Augustine did -- which was probably true enough. The interest of this attitude lies in the fact that it was, if not new at least more definite than any earlier appeal to antiquity. Through most of the fourth century, the controversy with the Arians had turned upon Scripture, and appeals to past authority were few. But the appeal to the Fathers was never the most imposing locus theologicus, for they could not easily be assembled so as to form an absolutely conclusive test. On the other hand up to the end of the fourth century, there were practically no infallible definitions available, except condemnations of heresies, chiefly by popes. By the time that the Arian reaction under Valens caused the Eastern conservatives to draw towards the orthodox, and prepared the restoration of orthodoxy to power by Theodosius, the Nicene decisions were beginning to be looked upon as sacrosanct, and that council to be preferred to a unique position above all others. By 430, the date we have reached, the Creed we now say at Mass was revered in the East, whether rightly or wrongly, as the work of the 150 Fathers of Constantinople in 381, and there were also new papal decisions, especially the tractoria of Pope Zosimus, which in 418 had been sent to all the bishops of the world to be signed. It is to living authority, the idea of which had thus come to the fore, that St. Prosper was appealing in his controversy with the Lerinese school. When he went to Gaul, in 431, as papal envoy, just after St. Augustine's death, he replied to their difficulties, not by reiterating that saint's hardest arguments, but by taking with him a letter from Pope St. Celestine, in which St. Augustine is extolled as having been held by the pope's predecessors to be "inter magistros optimos". No one is to be allowed to depreciate him, but it is not said that every word of his is to be followed. The disturbers had appealed to the Holy See, and the reply is "Desinat incessere novitas vetustatem" (Let novelty cease to attack antiquity!). An appendix is added, not of the opinions of ancient Fathers, but of recent popes, since the very same monks who thought St. Augustine went too far, professed (says the appendix) "that they followed and approved only what the most holy See of the Blessed Apostle Peter sanctioned and taught by the ministry of its prelates". A list therefore follows of "the judgments of the rulers of the Roman Church", to which are added some sentences of African councils, "which indeed the Apostolic bishops made their own when they approved them". To these inviolabiles sanctiones (we might roughly render "infallible utterances") prayers used in the sacraments are appended "ut legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi" -- a frequently misquoted phrase -- and in conclusion, it is declared that these testimonies of the Apostolic See are sufficient, "so that we consider not to be Catholic at all whatever shall appear to be contrary to the decisions we have cited". Thus the decisions of the Apostolic See are put on a very different level from the views of St. Augustine, just as that saint always drew a sharp distinction between the resolutions of African councils or the extracts from the Fathers, on the one hand, and the decrees of Popes Innocent and Zosimus on the other. Three years later a famous document on tradition and its use emanated from the Lerinese school, the "Commonitorium" of St. Vincent. He whole-heartedly accepted the letter of Pope Celestine, and he quoted it as an authoritative and irresistible witness to his own doctrine that where quod ubique, or universitas, is uncertain, we must turn to quod semper, or antiquitas. Nothing could be more to his purpose than the pope's: "Desinat incessere novitas vetustatem" The oecumenical Council of Ephesus had been held in the same year that Celestine wrote. Its Acts were before St. Vincent, and it is clear that he looked upon both pope and council as decisive authorities. It was necessary to establish this, before turning to his famous canon, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus otherwise universitas, antiquitas, consensio. It was not a new criterion, else it would have committed suicide by its very expression. But never had the doctrine been so admirably phrased, so limpidly explained, so adequately exemplified. Even the law of the evolution of dogma is defined by Vincent in language which can hardly be surpassed for exactness and vigour. St. Vincent's triple test is wholly misunderstood if it is taken to be the ordinary rule of faith. Like all Catholics he took the ordinary rule to be the living magisterium of the Church, and he assumes that the formal decision in cases of doubt lies with the Apostolic See, or with a general council. But cases of doubt arise when no such decision is forthcoming. Then it is that the three tests are to be applied, not simultaneously, but, if necessary, in succession. When an error is found in one corner of the Church, then the first test, universitas, quod ubique, is an unanswerable refutation, nor is there any need to examine further (iii, 7, 8). But if an error attacks the whole Church, then antiquitas, quod semper is to be appealed to, that is, a consensus existing before the novelty arose. Still, in the previous period one or two teachers, even men of great fame, may have erred. Then we betake ourselves to quod ab omnibus, consensio, to the many against the few (if possible to a general council; if not, to an examination of writings). Those few are a trial of faith "ut tentet vos Dominus Deus vester" (Deut., xiii, 1 sqq.). So Tertullian was a magna tentatio; so was Origen -- indeed the greatest temptation of all. We must know that whenever what is new or unheard before is introduced by one man beyond or against all the saints, it pertains not to religion but to temptation (xx, 49). Who are the "Saints" to whom we appeal? The reply is a definition of "Fathers of the Church" given with all St. Vincent's inimitable accuracy: "Inter se majorem consulat interrogetque sententias, eorum dumtaxat qui, diversis licet temporibus et locis, in unius tamen ecclesiae Catholicae communione et fide permanentes, magistri probabiles exstiterunt; et quicquid non unus aut duo tantum, sed omnes pariter uno eodemque consensu aperte, frequenter, perseveranter tenuisse, scripsisse, docuisse cognoverit, id sibi quoque intelligat absque ulla dubitatione credendum" (iii, 8). This unambiguous sentence defines for us what is the right way of appealing to the Fathers, and the italicized words perfectly explain what is a "Father": "Those alone who, though in diverse times and places, yet persevering in time communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, have been approved teachers." The same result is obtained by modern theologians, in their definitions; e.g. Fessler thus defines what constitutes a "Father": 1. orthodox doctrine and learning; 2. holiness of life; 3. (at the present day) a certain antiquity. The criteria by which we judge whether a writer is a "Father" or not are: 1. citation by a general council, or 2. in public Acts of popes addressed to the Church or concerning Faith; 3. encomium in the Roman Martyrology as "sanctitate et doctrina insignis"; 4. public reading in Churches in early centuries; 5. citations, with praise, as an authority as to the Faith by some of the more celebrated Fathers. Early authors, though belonging to the Church, who fail to reach this standard are simply ecclesiastical writers ("Patrologia", ed. Jungmann, ch. i, #11). On the other hand, where the appeal is not to the authority of the writer, but his testimony is merely required to the belief of his time, one writer is as good as another, and if a Father is cited for this purpose, it is not as a Father that he is cited, but merely as a witness to facts well known to him. For the history of dogma, therefore, the works of ecclesiastical writers who are not only not approved, but even heretical, are often just as valuable as those of the Fathers. On the other hand, the witness of one Father is occasionally of great weight for doctrine when taken singly, if he is teaching a subject on which he is recognized by the Church as an especial authority, e.g., St. Athanasius on the Divinity of the Son, St. Augustine on the Holy Trinity, etc. There are a few cases in which a general council has given approbation to the work of a Father, the most important being the two letters of St. Cyril of Alexandria which were read at the Council of Ephesus. But the authority of single Fathers considered in itself, says Franzelin (De traditione, thesis xv), "is not infallible or peremptory; though piety and sound reason agree that the theological opinions of such individuals should not be treated lightly, and should not without great caution be interpreted in a sense which clashes with the common doctrine of other Fathers." The reason is plain enough; they were holy men, who are not to be presumed to have intended to stray from the doctrine of the Church, and their doubtful utterances are therefore to be taken in the best sense of which they are capable. If they cannot be explained in an orthodox sense, we have to admit that not the greatest is immune from ignorance or accidental error or obscurity. But on the use of the Fathers in theological questions, the article Tradition and the ordinary dogmatic treatises on that subject must be consulted, as it is proper here only to deal with the historical development of their use. The subject was never treated as a part of dogmatic theology until the rise of what is now commonly called "Theologia fundamentalis", in the sixteenth century, the founders of which are Melchior Canus and Bellarmine. The former has a discussion of the use of the Fathers in deciding questions of faith (De locis theologicis, vii). The Protestant Reformers attacked the authority of the Fathers. The most famous of these opponents is Dalbeus (Jean Daille, 1594-1670, "Traite de l'emploi des saints Peres", 1632; in Latin "De usu Patrum", 1656). But their objections are long since forgotten. Having traced the development of the use of the Fathers up to the period of its frequent employment, and of its formal statement by St. Vincent of Lerins, it will be well to give a glance at the continuation of the practice. We saw that, in 431, it was possible for St. Vincent (in a book which has been most unreasonably taken to be a mere polemic against St. Augustine -- a notion which is amply refuted by the use made in it of St. Celestine's letter) to define the meaning and method of patristic appeals. From that time onward they are very common. in the Council of Ephesus, 431, as St. Vincent points out, St. Cyril presented a series of quotations from the Fathers, ton hagiotaton kai hosiotaton pateron kai episkopon diaphoron marturon, which were read on the motion of Flavian, Bishop of Philippi. They were from Peter I of Alexandria, Martyr, Athanasius, Popes Julius and Felix (forgeries), Theophilus, Cyprian, Ambrose, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Atticus, Amphilochius. On the other hand Eutyches, when tried at Constantinople by St. Flavian, in 449, refused to accept either Fathers or councils as authorities, confining himself to Holy Scripture, a position which horrified his judges (see Eutyches). In the following year St. Leo sent his legates, Abundius and Asterius. to Constantinople with a list of testimonies from Hilary, Athanasius, Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, Theophilus, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Cyril of Alexandria. They were signed in that city, but were not produced at the Council of Chalcedon in the following year. Thenceforward the custom is fixed, and it is unnecessary to give examples. However, that of the sixth council in 680 is important: Pope St. Agatho sent a long series of extracts from Rome, and the leader of the Monothelites, Macarius of Antioch, presented another. Both sets were carefully verified from the library of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and sealed. It should be noted that it was never in such cases thought necessary to trace a doctrine back to the earliest times; St. Vincent demanded the proof of the Church's belief before a doubt arose -- this is his notion of antiquitas; and in conformity with this view, the Fathers quoted by councils and popes and Fathers are for the most part recent (Petavius, De Incarn., XIV, 15, 2-5). In the last years of the fifth century a famous document, attributed to Popes Gelasius and Hormisdas, adds to decrees of St. Damasus of 382 a list of books which are approved, and another of those disapproved. In its present form the list of approved Fathers comprises Cyprian, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Theophilus, Hilary, Cyril of Alexandria (wanting in one MS.), Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Prosper, Leo ("every iota" of the tome to Flavian is to be accepted under anathema), and "also the treatises of all orthodox Fathers, who deviated in nothing from the fellowship of the holy Roman Church, and were not separated from her faith and preaching, but were participators through the grace of God until the end of their life in her communion; also the decretal letters, which most blessed popes have given at various times when consulted by various Fathers, are to be received with veneration". Orosius, Sedulius, and Juvencus are praised. Rufinus and Origen are rejected. Eusebius's "History" and "Chronicle" are not to be condemned altogether, though in another part of the list they appear as "apocrypha" with Tertullian, Lactantius, Africanus, Commodian, Clement of Alexandria, Arnobius, Cassian, Victorinus of Pettau, Faustus, and the works of heretics, and forged Scriptural documents. The later Fathers constantly used the writings of the earlier. For instance, St. Caesarius of Arles drew freely on St. Augustine's sermons, and embodied them in collections of his own; St. Gregory the Great has largely founded himself on St. Augustine; St. Isidore rests upon all his predecessors; St. John Damascene's great work is a synthesis of patristic theology. St. Bede's sermons are a cento from the greater Fathers. Eugippius made a selection from St. Augustine's writings, which had an immense vogue. Cassiodorus made a collection of select commentaries by various writers on all the books of Holy Scripture. St. Benedict especially recommended patristic study, and his sons have observed his advice: "Ad perfectionem conversationis qui festinat, sunt doctrinae sanctorum Patrum, quarum observatio perducat hominem ad celsitudinem perfectionis . . . quis liber sanctorum catholicorum Patrum hoc non resonat, ut recto cursu perveniamus ad creatorem nostrum?" (Sanet Regula, lxxiii). Florilegia and catenae became common from the fifth century onwards. They are mostly anonymous, but those in the East which go under the name OEcumenius are well known. Most famous of all throughout the Middle Ages was the "Glossa ordinaria" attributed to Walafrid Strabo. The "Catena aurea" of St. Thomas Aquinas is still in use. (See Catenae, and the valuable matter collected by Turner in Hastings, Dict. of the Bible, V, 521.) St. Augustine was early recognized as the first of the Western Fathers, with St. Ambrose and St. Jerome by his side. St. Gregory the Great was added, and these four became "the Latin Doctors". St. Leo, in some ways the greatest of theologians, was excluded, both on account of the paucity of his writings, and by the fact that his letters had a far higher authority as papal utterances. In the East St. John Chrysostom has always been the most popular, as he is the most voluminous, of the Fathers. With the great St. Basil, the father of monachism, and St. Gregory Nazianzen, famous for the purity of his faith, he made up the triumvirate called "the three hierarchs", familiar up to the present day in Eastern art. St. Athanasius was added to these by the Westerns, so that four might answer to four. (See Doctors of the Church.) It will be observed that many of the writers rejected in the Gelasian list lived and died in Catholic communion, but incorrectness in some part of their writings, e.g. the Semipelagian error attributed to Cassian and Faustus, the chiliasm of the conclusion of Victoninus's commentary on the Apocalypse (St. Jerome issued an expurgated edition, the only one in print as yet), the unsoundness of the lost "Hypotyposes" of Clement, and so forth, prevented such writers from being spoken of, as Hilary was by Jerome, "inoffenso pede percurritur". As all the more important doctrines of the Church (except that of the Canon and the inspiration of Scripture) may be proved, or at least illustrated, from Scripture, the widest office of tradition is the interpretation of Scripture, and the authority of the Fathers is here of very great importance. Nevertheless it is only then necessarily to be followed when all are of one mind: "Nemo . . . contra unanimum consensum Patrum ipsam Scripturam sacram interpretari audeat", says the Council of Trent; and the Creed of Pius IV has similarly: ". . . nec eam unquam nisi juxta unanimum consensum Patrum accipiam et interpretabor". The Vatican Council echoes Trent: "nemini licere . . . contra unanimum sensum Patrum ipsam Scripturam sacram interpretari." A consensus of the Fathers is not, of course, to be expected in very small matters: "Quae tamen antiqua sanctorum patrum consensio non in omnibus divinae legis quaestiunculis, sed solum certe praecipue in fidei regula magno nobis studio et investiganda est et sequenda" (Vincent, xxviii, 72). This is not the method, adds St. Vincent, against widespread and inveterate heresies, but rather against novelties, to be applied directly they appear. A better instance could hardly be given than the way in which Adoptionism was met by the Council of Frankfort in 794, nor could the principle be better expressed than by the Fathers of the Council: "Tenete vos intra terminos Patrum, et nolite novas versare quaestiunculas; ad nihilum enim valent nisi ad subversionem audientium. Sufficit enim vobis sanctorum Patrum vestigia sequi, et illorum dicta firma tenere fide. Illi enim in Domino nostri exstiterunt doctores in fide et ductores ad vitam; quorum et sapientia Spiritu Dei plena libris legitur inscripta, et vita meritorum miraculis clara et sanctissima; quorum animae apud Deum Dei Filium, D.N.J.C. pro magno pietatis labore regnant in caelis. Hos ergo tota animi virtute, toto caritatis affectu sequimini, beatissimi fratres, ut horum inconcussa firmitate doctrinis adhaerentes, consortium aeternae beatitudinis . . . cum illis habere mereamini in caelis" ("Synodica ad Episc." in Mansi, XIII, 897-8). And an excellent act of faith in the tradition of the Church is that of Charlemagne (ibid., 902) made on the same occasion: "Apostolicae sedi et antiquis ab initio nascentis ecclesiae et catholicis traditionibus tota mentis intentione, tota cordis alacritate, me conjungo. Quicquid in illorum legitur libris, qui divino Spiritu afflati, toti orbi a Deo Christo dati sunt doctores, indubitanter teneo; hoc ad salutem animae meae sufficere credens, quod sacratissimae evangelicae veritatis pandit historia, quod apostolica in suis epistolis confirmat auctoritas, quod eximii Sacrae Scripturae tractatores et praecipui Christianae fidei doctores ad perpetuam posteris scriptum reliquerunt memoriam." II. CLASSIFICATION OF PATRISTIC WRITINGS In order to get a good view of the patristic period, the Fathers may be divided in various ways. One favourite method is by periods; the Ante-Nicene Fathers till 325; the Great Fathers of the fourth century and half the fifth (325-451); and the later Fathers. A more obvious division is into Easterns and Westerns, and the Easterns will comprise writers in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, and Coptic. A convenient division into smaller groups will be by periods, nationalities and character of writings; for in the East and West there were many races, and some of the ecclesiastical writers are apologists, some preachers, some historians, some commentators, and so forth. A. After (1) the Apostolic Fathers come in the second century (2) the Greek apologists, followed by (3) the Western apologists somewhat later, (4) the Gnostic and Marcionite heretics with their apocryphal Scriptures, and (5) the Catholic replies to them. B. The third century gives us (1) the Alexandrian writers of the catechetical school, (2) the writers of Asia Minor and (3) Palestine, and the first Western writers, (4) at Rome, Hippolytus (in Greek), and Novatian, (5) the great African writers, and a few others. C. The fourth century opens with (1) the apologetic and the historical works of Eusebius of Caesarea, with whom we may class St. Cyril of Jerusalem and St. Epiphanius, (2) the Alexandrian writers Athanasius, Didymus, and others, (3) the Cappadocians, (4) the Antiochenes, (5) the Syriac writers. In the West we have (6) the opponents of Arianism, (7) the Italians, including Jerome, (8) the Africans, and (9) the Spanish and Gallic writers. D. The fifth century gives us (1) the Nestorian controversy, (2) the Eutychian controversy, including the Western St. Leo; (3) the historians. In the West (4) the school of Lerins, (5) the letters of the popes. E. The sixth century and the seventh give us less important names and they must be grouped in a more mechanical way. A. (1) If we now take these groups in detail we find the letters of the chief Apostolic Fathers, St. Clement, St. Ignatius, and St. Polycarp, venerable not merely for their antiquity, but for a certain simplicity and nobility of thought and style which is very moving to the reader. Their quotations from the New Testament are quite free. They offer most important information to the historian, though in somewhat homoeopathic quantities. To these we add the Didache, probably the earliest of all; the curious allegorizing anti-Jewish epistle which goes under the name of Barnabas; the Shepherd of Hermas, a rather dull series of visions chiefly connected with penance and pardon, composed by the brother of Pope Pius I, and long appended to the New Testament as of almost canonical importance. The works of Papias, the disciple of St. John and Aristion, are lost, all but a few precious fragments. (2) The apologists are most of them philosophic in their treatment of Christianity. Some of their works were presented to emperors in order to disarm persecutions. We must not always accept the view given to outsiders by the apologists, as representing the whole of the Christianity they knew and practised. The apologies of Quadratus to Hadrian, of Aristo of Pella to the Jews, of Miltiades, of Apollinaris of Hierapolis, and of Melito of Sardis are lost to us. But we still possess several of greater importance. That of Aristides of Athens was presented to Antoninus Pius, and deals principally with the knowledge of the true God. The fine apology of St. Justin with its appendix is above all interesting for its description of the liturgy at Rome c. 150. his arguments against the Jews are found in the well-composed "Dialogue with Trypho", where he speaks of the Apostolic authorship of the Apocalypse in a manner which is of first-rate importance in the mouth of a man who was converted at Ephesus some time before the year 132. The "Apology" of Justin's Syrian disciple Tatian is a less conciliatory work, and its author fell into heresy. Athenagoras, an Athenian (c. 177), addressed to Marcus Aurelius and Commodus an eloquent refutation of the absurd calumnies against Christians. Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, about the same date, wrote three books of apology addressed to a certain Autolycus. (3) All these works are of considerable literary ability. This is not the case with the great Latin apology which closely follows them in date, the "Apologeticus" of Tertullian, which is in the uncouth and untranslatable language affected by its author. Nevertheless it is a work of extraordinary genius, in interest and value far above all the rest, and for energy and boldness it is incomparable. His fierce "Ad Scapulam" is a warning addressed to a persecuting proconsul. "Adversus Judaeos" is a title which explains itself. The other Latin apologists are later. The "Octavios" of Minucius Felix is as polished and gentle as Tertullian is rough. Its date is uncertain. If the "Apologeticus "was well calculated to infuse courage into the persecuted Christian, the "Octavius" was more likely to impress the inquiring pagan, if so be that more flies are caught with honey than with vinegar. With these works we may mention the much later Lactantius, the most perfect of all in literary form ("Divinae Institutiones", c. 305-10, and "De Mortibus persecutorum", c. 314). Greek apologies probably later than the second century are the "Irrisiones" of Hermias, and the very beautiful "Epistle" to Diognetus. (4) The heretical writings of the second century are mostly lost. The Gnostics had schools and philosophized; their writers were numerous. Some curious works have come down to us in Coptic. The letter of Ptolemeus to Flora in Epiphanius is almost the only Greek fragment of real importance. Marcion founded not a school but a Church, and his New Testament, consisting of St. Luke and St. Paul, is preserved to some extent in the works written against him by Tertullian and Epiphanius. Of the writings of Greek Montanists and of other early heretics, almost nothing remains. The Gnostics composed a quantity of apocryphal Gospels amid Acts of individual Apostles, large portions of which are preserved, mostly in fragments, in Latin revisions, or in Syriac, Coptic, Arabic, or Slavonic versions. To these are to be added such well-known forgeries as the letters of Paul to Seneca, and the Apocalypse of Peter, of which a fragment was recently found in the Fayum. (5) Replies to the attacks of heretics form, next to the apologetic against heathen persecutors on the one hand and Jews on the other, the characteristic Catholic literature of the second century. The "Syntagma" of St. Justin against all heresies is lost. Earlier yet, St. Papias (already mentioned) had directed his efforts to the refutation of the rising errors, and the same preoccupation is seen in St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp. Hegesippus, a converted Jew of Palestine, journeyed to Corinth and Rome, where he stayed from the episcopate of Anicetus till that of Eleutherius (c. 160-180), with the intention of refuting the novelties of the Gnostics and Marcionites by an appeal to tradition. His work is lost. But the great work of St. Irenaeus (c. 180) against heresies is founded on Papias, Hegesippus, and Justin, and gives from careful investigation an account of many Gnostic systems, together with their refutation. His appeal is less to Scripture than to the tradition which the whole Catholic Church has received and handed down from the Apostles, through the ministry of successive bishops, and particularly to the tradition of the Roman Church founded by Peter and Paul. By the side of Irenaeus must be put the Latin Tertullian, whose book "Of the Prescriptions Against Heretics" is not only a masterpiece of argument, but is almost as effective against modern heresies as against those of the early Church. It is a witness of extraordinary importance to the principles of unvarying tradition which the Catholic Church has always professed, and to the primitive belief that Holy Scripture must be interpreted by the Church and not by private industry. He uses Irenaeus in this work, and his polemical books against the Valentinians and the Marcionites borrow freely from that saint. He is the less persuasive of the two, because he is too abrupt, too clever, too anxious for the slightest controversial advantage, without thought of the easy replies that might be made. He sometimes prefers wit or hard hitting to solid argument. At this period controversies were beginning within the Church, the most important being the question whether Easter could be celebrated on a weekday. Another burning question at Rome, at the turn of the century, was the doubt whether the prophesying of the Montanists could be approved, and yet another, in the first years of the third century, was the controversy with a group of opponents of Montanism (so it seems), who denied the authenticity of the writings of St. John, an error then quite new. B. (1) The Church of Alexandria already in the second century showed the note of learning, together with a habit borrowed from the Alexandrian Jews, especially Philo, of an allegorizing interpretation of Scripture. The latter characteristic is already found in the "Epistle of Barnabas", which may be of Alexandrian origin. Pantamus was the first to make the Catechetical school of the city famous. No writings of his are extant, but his pupil Clement, who taught in the school with Pantamus, c. 180, and as its head, c. 180-202 (died c. 214), has left a considerable amount of rather lengthy disquisitions dealing with mythology, mystical theology, education, social observances, and all other things in heaven and on earth. He was followed by the great Origen, whose fame spread far and wide even among the heathen. The remains of his works, though they fill several volumes, are to a great extent only in free Latin translations, and bear but a small ratio to the vast amount that has perished. The Alexandrians held as firmly as any Catholics to tradition as the rule of faith, at least in theory, but beyond tradition they allowed themselves to speculate, so that the "Hypotyposes" of Clement have been almost entirely lost on account of the errors which found a place in them, and Origen's works fell under the ban of the Church, though their author lived the life of a saint, and died, shortly after the Decian persecution, of the sufferings he had undergone in it. The disciples of Origen were many and eminent. The library founded by one of them, St. Alexander of Jerusalem, was precious later on to Eusebius. The most celebrated of the school were St. Dionysius "the Great" of Alexandria and St. Gregory of Neocaesarea in Pontus, known as the Wonder-Worker, who, like St. Nonnosus in the West, was said to have moved a mountain for short distance by his prayers. Of the writings of these two saints not very much is extant. (2) Montanism and the paschal question brought Asia Minor down from the leading position it held in the second century into a very inferior rank in the third. Besides St. Gregory, St. Methodius at the end of that century was a polished writer and an opponent of Origenism -- his name is consequently passed over without mention by the Origenist historian Eusebius. We have his "Banquet" in Greek, and some smaller works in Old Slavonic. (3) Antioch was the head see over the "Orient" including Syria and Mesopotamia as well as Palestine and Phoenicia, but at no time did this form a compact patriarchate like that of Alexandria. We must group here writers who have no connection with one another in matter or style. Julius Africanus lived at Emmaus and composed a chronography, out of which the episcopal lists of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, and a great deal of other matter, have been preserved for us in St. Jerome's version of the Chronicle of Eusebius, and in Byzantine chronographers. Two letters of his are of interest, but the fragments of his "Kestoi" or "Girdles" are of no ecclesiastical value; they contain much curious matter and much that is objectionable. In the second half of the third century, perhaps towards the end of it, a great school was established at Antioch by Lucian, who was martyred at Nicomedia in 312. He is said to have been excommunicated under three bishops, but if this is true he had been long restored at the time of his martyrdom. It is quite uncertain whether he shared the errors of Paul of Samosata (Bishop of Antioch, deposed for heresy in 268-9). At all events he was -- however unintentionally -- the father of Arianism, and his pupils were the leaders of that heresy: Eusebius of Nicomedia, Arius himself, with Menophantus of Ephesus, Athanasius of Anazarbus, and the only two bishops who refused to sign the new creed at the Council of Nicaea, Theognis of Nicaea and Maris of Chalcedon, besides the scandalous bishop Leontius of Antioch and the Sophist Asterius. At Caesarea, an Origenist centre, flourished under another martyr, St. Pamphilus, who with his friend Eusebius, a certain Ammonius, and others, collected the works of Origen in a long-famous library, corrected Origen's "Hexapla", and did much editing of the text both of the Old and the New Testaments. (4) We hear of no writings at Rome except in Greek, until the mention of some small works in Latin, by Pope St. Victor, which still existed in Jerome's day. Hippolytus, a Roman priest, wrote from c. 200 to 235, and always in Greek, though at Carthage Tertullian had been writing before this in Latin. If Hippolytus is the author of the "Philosophumena" he was an antipope, and full of unreasoning enmity to his rival St. Callistus; his theology makes the Word proceed from God by His Will, distinct from Him in substance, and becoming Son by becoming man. There is nothing Roman in the theology of this work; it rather connects itself with the Greek apologists. A great part of a large commentary on Daniel and a work against Noetus are the only other important remains of this writer, who was soon forgotten in the West, though fragments of his works turn up in all the Eastern languages. Parts of his chronography, perhaps his last work, have survived. Another Roman antipope, Novatian, wrote in ponderous and studied prose with metrical endings. Some of his works have come down to us under the name of St. Cyprian. Like Hippolytus, he made his rigorist views the pretext for his schism. Unlike Hippolytus, he is quite orthodox in his principal work, "De Trinitate". (5) The apologetic works of Tertullian have been mentioned. The earlier were written by him when a priest of the Church of Carthage, but about the year 200 he was led to believe in the Montanist prophets of Phrygia, and he headed a Montanist schism at Carthage. Many of his treatises are written to defend his position and his rigorist doctrines, and he does so with considerable violence and with the clever and hasty argumentation which is natural to him. The placid flow of St. Cyprian's eloquence (Bishop of Carthage, 249-58) is a great contrast to that of his "master". The short treatises and large correspondence of this saint are all concerned with local questions and needs, and he eschews all speculative theology. From this we gain the more light on the state of the Church, on its government, and on a number of interesting ecclesiastical and social matters. In all the patristic period there is nothing, with the exception of Eusebius's history, which tells us so much about the early Church as the small volume which contains St. Cyprian's works. At the end of the century Arnobius, like Cyprian a convert in middle age, and like other Africans, Tertullian, Cyprian, Lactantius, and Augustine, a former rhetorician, composed a dull apology. Lactantius carries us into the fourth century. He was an elegant and eloquent writer, but like Arnobius was not a well-instructed Christian. C. (1) The fourth century is the great age of the Fathers. It was twelve years old when Constantine published his edict of toleration, and a new era for the Christian religion began. It is ushered in by Eusebius of Caesarea, with his great apologetic works "Praeparatio Evangelica"'and "Demonstratio Evangelica", which show the transcendent merit of Christianity, and his still greater historical works, the "Chronicle" (the Greek original is lost) and the "History", which has gathered up the fragments of the age of persecutions, and has preserved to us more than half of all we know about the heroic ages of the Faith. In theology Eusebius was a follower of Origen, but he rejected the eternity of Creation and of the Logos, so that he was able to regard the Arians with considerable cordiality. The original form of the pseudo-Clementine romance, with its long and tiresome dialogues, seems to be a work of the very beginning of the century against the new developments of heathenism, and it was written either on the Phoenician coast or not far inland in the Syrian neighbourhood. Replies to the greatest of the pagan attacks, that of Porphyry, become more frequent after the pagan revival under Julian (361-3), and they occupied the labours of many celebrated writers. St. Cyril of Jerusalem has left us a complete series of instructions to catechumens and the baptized, thus supplying us with an exact knowledge of the religious teaching imparted to the people in an important Church of the East in the middle of the fourth century. A Palestinian of the second half of the century, St. Epiphanius, became Bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, and wrote a learned history of all the heresies. He is unfortunately inaccurate, and has further made great difficulties for us by not naming his authorities. He was a friend of St. Jerome, and an uncompromising opponent of Origenism. (2) The Alexandrian priest Arius was not a product of the catechetical school of that city, but of the Lucianic school of Antioch. The Alexandrian tendency was quite opposite to the Antiochene, and the Alexandrian bishop, Alexander, condemned Arius in letters still extant, in which we gather the tradition of the Alexandrian Church. There is no trace in them of Origenism, the head-quarters of which had long been at Caesarea in Palestine, in the succession Theoctistus, Pamphilus, Eusebius. The tradition of Alexandria was rather that which Dionysius the Great had received from Pope Dionysius. Three years after the Nicene Council (325), St. Athanasius began his long episcopate of forty-five years. His writings are not very voluminous, being either controversial theology or apologetic memoirs of his own troubles, but their theological and historical value is enormous, on account of the leading part taken by this truly great man in the fifty years of fight with Arianism. The head of the catechetical school during this half-century was Didymus the Blind, an Athanasian in his doctrine of the Son, and rather clearer even than his patriarch in his doctrine of the Trinity, but in many other points carrying on the Origenistic tradition. Here may be also mentioned by the way a rather later writer, Synesius of Cyrene, a man of philosophical and literary habits, who showed energy and sincere piety as a bishop, in spite of the rather pagan character of his culture. His letters are of great interest. (3) The second half of the century is illustrated by an illustrious triad in Cappadocia, St. Basil, his friend St. Gregory Nazianzen, and his brother St. Gregory of Nyssa. They were the main workers in the return of the East to orthodoxy. Their doctrine of the Trinity is an advance even upon that of Didymus, and is very near indeed to the Roman doctrine which was later embodied in the Athanasian creed. But it had taken a long while for the East to assimilate the entire meaning of the orthodox view. St. Basil showed great patience with those who had advanced less far on the right road than himself, and he even tempered his language so as to conciliate them. For fame of sanctity scarcely any of the Fathers, save St. Gregory the Wonder-Worker, or St. Augustine, has ever equalled him. He practised extraordinary asceticism, and his family were all saints. He composed a rule for monks which has remained practically the only one in the East. St. Gregory had far less character, but equal abilities and learning, with greater eloquence. The love of Origen which persuaded the friends in their youth to publish a book of extracts from his writings had little influence on their later theology; that of St. Gregory in particular is renowned for its accuracy or even inerrancy. St. Gregory of Nyssa is, on the other hand, full of Origenism. The classical culture and literary form of the Cappadocians, united to sanctity and orthodoxy, makes them a unique group in the history of the Church. (4) The Antiochene school of the fourth century seemed given over to Arianism, until the time when the great Alexandrians, Athanasius and Didymus, were dying, when it was just reviving not merely into orthodoxy, but into an efflorescence by which the recent glory of Alexandria and even of Cappadocia was to be surpassed. Diodorus, a monk at Antioch and then Bishop of Tarsus, was a noble supporter of Nicene doctrine and a great writer, though the larger part of his works has perished. His friend Theodore of Mopsuestia was a learned and judicious commentator in the literal Antiochene style, but unfortunately his opposition to the heresy of Apollinarius of Laodicea carried him into the opposite extreme of Nestorianism -- indeed the pupil Nestorius scarcely went so far as the master Theodore. But then Nestorius resisted the judgment of the Church, whereas Theodore died in Catholic communion, and was the friend of saints, including that crowning glory of the Antiochene school, St. John Chrysostom, whose greatest sermons were preached at Antioch, before he became Bishop of Constantinople. Chrysostom is of course the chief of the Greek Fathers, the first of all commentators, and the first of all orators whether in East or West. He was for a time a hermit, and remained ascetic in his life; he was also a fervent social reformer. His grandeur of character makes him worthy of a place beside St. Basil and St. Athanasius. As Basil and Gregory were formed to oratory by the Christian Prohaeresius, so was Chrysostom by the heathen orator Libanius. In the classical Gregory we may sometimes find the rhetorician; in Chrysostom never; his amazing natural talent prevents his needing the assistance of art, and though training had preceded, it has been lost in the flow of energetic thought and the torrent of words. He is not afraid of repeating himself and of neglecting the rules, for he never wishes to be admired, but only to instruct or to persuade. But even so great a man has his limitations. He has no speculative interest in philosophy or theology, though he is learned enough to be absolutely orthodox. He is a holy man and a practical man, so that his thoughts are full of piety and beauty and wisdom; but he is not a thinker. None of the Fathers has been more imitated or more read; but there is little in his writings which can be said to have moulded his own or future times, and he cannot come for an instant into competition with Origen or Augustine for the first place among ecclesiastical writers. (5) Syria in the fourth century produced one great writer, St. Ephraem, deacon of Edessa (306-73). Most of his writings are poetry; his commentaries are in prose, but the remains of these are scantier. His homilies and hymns are all in metre, and are of very great beauty. Such tender and loving piety is hardly found elsewhere in the Fathers. The twenty-three homilies of Aphraates (326-7), a Mesopotamian bishop, are of great interest. (6) St. Hilary of Poitiers is the most famous of the earlier opponents of Arianism in the West. He wrote commentaries and polemical works, including the great treatise "De Trinitate" and a lost historical work. His style is affectedly involved and obscure, but he is nevertheless a theologian of considerable merit. The very name of his treatise on the Trinity shows that he approached the dogma from the Western point of view of a Trinity in Unity, but he has largely employed the works of Origen, Athanasius, and other Easterns. His exegesis is of the allegorical type. Until his day, the only great Latin Father was St. Cyprian, and Hilary had no rival in his own generation. Lucifer, Bishop of Calaris in Sardinia, was a very rude controversialist, who wrote in a popular and almost uneducated manner. The Spaniard Gregory of Illiberis, in Southern Spain, is only now beginning to receive his due, since Dom A. Wilmart restored to him in 1908 the important so-called "Tractatus Origenis de libris SS. Scripturae", which he and Batiffol had published in 1900, as genuine works of Origen translated by Victorinus of Pettau. The commentaries and anti-Arian works of the converted rhetorician, Marius Victorinus, were not successful. St. Eusebius of Vercellae has left us only a few letters. The date of the short discourses of Zeno of Verona is uncertain. The fine letter of Pope Julius I to the Arians and a few letters of Liberius and Damasus are of great interest. The greatest of the opponents of Arianism in the West is St. Ambrose (d. 397). His sanctity and his great actions make him one of the most imposing figures in the patristic period. Unfortunately the style of his writings is often unpleasant, being affected and intricate, without being correct or artistic. His exegesis is not merely of the most extreme allegorical kind, but so fanciful as to be sometimes positively absurd. And yet, when off his guard, he speaks with genuine and touching eloquence; he produces apophthegms of admirable brevity, and without being a deep theologian, he shows a wonderful profundity of thought on ascetical, moral, and devotional matters. Just as his character demands our enthusiastic admiration, so his writings gain our affectionate respect, in spite of their very irritating defects. It is easy to see that he is very well read in the classics and in Christian writers of East and West, but his best thoughts are all his own. (7) At Rome an original, odd, and learned writer composed a commentary on St. Paul's Epistles and a series of questions on the Old and New Testaments. He is usually spoken of as Ambrosiaster, and may perhaps be a converted Jew named Isaac, who later apostatized. St. Damasus wrote verses which are poor poetry but interesting where they give us information about the martyrs and the catacombs. His secretary for a time was St. Jerome, a Pannonian by birth, a Roman by baptism. This learned Father, "Doctor maximus in Sacris Scripturis", is very well known to us, for almost all that he wrote is a revelation of himself. He tells the reader of his inclinations and his antipathies, his enthusiasms and his irritations, his friendships and his enmities. If he is often out of temper, he is most human, most affectionate, most ascetic, most devoted to orthodoxy, and in many ways a very lovable character; for if he is quick to take offence, he is easily appeased, he is laborious beyond ordinary endurance, and it is against heresy that his anger is usually kindled. He lived all the latter part of his life in a retreat at Bethlehem, surrounded by loving disciples, whose untiring devotion shows that the saint was by no means such a rough diamond, one might say such an ogre, as he is often represented. He had no taste for philosophy, and seldom gave himself time to think, but he read and wrote ceaselessly. His many commentaries are brief and to the point, full of information, and the product of wide reading. His greatest work was the translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew into Latin. He carried on the textual labours of Origen, Pamphilus, and Eusebius, and his revision of the Latin Gospels shows the use of admirably pure Greek MSS., though he seems to have expended less pains on the rest of the New Testament. He attacked heretics with much of the cleverness, all the vivacity, and much more than the eloquence and effectiveness of Tertullian. He used the like weapons against any who attacked him, and especially against his friend Rufinus during their passing period of hostility. If he is only "perhaps" the most learned of the Fathers, he is beyond doubt the greatest of prose writers among them all. We cannot compare his energy and wit with the originality and polish of Cicero, or with the delicate perfection of Plato, but neither can they or any other writer be compared with Jerome in his own sphere. He does not attempt flights of imagination, musical intonation, word-painting; he has no flow of honeyed language like Cyprian, no torrent of phrases like Chrysostom; he is a writer, not an orator, and a learned and classical writer. But such letters as his, for astonishing force and liveliness, for point, and wit, and terse expression, were never written before or since. There is no sense of effort, and though we feel that the language must have been studied, we are rarely tempted to call it studied language, for Jerome knows the strange secret of polishing his steel weapons while they are still at a white heat, and of hurling them before they cool. He was a dangerous adversary, and had few scruples in taking every possible advantage. He has the unfortunate defect of his extraordinary swiftness, that he is extremely inaccurate, and his historical statements need careful control. His biographies of the hermits, his words about monastic life, virginity, Roman faith, our Blessed Lady, relics of saints, have exercised great influence. It has only been known of late years that Jerome was a preacher; the little extempore discourses published by Dom Mona are full of his irrepressible personality and his careless learning. (8) Africa was a stranger to the Arian struggle, being occupied with a battle of its own. Donatism (311-411) was for a long time paramount in Numidia, and sometimes in other parts. The writings of the Donatists have mostly perished. About 370 St. Optatus published an effective controversial work against them. The attack was carried on by a yet greater controversialist, St. Augustine, with a marvellous success, so that the inveterate schism was practically at an end twenty years before that saint's death. So happy an event turned the eyes of all Christendom to the brilliant protagonist of the African Catholics, who had already dealt crushing blows at the Latin Manichaean writers. From 417 till his death in 431, he was engaged in an even greater conflict with the philosophical and naturalistic heresy of Pelagius and Caelestius. In this he was at first assisted by the aged Jerome; the popes condemned the innovators and the emperor legislated against them. If St. Augustine has the unique fame of having prostrated three heresies, it is because he was as anxious to persuade as to refute. He was perhaps the greatest controversialist the world has ever seen. Besides this he was not merely the greatest philosopher among the Fathers, but he was the only great philosopher. His purely theological works, especially his "De Trinitate", are unsurpassed for depth, grasp, and clearness, among early ecclesiastical writers, whether Eastern or Western. As a philosophical theologian he has no superior, except his own son and disciple, St. Thomas Aquinas. It is probably correct to say that no one, except Aristotle, has exercised so vast, so profound, and so beneficial an influence on European thought. Augustine was himself a Platonist through and through. As a commentator he cared little for the letter, and everything for the spirit, but his harmony of the Gospels shows that he could attend to history and detail. The allegorizing tendencies he inherited from his spiritual father, Ambrose, carry him now and then into extravagances, but more often he rather soars than commentates, and his "In Genesim ad litteram", and his treatises on the Psalms and on St. John, are works of extraordinary power and interest, and quite worthy, in a totally different style, to rank with Chrysostom on Matthew. St. Augustine was a professor of rhetoric before his wonderful conversion; but like St. Cyprian, and even more than St. Cyprian, he put aside, as a Christian, all the artifices of oratory which he knew so well. He retained correctness of grammar and perfect good taste, together with the power of speaking and writing with ease in a style of masterly simplicity and of dignified though almost colloquial plainness. Nothing could be more individual than this style of St. Augustine's, in which he talks to the reader or to God with perfect openness and with an astonishing, often almost exasperating, subtlety of thought. He had the power of seeing all round a subject and through and through it, and he was too conscientious not to use this gift to the uttermost. Large-minded and far-seeing, he was also very learned. He mastered Greek only in later life, in order to make himself familiar with the works of the Eastern Fathers. His "De Civitate Dei" shows vast stores of reading; still more, it puts him in the first place among apologists. Before his death (431) he was the object of extraordinary veneration. He had founded a monastery at Tagaste, which supplied Africa with bishops, and he lived at Hippo with his clergy in a common life, to which the Regular Canons of later days have always looked as their model. The great Dominican Order, the Augustinians, and numberless congregations of nuns still look to him as their father and legislator. His devotional works have had a vogue second only to that of another of his spiritual sons, Thomas `a Kempis. He had in his lifetime a reputation for miracles, and his sanctity is felt in all his writings, and breathes in the story of his life. It has been remarked that there is about this many-sided bishop a certain symmetry which makes him an almost faultless model of a holy, wise, and active man. It is well to remember that he was essentially a penitent. (9) In Spain, the great poet Prudentius surpassed all his predecessors, of whom the best had been Juvencus and the almost pagan rhetorician Ausonius. The curious treatises of the Spanish heretic Priscillian were discovered only in 1889. In Gaul Rufinus of Aquileia must be mentioned as the very free translator of Origen, etc., and of Eusebius's "History", which he continued up to his own date. In South Italy his friend Paulinus of Nola has left us pious poems and elaborate letters. D. (1) The fragments of Nestorius's writings have been collected by Loofs. Some of them were preserved by a disciple of St. Augustine, Marius Mercator, who made two collections of documents, concerning Nestorianism and Pelagianism respectively. The great adversary of Nestorius, St. Cyril of Alexandria, was opposed by a yet greater writer, Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus. Cyril is a very voluminous writer, and his long commentaries in the mystical Alexandrian vein do not much interest modern readers. But his principal letters and treatises on the Nestorian question show him as a theologian who has a deep spiritual insight into the meaning of the Incarnation and its effect upon the human race -- the lifting up of man to union with God. We see here the influence of Egyptian asceticism, from Anthony the Great (whose life St. Athanasius wrote), and the Macarii (one of whom left some valuable works in Greek), and Pachomius, to his own time. In their ascetical systems, the union with God by contemplation was naturally the end in view, but one is surprised how little is made by them of meditation on the life and Passion of Christ. It is not omitted, but the tendency as with St. Cyril and with the Monophysites who believed they followed him, is to think rather of the Godhead than of the Manhood. The Antiochene school had exaggerated the contrary tendency, out of opposition to Apollinarianism, which made Christ's Manhood incomplete, and they thought more of man united to God than of God made man. Theodoret undoubtedly avoided the excesses of Theodore and Nestorius, and his doctrine was accepted at last by St. Leo as orthodox, in spite of his earlier persistent defence of Nestorius. His history of the monks is less valuable than the earlier writings of eyewitnesses -- Palladius in the East, and Rufinus and afterwards Cassian in the West. But Theodoret's "History" in continuation of Eusebius contains valuable information. His apologetic and controversial writings are the works of a good theologian. His masterpieces are his exegetical works, which are neither oratory like those of Chrysostom, nor exaggeratedly literal like those of Theodore. With him the great Antiochene school worthily closes, as the Alexandrian does with St Cyril. Together with these great men may be mentioned St. Cyril's spiritual adviser, St. Isidore of Pelusium, whose 2000 letters deal chiefly with allegorical exegesis, the commentary on St. Mark by Victor of Antioch, and the introduction to the interpretation of Scripture by the monk Hadrian, a manual of the Antiochene method. (2) The Eutychian controversy produced no great works in the East. Such works of the Monophysites as have survived are in Syriac or Coptic versions. (3) The two Constantinopolitan historians, Socrates and Sozomen, in spite of errors, contain some data which are precious, since many of the sources which they used are lost to us. With Theodoret, their contemporary, they form a triad just in the middle of the century. St. Nilus of Sinai is the chief among many ascetical writers. (4) St. Sulpicius Severus, a Gallic noble, disciple and biographer of the great St. Martin of Tours, was a classical scholar, and showed himself an elegant writer in his "Ecclesiastical History". The school of Lerins produced many writers besides St. Vincent. We may mention Eucherius, Faustus, and the great St. Caesarius of Arles (543). Other Gallic writers are Salvian, St. Sidonius Apollinaris, Gennadius, St. Avitus of Vienne, and Julianus Pomerius. (5) In the West, the series of papal decretals begins with Pope Siricius (384-98). Of the more important popes large numbers of letters have been preserved. Those of the wise St. Innocent I (401-17), the hot-headed St. Zosimus (417-8), and the severe St. Celestine are perhaps the most important in the first half of the century; in the second half those of Hilarus, Simplicius, and above all the learned St. Gelasius (492-6). Midway in the century stands St. Leo, the greatest of the early popes, whose steadfastness and sanctity saved Rome from Attila, and the Romans from Genseric. He could be unbending in the enunciation of principle; he was condescending in the condoning of breaches of discipline for the sake of peace, and he was a skilful diplomatist. His sermons and the dogmatic letters in his large correspondence show him to us as the most lucid of all theologians. He is clear in his expression, not because he is superficial, but because he has thought clearly and deeply. He steers between Nestorianism and Eutychianism, not by using subtle distinctions or elaborate arguments, but by stating plain definitions in accurate words. He condemned Monothelitism by anticipation. His style is careful, with metrical cadences. Its majestic rhythms and its sonorous closes have invested the Latin language with a new splendour and dignity. E. (1) In the sixth century the large correspondence of Pope Hormisdas is of the highest interest. That century closes with St. Gregory the Great, whose celebrated "Registrum" exceeds in volume many times over the collections of the letters of other early popes. The Epistles are of great variety and throw light on the varied interests of the great pope's life and the varied events in the East and West of his time. His "Morals on the Book of Job" is not a literal commentary, but pretends only to illustrate the moral sense underlying the text. With all the strangeness it presents to modern notions, it is a work full of wisdom and instruction. The remarks of St. Gregory on the spiritual life and on contemplation are of special interest. As a theologian he is original only in that he combines all the traditional theology of the West without adding to it. He commonly follows Augustine as a theologian, a commentator and a preacher. His sermons are admirably practical; they are models of what a good sermon should be. After St. Gregory there are some great popes whose letters are worthy of study, such as Nicholas I and John VIII; but these and the many other late writers of the West belong properly to the medieval period. St. Gregory of Tours is certainly medieval, but the learned Bede is quite patristic. His great history is the most faithful and perfect history to be found in the early centuries. (2) In the East, the latter half of the fifth century is very barren. The sixth century is not much better. The importance of Leontius of Byzantium (died c. 543) for the history of dogma has only lately been realized. Poets and hagiographers, chroniclers, canonists, and ascetical writers succeed each other. Catenas by way of commentaries are the order of the day. St. Maximus Confessor, Anastasius of Mount Sinai, and Andrew of Caesarea must be named. The first of these commented on the works of the pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, which had probably first seen the light towards the end of the fifth century. St. John of Damascus (c. 750) closes the patristic period with his polemics against heresies, his exegetical and ascetical writings, his beautiful hymns, and above all his "Fountain of Wisdom", which is a compendium of patristic theology and a kind of anticipation of scholasticism. Indeed, the "Summae Theologicae" of the Middle Ages were founded on the "Sentences" of Peter Lombard, who had taken the skeleton of his work from this last of the Greek Fathers. III. CHARACTERISTICS OF PATRISTIC WRITINGS A. Commentaries. It has been seen that the literal school of exegesis had its home at Antioch, while the allegorical school was Alexandrian, and the entire West, on the whole, followed the allegorical method, mingling literalism with it in various degrees. The suspicion of Arianism has lost to us the fourth-century writers of the Antiochene school, such as Theodore of Heraclea and Eusebius of Emesa, and the charge of Nestorianism has caused the commentaries of Diodorus and Theodore of Mopsuestia (for the most part) to disappear. The Alexandrian school has lost yet more heavily, for little of the great Origen remains except in fragments and in unreliable versions. The great Antiochenes, Chrysostom and Theodoret, have a real grasp of the sense of the sacred text. They treat it with reverence and love, and their explanations are of deep value, because the language of the New Testament was their own tongue, so that we moderns cannot afford to neglect their comments. On the contrary, Origen, the moulder of the allegorizing type of commentary, who had inherited the Philonic tradition of the Alexandrian Jews, was essentially irreverent to the inspired authors. The Old Testament was to him full of errors, lies, and blasphemies, so far as the letter was concerned, and his defence of it against the pagans, the Gnostics, and especially the Marcionites, was to point only to the spiritual meaning. Theoretically he distinguished a triple sense, the somatic, the psychic, and the pneumatic, following St. Paul's trichotomy; but in practice he mainly gives the spiritual, as opposed to the corporal or literal. St. Augustine sometimes defends the Old Testament against the Manichaeans in the same style, and occasionally in a most unconvincing manner, but with great moderation and restraint. In his "De Genesi ad litteram" he has evolved a far more effective method, with his usual brilliant originality, and he shows that the objections brought against the truth of the first chapters of the book invariably rest upon the baseless assumption that the objector has found the true meaning of the text. But Origen applied his method, though partially, even to the New Testament, and regarded the Evangelists as sometimes false in the letter, but as saving the truth in the hidden spiritual meaning. In this point the good feeling of Christians prevented his being followed. But the brilliant example he gave, of running riot in the fantastic exegesis which his method encouraged, had an unfortunate influence. He is fond of giving a variety of applications to a single text, and his promise to hold nothing but what can be proved from Scripture becomes illusory when he shows by example that any part of Scripture may mean anything he pleases. The reverent temper of later writers, and especially of the Westerns, preferred to represent as the true meaning of the sacred writer the allegory which appeared to them to be the most obvious. St. Ambrose and St. Augustine in their beautiful works on the Psalms rather spiritualize, or moralize, than allegorize, and their imaginative interpretations are chiefly of events, actions, numbers, etc. But almost all allegorical interpretation is so arbitrary and depends so much on the caprice of the exegete that it is difficult to conciliate it with reverence, however one may he dazzled by the beauty of much of it. An alternative way of defending the Old Testament was excogitated by the ingenious author of the pseudo-Clementines; he asserts that it has been depraved and interpolated. St. Jerome's learning has made his exegesis unique; he frequently gives alternative explanations and refers to the authors who have adopted them. From the middle of the fifth century onwards, second-hand commentaries are universal in East and West, and originality almost entirely disappears. Andrew of Caesarea is perhaps an exception, for he commented on a book which was scarcely at all read in the East, the Apocalypse. Discussions of method are not wanting. Clement of Alexandria gives "traditional methods", the literal, typical, moral, and prophetical. The tradition is obviously from Rabbinism. We must admit that it has in its favour the practice of St. Matthew and St. Paul. Even more than Origen, St. Augustine theorized on this subject. In his "De Doctrina Christiana" he gives elaborate rules of exegesis. Elsewhere he distinguishes four senses of Scripture: historical, aetiological (economic), analogical (where N.T. explains 0.T.), and allegorical ("De Util. Cred.", 3; cf. "De Vera Rel.", 50). The book of rules composed by the Donatist Tichonius has an analogy in the smaller "canons" of St. Paul's Epistles by Priscillian. Hadrian of Antioch was mentioned above. St. Gregory the Great compares Scripture to a river so shallow that a lamb can walk in it, so deep that an elephant can float. (Pref. to "Morals on Job"). He distinguishes the historical or literal sense, the moral, and the allegorical or typical. If the Western Fathers are fanciful, yet this is better than the extreme literalism of Theodore of Mopsuestia, who refused to allegorize even the Canticle of Canticles. B. Preachers. We have sermons from the Greek Church much earlier than from the Latin. Indeed, Sozomen tells us that, up to his time (c. 450), there were no public sermons in the churches at Rome. This seems almost incredible. St. Leo's sermons are, however, the first sermons certainly preached at Rome which have reached us, for those of Hippolytus were all in Greek; unless the homily "Adversus Alcatores" be a sermon by a Novatian antipope. The series of Latin preachers begins in the middle of the fourth century. The so-called "Second Epistle of St. Clement" is a homily belonging possibly to the second century. Many of the commentaries of Origen are a series of sermons, as is the case later with all Chrysostom's commentaries and most of Augustine's. In many cases treatises are composed of a course of sermons, as, for instance, is the case for some of those of Ambrose, who seems to have rewritten his sermons after delivery. The "De Sacramentis" may possibly be the version by a shorthand-writer of the course which the saint himself edited under the title "De Mysteriis". In any case the "De Sacramentis" (whether by Ambrose or not) has a freshness and naivete which is wanting in the certainly authentic "De Mysteriis". Similarly the great courses of sermons preached by St. Chrysostom at Antioch were evidently written or corrected by his own hand, but those he delivered at Constantinople were either hurriedly corrected, or not at all. His sermons on Acts, which have come down to us in two quite distinct texts in the MSS., are probably known to us only in the forms in which they were taken down by two different tachygraphers. St. Gregory Nazianzen complains of the importunity of these shorthand-writers (Orat. xxxii), as St. Jerome does of their incapacity (Ep. lxxi, 5). Their art was evidently highly perfected, and specimens of it have come down to us. They were officially employed at councils (e.g. at the great conference with the Donatists at Carthage, in 411, we hear of them). It appears that many or most of the bishops at the Council of Ephesus, in 449, had their own shorthand-writers with them. The method of taking notes and of amplifying receives illustration from the Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 27 April, 449, at which the minutes were examined which had been taken down by tachygraphers at the council held a few weeks earlier. Many of St. Augustine's sermons are certainly from shorthand notes. As to others we are uncertain, for the style of the written ones is often so colloquial that it is difficult to get a criterion. The sermons of St. Jerome at Bethlehem, published by Dom Morin, are from shorthand reports, and the discourses themselves were unprepared conferences on those portions of the Psalms or of the Gospels which had been sung in the liturgy. The speaker has clearly often been preceded by another priest, and on the Western Christmas Day, which his community alone is keeping, the bishop is present and will speak last. In fact the pilgrim AEtheria tells us that at Jerusalem, in the fourth century, all the priests present spoke in turn, if they chose, and the bishop last of all. Such improvised comments are far indeed from the oratorical discourses of St. Gregory Nazianzen, from the lofty flights of Chrysostom, from the torrent of iteration that characterizes the short sermons of Peter Chrysologus, from the neat phrases of Maximus of Turin, and the ponderous rhythms of Leo the Great. The eloquence of these Fathers need not be here described. In the West we may add in the fourth century Gaudentius of Brescia; several small collections of interesting sermons appear in the fifth century; the sixth opens with the numerous collections made by St. Caesarius for the use of preachers. There is practically no edition of the works of this eminent and practical bishop. St. Gregory (apart from some fanciful exegesis) is the most practical preacher of the West. Nothing could be more admirable for imitation than St. Chrysostom. The more ornate writers are less safe to copy. St. Augustine's style is too personal to be an example, and few are so learned, so great, and so ready, that they can venture to speak as simply as he often does. C. Writers. The Fathers do not belong to the strictly classical period of either the Greek or the Latin language; but this does not imply that they wrote bad Latin or Greek. The conversational form of the Koine or common dialect of Greek, which is found in the New Testament and in many papyri, is not the language of the Fathers, except of the very earliest. For the Greek Fathers write in a more classicizing style than most of the New Testament writers; none of them uses quite a vulgar or ungrammatical Greek, while some Atticize, e.g. the Cappadocians and Synesius. The Latin Fathers are often less classical. Tertullian is a Latin Carlyle; he knew Greek, and wrote books in that language, and tried to introduce ecclesiastical terms into Latin. St. Cyprian's "Ad Donatum", probably his first Christian writing, shows an Apuleian preciosity which he eschewed in all his other works, but which his biographer Pontius has imitated and exaggerated. Men like Jerome and Augustine, who had a thorough knowledge of classical literature, would not employ tricks of style, and cultivated a manner which should be correct, but simple and straightforward; yet their style could not have been what it was but for their previous study. For the spoken Latin of all the patristic centuries was very different from the written. We get examples of the vulgar tongue here and there in the letters of Pope Cornelius as edited by Mercati, for the third century, or in the Rule of St. Benedict in Woelfflin's or Dom Mona's editions, for the sixth. In the latter we get such modernisms as cor murmurantem, post quibus, cum responsoria sua, which show how the confusing genders and cases of the classics were disappearing into the more reasonable simplicity of Italian. Some of the Fathers use the rhythmical endings of the "cursus" in their prose; some have the later accented endings which were corruptions of the correct prosodical ones. Familiar examples of the former are in the older Collects of the Mass; of the latter the Te Deum is an obvious instance. D. East and West. Before speaking of the theological characteristics of the Fathers, we have to take into account the great division of the Roman Empire into two languages. Language is the great separator. When two emperors divided the Empire, it was not quite according to language; nor were the ecclesiastical divisions more exact, since the great province of Illyricum, including Macedonia and all Greece, was attached to the West through at least a large part of the patristic period, and was governed by the archbishop of Thessalonica, not as its exarch or patriarch, but as papal legate. But in considering the literary productions of the age, we must class them as Latin or Greek, and this is what will be meant here by Western and Eastern. The understanding of the relations between Greeks and Latins is often obscured by certain prepossessions. We talk of the "unchanging East", of the philosophical Greeks as opposed to the practical Romans, of the reposeful thought of the Oriental mind over against the rapidity and orderly classification which characterizes Western intelligence. All this is very misleading, and it is important to go back to the facts. In the first place, the East was converted far more rapidly than the West. When Constantine made Christianity the established religion of both empires from 323 onwards, there was a striking contrast between the two. In the West paganism had everywhere a very large majority, except possibly in Africa. But in the Greek world Christianity was quite the equal of the old religions in influence and numbers; in the great cities it might even be predominant, and some towns were practically Christian. The story told of St. Gregory the Wonder-Worker, that he found but seventeen Christians in Neocaesarea when he became bishop, and that he left but seventeen pagans in the same city when he died (c. 270-5), must be substantially true. Such a story in the West would be absurd. The villages of the Latin countries held out for long, and the pagani retained the worship of the old gods even after they were all nominally Christianized. In Phrygia, on the contrary, entire villages were Christian long before Constantine, though it is true that elsewhere some towns were still heathen in Julian's day -- Gaza in Palestine is an example; but then Maiouma, the port of Gaza, was Christian. Two consequences, amongst others, of this swift evangelization of the East must be noticed. In the first place, while the slow progress of the West was favourable to the preservation of the unchanged tradition, the quick conversion of the East was accompanied by a rapid development which, in the sphere of dogma, was hasty, unequal, and fruitful of error. Secondly, the Eastern religion partook, even during the heroic age of persecution, of the evil which the West felt so deeply after Constantine, that is to say, of the crowding into the Church of multitudes who were only half Christianized, because it was the fashionable thing to do, or because a part of the beauties of the new religion and of the absurdities of the old were seen. We have actually Christian writers, in East and West, such as Arnobius, and to some extent Lactantius and Julius Africanus, who show that they are only half instructed in the Faith. This must have been largely the case among the people in the East. Tradition in the East was less regarded, and faith was less deep than in the smaller Western communities. Again, the Latin writers begin in Africa with Tertullian, just before the third century, at Rome with Novatian, just in the middle of the third century, and in Spain and Gaul not till the fourth. But the East had writers in the first century, and numbers in the second; there were Gnostic and Christian schools in the second and third. There had been, indeed, Greek writers at Rome in the first and second centuries and part of the third. But when the Roman Church became Latin they were forgotten; the Latin writers did not cite Clement and Hermas; they totally forgot Hippolytus, except his chronicle, and his name became merely a theme for legend. Though Rome was powerful and venerated in the second century, and though her tradition remained unbroken, the break in her literature is complete. Latin literature is thus a century and a half younger than the Greek; indeed it is practically two centuries and a half younger. Tertullian stands alone, and he became a heretic. Until the middle of the fourth century there had appeared but one Latin Father for the spiritual reading of the educated Latin Christian, and it is natural that the stichometry, edited (perhaps semi-officially) under Pope Liberius for the control of booksellers' prices, gives the works of St. Cyprian as well as the books of the Latin Bible. This unique position of St. Cyprian was still recognized at the beginning of the fifth century. From Cyprian (d. 258) to Hilary there was scarcely a Latin book that could be recommended for popular reading except Lactantius's "De mortibus persecutorum", and there was no theology at all. Even a little later, the commentaries of Victorinus the Rhetorician were valueless, and those of Isaac the Jew (?) were odd. The one vigorous period of Latin literature is the bare century which ends with Leo (d. 461). During that century Rome had been repeatedly captured or threatened by barbarians; Arian Vandals, besides devastating Italy and Gaul, had almost destroyed the Catholicism of Spain and Africa; the Christian British had been murdered in the English invasion. Yet the West had been able to rival the East in output and in eloquence and even to surpass it in learning, depth, and variety. The elder sister knew little of these productions, but the West was supplied with a considerable body of translations from the Greek, even in the fourth century. In the sixth, Cassiodorus took care that the amount should be increased. This gave the Latins a larger outlook, and even the decay of learning which Cassiodorus and Agapetus could not remedy, and which Pope Agatho deplored so humbly in his letter to the Greek council of 680, was resisted with a certain persistent vigour. At Constantinople the means of learning were abundant, and there were many authors; yet there is a gradual decline till the fifteenth century. The more notable writers are like flickers amid dying embers. There were chroniclers and chronographers, but with little originality. Even the monastery of Studium is hardly a literary revival. There is in the East no enthusiasm like that of Cassiodorus, of Isidore, of Alcuin, amid a barbarian world. Photius had wonderful libraries at his disposal, yet Bede had wider learning, and probably knew more of the East than Photius did of the West. The industrious Irish schools which propagated learning in every part of Europe had no parallel in the Oriental world. It was after the fifth century that the East began to be "unchanging". And as the bond with the West grew less and less continuous, her theology and literature became more and more mummified; whereas the Latin world blossomed anew with an Anselm, subtle as Augustine, a Bernard, rival to Chrysostom, an Aquinas, prince of theologians. Hence we observe in the early centuries a twofold movement, which must be spoken of separately: an Eastward movement of theology, by which the West imposed her dogmas on the reluctant East, and a Westward movement in most practical things -- organization, liturgy, ascetics, devotion -- by which the West assimilated the swifter evolution of the Greeks. We take first the theological movement. E. Theology. Throughout the second century the Greek portion of Christendom bred heresies. The multitude of Gnostic schools tried to introduce all kinds of foreign elements into Christianity. Those who taught and believed them did not start from a belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation such as we are accustomed to. Marcion formed not a school, but a Church; his Christology was very far removed from tradition. The Montanists made a schism which retained the traditional beliefs and practices, but asserted a new revelation. The leaders of all the new views came to Rome, and tried to gain a footing there; all were condemned and excommunicated. At the end of the century, Rome got all the East to agree with her traditional rule that Easter should be kept on Sunday. The Churches of Asia Minor had a different custom. One of their bishops protested. But they seem to have submitted almost at once. In the first decades of the third century, Rome impartially repelled opposing heresies, those which identified the three Persons of the Holy Trinity with only a modal distinction (Monarchians, Sabellians, "Patripassians"), and those who, on the contrary, made Christ a mere man, or seemed to ascribe to the Word of God a distinct being from that of the Father. This last conception, to our amazement, is assumed, it would appear, by the early Greek apologists, though in varying language; Athenagoras (who as an Athenian may have been in relation with the West) is the only one who asserts the Unity of the Trinity. Hippolytus (somewhat diversely in the "Contra Noetum" and in the "Philosophumena," if they are both his) taught the same division of the Son from the Father as traditional, and he records that Pope Callistus condemned him as a Ditheist. Origen, like many of the others, makes the procession of the Word depend upon His office of Creator; and if he is orthodox enough to make the procession an eternal and necessary one, this is only because he regards Creation itself as necessary and eternal. His pupil, Dionysius of Alexandria, in combating the Sabellians, who admitted no real distinctions in the Godhead, manifested the characteristic weakness of the Greek theology, but some of his own Egyptians were more correct than their patriarch, and appealed to Rome. The Alexandrian listened to the Roman Dionysius, for all respected the unchanging tradition and unblemished orthodoxy of the See of Peter; his apology accepts the word "consubstantial", and he explains, no doubt sincerely, that he had never meant anything else; but he had learnt to see more clearly, without recognizing how unfortunately worded were his earlier arguments. He was not present when a council, mainly of Origenists, justly condemned Paul of Samosata (268); and these bishops, holding the traditional Eastern view, refused to use the word "consubstantial" as being too like Sabellianism. The Arians, disciples of Lucian, rejected (as did the more moderate Eusebius of Caesarea) the eternity of Creation, and they were logical enough to argue that consequently "there was (before time was) when the Word was not", and that He was a creature. All Christendom was horrified; but the East was soon appeased by vague explanations, and after Nicaea, real, undisguised Arianism hardly showed its head for nearly forty years. The highest point of orthodoxy that the East could reach is shown in the admirable lectures of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. There is one God, he teaches, that is the Father, and His Son is equal to Him in all things, and the Holy Ghost is adored with Them; we cannot separate Them in our worship. But he does not ask himself how there are not three Gods; he will not use the Nicene word "consubstantial", and he never suggests that there is one Godhead common to the three Persons. If we turn to the Latins all is different. The essential Monotheism of Christianity is not saved in the West by saying there is "one God the Father", as in all the Eastern creeds, but the theologians teach the unity of the Divine essence, in which subsist three Persons. If Tertullian and Novatian use subordinationist language of the Son (perhaps borrowed from the East), it is of little consequence in comparison with their main doctrine, that there is one substance of the Father and of the Son. Callistus excommunicates equally those who deny the distinction of Persons, and those who refuse to assert the unity of substance. Pope Dionysius is shocked that his namesake did not use the word "consubstantial" -- this is more than sixty years before Nicaea. At that great council a Western bishop has the first place, with two Roman priests, and the result of the discussion is that the Roman word "consubstantial" is imposed up on all. In the East the council is succeeded by a conspiracy of silence; the Orientals will not use the word. Even Alexandria, which had kept to the doctrine of Dionysius of Rome, is not convinced that the policy was good, and Athanasius spends his life in fighting for Nicaea, yet rarely uses the crucial word. It takes half a century for the Easterns to digest it; and when they do so, they do not make the most of its meaning. It is curious how little interest even Athanasius shows in the Unity of the Trinity, which he scarcely mentions except when quoting the Dionysii; it is Didymus and the Cappadocians who word Trinitarian doctrine in the manner since consecrated by the centuries -- three hypostases, one usia; but this is merely the conventional translation of the ancient Latin formula, though it was new to the East. If we look back at the three centuries, second, third, and fourth of which we have been speaking, we shall see that the Greek-speaking Church taught the Divinity of the Son, and Three inseparable Persons, and one God the Father, without being able philosophically to harmonize these conceptions. The attempts which were made were sometimes condemned as heresy in the one direction or the other, or at best arrived at unsatisfactory and erroneous explanations, such as the distinction of the logos endiathetos and the logos prophorikos or the assertion of the eternity of Creation. The Latin Church preserved always the simple tradition of three distinct Persons and one divine Essence. We must judge the Easterns to have started from a less perfect tradition, for it would be too harsh to accuse them of wilfully perverting it. But they show their love of subtle distinctions at the same time that they lay bare their want of philosophical grasp. The common people talked theology in the streets; but the professional theologians did not see that the root of religion is the unity of God, and that, so far, it is better to be a Sabellian than a Semi-Arian. There is something mythological about their conceptions, even in the case of Origen, however important a thinker he may be in comparison with other ancients. His conceptions of Christianity dominated the East for some time, but an Origenist Christianity would never have influenced the modern world. The Latin conception of theological doctrine, on the other hand, was by no means a mere adherence to an uncomprehended tradition. The Latins in each controversy of these early centuries seized the main point, and preserved it at all hazards. Never for an instant did they allow the unity of God to be obscured. The equality of the Son and his consubstantiality were seen to be necessary to that unity. The Platonist idea of the need of a mediator between the transcendent God and Creation does not entangle them, for they were too clear-headed to suppose that there could be anything half-way between the finite and the infinite. In a word, the Latins are philosophers, and the Easterns are not. The East can speculate and wrangle about theology, but it cannot grasp a large view. It is in accordance with this that it was in the West, after all the struggle was over, that the Trinitarian doctrine was completely systematized by Augustine; in the West, that the Athanasian creed was formulated. The same story repeats itself in the fifth century. The philosophical heresy of Pelagius arose in the West, and in the West only could it have been exorcized. The schools of Antioch and Alexandria each insisted on one side of the question as to the union of the two Natures in the Incarnation; the one School fell into Nestorianism, the other into Eutychianism, though the leaders were orthodox. But neither Cyril nor the great Theodoret was able to rise above the controversy, and express the two complementary truths in one consistent doctrine. They held what St. Leo held; but, omitting their interminable arguments and proofs, the Latin writer words the true doctrine once for all, because he sees it philosophically. No wonder that the most popular of the Eastern Fathers has always been untheological Chrysostom, whereas the most popular of the Western Fathers is the philosopher Augustine. Whenever the East was severed from the West, it contributed nothing to the elucidation and development of dogma, and when united, its contribution was mostly to make difficulties for the West to unravel. But the West has continued without ceasing its work of exposition and evolution. After the fifth century there is not much development or definition in the patristic period; the dogmas defined needed only a reference to antiquity. But again and again Rome had to impose her dogmas on Byzantium -- 519, 680, and 786 are famous dates, when the whole Eastern Church had to accept a papal document for the sake of reunion, and the intervals between these dates supply lesser instances. The Eastern Church had always possessed a traditional belief in Roman tradition and in the duty of recourse to the See of Peter; the Arians expressed it when they wrote to Pope Julius to deprecate interference -- Rome, they said, was "the metropolis of the faith from the beginning". In the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries the lesson had been learnt thoroughly, and the East proclaimed the papal prerogatives, and appealed to them with a fervour which experience had taught to be in place. In such a sketch as this, all elements cannot be taken into consideration. It is obvious that Eastern theology had a great and varied influence on Latin Christendom. But the essential truth remains that the West thought more clearly than the East, while preserving with greater faithfulness a more explicit tradition as to cardinal dogmas, and that the West imposed her doctrines and her definitions on the East, and repeatedly, if necessary, reasserted and reimposed them. F. Discipline, Liturgy, Ascetics. According to tradition, the multiplication of bishoprics, so that each city had its own bishop, began in the province of Asia, under the direction of St. John. The development was uneven. There may have been but one see in Egypt at the end of the second century, though there were large numbers in all the provinces of Asia Minor, and a great many in Phoenicia and Palestine. Groupings under metropolitan sees began in that century in the East, and in the third century this organization was recognized as a matter of course. Over metropolitans are the patriarchs. This method of grouping spread to the West. At first Africa had the most numerous sees; in the middle of the third century there were about a hundred, and they quickly increased to more than four times that number. But each province of Africa had not a metropolitan see; only a presidency was accorded to the senior bishop, except in Proconsularis, where Carthage was the metropolis of the province and her bishop was the first of all Africa. His rights are undefined, though his influence was great. But Rome was near, and the pope had certainly far more actual power, as well as more recognized right, than the primate; we see this in Tertullian's time, and it remains true in spite of the resistance of Cyprian. The other countries, Italy, Spain, Gaul, were gradually organized according to the Greek model, and the Greek metropolis, patriarch, were adapted. Councils were held early in the West. But disciplinary canons were first enacted in the East. St. Cyprian's large councils passed no canons, and that saint considered that each bishop is answerable to God alone for the government of his diocese; in other words, he knows no canon law. The foundation of Latin canon law is in the canons of Eastern councils, which open the Western collections. in spite of this, we need not suppose the East was more regular, or better governed, than the West, where the popes guarded order and justice. But the East had larger communities, and they had developed more fully, and therefore the need arose earlier there to commit definite rules to writing. The florid taste of the East soon decorated the liturgy with beautiful excrescences. Many such excellent practices moved Westward; the Latin rites borrowed prayers and songs, antiphons, antiphonal singing, the use of the alleluia, of the doxology, etc. If the East adopted the Latin Christmas Day, the West imported not merely the Greek Epiphany, but feast after feast, in the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries. The West joined in devotion to Eastern martyrs. The special honour and love of Our Lady is at first characteristic of the East (except Antioch), and then conquers the West. The parcelling of the bodies of the saints as relics for devotional purposes, spread all over the West from the East; only Rome held out, until the time of St. Gregory the Great, against what might be thought an irreverence rather than an honour to the saints. If the first three centuries are full of pilgrimages to Rome from the East, yet from the fourth century onward West joins with East in making Jerusalem the principal goal of such pious journeys; and these voyagers brought back much knowledge of the East to the most distant parts of the West. Monasticism began in Egypt with Paul and Anthony, and spread from Egypt to Syria; St. Athanasius brought the knowledge of it to the West, and the Western monachism of Jerome and Augustine, of Honoratus and Martin, of Benedict and Columba, always looked to the East, to Anthony and Pachomius and Hilarion, and above all to Basil, for its most perfect models. Edifying literature in the form of the lives of the saints began with Athanasius, and was imitated by Jerome. But the Latin writers, Rufinus and Cassian, gave accounts of Eastern monachism, and Palladius and the later Greek writers were early translated into Latin. Soon indeed there were lives of Latin saints, of which that of St. Martin was the most famous, but the year 600 had almost come when St. Gregory the Great felt it still necessary to protest that as good might be found in Italy as in Egypt and Syria, and published his dialogues to prove his point, by supplying edifying stories of his own country to put beside the older histories of the monks. It would be out of place here to go more into detail in these subjects. Enough has been said to show that the West borrowed, with open-minded simplicity and humility, from the elder East all kinds of practical and useful ways in ecclesiastical affairs and in the Christian life. The converse influence in practical matters of West on East was naturally very small. G. Historical Materials. The principal ancient historians of the patristic period were mentioned above. They cannot always be completely trusted. The continuators of Eusebius, that is, Rufinus, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, are not to be compared to Eusebius himself, for that industrious prelate has fortunately bequeathed to us rather a collection of invaluable materials than a history. His "Life" or rather "Panegyric of Constantine" is less remarkable for its contents than for its politic omissions. Eusebius found his materials in the library of Pamphilus at Caesarea, and still more in that left by Bishop Alexander at Jerusalem. He cites earlier collections of documents, the letters of Dionysius of Corinth, Dionysius of Alexandria, Serapion of Antioch, some of the epistles sent to Pope Victor by councils throughout the Church, besides employing earlier writers of history or memoirs such as Papias, Hegesippus, Apollonius, an anonymous opponent of the Montanists, the "Little Labyrinth "of Hippolytus (?), etc. The principal additions we can still make to these precious remnants are, first, St. Irenaeus on the heresies; then the works of Tertullian, full of valuable information about the controversies of his own time and place and the customs of the Western Church, and containing also some less valuable information about earlier matters -- less valuable, because Tertullian is singularly careless and deficient in historical sense. Next, we possess the correspondence of St. Cyprian, comprising letters of African councils, of St. Cornelius and others, besides those of the saint himself. To all this fragmentary information we can add much from St. Epiphanius, something from St. Jerome and also from Photius and Byzantine chronographers. The whole Ante-Nicene evidence has been catalogued with wonderful industry by Harnack, with the help of Preuschen and others, in a book of 1021 pages, the first volume of his invaluable "History of Early Christian Literature". In the middle of the fourth century, St. Epiphanius's book on heresies is learned but confused; it is most annoying to think how useful it would have been had its pious author quoted his authorities by name, as Eusebius did. As it is, we can with difficulty, if at all, discover whether his sources are to be depended on or not. St. Jerome's lives of illustrious men are carelessly put together, mainly from Eusebius, but with additional information of great value, where we can trust its accuracy. Gennadius of Marseilles continued this work with great profit to us. The Western cataloguers of heresies, such as Philastrius, Praedestinatus, and St. Augustine, are less useful. Collections of documents are the most important matter of all. In the Arian controversy the collections published by St. Athanasius in his apologetic works are first-rate authorities. Of those put together by St. Hilary only fragments survive. Another dossier by the Homoiousian Sabinus, Bishop of Heraclea, was known to Socrates, and we can trace its use by him. A collection of documents connected with the origins of Donatism was made towards the beginning of the fourth century, and was appended by St. Optatus to his great work. Unfortunately only a part is preserved; but much of the lost matter is quoted by Optatus and Augustine. A pupil of St. Augustine, Marius Mercator, happened to be at Constantinople during the Nestorian controversy, and he formed an interesting collection of pieces justificatives. He put together a corresponding set of papers bearing on the Pelagian controversy. Irenaeus, Bishop of Tyre, amassed documents bearing on Nestonianism, as a brief in his own defence. These have been preserved to us in the reply of an opponent, who has added a great number. Another kind of collection is that of letters. St. Isidore's and St. Augustine's are immensely numerous, but bear little upon history. There is far more historical matter in those (for instance) of Ambrose and Jerome, Basil and Chrysostom. Those of the popes are numerous, and of first-rate value; and the large collections of them also contain letters addressed to the popes. The correspondence of Leo and of Hormisdas is very complete. Besides these collections of papal letters and the decretals, we have separate collections, of which two are important, the Collectio Avellana, and that of Stephen of Larissa. Councils supply another great historical source. Those of Nicaea, Sardica, Constantinople, have left us no Acts, only some letters and canons. Of the later oecumenical councils we have not only the detailed Acts, but also numbers of letters connected with them. Many smaller councils have also been preserved in the later collections; those made by Ferrandus of Carthage and Dionysius the Little deserve special mention. In many cases the Acts of one council are preserved by another at which they were read. For example, in 418, a Council of Carthage recited all the canons of former African plenary councils in the presence of a papal legate; the Council of Chalcedon embodies all the Acts of the first session of the Robber Council of Ephesus, and the Acts of that session contained the Acts of two synods of Constantinople. The later sessions of the Robber Council (preserved only in Syriac) contain a number of documents concerning inquiries and trials of prelates. Much information of various kinds has been derived of late years from Syriac and Coptic sources, and even from the Arabic, Armenian, Persian, Ethiopia and Slavonic. It is not necessary to speak here of the patristic writings as sources for our knowledge of Church organization, ecclesiastical geography, liturgies. canon law and procedure, archaeology, etc. The sources are, however, much the same for all these branches as for history proper. IV. PATRISTIC STUDY A. Editors of the Fathers. The earliest histories of patristic literature are those contained in Eusebius and in Jerome's "De viris illustribus". They were followed by Gennadius, who continued Eusebius, by St. Isidore of Seville, and by St. Ildephonsus of Toledo. In the Middle Ages the best known are Sigebert of the monastery of Gembloux (d. 1112), and Trithemius, Abbot of Sponheim and of Wuerzburg (d. 1516). Between these come an anonymous monk of Melk (Mellicensis, c. 1135) and Honorius of Autun (1122-5). Ancient editors are not wanting; for instance, many anonymous works, like the Pseudo-Clementines and Apostolic Constitutions, have been remodelled more than once; the translators of Origen (Jerome, Rufinus, and unknown persons) cut out, altered, added; St. Jerome published an expurgated edition of Victoninus "On the Apocalypse". Pamphilus made a list of Origen's writings, and Possidius did the same for those of Augustine. The great editions of the Fathers began when printing had become common. One of the earliest editors was Faber Stapulensis (Lefevre d'Estaples), whose edition of Dionysius the Areopagite was published in 1498. The Belgian Pamele (1536-87) published much. The controversialist Feuardent, a Franciscan (1539-1610) did some good editing. The sixteenth century produced gigantic works of history. The Protestant "Centuriators" of Magdeburg described thirteen centuries in as many volumes (1559-74). Cardinal Baronius (1538-1607) replied with his famous "Annales Ecclesiastici", reaching to the year 1198 (12 vols., 1588-1607). Marguerin de la Bigne, a doctor of the Sorbonne (1546-89), published his "Bibliotheca veterum Patrum" (9 vols., 1577-9) to assist in refuting the Centuriators. The great Jesuit editors were almost in the seventeenth century; Gretserus (1562-1625), Fronto Ducaeus (Fronton du Duc, 1558-1624), Andreas Schott (1552-1629), were diligent editors of the Greek Fathers. The celebrated Sirmond (1559-1651) continued to publish Greek Fathers and councils and much else, from the age of 51 to 92. Denis Petau (Petavius, 1583-1652) edited Greek Fathers, wrote on chronology, and produced an incomparable book of historical theology, "De theologicis dogmatibus" (1044). To these may be added the ascetic Halloix (1572-1656), the uncritical Chifflet (1592-1682), and Jean Garnier, the historian of the Pelagians (d. 1681). The greatest work of the Society of Jesus is the publication of the "Acta Sanctorum", which has now reached the beginning of November, in 64 volumes. It was planned by Rosweyde (1570-1629) as a large collection of lives of saints; but the founder of the work as we have it is the famous John van Bolland (1596-1665). He was joined in 1643 by Henschenius and Papebrochius (1628-1714), and thus the Society of Bollandists began, and continued, in spite of the suppression of the Jesuits, until the French Revolution, 1794. It was happily revived in 1836 (see Bollandists). Other Catholic editors were Gerhard Voss (d. 1609), Albaspinaeus (De l'Aubespine, Bishop of Orleans, 1579-1630), Rigault (1577-1654), and the Sorbonne doctor Cotelier (1629-86). The Dominican Combefis (1605-79) edited Greek Fathers, added two volumes to de la Bigne's collection, and made collections of patristic sermons. The layman Valesius (de Valois, 1603-70) was of great eminence. Among Protestants may be mentioned the controversialist Clericus (Le Clerc, 1657-1736); Bishop Fell of Oxford (1625-86), the editor of Cyprian, with whom must be classed Bishop Pearson and Dodwell; Grabe (1666-1711), a Prussian who settled in England; the Calvinist Basnage (1653-1723). The famous Gallican Etienne Baluze (1630-1718), was an editor of great industry. The Provenc,al Franciscan, Pagi, published an invaluable commentary on Baronius in 1689-1705. But the greatest historical achievement was that of a secular priest, Louis Le Nain de Tillemont, whose "Histoire des Empereurs" (6 vols., 1690) and "Memoires pour servir `a l'histoire ecclesiastique des six premiers siecles" (16 vols., 1693) have never been superseded or equalled. Other historians are Cardinal H. Noris (1631-1704); Natalis Alexander (1639-1725), a Dominican; Fleury (in French, 1690-1719). To these must be added the Protestant Archbishop Ussher of Dublin (1580-1656), and many canonists, such as Van Espen, Du Pin, La Marca, and Christianus Lupus. The Oratorian Thomassin wrote on Christian antiquities (1619-95); the English Bingham composed a great work on the same subject (1708-22). Holstein (1596-1661), a convert from Protestantism, was librarian at the Vatican, and published collections of documents. The Oratorian J. Morin (1597-1659) published a famous work on the history of Holy orders, and a confused one on that of penance. The chief patristic theologian among English Protestants is Bishop Bull, who wrote a reply to Petavius's views on the development of dogma, entitled "Defensio fidei Nicaenae" (1685). The Greek Leo Allatius (1586-1669), custos of the Vatican Library, was almost a second Bessarion. He wrote on dogma and on the ecclesiastical books of the Greeks. A century later the Maronite J. S. Assemani (1687-1768) published amongst other works a "Bibliotheca Orientalis" and an edition of Ephrem Syrus. His nephew edited an immense collection of liturgies. The chief liturgiologist of the seventeenth century is the Blessed Cardinal Tommasi, a Theatine (1649-1713, beatified 1803), the type of a saintly savant. The great Benedictines form a group by themselves, for (apart from Dom Calmet, a Biblical scholar, and Dom Ceillier, who belonged to the Congregation of St-Vannes) all were of the Congregation of St-Maur, the learned men of which were drafted into the Abbey of St-Germain-des-Pres at Paris. Dom Luc d'Achery (1605-85) is the founder ("Spicilegium", 13 vols.); Dom Mabillon (1632-1707) is the greatest name, but he was mainly occupied with the early Middle Ages. Bernard de Montfaucon (1655-1741) has almost equal fame (Athanasius, Hexapla of Origen, Chrysostom, Antiquities, Palaeography). Dom Coustant (1654-1721) was the principal collaborator, it seems, in the great edition of St. Augustine (1679-1700; also letters of the Popes, Hilary). Dom Garet (Cassiodorus, 1679), Du Friche (St Ambrose, 1686-90), Martianay (St. Jerome, 1693-1706, less successful), Delarue (Origen, 1733-59), Maran (with Toutee, Cyril of Jerusalem, 1720; alone, the Apologists, 1742; Gregory Nazianzen, unfinished), Massuet (Irenaeus, 1710), Ste-Marthe (Gregory the Great, 1705), Julien Garnier (St. Basil, 1721-2), Ruinart (Acta Martyrum sincera, 1689, Victor Vitensis, 1694, and Gregory of Tours and Fredegar, 1699), are all well-known names. The works of Martene (1654-1739) on ecclesiastical and monastic rites (1690 and 1700-2) and his collections of anecdota (1700, 1717, and 1724-33) are most voluminous; he was assisted by Durand. The great historical works of the Benedictines of St-Maur need not be mentioned here, but Dom Sabatier's edition of the Old Latin Bible, and the new editions of Du Cange's glossaries must be noted. For the great editors of collections of councils see under the names mentioned in the bibliography of the article on Councils. In the eighteenth century may be noted Archbishop Potter (1674-1747, Clement of Alexandria). At Rome Arevalo (Isidore of Seville, 1797-1803); Gallandi, a Venetian Oratorian (Bibliotheca veterum Patrum, 1765-81). The Veronese scholars form a remarkable group. The historian Maffei (for our purpose his "anecdota of Cassiodorus" are to be noted, 1702), Vallarsi (St. Jerome, 1734-42, a great work, and Rufinus, 1745), the brothers Ballerini (St. Zeno, 1739; St. Leo, 1753-7, a most remarkable production), not to speak of Bianchini, who published codices of the Old Latin Gospels, and the Dominican Mansi, Archbishop of Lucca, who re-edited Baronius, Fabricius, Thomassinus, Baluze, etc., as well as the "Collectio Amplissima" of councils. A general conspectus shows us the Jesuits taking the lead c. 1590-1650, and the Benedictines working about 1680-1750. The French are always in the first place. There are some sparse names of eminence in Protestant England; a few in Germany; Italy takes the lead in the second half of the eighteenth century. The great literary histories of Bellarmine, Fabricius, Du Pin, Cave, Oudin, Schram, Lumper, Ziegelbauer, and Schoenemann will be found below in the bibliography. The first half of the nineteenth century was singularly barren of patristic study; nevertheless there were marks of the commencement of the new era in which Germany takes the head. The second half of the nineteenth was exceptionally and increasingly prolific. It is impossible to enumerate the chief editors and critics. New matter was poured forth by Cardinal Mai (1782-1854) and Cardinal Pitra (1812- 89), both prefects of the Vatican Library. Inedita in such quantities seem to be found no more, but isolated discoveries have come frequently and still come; Eastern libraries, such as those of Mount Athos and Patmos, Constantinople, and Jerusalem, and Mount Sinai, have yielded unknown treasures, while the Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, etc., have supplied many losses supposed to be irrecoverable. The sands of Egypt have given something, but not much, to patrology. The greatest boon in the way of editing has been the two great patrologies of the Abbe Migne (1800-75). This energetic man put the works of all the Greek and Latin Fathers within easy reach by the "Patrologia Latina" (222 vols., including 4 vols. of indexes) and the "Patrologia Graeca" (161 vols). The Ateliers Catholiques which he founded produced wood-carving, pictures, organs, etc., but printing was the special work. The workshops were destroyed by a disastrous fire in 1868, and the recommencement of the work was made impossible by the Franco-German war. The "Monumenta Germaniae", begun by the Berlin librarian Pertz, was continued with vigour under the most celebrated scholar of the century, Theodor Mommsen. Small collections of patristic works are catalogued below. A new edition of the Latin Fathers was undertaken in the sixties by the Academy of Vienna. The volumes published up till now have been uniformly creditable works which call up no particular enthusiasm. At the present rate of progress some centuries will be needed for the great work. The Berlin Academy has commenced a more modest task, the re-editing of the Greek Ante-Nicene writers, and the energy of Adolf Harnack is ensuring rapid publication and real success. The same indefatigable student, with von Gebhardt, edits a series of "Texte und Untersuchungen", which have for a part of their object to be the organ of the Berlin editors of the Fathers. The series contains many valuable studies, with much that would hardly have been published in other countries. The Cambridge series of "Texts and Studies" is younger and proceeds more slowly, but keeps at a rather higher level. There should be mentioned also the Italian "Studii e Testi", in which Mercati and Pio Franchi de' Cavalieri collaborate. In England, in spite of the slight revival of interest in patristic studies caused by the Oxford Movement, the amount of work has not been great. For learning perhaps Newman is really first in the theological questions. As critics the Cambridge School, Westcott, Hort, and above all Lightfoot, are second to none. But the amount edited has been very small, and the excellent "Dictionary of Christian Biography" is the only great work published. Until 1898 there was absolutely no organ for patristic studies, and the "Journal of Theological Studies" founded in that year would have found it difficult to survive financially without the help of the Oxford University Press. But there has been an increase of interest in these subjects of late years, both among Protestants and Catholics, in England and in the United States. Catholic France has lately been coming once more to the fore, and is very nearly level with Germany even in output. In the last fifty years, archaeology has added much to patristic studies; in this sphere the greatest name is that of De Rossi. B. The Study of the Fathers. The helps to study, such as Patrologies, lexical information, literary histories, are mentioned below. COLLECTIONS:-- The chief collections of the Fathers are the following: DE LA BIGNE, Bibliotheca SS. PP. (5 vols. fol., Paris, 1575, and App., 1579; 4th ed., 10 vols., 1624, with Auctarium, 2 vols., 1624, and Suppl., 1639, 5th and 6th edd., 17 vols. fol., 1644 and 1654); this great work is a supplement of over 200 writings to the editions till then published of the Fathers; enlarged ed. hy UNIV. OF COLOGNE (Cologne, 1618, 14 vols., and App., 1622); the Cologne ed. enlarged by 100 writings, in 27 folio vols. (Lyons, 1677). COMBEFIS, Graeco-Latinae Patrum Bibliothecae novum Auctarium (2 vols., Paris, 1648), and Auctarium novissimum (2 vols., Paris, 1672); D'Achery, Veterum aliquot scriptorum Spicilegium (13 vols. 4to, Paris, 1655-77, and 3 vols. fol., 1723), mostly of writings later than patristic period, as is also the case with BALUZE, Miscellanea (7 vols. 8vo, Paris, 1678-1715); re-ed. by MANSI (4 vols. fol., Lucca, 1761-4); SIRMOND, Opera varia nunc primum collecta (5 vols. fol., Paris, 1696, and Venice, 1728); MURATORI, Anecdota from the Ambrosian Libr. at Milan (4 vols. 4to, Milan, 1697-8; Padua, 1713); IDEM, Anecdota graeca (Padua, 1709); GRABE, Spicilegium of Fathers of the first and second centuries (Oxford, 1698-9, 1700, and enlarged, 1714); GALLANDI, Bibl. vet. PP., an enlarged edition of the Lyons ed. of de la Bigne (14 vols. fol., Venice, 1765-88, and index puhl. at Bologna, 1863) -- nearly all the contents are reprinted in MIGNE; OBERTHUeR, SS. Patrum opera polemica de veriate religionis christ. c. Gent. et Jud. (21 vols. 8vo, Wuerzburg, 1777-94); IDEM, Opera omnia SS. Patrum Latinorum (13 vols., Wuerzburg, 1789-91); ROUTH, Reliquiae sacrae, second and third centuries (4 vols., Oxford, 1814-18; in 5 vols., 1846-8); IDEM, Scriptorum eccl. opuscula praeipua (2 vols., Oxford, 1832, 3rd vol., 1858); MAT, Scriptorum veterum nova collectio (unpubl. matter from Vatican MSS., 10 vols. 4to, 1825-38); IDEM, Spicileqium Romanum (10 vols. Svo, Rome, 1839-44); IDEM, Nova Patrum Bibtiotheca (7 vols. 4to, Rome, 1844-54; vol. 8 completed by COZZA-LUZI, 1871, vol. 9 by COZZA-LUZI, 1888, App. ad opera ed. ab A. Maio, Rome, 1871, App. altera, 1871). A few eccl. writings in MAI's Classici auctores (10 vols., Rome, 1828-38); CAILLAU, Collectio selecta SS. Ecclesia Patrum (133 vols. em. 8vo, Paris, 1829-42); GERSDORF, Bibl. Patrum eccl. lat. selecta (13 vols., Leipzig, 1838-47); the Oxford Bibliotheca Patrum reached 10 vols. (Oxford, 1838-55); PITRA, Spicilegium Solesmense (4 vols. 4to, Paris, 1852-8). The number of these various collections, in addition to the works of the great Fathers, made it difficult to obtain a complete set of patristic writings. MIGNE supplied the want by collecting almost all the foregoing (except the end of the last mentioned work, and Mais later volumes) into his complete editions: Patrologiae cursus completus, Series latine (to Innocent III, A.D. 1300, 221 vols. 4to, including four vols. of indexes, 1844-55), Series graeco-latine (to the Council of Florence, A.D. 1438-9, 161 vols. 4to, 1857-66, and another rare vol. of additions, 1866); the Series graece was also published, in Latin only, in 81 vols.; there is no index in the Series grace; an alphabetical list of contents by SCHOLAREOS (Athens, 1879, useful); other publications, not included in Migne, by PITRA, are Juris ecclesiastici Graecarum hist. et monum. (2 vols., Rome, 1864-8); Analecta sacra (6 vols., numbered I, II, III, IV, VI, VIII, Paris, 1876-84); Analecta sacra et classica (Paris, 1888); Analecta novissima, medieval (2 vols., 1885-8); the new edition of Latin Fathers is called Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum, editum consilio et impensis Academiae litterarum Caesarea Vindobonensis (Vienna, 1866, 8vo, in progress); and of the Greek Fathers: Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderten, herausgegeben von der Kirchenvaetter-Kommission den Koenigl. preussiechen Akad. den Wise. (Berlin, 1897, large 8vo, in progress). Of the Monumenta Germaniae historica, one portion, the Auctores antiquissimi (Berlin, 1877-98), contains works of the sixth century which connect themselves with patrology. Small modern collections are HURTER, SS. Patrum opuscula selecta, with a few good notes (Innebruck, 1st series, 48 vols., 1868-85, 2nd series, 6 vols.. 1884-92) -- these little books have been deservedly popular; KRUeGER, Semmlung ausgewaehlter kirchen- und dogmengeschichtlicher Quellenechriften (Freiburg, 1891-); RAUSCHEN, Florilegium patristicum, of first and second centuries (3 fasc., Bonn, 1904-5); Cambridge patristic texts (I, The Five Theol. Orat. of Greg. Naz., ed. MASON, 1899; II, The Catech. Or. of Greg. Nyssen., ed. SRAWLEY, 1903; Dionysius Alex., ed. FELTRE, 1904, in progress); VIZZINI, Bibl. SS. PP. Theologiae tironibus et universo clero accomodata (Rome, 1901- in progress); LIETZMANN, Kleine Texte, fuer theol. Vorlesungen und Uebungen (twenty-five numbers have appeared of about 16 pp. each, Bonn, 1902- in progress); an English ed. of the same (Cambridge, 1903-); Textes et documents pour l'etude historique du chrietienisme, ed. HEMMER AND LEJAY (texts, French tr., and notes, Paris, in progress -- an admirable series). INITIA:-- For Greek and Latin writers up to Eusebius, the index to HARNACK, Gesch. der altchr. Litt., I; for the Latin writers of first six centuries, AUMERS, Initia libronum PP. lat. (Vienna, 1865); and up to 1200, VATASSO, Initia PP. aliorumque scriptorum sect, lat. (2 vols., Vatican press, 1906-8). LITERARY HISTORIES:-- The first is BELLARMINE, De Scriptoribus ecclesiasticis (Rome, 1613, often reprinted; with additions by LABBE, Paris, 1660, and by OUDEN, Paris, 1686); DE PIN, Bibliotheque universelle des auteurs eccles. (61 vols. 8vo, or 19 vols. 4to, Paris, 1686, etc.); this was severely criticized by the Benedictine PETITDIDIER and by the Oratorian SIMON (Critique de la Bibl. des auteurs eccl. publ. pen ill. E. Dupin, Paris, 1730), and Du Pin's work was put on the Index in 1757; FABACCEUS, Bibliotheca Graece, sive edititia Scriptorum veterum Graecorum (Hamburg, 1705-28, 14 vols.; new ed. by HARLES, Hamburg, 1790-1809, 12 vols., embraces not quite 11 vole, of the original ed.; index to this ed., Leipzig, 1838) -- this great work is really a vast collection of materials; Fabricius was a Protestant (d. 1736); he made a smaller collection of the Latin lit. hist., Bibl. Latina, sive non. scr. vett, latt. (1697, 1708, 1712, etc., ed. by ERNESTI, 3 vols., Leipzig, 1773-4), and a continuation for the Middle Ages (1734-6, 5 vols.); the whole was re-edited by MANSI (6 vols., Padua, 1754, and Florence, 1858-9); LE NOURRY, Apparatus ad Biblioth. Max. vett. Patr. (2 vols. fol., Paris, 1703-15), deals with Greek Fathers of the second century and with Latin apologists; CEILLIER, Hist. generale des auteurs sacres et eccles. (from Moses to 1248, 23 vols., Paris, 1729-63; Table gen. des Met., by RONDET, Paris, 1782; new ed. 16 vols., Paris, 1858-69); SCHRAM, Analysis Operum SS. PP. et Scriptorum eccles. (Vienna, 1780-96, 18 vols., a valuable work); LUMPER, Hist. Theologico-critica de vita scriptis atque doctrina SS. PP. at scr. eccl. trium primorum saec. (Vienna, 1783-99, 13 vols.; a compilation, but good); the Anglican CAVE published a fine work, Scriptorum eccl. historia literaria (London, 1688; best ed., Oxford, 1740-3); OUDIN, a Premonstratensian, who became a Protestant, Commentarius de Scriptoribus eccl. (founded on Bellarmine, 3 vols. fol., Leipzig, 1722). On the editions of the Latin Fathers, SCHOENEMANN, Bibliotheca historico-litteraria Patrum Latinorum a Tert, ad Greg. M. at Isid. Hisp. (2 vols., Leipzig, 1792-4). PATROLOGIES (smaller works):-- GERHARD, Patrologia (Jena, 1653); HUeLSEMANN, Patrologia (Leipzig, 1670); OLEARIUS, Abacus Patrologicus (Jena, 1673); these are old-fashioned Protestant books. German Catholic works are: GOLDWITZER, Bibliographie der Kirchenvaeter und Kirchenlehrer (Landshut, 1828); IDEM, Patrologie verbunden mi Patristik (Nuremberg, 1833-4); the older distinction in Germany between patrology, the knowledge of the Fathers and their use, and patristic, the science of the theology of the Fathers, is now somewhat antiquated; BUSSE, Grundriss der chr. Lit. (Muenster, 1828-9); MOeHLER, Patrologie, an important posthumous work of this great man, giving the first three centuries (Ratisbon, 1840); PERMANEDER, Bibliotheca patristica (2 vols., Landshut, 1841-4); FESSLER, Institutiones Patrologiae (Innsbruck, 1851), a new ed. by JUNGMANN is most valuable (Innsbruck, 1890-6); ALZOG, Grundriss der Patrologie (Freiburg im Br., 1866 and 1888); same in French by BELET (Paris, 1867); NIRSCHL, Handbuch der Patrologie und Patristik (Mainz, 1881-5); RESBANYAY, Compendium Patrologiae et Patristicae (Funfkirchen in Hungary, 1894); CARVAJAL, Institutiones Patrologiae (Oviedo, 1906); BARDENHEWER, Patrologie (Freiburg im Br., 1894; new ed. 1901) -- this is at present by far the best handbook; the author is a professor in the Cath. theo. faculty of the Univ. of Munich; a French tr. by GODET AND VERSCHAFFEL, Les Peres de l'Eglise (3 vols., Paris, 1899); an Italian tr. by A. MERCATI (Rome, 1903); and an English tr. with the bibliography brought up to date, by SHAHAN (Freiburg im Br. and St. Louis, 1908); smaller works, insufficient for advanced students, but excellent for ordinary purposes, are: SCHMID, Grundlinien der Patrologie (1879; 4th ed., Freiburg im Br., 1895); an Engl. tr. revised by SCHOBEL (Freiburg, 1900); SWETE of Cambridge, Patristic Study (London, 1902). HISTORIES OF THE FATHERS:-- It is unnecessary to catalogue here all the general histories of the Church, large and small, from Baronius onwards; it will be sufficient to give some of those which deal specially with the Fathers and with ecclesiastical literature. The first and chief is the incomparable work of TILLEMONT, Memoires pour servir `a l'histoire eccl. des six premiers siecles (Paris, 1693-1712, 16 vols., and other editions); MARECHAL, Concordance des SS. Peres de l'Eglise, Grecs at Latins, a harmony of their theology (2 vols., Paris, 1739); BAeHR, Die christlich-roemische Litteratur (4th vol. of Gesch. der roemischen Litt., Karlsruhe, 1837; a new ed. of the first portion, 1872); SCHANZ, Gesch. der roem. Litt., Part III (Munich, 1896), 117-324; EBERT, Gech. der christlich-lateinischen Litt. (Leipzig, 1874; 2nd ed., 1889); Anciennes litteratunes chretiennes (in Bibliotheque de l'enseignement de l'hist. eccl., Paris): I; BATIFFOL, La litterature grecque, a useful sketch (4th ed., 1908), II; DUVAL, La litterature syriaque (3rd ed., 1908); LECLERCQ, L'Afrique chretienne (in same Bibl. de l'ens. da l'h. eccl., 2nd ed., Paris, 1904); IDEM, L'Espagne chretienne (2nd ed., 1906); BATIFFOL, L'eglise naissante et le Catholicisme, a fine apologetic account of the development of the Church, from the witness of the Fathers of the first three centuries (Paris, 1909); of general histories the best is Ducesesrese, Hist. ancienne eta tEglisa (2 vols. have appeared, Paris, 1906-7); finally, the first place is being taken among histories of the Fathers by a work to be completed in six volumes, BARDENHEWER, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Litteratur (I, to A.D. 200, Freiburg im Br., 1902; II, to A.D. 300, 1903). The following are Protestant: NEWMAN, The Church of the Fathers (London, 1840, etc.); DONALDSON, A critical history of Christian lit. . . . to the Nicene Council: I; The Apostolic Fathers, II and III; The Apologists (London, 1864-6 -- unsympathetic); BRICHY, The Age of the Fathers (2 vols., London, 1903); ZOeCKLER, Gesch. der theologischen Litt. (Patristik) (Noerdlingen, 1889); CRUTTWELL, A Literary History of Early Christianity . . . Nicene Period (2 vols., London, 1893); KRUeGER, Gesch. der altchristlichen Litt, in den ersten 3 Jahrh. (Freiburg im Br. and Leipzig, 1895-7); tr. GILLET (New York, 1897) -- this is the beet modern German Prot. history. The following consists of materials: A. HARNACK, Gechichte der altchr. Litt, bis Eusebius, I, Die Ueberlieferung (Leipzig, 1893; this vol. enumerates all the known works of each writer, and all ancient references to them, and notices the MSS.); II, 1 (1897), and II, 2 (1904), Die Chronologie, discussing the date of each writing; the latter Greek period is dealt with by KRUMBACHER, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litt. 527-1453 (2nd ed. with assistance from EHRHARD, Munich, 1897). The following collected series of studies must be added: Textd und Untersuschungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Litt., ed. VON GEBHARDT AND A. HARNAcK (1st series, 15 vols., Leipzig, 1883-97, 2nd series, Neue Folge, 14 vols., 1897-1907, in progress) -- the editors are now HARNACK AND SCHMIDT; ROBINSON, Texts and Studies (Cambridge, 1891 -- in progress); EHRHARD AND MUeLLER, Strassburger theologische Studien (12 vols., Freiburg im Br., 1894 -- in progress); EHRHARD AND KIRSCH, Forschungen zur christl. Litt. und Dogmengeschichte (7 vols., Paderborn, in progress); La Pensee chretienne (Paris, in progress); Studii e Testi (Vatican press, in progress). Of histories of development of dogma, HARNACK, Dogmengeschichte (3 vols., 3rd ed., 1894-7, a new ed. is in the press; French tr., Paris, 1898; Engl. tr., 7 vols., Edinburgh, 1894-9), a very clever and rather "viewy" work; LOOFS, Leitfaden zum Studium der D. G. (Halle, 1889; 3rd ed., 1893); SEEBERG, Lehrb. der D. G. (2 vols., Erlangen, 1895), conservative Protestant; IDEM, Grundriss der D. G. (1900; 2nd ed., 1905), a smaller work: SCHWANE, Dogmengeschichte, Catholic (2nd ed., 1892, etc.; French tr., Paris, 1903-4); BETHUNE-BAKER, Introduction to early History of Doctrine (London, 1903); TIXERONT, Histoire des Dogmas: I, La theologie anti-niceenne (Paris, 1905 -- excellent); and others. PHILOLOGICAL:-- On the common Greek of the early period see MOULTON, Grammar of N. T. Greek: I, Prolegomena (3rd ed., Edinburgh, 1909), and references; on the literary Greek, A.D. 1-250, SCHMIDT, Den Atticismus von Dion. Hal. bis auf den zweiten Philostratus (4 vols., Stuttgart, 1887-9); THUMB, Die griechieche Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus (Strasburg, 1901). Besides the Thesaurus of STEPHANUS (latest ed., 8 vols., fol., Paris, 1831-65) and lexicons of classical and Biblical Greek, special dictionaries of later Greek are DU CANGE, Glossarium ad scriptores mediae et infimae graecitatis (2 vols., Lyons, 1688, and new ed., Breslan, 1890-1); SOPHOCLES, Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, 146-1100 (3rd ed., New York, 1888); words wanting in Stephanus and in Sophocles are collected by KUMANUDES (S. A. Koumanoudes), Sunagoge lexeon athesauriston en tois heggenikois lexikois (Athens, 1883); general remarks on Byzantine Greek in KNUMBACHER, op. cit. On patristic Latin, KOFFMANE, Gesch. des Kinchenlateins: I, Entstehung . . . bis auf Augustinus-Hieronymus (Breslau, 1879-81); NORDEN, Die antika Kunstprosa (Leipzig, 1898), II; there is an immense number of studies of the language of particular Fathers [e.g. HOPPE on Tertullian (1897); WATSON (1896) and BAYARD (1902) on Cyprian; GOELTZER on Jerome (1884); REGNER on Augustine (1886), etc.], and indices latinitatis to the volumes of the Vienna Corpus PP. latt.; TRAUBE, Quellen and Untensuchungen zur lat. Phil. des Mittelalters, I (Munich, 1906); much will be found in Archiv fuer lat. Lexicographie, ed. WOeLFFLIN (Munich, began 1884). TRANSLATIONS:-- Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, translated by members of the English Ch. (by PUSEY, NEWMAN, etc.), (45 vols., Oxford, 1832-). ROBERTS AND DONALDSON, The Ante-Nicene Christian Library (24 vols., Edinburgh, 1866-72; new ed. by COXE, Buffalo, 1884-6, with RICHARDSON's excellent Bibliographical Synopsis as a Suppl., 1887); SCHAFF AND WAGE, A Select Library of Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers of the Chr. Ch., with good notes (14 vols., Buffalo and New York, 1886-90, and 2nd series, 1900, in progress). ENCYCLOPEDIAS AND DICTIONARIES:-- SUICER, Thesaurus ecclesiasticus, a patribus graecis ordine alphabetico exhibens quaecumqua phrases, ritus, dogmata, haereses et hujusmodi alia spectant (2 vols., Amsterdam, 1682; again 1728; and Utrecht, 1746); HOFFMANNS, Bibliographisches Lexicon der gesammten Litt. der Griechen (3 vols., 2nd ed., Leipzig, 1838-45); the articles on early Fathers and heresies in the Encyclopadia Britannica (8th ed.) are, many of them, by Harnack and still worth reading; WETZER AND WELTE, Kirchenlex., ed. HERGENROeTHER, and then by KAULEN and others, 12 vols., one vol. of index (Freiburg im Br., 1882-1903); HERZOG, Realencylopaedie fuer prot. Theol. und Kirche, 3rd ed. by HAUCK (21 vols., 1896-1908); VACANT AND MANGENOT, Dict. de Theol. cath. (Paris, in progress); CABROL, Dict. d'archeologie chr. et de liturgie (Paris, in progress); BAUDRILLART, Dict. d'hist. at de geogr. ecclesiastiques (Paris, in progress); SMITH AND WACE, A Dictionary of Christian Biography, is very full and valuable (4 vols., London, 1877-87). GENERAL BOOKS OF REFERENCE:-- ITTIG, De Bibliothecis et Catenis Patrum, gives the contents of the older collections of Fathers which were enumerated above (Leipzig, 1707); IDEM, Schediasma de auctoribus qui de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis egerunt (Leipzig, 1711); DOWLING, Notitia scriptorum SS. PP. . . . quae in collectionibus Anecdotorum post annum MDCC in lucem editis continentur (a continuation of ITTIG's De Bibl. et Cat., Oxford, 1839); an admirable modern work is EHRHARD, Die alt christliche Litt, und ihre Erforschung seit 1880: I, Allgemeine Uebersicht, 1880-4 (Freiburg im Br., 1894); II, Ante-Nicene lit., 1884-1900 (1900); the bibliographies in the works of HARNACK and of BARDENHEWER (see above) are excellent; for Ante-Nicene period, RICHARDSON, Bibliographical Synopsis (in extra vol. of Ante-Nicene. Fathers, Buffalo, 1887); for the whole period. CHEVALIER, Repertoire des sources historiques du moyen-age: Bio-bibliographie, gives names of persons (2nd ed., Paris, 1905-07); Topo-bibliographie gives names of places and subjects (2nd ed., Paris, 1894-1903); progress each year is recorded in HOLTZMANN AND KRUeGER's Theologischer Jahresbericht from 1881; KROLL AND GURLITT, Jahresbericht fuer kleseische Alterthumewissenschaft (both Protestant); BIHLMEYER, Hagiagraphischer Jahresbericht for 1904-6 (Kempten and Munich, 1908). A very complete bibliography appears quarterly in the Revue d'hist. eccl. (Louvain, since 1900), with index at end of year; in this publ. the names of all Reviews dealing with patristic matters will be found. JOHN CHAPMAN Lawrence Arthur Faunt Lawrence Arthur Faunt A Jesuit theologian, b. 1554, d. at Wilna, Poland, 28 February, 1590-91. After two years at Merton College, Oxford (1568-70) under the tuition of John Potts, a well-known Philosopher, he went to the Jesuit college at Louvain where he took his B.A. After some time spent in Paris he entered the University of Munich under the patronage of Duke William of Bavaria, proceeding M.A. The date of his entrance into the Society of Jesus is disputed, some authorities giving 1570, others 1575, the year in which he went to the English College, Rome, to pursue his studies in theology. lt is certain, however, that on the latter occasion he added Lawrence to his baptisal name, Arthur. He was soon made professor of divinity and attracted the favourable attention of Gregory XIII, who on the establishment of the Jesuit college at Posen in 1581, appointed him rector. He was also professor of Greek there for three years of moral theology and controversy for nine more, are was held in highest repute among both ecclesiastical and secular authorities. His chief theological works are: "De Christi in terris Ecclesia, quaenam et penes quos existat" (Posen, 1584.), "Coenae Lutheranorum et Calvinistarum oppugnatio ac catholicae Eucharitiae defensio" (Posen, 1586); "Apologia libri sui de invocatione ac veneratione Sanctorum" (Cologne, 1589). F.M. RUDGE Charles-Claude Fauriel Charles-Claude Fauriel A historian, b. at St-Etienne, France, 27 October, 1772; d. at Paris,15 July, 1844. He studied first at the Oratorian College of Tournon, then at Lyons. He served in the army of the Pyrenees-Orientales. Under the Directory Fouche, an ex-Oratorian, attached him to his cabinet as private secret secretary. Under the Empire, he refused office in order to devote all his time to study. Fauriel adopted the new ideas of the Philosophers and the principles of the Revolution, but repudiated them in part in the later years of his life. He was an intense worker and knew Greek, Latin, Italian, German, English, Sanskrit, and Arabic. It was he who made the merits of Ossian and Shakespeare known to the French public and spread in France the knowledge of German literature, which had been previously looked upon as unimportant. He was one of the first to investigate Romance literature, and the originality of his views in this direction soon popularized this new study. He also gathered the remnants of the ancient Basque and Celtic languages. The first works he published were a translation of "La Partheneide" (Paris, 1811), an idyllic epic by the Danish poet, Baggesen, and of the tragedy of his friend Manzoni, "ll Conte di Carmagnola" (Paris, 1823). The numerous linguistic and archaeological contributions which he wrote for various magazines won for him a great reputation among scholars; it was said of him that "he was the man of the nineteenth century who put in circulation the most ideas, inaugurated the greatest number of branches of study, and gathered the greatest number of new results in historical science" (Revue des Deux Mondes, 15 Dec., 1853). The publication of the "Chants populaires de la Grece moderne", text and translation (Paris, 1824-25), at a moment when Greece was struggling for her independence, made him known to the general public. In 1880 a chair of foreign literature was created for him at the University of Paris. He studied specially the Southern literatures and Provencal poetry. His lectures were published after his death under the title of "Histoire de la poesie provenc,ale" (3 vols, Paris, 1846). In order to study more deeply the origins of French civilization he wrote "Histoire de la Gaule meridionale sous la domination des conquerants germains" (4 vols., Paris, 1836), only a part of a vaster work conceived by him. The merit of these works caused him to be elected (1836), the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles-Lettres. He contributed also to the "Histoire Litteraire de la France", commenced by the Benedictines and taken after the Revolution by the Institute of France. Having been named assistant curator of the manuscript of Royal Library he published an historical poem in Provencal verse (with a translation and introduction), dealing with the crusade against the Albigenses. LOUIS N. DELAMARRE Sts. Faustinus and Jovita Sts. Faustinus and Jovita Martyrs, members of a noble family of Brescia; the elder brother, Faustinus, being a priest, the younger, a deacon. For their fearless preaching of the Gospel, they were arraigned before the Emperor Hadrian, who, first at Brescia, later at Rome and Naples, subjected them to frightful torments, after which they were beheaded at Bescia in the year 120, according to the Bollandists, though Allard (Histoire des Persecutions pendant les Deux Premiers Siecles, Paris, 1885) places the date as early as 118. The many "Acts" of these saints are chiefly of a legendary character. Fedele Savio, S.J. the most recent writer on the subject, calls in question nearly every fact related of them except their existince and martyrdom, which are too well attested by their inclusion in so many of the early martyrologies and their extraordinary cult in their native city, of which from time immemorial they have been the chief patrons. Rome, Bologna and Verona share with Brescia the possession of their relics. Their feast is celebrated on 15 February, the traditional date of their martyrdom. JOHN F.X. MURPHY Faustus of Riez Faustus of Riez Bishop of Riez (Rhegium) in Southern Gaul (Provence), the best known and most distinguished defender of Semipelagianism, b. between 405 and 410, and according to his contemporaries, Avitus of Vienne and Sidonius Apollinaris, in the island of Britain; d. between 490 and 495. Nothing, however, is known about his early life or his education. He is thought by some to have been a lawyer but owing to the influence of his mother, famed for her sanctity, he abandoned secular pursuits while still a young man and entered the monastery of Lerins. Here he was soon ordained to the priesthood and because of his extraordinary piety was chosen (432) to be head of the monastery, in succession to Maximus who had become Bishop of Riez. His career as abbot lasted about twenty or twenty-five years during which he attained a high reputation for his wonderful gifts as an extempore preacher and for his stern asceticism. After the death of Maximus he became Bishop of Riez. This elevation did not make any change in his manner of life; he continued his ascetic practices, and frequently returned to the monastery of Lerins to renew his fervour. He was a zealous advocate of monasticism and established many monasteries in his diocese. In spite of his activity in the discharge of his duties as bishop, he participated in all the theological discussions of his time and became known as a stern opponent of Arianism in all its forms. For this, and also, it is said, for his view, stated below, of the corporeity of the human soul, he incurred the enmity of Euric, King of the Visigoths, who had gained possession of a large portion of Southern Gaul, and was banished from his see. His exile lasted eight years, during which time he was aided by loyal friends. On the death of Euric he resumed his labours at the head of his diocese and continued there until his death. Throughout his life Faustus was an uncompromising adversary of Pelagius, whom he styled Pestifer, and equally decided in his opposition to the doctrine of Predestination which he styled "erroneous, blasphemous, heathen, fatalistic, and conducive to immorality". This doctrine in its most repulsive form had been expounded by a presbyter named Lucidus and was condemned by two synods, Arles and Lyons (475). At the request of the bishops who composed these synods, and especially Leontius of Arles, Faustus wrote a work, "Libri duo de Gratia Dei et humanae mentis libero arbitrio", in which he refuted not only the doctrines of the Predestinarians but also those of Pelagius (P.L., LVIII, 783). The work was marred, however, by its decided Semipelagianism, for several years was bitterly attacked, and was condemned by the Synod of Orange in 529 (Denzinger, Enchiridion, Freiburg, 1908, no. 174 sqq. - old no. 144; PL.L., XLV, 1785; Mansi, VIII, 712). Besides this error, Faustus maintained that the human soul is in a certain sense corporeal, God alone being a pure spirit. The opposition to Faustus was not fully developed in his lifetime and he died with a well-merited reputation for sanctity. His own flock considered him a saint and erected a basilica in his honour. Faustus wrote also: "Libri duo de Spiritu Sancto" (P.L., LXII, 9), wrongly ascribed to the Roman deacon Paschasius. His "Libellus parvus adversus Arianos et Macedonianos", mentioned by Genadius, seems to have perished. His correspondence (epistulae) and sermons are best found in the new and excellent edition of the works of Faustus by Engelbrecht, "Fausti Reiensis praeter sermones pseudo-Eusebianos opera. Accedunt Ruricii Epistulae" in "Corpus Scrip. eccles. lat.", vol. XXI (Vienna, 1891). PATRICK J. HEALY Faversham Abbey Faversham Abbey A former Benedictine monastery of the Cluniac Congregation situated in the County of Kent about nine miles west of Canterbury. It was founded about 1147 by King Stephen and his Queen Matilda. Clarimbald, the prior of Bermondsey, and twelve other monks of the same abbey were transferred to Faversham to form the new community; Clarimbald was appointed abbot. It was dedicated to Our Saviour and endowed with the manor of Faversham. In the church, which was completed about 1251, Stephen and Matilda, the founders, were buried and also their eldest son Eustace Earl of Boulogne. We read of chapels in the church dedicated to Our Lady and St. Anne. Henry II confirmed all grants and privileges conferred by Stephen, adding others to them, and all these were again confirmed to the monks by Kings John and Henry III. The abbots had their seat in Parliament and we find them in attendance at thirteen several parliaments during the reigns of Edward and Edward II, but on account of their reduced state and poverty, they ceased to attend after the 18th, Edward II. It appears that some bitterness existed for a considerable time between the monks and the people of Faversham, who complained of the abbey's imposts and exactions. Among these grievances were claims, by way of composition, for allowing the inhabitants to send their swine to pannage, for exposing their goods for sale in the market, and for the liberty of brewing beer. Twenty-two abbots are known to us; the last was John Shepey, alias Castelocke, who, on 10 December, 1534, along with the sacristan and four monks, is said to have signed the Act of Supremacy. On 8 July, 1538, the abbey was surrendered to the king, at which time the annual revenue was about -L-350. Henry VIII gave the house and site to John Wheler for twenty-one years at an annual rent of -L-3 18s. 8d. Afterwards the property came into the possession of Sir Thomas Cheney, warden of the Cinque Ports. Later it was owned by Thomas Ardern and subsequently came to belong to the family of Sondes. The two entrance gates where standing a century ago, but had to be taken down on account of their ruinous condition. At the present day there is nothing left except some portions of the outer walls. G.E. HIND Herve-Auguste-Etienne-Albans Faye Herve-Auguste-Etienne-Albans Faye An astronomer, b. at Saint-Benoit-du-Sault (Indre, France), Oct., 1814; d. at Paris, 4 July, 1902. The son of a civil engineer he entered the Ecole Polytechnique in 1832 to prepare for a similar career. He left the school before the end of the second year and went to Holland. In 1836 he entered the Paris Observatory as a pupil. There, in 1843, he discovered the periodic comet bearing his name. This discovery gained for him the Prix Lalande. As early as 1847 he was elected member of the Academy of Sciences. From 1848 to 1854 he taught geodesy at the Ecole Polytechnique and then went to Nancy as rector of the academy and professor of astronomy. In 1873 he was called to succeed Delaunay in the chair of astronomy at the Ecole Polytechnique, where he worked and lectured until 1893. He held other official positions: inspector-general of secondary education (1857); member (1862) and later (1876) president of the Bureau des Longitudes; for a few weeks only, the minister of public instruction (1877); and member of the superior council of public instruction (1892). Chevalier of the Legion of Honour in 1843, he became officer in 1855 and commander in 1870. He was honoured with other decorations and by election to the membership of the principal European academies and societies. Faye's fame rests both on his practical and on his theoretical work. He improved the methods of astronomical measurement, invented the zenithal collimator, suggested and applied photography and electricity to astronomy, and dealt with problems of physical astronomy, the shape of comets, the spots of the sun, meteors, etc. Credit is given by him as well as by his friends to the great influence of his wife, whom he met on his early trip to Holland. His religious nature finds corroboration in his knowledge of the wonders of the Universe. Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei, he quotes in "Sur l'origine du Monde" and goes on to say: "We run no risk of deceiving ourselves in considering it [Superior Intelligence] the author of all things, in refering to it those splendours of the heavens which aroused our thoughts: and finally we are ready to understand and accept the traditional formula: God, Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth". He contributed over 400 memoires and notes to the "Comptes rendus, the Bulletin de la societe astronomique", "Monthly Notices of the R.A.S." and "Astronomische Nachrichen". His larger works are: "Cours d'astronomie de l'ecole polytechnique" (Paris, 1883); Humbolt's "Cosmos", tr. by Faye and Galusky (Paris, 1848-59); "Cours d'astronomie nautique". (Paris, 1880); "Sur l'origine du monde" (Paris, 1885). WILLIAM FOX Fear (In Canon Law) Fear (IN CANON LAW.) A mental disturbance caused by the perception of instant or future danger. Since fear, in greater or less degree, diminishes freedom of action, contracts entered into through fear may be judged invalid; similarly fear sometimes excuses from the application of the law in a particular case; it also excuses from the penalty attached to an act contrary to the law. The cause of fear is found in oneself or in a natural cause (intrinsic fear) or it is found in another person (extrinsic fear). Fear may be grave, such for instance as would influence a steadfast man, or it may be slight, such as would affect a person of weak will. In order that fear may be considered grave certain conditions are requisite: the fear must be grave in itself, and not merely in the estimation of the person fearing; it must be based on a reasonable foundation; the threats must be possible of execution; the execution of the threats must be inevitable. Fear, again, is either just or unjust, according to the justness or otherwise of the reasons which lead to the use of fear as a compelling force. Reverential fear is that which may exist between Superiors and their subjects. Grave fear diminishes willpower but cannot be said to totally take it away, except in some very exceptional cases. Slight fear (metus levis) is not considered even to diminish the will power, hence the legal expression "Foolish fear is not a just excuse". The following cases may be taken as examples to illustrate the manner in which fear affects contracts, marriage, vows, etc., made under its influence. Grave fear excuses from the law and the censure attached thereto, if the law is ecclesiastical and if its non-observance will not militate against the public good, the Faith, or the authority of the Church; but if there is question of the natural law, fear excuses only from the censure (Commentators on Decretals, tit. "De his quae vi metusve causa fiunt"; Schmalzgrueber tit. "De sent. excomm." n. 79). Fear that is grave extrinsic, unjust, and inflicted with a view to forcing consent is nullifies a marriage contract, but not if the fear be only intrinsic. The burden of proof lies with the person who claims to have acted through fear. Reverential fear, if it be also extrinsic, i.e., accompanied by blows, threats, or strong entreaty, and aimed at extorting consent, will also invalidate marriage. Qualified as just stated, fear is a diriment impediment of marriage when coupled with violence or threats (vis et metus). For further details see any manual of Canon Law e.g. Santi-Leitner, "Praelect. Jur. Can." (Ratisbon, 1905) IV, 56-59; Heiner "Kathol. Eherecht" (Muster, 1905), 82-46; also Ploch, "De Matr. vi ac metu contracto" (1853). For the history of this impediment see Esmein "Le mariage en droit canonique" (Paris, 1891), I, 309; II, 252; also Freisen, "Gesch. des kanon. Eherechts etc." (Tuebingen, 1888). Resignation of office extorted by unjust fear is generally considered to be valid, but may be rescinded unless the resignation has been confirmed by oath. On the other hand, if fear has been justly brought to bear upon a person, the resignation holds good (S. Cong. Conc. 24 April, 1880). Ordination received under grave and unjust fear is valid, but the obligations of the order are not contracted unless there is subsequent spontaneous acceptance of the obligation (Sanchez, De matrim.", VII, Disp. xxix, n. 5). In each cases if freedom is desired the Holy See should be petitioned for a dispensation (S. Cong. Conc. 13 Aug., 1870). The same holds good with regard to the vows of religious profession, and all other vows made under the influence of fear which is grave, extrinsic, unjust or reverential (see Vow). In English law, on proof of force and fear, the law restores the parties to the contract to the position in which they were before it was entered into, and will find the constraining party able to damages as reparation for any injury done to the party constrained. The maxim of the common law that "What otherwise would be good and just, if sought by force or fraud becomes bad and unjust." See CONSENT; CONTRACT; VIOLENCE. DAVID DUNFORD Fear (From a Moral Standpoint) Fear (CONSIDERED FROM A MORAL STANDPOINT.) Fear is an unsettlement of soul consequent upon the apprehension of some present or future danger. It is here viewed from the moral standpoint, that is, in so far as it is a factor to be reckoned with in pronouncing upon the freedom of human acts, as well as offering an adequate excuse for failing to comply with positive law, particularly if the law be of human origin. Lastly, it is here considered in so far as it impugns or leaves intact, in the court of conscience, and without regard to explicit enactment, the validity of certain deliberate engagements or contracts. The division of fear most commonly in vogue among theologians is that by which they distinguish serious fear (metus gravis) and trifling fear (fetus levis). The first is such as grows out of the discernment of some formidable impending peril: if this be really, and without qualification, of large proportions, then the fear is said to be absolutely great; otherwise it is only relatively so, as for instance, when account is taken of the greater susceptibility of certain classes of persons, such as old men, women, and children. Trifling fear is that which arises from being confronted with harm of inconsiderable dimensions, or, at any rate of whose happening there is only a slender likelihood. It is customary also to note a fear in which the element of reverence is uppermost (metus reverensalis), which has its source in the desire not to offend one's parents and superiors. In itself this is reputed to be but trifling, although from circumstances it may easily rise to the dignity of a serious dread. A criterion rather uniformly employed by moralists, to determine what really and apart from subjective conditions is, a serious fear, is that contained in this assertion. It is the feeling which is calculated to influence a solidly balanced man (cadere in virum constantem). Another important classification is that of fear which comes from some source within the person, for example, that which is created by the knowledge that one has contracted a fatal disease fear which comes from without, or is produced namely, by some cause extrinsic to the terror-stricken subject. In the last named instance the cause may be either natural, such as probable volcanic eruptions, or recognizable in the attitude of some free agent. Finally it may be observed that one may have been submitted to the spell of fear either justly or unjustly, according as the one who provokes this passion remains within his rights, or exceeds them, in so doing. Actions done under stress of fear, unless of course it be so intense as to have dethroned reason, are accounted the legitimate progeny of the human will, or are, as the theologians say, simply voluntary, and therefore imputable. The reason is obvious, such acts lack neither adequate advertence nor sufficient consent, even though the latter be elicited only to avoid a greater evil or one conceived to be greater. In asmuch, however, as they are accompanied by a more or less vehement repugnance, they are said to be in a limited and partial sense involuntary. The practical inference from this teaching is that an evil act having otherwise the bad eminence of grievous sin remains such, even though done out of serious fear. This is true when the transgression in question is against the natural law. In the case of obligations emerging from positive precepts, whether Divine or human, a serious and well-founded dread may often operate as an excuse, so that the failure to comply with the law under such circumstances is not regarded as sinful. The lawgiver is not presumed to have it in mind to impose an heroic act. This, however, does not hold good when the catering to such a fear would involve considerable damage to the common weal. Thus, for instance, a parish priest, in a parish visited by a pestilence, is bound by the law of residence to stay at his post, no matter what his apprehensions may be. It ought to be added here that attrition, or sorrow for sin even though it be the fruit of dread inspired by the thought of eternal punishment, is not in any sense involuntary. At least it must not be so, if it is to avail in the Sacrament of Penance for the justification of the sinner. The end aimed at by this imperfect sort of sorrow is precisely a change of will, and the giving up of sinful attachment is an unreservedly good and reasonable thing. Hence there is no room for that concomitant regret, or dislike, with which other things are done through fear. It is, of course, needless to observe that in what has been said hitherto we have been referring always to what is done as a result of fear, not to what takes place merely in, or with fear. A vow taken out of fear produced by natural causes, such as a threatened shipwreck, is valid; but one extorted as the effect of fear unjustly applied by another is invalid; and this last is probably true even when the fear is trifling, if it be the sufficient motive for making the vow. The reason is that it is difficult to conceive such a promise being acceptable to Almighty God. So far as natural law is concerned, fear does not invalidate contracts. Nevertheless, when one of the parties has suffered duress at the hands of the other; the contract is voidable within the choosing of the one so injured. As to marriage, unless the fear prompting its solemnization is so extreme as to take away the use of reason, the common teaching is that such consent, having regard for the moment only to the natural law, would be binding. Its standing in ecclesiastical law is discussed in another article. It is worthy of note that mere insensibility to fear having its root whether in stolidity, or pride, or want of a proper rating of even temporal things, is not a valuable character asset. On the contrary, it represents a vicious temper of soul, and upon occasion its product may be notably sinful. JOSEPH F. DELANY Ecclesiastical Feasts Ecclesiastical Feasts (Lat. Festum; Gr. heorte). Feast Days, or Holy Days, are days which are celebrated in commemoration of the sacred mysteries and events recorded in the history of our redemption, in memory of the Virgin Mother of Christ, or of His apostles, martyrs, and saints, by special services and rest from work. A feast not only commemorates an event or person, but also serves to excite the spiritual life by reminding us of the event it commemorates. At certain hours Jesus Christ invites us to His vineyard (Matt., xx, 1-15); He is born in our hearts at Christmas; on Good Friday we nail ourselves to the cross with Him; at Easter we rise from the tomb of sin; and at Pentecost we receive the gifts of the Holy Ghost. Every religion has its feasts, but none has such a rich and judiciously constructed system of festive seasons as the Catholic Church. The succession of these seasons form the ecclesiastical year, in which the feasts of Our Lord form the ground and framework, the feasts of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints the ornamental tracery. Prototypes and starting-points for the oldest ecclesiastical feasts are the Jewish solemnities of Easter and Pentecost. Together with the weekly Lord's Day, they remained the only universal Christian feasts down to the third century (Tertullian, "De Bapt." 19: Origen, "Contra Celsum", VIII, 22). Two feasts of Our Lord (Epiphany, Christmas) were added in the fourth century; then came the feasts of the Apostles and martyrs, in particular provinces; later on also those of some confessors (St. Martin, St. Gregory); in the sixth and seventh centuries feasts of the Blessed Virgin were added. After the triumph of Christianity, in the fourth and fifth centuries, the sessions of the civil courts were prohibited on all feasts, also the games in the circus and theatrical performances, in order to give an opportunity to all to hear Mass. In the course of centuries the ecclesiastical calendar expanded considerably, because in earlier ages every bishop had a right to establish new feasts. Later on a reduction of feasts took place, partly by regular ecclesiastical legislation, partly in consequence of revolutions in State and church. The Statutes of Bishop Sonnatius of Reims (see CALENDAR, III, 163), in 620, mention eleven feasts; the Statutes of St. Boniface ("Statuta", Mansi XII, 383), nineteen days, "in quibus sabbatizandum", i.e. days of rest. In England (ninth century) the feasts were confined to Christmas, Epiphany, three days of Easter, Assumption, Sts. Peter and Paul, St. Gregory, and All Saints. Before the reign of King Edgar (959-75), three festivals of the B.V. Mary, and the days kept in honour of the Apostles were added; in the tenth year of Ethelred (989), the feast of St. Edward the Martyr (18 March), and in the reign of Canute, or Cnut (1017-35), that of St. Dunstan (19 May), were added. The feasts in the Statutes of Lanfrane (d. 1089) are quite numerous, and are divided into three classes (Migne, P.L., CL, 472-78) The Decree of Gratian (about 1150) mentions forty-one feasts besides the diocesan patronal celebrations; the Decretals of Gregory IX (about 1233) mention forty-five public feasts and Holy Days, which means eighty-five days when no work could be done and ninety-five days when no court sessions could be held. In many provinces eight days after Easter, in some also the week after Pentecost (or at least four days), had the sabbath rest. From the thirteenth to the eighteenth century there were dioceses in which the Holy Days and Sundays amounted to over one hundred, not counting the feasts of particular monasteries and churches. In the Byzantine empire there were sixty-six entire Holy Days (Constitution of Manuel Comnenus, in 1166), exclusive of Sundays, and twenty-seven half Holy Days. In the fifteenth century, Gerson, Nicolas de Clemanges and others protested against the multiplication of feasts, as an oppression of the poor, and proximate occasions of excesses. The long needed reduction of feast days was made by Urban VIII (Universa per orbem, 13 Sept., 1642). There remained thirty-six feasts or eighty-five days free from labour. Pope Urban limited the right of the bishops to establish new Holy Days; this right is now not abrograted, but antiquated. A reduction for Spain by Benedict XIII (1727) retained only seventeen feasts; and on the nineteen abrogated Holy Days only the hearing of Mass was obligatory. This reduction was extended (1748) to Sicily. For Austria (1745) the number had been reduced to fifteen full Holy Days; but since the hearing of Mass on the abrogated feasts, or half Holy Days, the fast on the vigils of the Apostles were poorly observed, Clement XIV ordered that sixteen full feasts should be observed; he did away with the half Holy Days, which however continued to be observed in the rural districts (peasant Holy Days, Bauernfeiertage). The parish priests have to say Mass for the people on all the abrogated feasts. The same reduction was introduced into Bavaria in 1775, and into Spain in 1791; finally Pius VI extended this provision to other countries and provinces. By the French revolution the ecclesiastical calendar had been radically abolished, and at the reorganization of the French Church, in 1806, only four feasts were retained: Christmas, the Ascension, the Assumption, and All Saints; the other feasts were transferred to Sunday. This reduction was valid also in Belgium and in Germany on the left bank of the Rhine. For the Catholics in England Pius VI (19 March, 1777) established the following lists of feasts: Easter and Pentecost two days each, Christmas, New Year's Day, Epiphany, Ascension, Corpus Christi, Annunciation, Assumption, Sts. Peter and Paul, St. George, and All Saints. After the restoration of the hierarchy (1850), the Annunciation, St. George, and the Monday after Easter and Pentecost were abolished. Scotland keeps also the feast of St. Andrew, Ireland the feasts of St. Patrick and the Annunciation. In the United States, the number of feasts was not everywhere the same; the Council of Baltimore wanted only four feasts, but the decree was not approved by Rome; the third Plenary Council of Baltimore (1884), by a general law, retained six feasts: Christmas, New Year's Day, Ascension, Assumption, the Immaculate Conception, and All Saints. Sts. Peter and Paul and Corpus Christi were transferred to the next following Sunday. In the city of Rome the following feasts are of double precept (i.e. hearing Mass, and rest from work): Christmas, New Year's Day, Epiphany, Purification, St. Joseph, Annunciation, Ascension, St. Philip Neri (26 May), Corpus Christi, Nativity of the B.V.M., All Saints, Conception of the B.V.M., St. John the Evangelist. The civil law in Italy acknowledges: Epiphany, Ascension, Sts. Peter and Paul, Assumption, Nativity, Conception, Christmas, and the patronal feasts. The Greek Church at present observes the following Holy Days: Nativity of Mary, Exaltation of the Cross (14 Sept.), St. Demetrius (26 Oct.), St. Michael (8 Nov.), Entrance of Mary into the Temple (21 Nov.), St. Nicholas (6 Dec.), Conception of St. Anne (9 Dec.), Nativity of Christ, Commemoration of Mary (26 Dec.), St. Stephen (27 Dec.), Circumcision (1 Jan.), Epiphany, the Doctors St. Basil, St. Gregory, St. John Chrysostom (30 Jan.), the Meeting of Christ and Simeon (2 Febr.), Annunciation, St. George (23 Apr.), Nativity of St. John, Sts. Peter and Paul, St. Elias (20 July), Transfiguration (6 Aug.), Assumption, Beheading of St. John (29 Aug.), the Monday after Easter and Pentecost, Ascension of Christ, and the patronal feasts. The Russians have only nine ecclesiastical Holy Days which do not fall on a Sunday, viz.: Nativity, Epiphany, Ascension, Transfiguration, Purification, Annunciation, Assumption, Presentation of Mary (21 Nov.), and the Exaltation of the Cross. But they have fifty festivals (birthdays, etc.) of the imperial family, on which days not even a funeral can be held. DIVISION OF FEASTS Feasts are divided: + According to external celebration (feriatio): festa fori, or feasts of precept, with double obligation, to rest from work and to hear Mass; festa chori, which are kept only in the liturgy, by the celebration of Mass, and the recitation of the Divine Office. Besides these there were, and still are, in some dioceses (e.g. in Holland), the Half Holy Days, on which the people after having heard Mass can do servile work (Candlemas, Nativity of Mary, and the Immaculate Conception in the Diocese of Utrecht). + According to extension: Universal feasts, celebrated everywhere, at least in the Latin Church; particular feasts, celebrated only by certain religious orders, countries, provinces, dioceses or towns. These latter are either prescribed by the general rubrics, like the patronal feasts, or are specially approved by the Apostolic See, and prescribed by bishops or synods, for particular countries or dioceses (festa pro aliquibus locis in the Breviary). The universal feasts are contained in the Roman Calendar. + According to their position in the calendar: movable feasts, which always fall on a certain day of the week, depending on the date of Easter, or the position of the Sunday, e.g. Ascension of Christ (forty days after Easter), or the feast of the Holy Rosary, the first Sunday of October; immovable feasts, which are fixed to a certain date of the month, e.g. Christmas, 25 December. In the Armenian Church all the feasts of the year are moveable, except six: Epiphany, Purification (14 Febr.), Annunciation (7 April), Nativity (8 Sept.), Presentation (21 Nov.), and (8 Dec. Conception of Mary (Tondini, "Calendrier liturgique de la Nation Armenienne", Rome, 1906). + According to the solemnity of the office or rite (see CALENDAR and DUPLEX). Since the thirteenth century there are three kinds of feasts: festum simplex, semiduplex, and duplex, all three regulated by the recitation of the Divine Office or Breviary. The simple feast commences with the chapter (capitulum) of First Vespers, and ends with None. It has three lessons and takes the psalms of Matins from the ferial office; the rest of the office is like the semidouble. The semidouble feast has two Vespers, nine lessons in Matins, and ends with Compline. The antiphons before the psalms are only intoned. In the Mass, the semidouble has always at least three "orationes" or prayers. On a double feast the antiphons are sung in their entirety, before and after the psalms. In Lauds and Vespers there are no suffragia of the saints, and the Mass has only one "oratio" (if there be no commemoration prescribed). The ordinary double feasts are called duplicia minora; occurring with feasts of a higher rank, they can be simplified, except the octave days of some feasts and the feasts of the Doctors of the Church, which are transferred. The feasts of a higher rank are the duplicia majora (introduced by Clement VIII), the duplicia secundae classis and the duplicia primae classis. Some of the latter two classes are kept with octaves. Before the reformation of the Breviary by Pius V (1566-72), the terms by which the solemnity of a feast could be known were, in many churches, very different from the terms we use now. We give a few examples from Grotefend, "Zeitrechnung", etc. (Hanover, 1891-98, II-III): Chur: "Festum summum, plenum officium trium lectionum, commemoratio." Havelberg: "Festum summum, semisummum, secundum, tertium, novem majus, novem minus, compulsation 3 lect., antiphona." Halle: "Festum praepositi, apostolicum, dominicale, 9 lect., compulsation 3 lect., antiphona." Breslau: "Festum Triplex, duplex, 9 lectionum, 3 lect., commemoratio." Carthusians: "Festum Candelarum, capituli, 12 lect., missa, commemoratio." Lund: "Fest Praelatorum, canonicorum, vicariorum, duplex, simplex, 9 lect., 3 lect., memoria." Some of the religious orders which have their own breviary, did not adopt the terms now used in the Roman Breviary. For example, the Cistercians have the following terminology: "Festum sermonis majus, sermonis minus, duarum missarum majus, 2 miss. minus, 12 lectionum, 3 lect., commemoratio." The Dominicans: "Totum duplex, duplex, simplex, 3 lect., memoria." The Carmelites: "Duplex majus I. classis solemnis, dupl, maj. I. cl. duplex majus 2. classis, duplex minus I, classis, duplex minus 2, classis, semiduplex, simplex, simplicissimum." Among the feasts of the same rite there is a difference in dignity. There are + primary feasts which commemorate the principal mysteries of our religion, or celebrate the death of a saint; + secondary feasts, the object of which is a particular feature of a mystery, e.g. the feast of the Crown of Thorns, of the relics of a saint or of some miracle worked by him, e.g. the feast of the translation of St. Stephen, the Apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe. The list of primary and secondary feasts has been determined by a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites (22 Aug., 1893), and is found in the introduction to the Roman Breviary. + Within the two classes mentioned the feasts of Christ take the first place, especially those with privileged vigils and octaves (Christmas, Epiphany, Easter, Pentecost, and Corpus Christi); then follow the feasts of the Blessed Virgin, the Holy Angels, St. John the Baptist, St. Joseph, the Apostles and Evangelists, and the other saints. DUCHESNE, Origines du Culte Chretien (Paris, 1889); tr. McCLURE (London, 1904); KELLNER, Heortology (tr. London, 1909), PROBST, Liturgie des vierten Jahrh. (Muenster, 1893); BAeUMER, Geschichte des Breviers (Freiburg, 1895); BENTRIUM, Denkwuerdigen (Mainz, 1829); LINGARD, Antiquities of the Anglo Saxon Church (London, 1858); MAXIMILIAN, PRINCE OF SAXONY, Praelect. de Liturgiis Orientalibus (Freiburg, 1908); Kirchliches Handlexicom (Muenster 1907); Kirchenlexicon(Freiburg, 1886), IV; NILLES, Kalendarium, manuele, etc. (Innsbruck,1897); MORISOT, Instructions sur les fetes de l'annee (Paris, 1908). F.G. HOLWECK Febronianism Febronianism The politico-ecclesiastical system outlined by Johann Nikolaus von Hontheim, Auxiliary Bishop of Trier, under the pseudonym Justinus Febronius, in his work entitled "Justini Febronii Juris consulti de Stata Ecclesiae et legitima potestate Romani Pontificis Liber singularis ad reuniendos dissidentes in religione christianos compositus" (Bullioni apud Guillelmum Evrardi, 1763; in reality the work was published by Esslinger at Frankfort-on-the-Main). Taking as a basis the Gallican principles which he had imbibed from the canonist Van Espen while pursuing his studies in Louvain, Hontheim advanced along the same lines, in spite of many inconsistencies, to a radicalism far outstripping traditional Gallicanism. He develops in this work a theory of ecclesiastical organization founded on a denial of the monarchical constitution of the Church. The ostensible purpose was to facilitate the reconciliation of the Protestant bodies with the Church by diminishing the power of the Holy See. According to Febronius (cap. i), the power of the keys was entrusted by Christ to the whole body of the Church, which holds it principaliter et radicaliter, but exercises it through her prelates, to whom only the administration of this power is committed. Among these the pope comes first, though even he is subordinate to the Church as a whole. The Divine institution of the primacy in the church is acknowledged (cap. ii), but Febronius holds that its connexion with the Roman See does not rest on the authority of Christ, but on that of Peter and the Church, so that the Church has the power to attach it to another see. The power of the pope, therefore, should be confined to those essential rights inherent in the primacy which were exercised by the Holy See during the first eight centuries. The pope is the centre with which the individual Churches must be united. He must be kept informed of what is taking place everywhere throughout the Church, that he may exercise the care demanded by his office for the preservation of unity. It is his duty to enforce the observance of the canons in the whole Church; he has the authority to promulgate laws in the name of the Church, and to depute legates to exercise his authority as primate. His power, as head of the whole Church, however, is of an administrative and unifying character, rather than a power of jurisdiction. But since the ninth century, chiefly through the influence of the False Decretals of Pseudo-Isidore, the constitution of the Church has undergone a complete transformation, in that the papal authority has been extended beyond proper bounds (cap. iii). By a violation of justice, questions which at one time were left to the decision of provincial synods and metropolitans gradually came to be reserved to the Holy See (cap. iv), as, for instance, the condemnation of heresies, the confirmation of episcopal elections, the naming of coadjutors with the right of succession, the transfer and removal of bishops, the establishment of new dioceses, and the erection of metropolitan and primatial sees. The pope, whose infallibility is expressly denied (cap. v), cannot, on his own authority, without a council or the assent of the entire episcopate, give forth any decisions on matters of faith of universal obligation. Likewise in matters of discipline, he can issue no decrees affecting the whole body of the faithful; the decrees of a general council have binding power only after their acceptance by the individual churches. Laws once promulgated cannot be altered at the pope's will or pleasure. It is also denied that the pope, by the nature and authority of the primacy, can receive appeals from the whole Church. According to Febronius, the final court of appeal in the Church is the ecumenical council (cap. vi), the fights of which exclude the pretended monarchical constitution of the Church. The pope is subordinate to the general council; he has neither the exclusive authority to summon one, nor the right to preside at its sessions, and the conciliar decrees do not need his ratification. Ecumenical councils are of absolute necessity, as even the assent of a majority of bishops to a papal decree, if given by the individuals, outside a council, does not constitute a final, irrevocable decision. Appeal from the pope to a general council is justified by the superiority of the council over the pope. According to the Divine institution of the episcopate (cap. vii), all bishops have equal rights; they do not receive their power of jurisdiction from the Holy See. It is not within the province of the pope to exercise ordinary episcopal functions in dioceses other than that of Rome. The papal reservations regarding the granting of benefices, annates, and the exemption of religious orders are thus in conflict with the primitive law of the Church, and must be abolished. Having shown, as he believes, that the existing ecclesiastical law with reference to papal power is a distortion of the original constitution of the Church, due chiefly to the False Decretals, Febronius demands that the primitive discipline, as outlined by him, be everywhere restored (cap. viii). He then suggests as means for bringing about this reformation (cap. ix), that the people shall be properly enlightened on this subject, that a general council with full freedom be held, that national synods be convened, but especially that Catholic rulers take concerted action, with the cooperation and advice of the bishops, that secular princes avail themselves of the Regium Placet to resist decrees, that obedience be openly refused to a legitimate extent, and finally that secular authority be appealed to through the Appellatio ab abusu. The last measures reveal the real trend of Febronian principles; Febronius, while ostensibly contending for a larger independence and greater authority for the bishops, seeks only to render the Churches of the different countries less dependent on the Holy See, in order to facilitate the establishment of national Churches in these states, and reduce the bishops to a condition in which they would be merely servile creatures of the civil power. Wherever an attempt was made to put his ideas into execution, it proceeded along these lines. The book was formally condemned, 27 February, 1764, by Clement XIII. By a Brief of 21 May, 1764, the pope required the German episcopate to suppress the work. Ten prelates, among them the Elector of Trier, complied. Meanwhile no steps had been taken against the author personally, who was well known in Rome. Despite the ban of the Church, the book, harmonizing as it did with the spirit of the times, had a tremendous success. A second edition, revised and enlarged, was issued as early as 1765; it was reprinted at Venice and Zurich, and translations appeared in German, French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese. In the three later volumes, which Hontheim issued as supplementary to the original work, and numbered II to IV (Vol. II, Frankfort and Leipzig, 1770; Vol. III, 1772; Vol. IV, Parts 1 and 2, 1773-74), he defended it, under the name of Febronius and various other pseudonyms, against a series of attacks. Later he published an abridgment under the title: "Justinus Febronius abbreviatus et emendatus" (Cologne and Frankfort, 1777). In addition to the "Judicium academicum" of the University of Cologne (1765), refutations appeared from a large number of Catholic authors, the most important being: Ballerini, "De vi ac ratione primatus Romanorum Pontificum et de ipsorum infallibilitate in definiendis controversiis fidei" (Verona, 1766); Idem, "De potestate ecclesiastica Summorum Pontifleum et Conciliorum generalium liber, una cum vindiciis auctoritatis pontificiae contra opus Just. Febronii (Verona, 1768; Augsburg, 1770; new ed. of both works, Muenster in W., 1845, 1847); Zaccaria, "Antifebronio, ossia apologia polemicostorica del primato del Papa, contra la dannata opera di Giust. Febronio" (2 vols., Pesaro, 1767; 2nd ed., 4 vols., Cesena, 1768-70; tr. German, Reichenberger, Augsburg, 1768); Idem, "Antifebronius vindicatus" (4 vols., Cesena, 1771-2); Idem, "In tertium Justini Febronii tomum animadversiones Romano-catholicae" (Rome, 1774); Mamachi, "Epistolae ad Just. Febronium de ratione regendae christianae reipublicae deque legitima Romani Pontificis potestate" (3 vols., Rome, 1776-78). There were, besides, refutations written from the Protestant standpoint, to repudiate the idea that a diminution of the papal power was all that was necessary to bring the Protestants back into union with the Church, for instance Karl Friedrich Bahrdt, "Dissertatio de eo, an fieri possit, ut sublato Pontificio imperio reconcilientur Dissidentes in religione Christiani" (Leipzig, 1763), and Johann Friedrich Bahrdt, "Do Romana Ecclesia irreconciliabili" (Leipzig, 1767); Karl Gottl. Hofmann, "Programma continens examen regulae exegeticae ex Vincentio Lerinensi in Febronio repetitae" (Wittenberg, 1768). The first measures against the author were taken by Pius VI, who urged Clemens Wenzeslaus, Elector of Trier, to prevail on Hontheim to recall the work. Only after prolonged exertions, and after a retractation, couched in general terms, had been adjudged unsatisfactory in Rome, the elector forwarded to Rome Hontheim's emended recantation (15 November, 1778). This was communicated to the cardinals in consistory by Pius VI on Christmas Day. That this retractation was not sincere on Hontheim's part is evident from his subsequent movements. That he had by no means relinguished his ideas appears from his "Justini Febronii Jcti. Commentarius in suam Retractationem Pio VI. Pont. Max. Kalendis Nov. anni 1778 submissam" (Frankfort, 1781; German ed., Augsburg, 1781), written for the purpose of justifying his position before the public. Meanwhile; notwithstanding the prohibition, the "Febronius" had produced its pernicious effects, which were not checked by the retractation. The ideas advanced in the work, being in thorough accord with the absolutistic tendencies of civil rulers, were eagerly accepted by the Catholic courts and governments of France, the Austrian Netherlands, Spain and Portugal, Venice, Austria, and Tuscany; and they received further development at the hands of court theologians and canonists who favoured the scheme of a national Church. Among the advocates of the theory of Febronianism in Germany, mention should be made of the Trier professor, Franz Anton Haubs, "Themata ex historia ecclesiastica de hierarchia sacra primorum V saeculorum" (Trier, 1786); "Systema primaevum de potestate episcopali ejusque applicatio ad episcopalia quaedam jura in specie punctationibus I. II. et IV. congressus Emsani exposita" (Trier, 1788); and Wilhelm Joseph Castello, "Dissertatio historica de variis causis, queis accidentalis Romani Pontificis potestas successive ampliata fuit" (Trier, 1788). It was the Austrian canonists, however, who contributed most towards the compilation of a new law code regulating the relations of Church and State, which was reduced to practice under Joseph II. Especially noteworthy as being conceived in this spirit were the textbooks on canon law prescribed for the Austrian universities, and compiled by Paul Joseph von Riegger, "Institutiones juris ecclesiastici" (4 vols., Vienna, 1768-72; frequently reprinted), and Pehem, "Praelectiones in jus ecclesiasticum universum", also, in a more pronounced way, the work of Johann Valentin Eybel, "Introductia in jus ecclesiasticum Catholicorum" (4 vols., Vienna, 1777; placed on the Index, 1784). The first attempt to give Febronian principles a practical application was made in Germany at the Coblenz Conference of 1769, where the three ecclesiastical Electors of Mains, Cologne, and Trier, through their delegates, and under the directions of Hontheim, compiled a list of thirty grievances against the Roman See, in consonance with the principles of the "Febronius" (Gravamina trium Archiepiscoporum Electorum, Moguntinensis, Trevirensis et Coloniensis contra Curiam Apostolicam anno 1769 ad Caesarem delata; printed in Le Bret, "Magazin zum Gebrauch der Staaten- und Kirchengeschichte", Pt. VIII, Ulm, 1783, pp. 1-21). More significant was the Ems Congress of 1786, at which the three ecclesiastical electors and the Prince-Bishop of Salzburg, in imitation of the Coblenz Congress, and in conformity with the basic principles of the "Febronius", made a fresh attempt to readjust the relations of the German Church with Rome, with a view to securing for the former a greater measure of independence; they also had their representatives draw up the Ems Punctation in twenty-three articles; they achieved, however, no practical results. An attempt was made to realize the principles of the "Febronius" on a large scale in Austria, where under Joseph II a national Church was established according to the plan outlined. Efforts in the same direction were made by Joseph's brother Leopold in his Grand-Duchy of Tuscany. The resolutions adopted at the Synod of Pistoia, under Bishop Scipio Ricci, along these lines, were repudiated by the majority of the bishops of the country. MEJER, Febronius, Weihbischof Johann Nicolaus von Hontheim und sein Widerruf (Tuebingen, 1880, 2nd ad., 1885), anti-Roman; KUeNTZIGER, Febronius et le Febronianisme in Memoires couronnes et autres memoires publies par l'Academie Royale des sciences, des lettres et des beaux-arts de Belgique, Vol. XLIV (Brussels, 1891). also anti-Roman; STUeMPER. Die kirchenrechtlichen Ideen des Febronius, inaugural dissertation presented to the faculty of jurisprudence and political economy of the University of Wuerzburg (Aschaffenburg, 1908), Catholic; ROeSCH, Das Kirchenrecht im Zeitalter der Aufklaerung, I: Der Febronianismus in Archiv f. kath. Kirchenrecht, LXXXIII (Mainz, 1903), 446-82, 620-52. Also WALCH, Neueste Religions-Geschichte, Pt. I (Lemgo, 1771), 145-98; Pt. VI (1777), 175-208; Pt. VII (1779), 193-240, 453-64; Pt. VIII (1781), 529-42; Briefwechsel zwischen weiland ihrer Durchlaucht dam Herrn Kurfuersten von Trier, Clemens Wenzeslaus und dem Herrn Weihbischof Nik. von Hontheim ueber das Buch, Just. Febronii de statu Ecclesiae (Frankfort, 1813); PHILLIPS, Kirchenrecht (Ratisbon, 1848), III, 365-74; MARX, Gesch. des Erzstifts Trier (Trier, 1864), V, 90-129; BRUeCK, Die rationalistischen Bestrebungen im katholischen Deutschland (Mainz, 1865); da SCHULTE, Die Gesch. der Quellen und Lit. des canonischen Rechts (Stuttgart, 1880), Vol. III, Pt. 1, 193-205; BELLESHEIM in Historisch-politische Blaetter, LXXXVI (1880), 529-44; KRAUS in Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, s. v. Hontheim; BRUeCK in Kirchenlex., s. v. Hontheim; ANON., Netler, Hontheim und Clemens Wenzeslaus (Die Anfaenge der febronianischen Haeresie) in Katholik, I (1891), 537-57; II, 19-39; ZILLICH, Febronius in Hallesche Abhandlungen zur neueren Geschichte, XLIV (Halle, 1906). FRIEDRICH LAUCHERT. John de Feckenham John de Feckenham Last Abbot of Westminster, and confessor of the Faith; b. in Feckenham Forest, Worcestershire, in 1515(?), of poor parents named Howman; d. at Wisbech Castle, 16 Oct., 1585. He became a Benedictine monk at Evesham, and studied at Gloucester Hall, Oxford (B. D., 11 June, 1539), returned to Evesham to teach junior monks till the dissolution, 27 Jan., 1540, when he received a pension of 15 marks. Rector of Solihull, Worcestershire (1544?-1554), he became known as an orator and controversialist. He was domestic chaplain to Bishop Bell of Worcester till 1543, and then to Bonner of London till 1549. He was sent to the Tower by Cranmer for defending the Faith, but in 1551 was "borrowed out of prison" to hold public disputations with the new men, e. g. with Jewel and Hooper. Again relegated to the Tower, he was released by Queen Mary, 5 Sept., 1553, and was much employed as a preacher in London; he was advanced to benefices, and in March, 1554, made dean of St. Paul's. He showed great mildness to the heretics, many of whom he converted, and saved others from the stake. He prepared Lady Jane Grey for death, though he could not convince her of her errors, as he did Sir John Cheke, the king's tutor. Feckenham interceded for Elizabeth after Wyatt's rebellion, obtaining her life and subsequent release. He took the degree of D. D. at Oxford, May, 1556, and on 7 Sept., 1556, was appointed abbot of the royal Abbey of Westminster, restored to the order by the queen. The Benedictines took possession on 21 November (since known as dies memorabilis), and the abbot was installed on 29 November, beginning his rule over a community of about twenty- eight, gathered from the dissolved abbeys. He successfully defended in Parliament, 11 Feb., 1557, the threatened privileges of sanctuary, and restored the shrine of the Confessor in his abbey church. Elizabeth at her accession offered (November, 1558) to preserve the monastery if he and his monks would accept the new religion, but Feckenham steadily refused, bravely and eloquently defending the old Faith in Parliament and denouncing the sacrilegious innovations of the Anglicans. He gave sanctuary to Bishop Bonner, and quietly went on planting trees while awaiting the expulsion, which took place 12 July, 1559. He generously resigned a large part of the money due him to the dean who succeeded him. Nevertheless, in May, 1560, he was sent to the Tower "for railing against the changes that had been made". Three years later he was given into the custody of Horne, the intruded Bishop of Winchester, but in 1564 he was sent back to the Tower, his episcopal jailer having failed to pervert him. Feckenham himself said that he preferred the prison to the pseudo-bishop's palace. In 1571 he prepared his fellow-prisoner, Blessed John Storey, for death, and a little later was sent to the Marshalsea. In the Tower he and his fellow-confessors had been "haled by the arms to Church in violent measure, against our wills, there to hear a sermon, not of persuading us but of railing upon us." He was released on bail, 17 July, 1574, after fourteen years' confinement, and lived in Holborn, where he devoted himself to works of charity. He encouraged boys in manly sports on Sundays, preferring that they should practise archery rather than attend the heretical services. But falling ill, he was permitted to go to Bath, where in 1576 he built a hospice for poor patients and did much good. But his zeal for the Faith excited fresh rancour, and in 1577 he was committed to the custody of Cox, Bishop of Ely, who was requested to bring him to conformity. Feckenham's so-called "Confession" (British Museum, Lansdowne MSS., No. 30, fol. 199) shows how egregiously Cox failed, and in 1580 he petitioned the council to remove the abbot, who was accordingly sent to Wisbech Castle, a dismal prison belonging to the Bishops of Ely, which he shared with Watson, Bishop of Lincoln, and other confessors. Here he died a holy death, fortified by the Sacred Viaticum, and was buried in Wisbech Church. He was worn out by an imprisonment of twenty- three years for conscience' sake; a striking example of Elizabeth's ingratitude. Protestant writers unite in praising his virtues, especially his kindness of heart, gentleness, and charity to the poor. Even Burnet calls him "a charitable and generous man". His best-known work is against Herne, "The Declaration of such Scruples and Stays of Conscience touching the Oath of Supremacy", etc. He also wrote "Caveat Emptor", a caution against buying abbey lands, and a commentary on the Psalms, but these are lost. Most complete life in Taunton, English Black Monks of St. Benedict (London, 1897); Bradley in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v., with good bibliography; Wood, Athenae Oxon., II, 222; Weldon, Chronological Notes on English Congregation O. S. B. (Stanbrook Abbey, 1883); Gillow, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., II; Gasquet, Last Abbot of Glastonbury and other Essays (London, 1908), s. v. Feckenham at Bath; Stapleton (vere Harpsfield), Counterblast to Mr. Hornes vayne blaste against Mr. Feckenham (London, 1567); Reyner, Apostolatus Benedictinorum in Anglia (Douai, 1626); State Papers, Elizabeth, Domestic, XXII, XXXVI, CXIV, CXXXI, CXXXII, CXLIII, etc.; Dixon, History of the Church of England (London, 1891), IV, V. Bede Camm Johann Michael Feder Johann Michael Feder A German theologian, b. 25 May, 1753, at Oellingen in Bavaria; d. 26 July, 1824, at Wuerzburg. He studied in the episcopal seminary of Wuerzburg from 1772-1777; in the latter year he was ordained priest and promoted to the licentiate in theology. For several years Feder was chaplain of the Julius hospital; in 1785 he was appointed extraordinary professor of theology and Oriental languages at the University of Wuerzburg; was created a Doctor of Divinity in 1786; director of the university library 1791, ordinary professor of theology and censor of theological publications, 1795. After the reorganization of the University of Wuerzburg, 1803-4, he was appointed chief librarian, resigning the professorship of theology in 1805. Shortly after his removal from office as librarian, November, 1811, he suffered a stroke of apoplexy, from which he never fully recovered. Feder was a prolific writer, editor, and translator, but was imbued with the liberal views of his time. His most meritorious work is a revision of Dr. Heinrich Braun's German translation of the Bible (1803), 2 vols. This revision served as the basis for Dr. Allioli's well-known translation. He also translated the writings of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (1786); the sermons of St. Chrysostom on Matthew and John, in conjunction with the unfortunate Eulogius Sehneider (1786-88); Theodoret's ten discourses on Divine Providence (1788); Gerard's lectures on pastoral duties (1803); de Bausset's life of Fenelon (1800-12), 3 vols., and the same author's life of Bossuet (1820); Fabert's "Meditations" (1786). He was editor of the "Magazin zur Befoerderung des Schulwesens" (1791-97), 3 vols., of the "Prakt.-theol. Magazin fuer katholische Geistliche" (1798-1800), and of the "Wuerzburger Gelehrten Anzeigen" (1788-92). He also wrote several volumes of sermons. ALEXIUS HOFFMANN Rudolph William Basil Feilding Rudolph William Basil Feilding The eighth Earl of Denbigh, and ninth Earl of Desmond, b. 9 April, 1823; d. 1892. He was educated at Eton College and Trinity College, Cambridge, where he took the degree of Master of Arts. He was received into the Church in 1850, and took an active part in many Catholic works of charity under Cardinal Wiseman. As Viscount Feilding he was appointed honorary treasurer, jointly with Viscount Campden and Mr. Archibald J. Dunn, of the Peter's Pence Association. He was a man of great courage and independence of character, qualities needed in the middle of the nineteenth century when the English Protestant mind was much inflamed in consequence of the establishment of the Catholic hierarchy in England. As a thanksgiving for his conversion, he built the Franciscan monastery at Pentasaph, North Wales. ARCHIBALD J. DUNN Andreas Benedict Feilmoser Andreas Benedict Feilmoser A theologian and Biblical scholar, b. 8 April, 1777, at Hopfgarten, Tyrol; d. at Tuebingen, 20 July, 1831, studied at Salzburg from 1789 to 1794, took a two years' course in philosophy at the University of Innsbruck (1794-96), and entered the Benedictine Order at Fiecht, Tyrol, in September, 1796. At this abbey he studied the Oriental languages under Dom Georg Maurer, a monk of St. George's Abbey, Villingen. For his theological studies he was sent to Villingen, where he again heard Dom Maurer and Dom Gottfried Lumper, both eminent scholars. Returning to Fiecht in 1800, he taught Biblical exegesis and was ordained priest in 1801; late in the same year he was appointed master of novices, in 1802 professor of Christian ethics and in 1803 of ecclesiastical history. A number of theses which he published in 1803 aroused the suspicions of the ecclesiastical authorities of the Diocese of Brixen. The Abbot of Fiecht was sharply rebuked for permitting Feilmoser to teach unsound doctrine. In 1804 appeared Feilmoser's "Animadversiones in historiam ecclesiasticam", which did not meet the approval of the diocesan authorities, who threatened, in case Feilmoser did not desist from advancing dangerous opinions, to institute proceedings against the abbot. To Feilmoser's request for a specification of the objectionable passages in his writings no reply was made, but the entire matter was reported to the emperor at Vienna. An investigation instituted by order of the emperor resulted favourably for Feilmoser. He was, nevertheless, removed from the office of master of novices and in 1806 was made assistant in the parish of Achenthal. By the Treaty of Presburg (26 Dec.,1805) Tyrol was cut off from Austria and became a part of Bavaria. The new Government, in November, 1806, appointed him professor of Oriental languages and of introduction to the Old Testament at the University of Innsbruck. The monastery of Fiecht having been suppressed in 1807, he left the order. At lnnsbruck he received the degree of Doctor of Theology in 1808 and was appointed to the chair of New Testament exegesis. During the Tyrolese insurrection, August, 1809, he, with a number of other professors, was taken prisoner and carried to Pusterthal by order of Andreas Hofer. In 1810 he returned to Innsbruck, in 1811 he was made professor of catechetics, in 1812 of Latin and Greek philology, and in 1817 was reappointed professor of New-Testament exegesis in the face of much opposition. About this time the old charges against him were revived, and in 1818 he was bitterly attacked in an anonymous work published at Augsburg. He was denied the opportunity of publicly defending himself, inasmuch as the imperial censor at Vienna, on 17 July, 1819, decided that since the anonymous work was published, a foreign country, it was under Austrian censure and must be regarded as non-existent. On 25 April, 1820, he was formally appointed a professor at the University of Tuebingen, where he continued to teach New -Testament exegesis until his death. He wrote: "Saetze aus der christlichen Sittenlehre fuer die oeffentliche Pruefung in dem Benedictinerstifte zu Fiecht" (Innsbruck, 1803); "Saetze aus der Einleitung in die Buecher des alten Bundes und den hebraischen Alterhumern" (Innsbruch, 1803); "Animaversiones in historiam ecclesiasticam" (Innsbruck, 1803); "Saetze aus der Einleitung in die Buecher des neuen Bundes und der bibli. Hermeneutik" (Innsbruck, 1804); "Einleitung in die Buecher des des neuen Bundes" (Innsbruck, 1810); "Auszug des hebr. Sprachlehre nach Jahn" (Innsburck 1812); "Die Verketzerrungssucht" (Rottweil, 1820). His principal work, "Einleitung in die Bucher des neuen Bundes", published in a revised edition (Tuebingen, 1830), is inaccurate and was praised far beyond its due. He also contributed papers and criticisms to the "Annalen der osterreichischen Litteratur und Kunst" and the "Theologische Quartal-schrift" of Tuebingen. His exegetical writings are influenced by the rationalistic spirit of his day. He denied the genuineness of the Comma Johanneum and maintained that the Books of Job, Jonas, Tobias, and Judith are merely didactic poems. ALEXIUS HOFFMANN Johann Ignaz von Felbiger Johann Ignaz von Felbiger A German educational reformer, pedagogical writer, and canon regular of the Order of St. Augustine, b. 6 January, 1724, at Gross-Glogau in Silesia; d. 17 May, 1788, at Presburg in Hungary. He was the son of a postmaster, who had been ennobled by Emperor Charles VI. The death of his parents constrained him, after studying theology at the University of Breslau, to accept (1744) the position of teacher in a private family. In 1746 he joined the Order of Canons Regular of St. Augustine at Sagan in Silesia, was ordained a priest in 1748, and ten years later became abbot of the monastery of Sagan. Noting the sad condition of the local Catholic schools, he strove to remedy the evil by publishing his first school-ordinance in 1761. During the private journey to Berlin, in 1762, he was favourably impressed with Hecker's Realschule and Haehn's method of instructing by initials and tables (Literal- or Tabellen-methode), and became an enthusiastic propagator of this method. A school-ordinance for the dependencies of the monastery of Sagan was issued in 1763, teachers' college was established, and Felbiger's school reforms soon attracted the attention of Catholics and Protestants alike. He was supported by the Silesian minister von Schlabrendorff, and at the latter's request, after a second journey to Berlin he elaborated general school-ordinance for the Catholic elementary schools in Silesia (1765). Three graded catechisms, the joint work of the prior and the abbot of Sagan, appeared in 1766 under the title, "Silesian Catechism", and enjoyed a wide circulation. The death of von Schlabrendorff in 1769 marked the end of the Silesian government's educational efforts. Felbiger's suggetions were heeded, however, by King Frederick II in regulations issued (1774) for Silesian higher schools. At the request of the empress, Maria Theresa, he repaired to Vienna in 1774, and was appointed General Commissioner of Education for all the German lands of her dominions. The same year he published general school-ordinance, and in 1775 his most important pedagogical production: "Methodenbuch fuer Lehrer der deutschen Schulen". His school-reform was copied by Bavaria and other German lands and was not without influence on Russia. Considerable opposition, aroused by Felbiger's arbitrariness, developed in Austria against his plan of founding special schools for the neglected instruction of soldiers. Maria Theresa, however, always remained his faithful protectress. Put his strictly religious principles education displeased Joseph II, who depraved him his position, assigned him to his provostship at Presburg, and advised him to look after educational intests in Hungary (1782). The chief peculiarity of Felbiger's too mechanical method was the use of tables containing the initials of the words which expressed the lesson to be imparted. Other features were the substitution of class-instruction for individual instruction and the practice of questioning the pupils. He aimed at raising the social standing, financial condition, and professional qualification of the teaching body, at giving a friendly character to the mutual relations between teacher and pupil. For a list of his 78 publications, which are mainly of a pedagogical character, see Panholzer's "Methodenbuch" (46-66). N.A. WEBER Felician Sisters, O.S.F. Felician Sisters, 0.S.F. Founded 21 November, 1855, at Warsaw, Poland, by Mother Mary Angela, under the direction of Father Honorat, O.F.M. Cap. On their suppression, in 1864, by the Russian Government they transferred the mother-house to Cracow, Austria. In the province of Cracow there are forty-four houses of this congregation, and in the United States, where the first foundation was made in 1874, there are two provinces, 820 choir and lay sisters, 100 novices, 168 postulants, in charge of 87 schools with 36,700 pupils, 5 orphanages with 416 inmates, 2 homes for the aged, an emigrant home, working girls' home, and a day nursery. MOTHER MARY JEROME Felicissimus Felicissimus A deacon of Carthage who, in the middle of the third century, headed a short-lived but dangerous schism, to which undue doctrinal importance has been given by a certain class of writers, Neander, Ritschl, Harnack, and others, who see in it "a presbyterial reaction against episcopal autocracy". Of the chief figure in the revolt, Felicissimus, not much can be said. The movement of which he was afterwards the leader originated in the opposition of five presbyters of the church in Carthage to St. Cyprian's election as bishop of that see. One of these presbyters, Novatus, selected Felicissimus as deacon of his church in the district called Mons, and because of the importance of the office of deacon in the African Church, Felicissimus became the leader of the malcontents. The opposition of this faction, however, led to no open rupture until after the outbreak of the Decian persecution in 250, when St. Cyprian was compelled to flee from the city. His absence created a situation favourable to his adversaries, who took advantage of a division already existing in regard to the methods to be followed in dealing with those who had apostatized (lapsi) during persecution and who afterwards sought to be readmitted to Christian fellowship. It was easy under the circumstances to arouse much hostility to Cyprian, because he had followed an extremely rigorous policy in dealing with those lapsi. The crisis was reached when St. Cyprian sent from his place of hiding a commission consisting of two bishops and two priests to distribute alms to those who had been ruined during the persecution. Felicissimus, regarding the activities of these men as an encroachment on the prerogatives of his office, attempted to frustrate their mission. This was reported to St. Cyprian, who at once excommunicate him. Felicissimus immediately gathered around him all those who were dissatisfied with the bishop's treatment of the lapsi and proclaimed an open revolt. The situation was still further complicated by the fact that the thirty years' peace preceding the Decian persecution had caused much laxity in the Church, and that on the first outbreak of hostilities multitudes of Christians had openly apostatized or resorted to the expedient of purchasing certificates from the venal officials, attesting their compliance with the emperor's edict. Besides this the custom of readmitting apostates to Christian fellowship, if they could show tickets from confessors or martyrs in their behalf, had resulted in widespread scandals. While St. Cyprian was in exile he did not succeed in checking the revolt even though he wisely refrained from excommunicating those who differed from in regard to the treatment of the lapsi. After his return to Carthage (251) he convoked a synod of bishops, priests ansd deacons, in which the sentence of excommunication against Felicissimus and the heads of faction was reaffirmed, and in which definite rules were laid down regarding the manner of readmitting the lapsi. The sentence against Felicissimus and his followers did not deter them from appearing before another council, which was held in Carthage the following year, and demanding that the case be reopend. Their demand was refused, and they sought to profit by the division in the Roman Church which had arisen from similar causes, except that in this case the charge of laxity was levelled against the orthodox party. This proceding and the fact that the Council of Carthage had decided with so much moderation in regard to the lapsi, modifying as it did the rigoristic policy of Cyprian by a judicious compromise, soon detached from Felicissimus all his followers, and the schism disappeared. PATRICK J. HEALY St. Felicitas St. Felicitas MARTYR. The earliest list of the Roman feasts of martyrs, known as the "Depositio Martyrum" and dating from the time of Pope Liberius, i.e. about the middle of the fourth century (Ruinart, Acta sincera, Ratisbon, p. 631), mentions seven martyrs whose feast was kept on 10 July. Their remains had been deposited in four different catacombs, viz. in three cemeteries on the Via Salaria and in one on the Via Appia. Two of the martyrs, Felix and Philip, reposed in the catacomb of Priscilla; Martial, Vitalis and Alexander, in the Coemeterium Jordanorum; Silanus (or Silvanus) in the catacomb of Maximus, and Januarius in that of Praetextatus. To the name of Silanus is added the statement that his body was stolen by the Novatians (hunc Silanum martyrem Novatiani furati sunt). In the Acts of these martyrs, that certainly existed in the sixth century, since Gregory the Great refers to them in his "Homiliae super Evangelia" (Lib. I, hom. iii, in P.L., LXXVI, 1087), it is stated that all seven were sons of Felicitas, a noble Roman lady. According to these Acts Felicitas and her seven sons were imprisoned because of their Christian Faith, at the instigation of pagan priests, during the reign of Emperor Antoninus. Before the prefect Publius they adhered firmly to their religion, and were delivered over to four judges, who condemned them to various modes of death. The division of the martyrs among four judges corresponds to the four places of their burial. St. Felicitas herself was buried in the catacomb of Maximus on the Via Salaria, beside Silanus. These Acts were regarded as genuine by Ruinart (op. cit., 72-74), and even distinguished modern archaeologists have considered them, though not in their present form corresponding entirely to the original, yet in substance based on genuine contemporary records. Recent investigations of Fuehrer, however (see below), have shown this opinion to be hardly tenable. The earliest recension of these Acts, edited by Ruinart, does not antedate the sixth century, and appears to be based not on a Roman, but on a Greek original. Moreover, apart from the present form of the Acts, various details have been called in question. Thus, if Felicitas were really the mother of the seven martyrs honoured on 10 July, it is strange that her name does not appear in the well-known fourth-century Roman calendar. Her feast is first mentioned in the "Martyrologium Hieronymianum", but on a different day (23 Nov.). It is, however, historically certain that she, as well as the seven martyrs called her sons in the Acts suffered for the Christian Faith. From a very early date her feast was solemnly celebrated in the Roman Church on 23 November, for on that day Gregory the Great delivered a homily in the basilica that rose above her tomb. Her body then rested in the catacomb of Maximus; in that cemetery on the Via Salaria all Roman itineraries, or guides to the burial-places of martyrs, locate her burial-place, specifying that her tomb was in a church above this catacomb (De Rossi, Roma sotterranea, I, 176-77), and that the body of her son Silanus was also there. The crypt where Felicitas was laid to rest was later enlarged into a subterranean chapel, and was rediscovered in 1885. A seventh-century fresco is yet visible on the rear wall of this chapel, representing in a group Felicitas and her seven sons, and overhead the figure of Christ bestowing upon them the eternal crown. Certain historical references to St. Felicitas and her sons antedate the aforesaid Acts, e.g. a fifth-century sermon of St. Peter Chrysologus (Sermo cxxxiv, in P.L., LII, 565) and a metrical epitaph either written by Pope Damasus (d. 384) or composed shortly after his time and suggested by his poem in praise of the martyr: Discite quid meriti praestet pro rege feriri; Femina non timuit gladium, cum natis obivit, Confessa Christum meruit per saecula nomen. [Learn how meritorious it is to die for the King (Christ). This woman feared not the sword, but perished with her sons. She confessed Christ and merited an eternal renown.--Ihm, Damasi Epigrammata (Leipzig, 1895), p. 45.] We possess, therefore, confirmation for an ancient Roman tradition, independent of the Acts, to the effect that the Felicitas who reposed in the catacomb of Maximus, and whose feast the Roman Church commemorated 23 Nov., suffered martyrdom with her sons; it does not record, however, any details concerning these sons. It may be recalled that the tomb of St. Silanus, one of the seven martyrs (10 July), adjoined that of St. Felicitas and was likewise honoured; it is quite possible, therefore, that tradition soon identified the sons of St. Felicitas with the seven martyrs, and that this formed the basis for the extant Acts. The tomb of St. Januarius in the catacomb of Praetextatus belongs to the end of the second century, to which period, therefore, the martyrdoms must belong, probably under Marcus Aurelius. If St. Felicitas did not suffer martyrdom on the same occasion we have no means of determining the time of her death. In an ancient Roman edifice near the ruins of the Baths of Titus there stood in early medieval times a chapel in honour of St. Felicitas. A faded painting in this chapel represents her with her sons just as in the above-mentioned fresco in her crypt. Her feast is celebrated 23 Nov. RUINART, Acta sincera martyrum (Ratisbon, 1859), 72-74; Acta SS., July, III, 5-18; Bibliotheca hagiographica latina, I, 429-30; ALLARD, Histoire des persecutions (2nd ed., Paris, 1892), I, 345- 68; AUBE, Histoire des persecutions de l'Eglise jusqu'=85 la fin des Antonins (Paris, 1845), 345 sq., 439 sqq.; DOULCET, Essai sur les rapports de l'Eglise chretienne avec l'Etat romain pendant les trois premiers siecles (Paris, 1883), 187-217; DUFOURCQ, Gesta Martyrum romains (Paris, 1900), I, 223-24; DE ROSSI, Bullettino di archeol. crist. (1884-85), 149-84; FoeHRER, Ein Beitrag zur Loesung der Felicitasfrage (Freising, 1890); IDEM, Zur Felicitasfrage (Leipzig, 1894); KoeNSTLE, Hagiographische Studien ueber die Passio Felicitatis cum VII filiis (Paderborn, 1894); MARUCCHI, La catacombe romane (Rome, 1903), 388-400. J.P. KIRSCH Sts. Felicitas and Perpetua Sts. Felicitas and Perpetua Martyrs, suffered at Carthage, 7 March 203, together with three companions, Revocatus, Saturus, and Saturninus. The details of the martyrdom of these five confessors in the North African Church have reached us through a genuine, contemporary description, one of the most affecting accounts of the glorious warfare of Christian martyrdom in ancient times. By a rescript of Septimus Severus (193-211) all imperial subjects were forbidden under severe penalties to become Christians. In consequence of this decree, five catechumens at Carthage were seized and cast into prison, viz. Vibia Perpetua, a young married lady of noble birth; the slave Felicitas, and her fellow-slave Revocatus, also Saturninus and Secundulus. Soon one Saturus, who deliberately declared himself a Christian before the judge, was also incarcerated. Perpetua's father was a pagan; her mother, however, and two brothers were Christians, one being still a catechumen; a third brother, the child Dinocrates, had died a pagan. After their arrest, and before they were led away to prison, the five catechumens were baptized. The sufferings of the prison life, the attempts of Perpetua's father to induce her to apostatize, the vicissitudes of the martyrs before their execution, the visions of Saturus and Perpetua in their dungeons, were all faithfully committed to writing by the last two. Shortly after the death of the martyrs a zealous Christian added to this document an account of their execution. The darkness of their prison and the oppressive atmosphere seemed frightful to Perpetua, whose terror was increased by anxiety for her young child. Two deacons succeeded, by sufficiently bribing the jailer, in gaining admittance to the imprisoned Christians and alleviated somewhat their sufferings. Perpetua's mother also, and her brother, yet a catechumen, visited them. Her mother brought in her arms to Perpetua her little son, whom she was permitted to nurse and retain in prison with her. A vision, in which she saw herself ascending a ladder leading to green meadows, where a flock of sheep was browsing, assured her of her approaching martyrdom. A few days later Perpetua's father, hearing a rumour that the trial of the imprisoned Christians would soon take place, again visited their dungeon and besought her by everything dear to her not to put this disgrace on her name; but Perpetua remained steadfast to her Faith. The next day the trial of the six confessors took place, before the Procurator Hilarianus. All six resolutely confessed their Christian Faith. Perpetua's father, carrying her child in his arms, approached her again and attempted, for the last time, to induce her to apostatize; the procurator also remonstrated with her but in vain. She refused to sacrifice to the gods for the safety of the emperor. The procurator thereupon had the father removed by force, on which occasion he was struck with a whip. The Christians were then condemned to be torn to pieces by wild beasts, for which they gave thanks to God. In a vision Perpetua saw her brother Dinocrates, who had did at the early age of seven, at first seeming to be sorrowful and in pain, but shortly thereafter happy and healthy. Another apparition, in which she saw herself fighting with a savage Ethiopian, whom she conquered, made it clear to her that she would not have to do battle with wild beasts but with the Devil. Saturus, who also wrote down his visions, saw himself and Perpetua transported by four angels, towards the East to a beautiful garden, where they met four other North African Christians who had suffered martyrdom during the same persecution, viz. Jocundus, Saturninus, Artaius, and Quintus. He also saw in this vision Bishop Optatus of Carthage and the priest Aspasius, who prayed the martyrs to arrange a reconciliation between them. In the meanwhile the birthday festival of the Emperor Geta approached, on which occasion the condemned Christians were to fight with wild beasts in the military games; they were therefore transferred to the prison in the camp. The jailer Pudens had learnt to respect the confessors, and he permitted other Christians to visit them. Perpetua's father was also admitted and made another fruitless attempt to pervert her. Secundulus, one of the confessors, died in prison. Felicitas, who at the time of her incarceration was with child (in the eighth month), was apprehensive that she would not be permitted to suffer martyrdom at the same time as the others, since the law forbade the execution of pregnant women. Happily, two days before the games she gave birth to a daughter, who was adopted by a Christian woman. On 7 March, the five confessors were led into the amphitheatre. At the demand of the pagan mob they were first scourged; then a boar, a bear, and a leopard, were set at the men, and a wild cow at the women. Wounded by the wild animals, they gave each other the kiss of peace and were then put to the sword. Their bodies were interred at Carthage. Their feast day was solemnly commemorated even outside Africa. Thus under 7 March the names of Felicitas and Perpetua are entered in the Philocalian calendar, i.e. the calendar of martyrs venerated publicly in the fourth century at Rome. A magnificent basilica was afterwards erected over their tomb, the Basilica Majorum; that the tomb was indeed in this basilica has lately been proved by Pere Delattre, who discovered there an ancient inscription bearing the names of the martyrs. The feast of these saints is still celebrated on 7 March. The Latin description of their martyrdom was discovered by Holstenius and published by Poussines. Chapters iii-x contain the narrative and the visions of Perpetua; chapters xi-ciii the vision of Saturus; chapters i, ii and xiv-xxi were written by an eyewitness soon after the death of the martyrs. In 1890 Rendel Harris discovered a similar narrative written in Greek, which he published in collaboration with Seth K. Gifford (London, 1890). Several historians maintain that this Greek text is the original, others that both the Greek and the Latin texts are contemporary; but there is no doubt that the Latin text is the original and that the Greek is merely a translation. That Tertullian is the author of these Acts is an unproved assertion. The statement that these martyrs were all or in part Montanists also lacks proof; at least there is no intimations of it in the Acts. HOLSTENIUS, Passio SS. MM. Perpetuae et Felicitatis, ed. POSSINUS (Rome, 1663); RUINART, Acta sincera martyrum (Ratisbon, 1859), 137 sqq.; Acta SS., March, I, 633-38; HARRIS and GIFFORD, The Acts of Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas (London, 1890); ROBINSON, The Passion of S. perpetua in Texts and Studies, I (Cambridge, 1891),2; FRANCHI DE'CAVALIERI, La Passio SS. Perpetuae et Felicitatis in Roem. Quartalschr., supplement V (Rome, 1896); Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina, ed. BOLLANDISTS, II, 964; Analecta Bollandiana (1892), 100-02; 369-72; ORSI, Dissertatio apologetica pro SS. Perpetuae, Felicitatis et sociorum martyrum orthodoxia (Florence, 1728); PILLET, Les martyrs d'Afrique, Histoire de Ste Perpetua et de ses compagnons (Paris, 1885); AUBE, Les actes des SS. Felicite, Perpetue et de luers compagnons in Les chretiens dans l'Empire Romain (Paris, 1881), 509-25; NEUMANN, Der ramische Staat und die allgemeine Kirche, I (Leipzig, 1890), 170-76, 299-300; ALLARD, Histoire des persecutions, II (Paris, 1886), 96 sqq.; MONCEAUX, Histoire litteraire de l'Afrique chretienne, I (Paris, 1901), 7 0-96; DELATTRE, La Basilica Maiorum, tombeau des SS. Perpetue et Felicite in Comples-rendus de l'Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (1907), 516-31. J.P. KIRSCH Pope St. Felix I Pope St. Felix I Date of birth unknown; d. 274. Early in 269 he succeeded Saint Dionysius as head of the Roman Church. About this time there arrived at Rome, directed to Pope Dionysius, the report of the Synod of Antioch which in that very year had deposed the local bishop, Paul of Samosata, for his heretical teachings concerning the doctrine of the Trinity (see Antioch). A letter, probably sent by Felix to the East in response to the synodal report, containing an exposition of the doctrine of the Trinity, was at a later date interpolated in the interest of his sect by a follower of Apollinaris (see Apollinarianism). This spurious document was submitted to the Council of Ephesus in 431 (Mansi, "Coll. conc.", IV, 1188; cf. Harnack, "Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur", I, 659 sqq.; Bardenhewer, "Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur", II, 582 sq.). The fragment preserved in the Acts of the council lays special emphasis on the unity and identity of the Son of God and the Son of Man in Christ. The same fragment gives Pope Felix as a martyr; but this detail, which occurs again in the biography of the pope in the "Liber Pontificalis" (Ed. Duchesne, I, 58), is unsupported by any authentic earlier evidence and is manifestly due to a confusion of names. According to the notice in the "Liber Pontificalis", Felix erected a basilica on the Via Aurelia; the same source also adds that he was buried there ("Hic fecit basilicam in Via Aurelia, ubi et sepultus est"). The latter detail is evidently an error, for the fourth century Roman calendar of feasts says that Pope Felix was interred in the Catacomb of St. Callistus on the Via Appia ("III Kal. Januarii, Felicis in Callisti", it reads in the "Depositio episcoporum"). The statement of the "Liber Pontificalis" concerning the pope's martyrdom results obviously from a confusion with a Roman martyr of the same name buried on the Via Aurelia, and over whose grave a church was built. In the Roman "Feriale" or calendar of feasts, referred to above, the name of Felix occurs in the list of Roman bishops (Depositio episcoporum), and not in that of the martyrs. The notice in the "Liber Pontificalis" ascribes to this pope a decree that Masses should be celebrated on the tombs of martyrs ("Hic constituit supra memorias martyrum missas celebrare"). The author of this entry was evidently alluding to the custom of celebrating the Holy Sacrifice privately, at the altars near or over the tombs of the martyrs in the crypts of the catacombs (missa ad corpus), while the solemn celebration of the Sacred Mysteries always took place in the basilicas built over the catacombs. This practice, still in force at the end of the fourth century (Prudentius, "Peristephanon", XI, vv. 171 sqq.), dates apparently from the period when the great cemeterial basilicas were built in Rome, and owes its origin to the solemn commemoration services of martyrs, held at their tombs on the anniversary of their burial, as early as the third century. Felix probably issued no such decree, but the compiler of the "Liber Pontificalis" attributed it to him because he made no departure from the custom in force in his time. According to the above-mentioned detail of the "Depositio episcoporum", Felix was interred in the catacomb of St. Callistus, 30 December. In the present Roman Martyrology his name occurs 30 May, the date given in the "Liber Pontificalis" as that of his death (III Kal. Jun.); it is probably an error which could easily occur through a transcriber writing Jun. for Jan. Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, I, introd. cxxv; text, 158, with the notes; De Rossi, Roma sotterranea, II, 98-104; Acta SS., May, VII, 236-37; Langen, Geschichte der roemischen Kirche (Bonn, 1881), I, 365-69; Allard, Histoire des persecutions, III, 243 sqq. J.P. KIRSH Felix II Felix II Pope (more properly Antipope), 355-358; d. 22 Nov., 365. In 355 Pope Liberius was banished to Beraea in Thrace by the Emperor Constantius because he upheld tenaciously the Nicene definition of faith and refused to condemn St. Athanasius of Alexandria. The Roman clergy pledged itself in solemn conclave not to acknowledge any other Bishop of Rome while Liberius was alive. ("Marcellini et Fausti Libellus precum", no.1 : "Quae gesta sunt inter Liberium et Felicem episcopos" in "Collectio Avellana", ed. Gunter; Hieronymus, "Chronicon", ad an. Abr. 2365). The emperor, however, who was supplanting the exiled Catholic bishops with the bishops of Arian tendencies, exerted himself to install a new Bishop of Rome in place of the banished Liberius. He invited to Milan Felix, archdeacon of the Roman Church; on the latter's arrival, Acacius of Caesarea succeeded in inducing him to accept the office from which Liberius had been forcibly expelled, and to be consecrated by Acacius and two other Arian bishops. The majority of the Roman clergy acknowledged the validity of his consecration but the laity would have nothing to do with him and remained true to the banished but lawful pope. When Constantius visited Rome in May, 357, the people demanded the recall of their rightful bishop Liberius who, in fact, returned soon after signing the third formula of Sirmium. The bishops, assembled in that city of Lower Pannonia, wrote to Felix and the Roman clergy advising there to receive Liberius in all charity and to put aside their dissensions; it was added that L.iberius and Felix should together govern the Church of Rome. The people received their legitimate pope with great enthusiasm, but a great commotion rose against Felix, who was finally driven from the city. Soon after, he attempted, with the help of his adherents to occupy the Basilica Julii (Santa Maria in Trastevere), but was finally banished in perpetuity by unanimous vote of the Senate and the people. He retired to the neighbouring Porto, where he lived quietly till his death. Liberius permitted the members of the Roman clergy, including the adherents of Felix, to retain their positions. Later legend confound the relative positions of Felix and Liberius. In the apocryphal "Acta Felicis" and "Acta Liberii", as well as in the "Liber pontificalis", Felix was portrayed as a saint and confessor of the true Faith. This distortion of the true facts originated most probably through confusion of this Felix with another Felix, a Roman martyr of an earler date. According to the "Liber Pontificalis", which may be registering here a reliable tradition, Felix built a church on the via Aurelia. It is well known that on this road was buried a Roman martyr, Felix; hence it seems not improbable that apropos of both there arose a confusion (see FELIX I) through which the real story of the antipope was lost and he obtained in local Roman history the status of a saint and a confessor. As such he appears in the Roman Martyrology on 29 July. J.P. KIRSCH Pope St. Felix III Pope St. Felix III (Reigned 483-492). Born of a Roman senatorial family and said to have been an ancestor of Saint Gregory the Great. Nothing certain is known of Felix, till he succeeded St. Simplicitus in the Chair of Peter (483). At that time the Church was still in the midst of her long conflict with the Eutychian heresy. In the preceding year, the Emperor Zeno, at the suggestion of Acacius, the perfidious Patriarch of Constantinoble, had issued an edict known as the Hereticon or Act of Union, in which he declared that no symbol of faith, other than that of Nice, with the additions of 381, should be received. The edict was intended as a bond of reconciliation between Catholics and Eutychians, but it caused greater conflicts than ever, and split the Church of the East into three or four parties. As the Catholics everywhere spurned the edict, the emperor had driven the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria from their sees. Peter the Tanner, a notorious heretic, had again intruded himself into the See of Antioch, and Peter Mongus, who was to be the real source of trouble during the pontificate of Felix, had seized that of Alexandria. In his first synod Felix excommunicated Peter the Tanner, who was likewise condemned by Acacius in a synod of Constantinoble. In 484, Felix also excommunicated Peter Mongus -- an act, which brought about a schism between East and West, that was not healed for thirty-five years. This Peter, being a time-server and of a crafty deposition, ingratiated himself with the emperor and Acacius by subscribing to the Henoticon, and was thereupon, to the displeasure of many of the bishops, admitted to communion by Acacius. Felix, having convened a synod, sent legates to the emperor and Acacius, with the request that they should expel Peter Mongus from Alexandria and that Acacius himself should come to Rome to explain his conduct. The legates were detained and imprisoned; then urged by threats and promises, they held communion with the heretics by distinctly uttering the name of Peter in the readings of the sacred diptychs. When their treason was made known at Rome by Simeon, one of the "Acaemeti" monks, Felix convened a synod of seventy-seven bishops in the Lateran Basilica, in which Acacius as well as the papal legates were also excommunicated. Supported by the emperor Acacius disregarded the excommunication, removed the pope's name from the sacred diptychs, and remained in the see till his death, which took place one or two years later. His successor Phravitas, sent messengers to Fe!ix, assuring him that he would not hold communion with Peter, but, the pope learning that this was a deception, the schism continued. Peter, having died in the meantime Ethymus who succeeded Phravitas, also sought communion with Rome, but the pope refused, as Euthymius would not remove the names of his two predecessors from the sacred diptychs. The schism, known as the Acacian Schism was not finally healed till 518 in the reign of Justinian. In Africa the Arian Vandals, Genseric and his son Huneric had been persecuting the Church for more than 50 years and had driven many Catholics into exile. When peace was restored, numbers of those who through fear had fallen into heresy and had been rebaptized by the Arians desired to return to the Church. On being repulsed by those who had remained firm, they appealed to Felix who convened a synod in 487, and sent a letter to the bishops of Africa, expounding the conditions under which they were to be received back. Felix died in 492, having reigned eight years, eleven months and twenty-three days. AMBROSE COLEMAN Pope Felix IV Pope St. Felix IV (Reigned 526-530). On 18 May, 526, Pope John I (q.v.) died in prison at Ravenna, a victim of the angry suspicions of Theodoric, the Arian king of the Goths. When, through the powerful influence of this ruler, the cardinal-priest, Felix of Samnium, son of Castorius, was brought forward in Rome as John's successor, the clergy and laity yielded to the wish of the Gothic king and chose Felix pope. He was consecrated Bishop of Rome 12 July, 526, and took advantage of the favor he enjoyed at the court of Theodoric to further the interests of the Roman Church, discharging the duties of his office in a most worthy manner. On 30 August, 526, Theodoric died, and, his grandson Athalaric being a minor, the government was conducted by Athalaric's mother Amalasuntha, daughter of Theodoric and favorably disposed towards the Catholics. To the new ruler the Roman clergy addressed a complaint on the usurpation of their privileges by the civil power. A royal edict, drawn up by Cassiodorus in terms of the deepest respect for the papal authority, confirmed the ancient custom that every civil or criminal charge of a layman against a cleric should be submitted to the pope, or to an ecclesiastical court appointed by him. A fine of ten pounds of gold was imposed as a punishment for the violation of this order, and the money thus obtained was to be distributed amongst the poor by the pope (Cassiodorus, "Variae", VIII, n. 24, ed. Mommsen, "Mon. Germ. Hist.: Auctores antiquiss.", XII, 255) The pope received as a gift from Amalasuntha two ancient edifices in the Roman Forem, the Temple of Romulus, son of the Emperor Maxentius, and the adjoining Templum sacroe urbis, the Roman land registry office. The pope converted the buildings into the Church of SS. Cosmas and Damian, which still exists and in the apse of which is preserved the large and magnificent mosaic executed by order of Felix, the figure of the pope, however, being a later restoration (see COSMAS AND DAMIAN). Felix also took part in the so-called Semipelagian conflict in Southern Gaul concerning the nature and efficiency of grace. He sent to the bishops of those parts a ser5ies of "Capitula", regarding grace and free will, compiled from Scripture and the Fathers. These capitula were published as canons at the Synod of Orange (529). In addition Felix approved the work of Caesarius of Arles against Faustus of Riez on grace and free will (De gratia et libero arbitrio). Rendered anxious by the political dissensions of the Romans, many of whom stood for the interests of Byzantium, while others supported Gothic Rule, Felix IV, when he fell seriously ill in the year 530, wished to ensure the peace of the Roman Church by naming his successor. Having given over to Archdeacon Boniface his pallium, he made it known publicly that he had chosen Boniface to succeed him, and that he had apprised the court of Ravenna of his action ("Neues Archiv", XI, 1886, 367; Duchesne, "Liber Pontificalis", I, 282, note 4). Felix IV died soon afterwards, but in the papal election which followed his wishes were disregarded (see BONIFACE II). The feast of Felix IV is celebrated on 30 January. The day of his death is uncertain, but it was probably towards the end of September, 530. J.P. KIRSCH Felix V Felix V Regnal name of Amadeus of Savoy, Antipope (1440-1449). Born 4 December, 1383, died at Ripaille, 7 January, 1451. The schismatic Council of Basle, having declared the rightful pope, Eugene IV, deposed, proceeded immediately with the election of an antipope. Wishing to secure additional influence and increased financial support, they turned their attention towards the rich and powerful prince, Duke Amadeus VIII of Savoy. Amadeus had exercised over his dependencies a mild and equitable sway, and had evinced a great zeal for the interests of the Church, especially in connection with the Western Schism regarding the papal succession, brought to a close by the Council of Constance. Emperor Sigismund had shown his appreciation of this ruler's services by raising, in 1416, the former counts of Savoy to the status of a duchy, and in 1422 conferred on Arnadeus the county of Geneva. On the death of his wife, Maria of Burgundy, Duke Amadeus resolved to lead henceforth a life of contemplation, without however entirely resigning the government of his territories. He appointed his son Ludwig regent of the duchy, and retired to Ripaille on the Lake of Geneva, where in company with five knights whom he had formed into an Order of St. Maurice, he led a semi-monastic life in accordance with a rule drawn up by himself. Amadeus had been in close relations with the schismatic council of Basle; and was elected pope, 30 October, 1439, by the electoral college of that council, including one cardinal (d'Allamand of Aries), eleven bishops, seven abbots, five theologians, and nine canonists. After long negotiations with a deputation from the council, Amadeus acquiesced in the election, 5 Feb., 1440, completely renouncing at the same time all further participation in the government of his duchy. Ambition and a certain fantastic turn of character induced him to take this step. He took the name of Felix V, and was solemnly consecrated and crowned by the Cardinal d'Allamand, 24 July, 1440. Eugene IV had already excommunicated him, 23 March, at the council of Florence. Until 1442, the famous Aeneas Sylvinus Piccolomini, later Pius II, was the antipope's secretary. This renewal of the schism ruined any success of Basle assembly, just closed at Constance. Subsequently, Amadeus took up his residence in Savoy and Switzerland; his efforts to surround himself with a curia met with little success; many of those whom he named cardinals declined the dignity. He found general recognition only in Savoy and Switzerland, but his claims were also recognized by the Dukes of Austria, Tyrol, and Bayern-Muenchen, the Count-Palatine of Simmern, the Teutonic Order, some orders in Germany and some universities hitherto adherents of Basle. He was soon embroiled in a quarrel with the Council of Basle concerning his rights and the distribution of revenues. The rightful pope, Eugene IV, and his successor Nicolas V (1447), who were universally recognized from the first in Spain and Poland, found their claims even more widely admitted in France and Germany. In 1442, Felix left Basle, and on 16 May, 1443, occurred the last session of the Baste assembly. Felix, who had for the sake of its revenue assumed the administration of the Diocese of Geneva, clung for six years more to his usurped dignity but finally submtted (1449) to Nicolas V, received the title of Cardinal of St. Sabina, and was appointed permanent Apostolic vicar-general for all the states of the House of Savoy and for several dioceses (Basle, Strasburg, Chur, etc.). Thus ended the last papal schism. J.P. KIRSCH Celestin Joseph Felix Celestin Joseph Felix French Jesuit, b. at Neuville-sur-l' Escaut (Nord), 28 June 1810; d. at Lille, 7 July, 1891. He began his studies under the Brothers of Christian Doctrine, going later to the preparatory seminary at Cambrai, where he completed his secondary studies. In 1833 he was named professor of rhetoric, received minor orders and the diaconate, and in 1837 entered the Society of Jesus. He began his noviceship at Tronchiennes in Belgium, continued it at Saint-Acheul, and ended it at Brugelettes, where he studied philosophy and the sciences. Having completed his theological studies at Louvain, he was ordained in 1842 and returned to Brugelettes to teach rhetoric and philosophy. His earliest Lenten discourses, preached at Ath, and especially one on true patriotism, soon won him a brilliant reputations for eloquence. Called to Amiens in 1850, he introduced the teaching of rhetoric at the College de la Providence and preaching during Advent and Lent at the cathedral. His oratorical qualities becoming more and more evident, he was called to Paris. He first preached at St. Thomas d'Aquin in 1851, and in 1852 preached Lenten sermons at Saint-Germain-des-Pres, and those of Advent at Saint-Sulpice. It was then that Mgr. Sibour named him to succeed the Dominican, Father Lacordaire, and the Jesuit, Father de Ravignan in the pulpit of Notre-Dame (1853 to 1870). He became one of its brilliant orators. The conferences of the first three years have not been published in full. In 1856 Pere Felix began the subject which he made the master-work of his life: "Progres par le Christianisme". This formed the matter of a series of Lenten conferences which are preserved for us in fifteen voIumes, and which have lost none of their reality. True progress in all its forms, whether of the individual or of the family, in science, art, morals, or government, is herein treated with great doctrinal exactness and breadth of view. The practical conclusions of these conferences Pere Felix summed up every year in his preaching of the Easter retreat, which had been inaugurated by Pere de Ravignan. This was the side of his ministry which lay nearest his heart. While he was in Paris, and especially during his stay at Nancy (1867-1883), and at Lille (1883-1891), the illustrious Jesuit spoke in nearly all the great cathedrals of France and Belgium. In 1881 he even went to Copenhagen to conduct the Advent exercises, and there he held a celebrated conference on authority. Felix founded the Society of St. Michael for the distribution of good books and employed the leisure moments of his last years in the composition of several works and in the revision of his "Retraites a Notre-Dame", which he published in six volumes. The eloquence of Pere Felix was charaeterised by clearness, vigorous logic, unction, and pathos, even in his reasoning. He lacked imagination and the enthusiasm of Lacordaire, but he was more skilled in dialectic and surer in doctrine. His diction was richer than that of de Ravignan, and while he was less didactic than Monsabre he was more original. A list of his works is given by Sommervozgel. LOUIS LALANDE Sts. Felix and Adauctus Sts. Felix and Adauctus Martyrs at Rome, 303, under Diocletian and Maximian. The Acts, first published in Ado's Martyrology, relate as follows: Felix, a Roman priest, and brother of another priest, also named Felix, being ordered to offer sacrifice to the gods, was brought by the prefect Dracus to the temples of Serapis, Mercury, and Diana. But at the prayer of the saint the idols fell shattered to the ground. He was then led to execution. On the way an unknown person joined him, professed himself a Christian, and also received the crown of martyrdom. The Christians gave him the name Adauctus (added). These Acts are considered a legendary embellishment of a misunderstood inscription by Pope Damasus. A Dracus cannot be found among the prefects of Rome; the other Felix of the legend is St. Felix of Nola; and Felix of Monte Pincio is the same Felix honoured on the Garden Hill. The brother is imaginary (Anal. Boll., XVI, 19-29). Their veneration, however, is very old; they are commemorated in the Sacramentary of Gregory the Great and in the ancient martyrologies. Their church in Rome, built over their graves, in the cemetery of Commodilla, on the Via Ostiensis, near the basilica of St. Paul, and restored by Leo III, was discovered about three hundred years ago and again unearthed in 1905 (Civilt`a Catt., 1905, II, 608). Leo IV, about 850, is said to have given their relics to Irmengard, wife of Lothair I; she placed them in the abbey of canonesses at Eschau in Alsace. They were brought to the church of St. Stephen in Vienna in 1361. The heads are claimed by Anjou and Cologne. According to the "Chronicle of Andechs" (Donauwoerth, 1877, p. 69), Henry, the last count, received the relics from Honorius III and brought them to the Abbey of Andechs. Their feast is kept on 30 August. Stokes in Dict. Christ. Biog., s. v. Felix (217); Acta SS., Aug., VI, 545; Stadler, Heiligenlexicon, s.v. FRANCIS MERSHMAN St. Felix of Cantalice St. Felix of Cantalice A Capuchin friar, b. at Cantalice, on the north-western border of the Abruzzi; d. at Rome, 18 May, 1587. His feast is celebrated among the Franciscans and in certain Italian dioceses on 18 May. He is usually represented in art as holding in his arms the Infant Jesus, because of a vision he once had, when the Blessed Virgin appeared to him and placed the Divine Child in his arms. His parents were peasant folk, and very early he was set to tend sheep. When nine years of age he was hired out to a farmer at Cotta Ducale with whom he remained for over twenty years, first as a shepherd-boy and afterwards as a farm labourer. But from his earliest years Felix evinced signs of great holiness, spending all his leisure time in prayer, either in the harsh or in some solitary place. A friend of his having read to him the lives ot the Fathers of the Desert, Felix conceived a great desire for the eremitical life, but at the same time feared to live otherwise than under the obedience of a superior. After seeking light in prayer, he determined to ask admittance amongst the Capuchins. At first the friars hesitated to accept him, but he eventually received the habit, in 1543, at Anticoli in the Roman Province. It was not without the severest temptations that he persevered and made his profession. These temptations were so severe as injure his bodily health. In 1547 he was sent to Rome and appointed questor for the community. Here he remained for the rest of his life, and in fulfilling his lowly office became a veritable apostle of Rome. The influence which he speedily gained with the Roman people is an evidence of the inherent power of personal holiness over the consciences of men. He had no learning he could not even read; yet learned theologians came to consult him upon the.science of the spiritual life and the Scriptures. Whenever he appeared in the streets of Rome vicious persons grew abased and withdrew from his sight. Sometimes Felix would stop them and earnestly exhort them to live a better life; especially did he endeavour to restrain young men. But judges and dignitaries also at times incurred his rebuke, he was no respecter of persons when it was a matter of preventing sin. On one occasion, during a Carnival, he and St. Philip Neri organized a procession with their crucifix; then came the Capuchin friars; last came Felix leading Fra Lupo, a well-known Capuchin preacher, by a rope round his neck, to represent Our Lord led to judgment by his executioners. Arrived in the middle of the revels, the procession halted and Fra Lupo preached to the people. The Carnival, with its open vice, was broken up for that year. But Felix's special apostolate was amongst the children of the city, with whom his childlike simplicity made him a special favourite. His method with these was to gather them together in bands and, forming circle, set them to sing canticles of his own composing, by which he taught them the beauty of a good life and the ugliness of sin. These canticles became popular and frequently, when on his rounds in quest of alms, Felix would be invited into the houses of his benefactors and asked to sing. He would seize the opportunity to bring home some spiritual truth in extemporized verse. During the famine of 1580 the directors of the city's charities asked his superiors to place Felix at their disposal to collect alms for the starving, and he was untiring in his quest. St. Philip Neri had a deep affection for the Capuchin lay brother, whom he once proclaimed the greatest saint then living in the Church. When St. Charles Borromeo sought St. Philip's aid in drawing up the constitutions of his Oblates, St. Philip took him to St. Felix as the most competent adviser in such matters. But through all, Felix kept his wonderful humility and simplicity. He was accustomed to style himself "Ass of the Capuchins". Acclaimed a Saint by the people of Rome, immediately after his death, he was beatified by Urban VIII in 1625, and canonized by Clement Xl in 1712. His body rests under an altar dedicated to him in the church of the Immaculate Conception to Rome. FATHER CUTHBERT St. Felix of Nola St. Felix of Nola Born at Nola, near Naples, and lived in the third century. After his father's death he distributed almost all his goods amongst the poor, and was ordained priest by Maximum Bishop of Nola. In the year 250, when the Decian persecution broke out, Maximus was forced to flee. The persecutors seized on Felix and he was cruelly scourged, loaded with chains, and cast into prison. One night an angel appeared to him and bade him go to help Maximus. His chains fell off, the doors opened, and the saint was enabled to bring relief to the bishop, who was then speechless from cold and hunger. On the persecutors making a second attempt to secure Felix, his escape was miraculously effected by a spider weaving her web over the opening of a hole into which he had just crept. Thus deceived, they sought their prey elsewhere. The persecution ceased the following year, and Felix, who had lain hidden in a dry well for six months, returned to his duties. On the death of Maximus he was earnestly desired as bishop, but he persuaded the people to choose another, his senior in the priesthood. The remnant of his estate having been confiscated in the persecution, he refused to take it back, and for his subsistence rented three acres of land, which he tilled with his own hands. Whatever remained over he gave to the poor, and if he had two coats at any time he invariably gave them the better. He lived to a ripe old age and died 14 January (on which day he is commemorated), but the year of his death is uncertain. Five churches were built in his honour, outside Nola, where his remains are kept, but some relics are also at Rome and Benevento. St. Paulinus, who acted as porter to one of these churches, testifies to numerous pilgrimages made in honour of Felix. The poems and letters of Paulinus on Felix are the source from which St. Gregory of Tours, Venerable Bede, and the priest Marcellus have drawn their biographies (see PAULINUS OF NOLA). There is another Felix of Nola, bishop and martyr under a Prefect Martianus. He is considered by some to be the same as the above. AMBROSE COLEMAN St. Felix of Valois St. Felix of Valois Born in 1127; d. at Cerfroi, 4 November, 1212. He is commemorated 20 November. He was surnamed Valois because, according to some, he was a member of the royal branch of Valois in France, according to others, because he was a native of the province of Valois. At an early age he renounced his possessions and retired to a dense forest in the Diocese of Meaux, where he gave himself to prayer and contemplation. He was joined in his retreat by St. John of Matha, who proposed to him the project of founding an order for the redemption of captives. After fervent prayer, Felix in company with John set out for Rome and arrived there in the beginning of the pontificate of Innocent III. They had letters of recommendation from the Bishop of Paris, and the new pope received them with the utmost kindness and lodged them in his palace. The project of founding the order was considered in several solemn conclaves of cardinals and prelates, and the pope after fervent prayer decided that these holy men were inspired by God, and raised up for the good of the Church. He solemnly confirmed their order, which he named the Order of the Holy Trinity for the Redemption of Captives. The pope commissioned the Bishop of Paris and the Abbot of St. Victor to draw up for the institute a rule, which was confirmed by the pope, 17 December, 1198. Felix returned to France to establish the order. He was received with great enthusiasm, and King Philip Augustus authorized the institute France and fostered it by signal benefactions. Margaret of Blois granted the order twenty acres of the wood where Felix had built his first hermitage, and on almost the same spot he erected the famous monastery of Cerfroi, the mother-house of the institute. Within forty years the order possessed six hundred monasteries in almost every part of the world. St. Felix and St. John of Matha were forced to part, the latter went to Rome to found a house of the order, the church of which, Santa Maria in Navicella, still stands on the Caeclian Hill. St. Felix remained in France to look after the interests of the congregation. He founded a house in Paris attached to the church of St. Maturinus, which afterwards became famous under Robert Guguin, master general of the order. Though the Bull of his canonization is no longer extant, it is the constant tradition of his institute that he was canonized by Urban IV in 1262. Du Plessis tells us that his feast was kept in the Diocese of Meaux in 1215. In 1666 Alexander VII declared him a saint because of immemorial cult. His feast was transferred to 20 November by Innocent XI in 1679. MICHAEL M. O'KANE Francois Xavier de Feller Franc,ois-Xavier de Feller An author and apologist, b at Brussels 18 August, 1735; d. at Ratisbon 22 May, 1802. He received his primary scientific education in the Jesuit College at Luxemburg, studied philosophy and the exact sciences at Reims, 1752-54, after which he joined the Society of Jesus at Tournai. Appointed professor of humanities soon after, he edited the "Musae Leodienses" (Liege, 1761), a collection of Latin poems in two volumes composed lay his pulpils. Later he taught theology in various institutions of the order in Luxemburg and Tyrnau (Hungary). After the suppression of the order he was active as preacher in Liege and Luxemburg until, at the approach of the French army in 1794, he emigrated to Paderborn and joined the local college of the ex-Jesuits. After staying there two years, he accepted the invitation of the Prince of Hohenlohe to come to Bavaria and join the court of the Prince-Bishop of Freising and Ratisbon, Joseph Konrad von Schroffenburg, with whom he remained, dividing his time between Freising, Ratisbon, and Berchtesgaden. Feller was very amiable and talented, gifted with a prodigious memory, and combined diligent study with these abilities. His superiors had given him every opportunity during his travels of cultivating all the branches of science then known, and the wealth and diversity of his writings prove that he made good use of his advantages. All his writings attest his allegiance to the Jesuit Order and his untiring zeal for the Catholic religion and the Holy See. Although he became prominent as a literary man only after the suppression of his order, he had previously contributed articles of note to the periodical "La clef du cabinet des princes de l'Europe, ou recucil historique et politique sur les matieres du temps" (Luxemburg, 1760). During the years 1773-1794 he was the sole contributor to this journal, which comprised in all sixty volumes and was, from the first mentioned date (1773), published under the title "Journal historique et litteraire". Because he publicly denounced the illegal and despotic attempts at reform on the part of Joseph II, the journal was suppressed in Austrian territory and was, consequently, transplanted first to Liege and then to Maastricht. Its principal articles were published separately as "Melanges de politique, de morale chretienne et de litterature" (Louvain, 1822), and as "Cours de morale chretienne et de litterature religieuse" (Paris, 1826). His next work of importance is entitled "Dictionnaire historique, ou histoire abregee de tous les hommes qui se sont fait un nom par le genie, les talents, les vertus, les erreurs, etc., depuis le commencement du monde jusqu'a nos jours" (Augsburg, 1781-1784), 6 vols. He shaped this work on the model of a simular one by Chaudon without giving the latter due credit; he also showed a certain amount of prejudice, for the most part lauding the Jesuits as masters of science and underrating others, especially those suspected of Jansenistic tendencies. This work was frequently revised and republished, e.g. by Ecury, Ganith, Henrion, Perennes, Simonin, Weiss, etc.; from 1837 it appeared under the title of "Biographie universelle". His principal work, which first appreared under the pen-name "Flexier de Reval", is "Catechisme philosophique ou recueil d'observations propres `a defendre la religion chretienne contre ses ennemis" (Liege, 1772). In his treatise, "Jugement d'un ecrivain protestant touchant le livre de Justinus Febronius" (Leipzig, 1770), he attacked the tenets of that anti-papal writer. Many of his works are only of contemporary interest. Biographie Universelle, XIII. 505; Hunter, Nomenclator. PATRICIUS SCHLAGER Johann Michael Nathanael Feneberg Johann Michael Nathanael Feneberg Born in Oberdorf, Allgau, Bavaria, 9 Feb., 1751; died 12 Oct., 1812. He studied at Kaufbeuren and in the Jesuit gymnasium at Augsburg, and in 1770 entered the Society of Jesus, at Landsberg, Bavaria. When the Society was suppressed in 1773, he left the town, but continued his studies, was ordained in 1775 and appointed professor in the gymnasium of St. Paul at Ratisbon. From 1778-85 he held a modest benefice at Oberdorf and taught a private school, in 1785 he was appointed professor of rhetoric and poetry at the gymnasium of Dillingen, but was removed in 1793, together with several other professors suspected of leanings towards Illuminism. A plan of studies drawn up by him for the gymnasium brought him many enemies also. He was next given the parish of Seeg comprising some two thousand five hundred and received as assistants the celebrated author Christoph Schmid, and X. Bayer. He was a model pastor in every respect. Within a short time he executed a chart of the eighty-five villages in his parish, and took a census of the entire district. In the first year of his pastoral service he sustained severe injuries by a fall from his horse, which necessitated the amputation of one leg just below the knee. He bore the operation without an anasthetic, and consoled himself for the loss of the limb by saying: Non pedibus, sed corde diligimus Deum (We love God notwith our feet but with our hearts). Shortly after, his relations with the priest Martin Boos led him to be suspected of false mysticism. Boos had created such a sensation by his sermons that he was compelled to flee for safety. He took at Seeg with Feneberg, who was a relation and assisted him in parochial for nearly a year. In the meantime he strove to convert or "awaken" Feneberg life, the life of faith and to the exclusion of good works. Boos's followers were called the Erweckten Brueder (Awakened Brethren). Among these brethren, many of whom were priests, Feneberg was called Nathanael and his two assistants Markus and Silas. Boos's preaching and conduct at Seeg was reported to the ordinary of Augsburg, and Feneberg, with his assistants, Bayer and Siller, were also involved. In February, 1797, an episcopal commissioner arrived in Seeg, and in Feneberg's absence seized all his papers, private correspondence and manuscripts, and carried them to Augsburg. Feneberg, with his assistants, appeared before an ecclesiastical tribunal at Augsburg in August, 1797; they were required to subscribe to the condemnation of ten erroneous propositions and then permitted to return to their parish. They all protested that they had never held any of the propositions in the sense implied. It does not appear that Feneberg was subsequently molested in this connection, nor did he ever fail to show due respect and obedience to the ecclesiastical authorities. In 1805 he resigned the parish of Seeg and accepted that of Vohringen, which was smaller but returned slightly better revenues. This appointment and the assistance of generous friends enabled him to pay the debts he had incurred on account of his trouble and the political disturbances of the time. For a month before his death he suffered great bodily pain but he prayed unceasingly, and devoutedly receiving the sacraments expired. He remained friendly to Boos even after the latter's condemnation, and regretted that his friend, Bishop Sailer, was not more sympathetic to mysticism. Feneberg was a man of singular piety, candour, and zeal but failed to see the dangers lurking in Boos pietism. Numbers of the disciples of Boos--as many as four hundred at one time--became Protestants, although he himself remained nominally in the Church. Feneberg is the author of a translation of the New Testament, which was published by Bishop Wittmann of Ratishon. ALEXIS HOFFMANN Francois Fenelon Franc,ois de Salignac de la Mothe-Fenelon A celebrated French bishop and author, b. in the Chateau de Fenelon in Perigord (Dordogne), 6 August, 1651; d. at Cambrai, 7 January, 1715. He came of ancient family of noble birth but small means, the most famous of his ancestors being Bertrand de Salignac (d. 1599), who fought at Metz under the Duke Guise and became ambassador to England; also Franc,ois de Salignac I, Louis de Salignac I, Louis de Saligac II, and Franc,ois de Salignac II, bishops of Sarlat between 1567 and 1688. Fenelon was the second of the three children of Pons de Salignac, Count de La Mothe-Fenelon, by his second wife, Louise de La Cropte. Owing to his delicate health Fenelon's childhood was passed in his father's chateau under a tutor, who succeeded in giving him a keen taste for the classics and a considerable knowledge of Greek literature, which influenced the development of his mind in marked degree. At the age of twelve he was sent to the neighbouring University of Cahors, where he studied rhetoric and philosophy, and obtained his first degrees. As he had already expressed his intention of entering the Church, one of his uncles, Marquis Antoine de Fenelon, a friend of Monsieur Olier and St. Vincent de Paul, sent him to Paris and placed him in the College du Plessis, whose students followed the course of theology at the Sorbonne. There Fenelon became a friend of Antoine de Noailles, afterwards, Cardinal and Archbishop of Paris, and showed such decided talent that at the age of fifteen he was chosen to preach a public sermon, in which he acquitted admirably. To facilitate his preparation for the priesthood, the marquis sent his nephew to the Seminaire de Saint-Sulpice (about 1672), then under the direction of Monsieur Tronson, but the young man was placed in the small community reserved for ecclesiastics whose health did not permit them to follow the excessive exercises of the seminary. In this famous school, of which he always retained affectionate memories. Fenelon was grounded not only in the practice of piety and priestly virtue, but above all in solid Catholic doctrine, which saved him later from Jansenism and Gallicanism. Thirty years later, in a letter to Clement XI, he congratulates himself on his training by M. Tronson in the knowledge of his Faith and the duties of the ecclesiastical life. About 1675 he was ordained priest and for a while thought of devoting himself to the Eastern missions. This was, however, only a passing inclination. Instead he joined the commuity of Saint Sulpice and gave himself up to the works of the priesthood especially preaching and catechizing. In 1678 Harlay de Champvallon, Archbishop of Paris, entrusted Fenelon with the direction of the house of "Nouvelles-Catholiques", a community founded in 1634 by Archbishop Jean-Franc,ois de Gondi for Protestant young women about to enter the Church or converts who needed to be strengthened in the Faith. It was a new and delicate form of apostolate which thus offered itself to Fenelon's zeal and required all the resources of his theological knowledge, persuasive eloquence, and magnetic personality. Within late years his conduct has been severely criticized, and he has been even called intolerant but these charges are without serious foundation and have not been accepted even by the Protestant authors of the "Encyclopedie des Sciences Religieuses"; their verdict on Fenelon is that in justice to him it must be said that in making converts he ever employed persuasion rather than severity". When Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes, by which Henry IV had granted freedom of public worship to the Protestants, missionaries were chosen from among the greatest orators of the day, e.g. Bourdaloue, Flechier, and others, and were sent to those parts of France where heretics were most numerous, to labour for their conversion. At the suggestion of his friend Bossuet, Fenelon was sent with five companions to Santonge, where he manifested great zeal, though his methods were always tempered by gentleness. According to Cardinal de Bausset, he induced Louis XIV to remove all troops and all evidences of compulsion from the places he visited, and it is certain that he proposed and insisted on many methods of which the king did not approve. "When hearts are to be moved", he wrote to Seignelay," force avails not. Conviction is the only real conversion". Instead of force he employed patience, established classes, and distributed New Testaments and catechisms in the vernacular. Above all, he laid especial emphasis on preaching provided the sermons were by gentle preachers who have a faculty not only for instructing but for winning the confidence of their hearers". It is doubtless true, as recently published documents prove, that he did not altogether repudiate measures of force, but he only allowed them as a last resource. Even then his severity was confined to exiling from their villages a few recalcitrants and to constraining others under the small penalty of five sous to attend the religious instructions in the churches. Nor did he think that preachers ought to advocate openly even these measures; similarly he was unwilling to have known the Catholic authorship of pamphlets against Protestant ministers which he proposed to have printed in Holland. This was certainly an excess of cleverness; but it proves at least that Fenelon was not in sympathy with that vague tolerance founded on scepticism which the eighteenth century rationalists charged him with. In such matters he shared the opinions of all the other great Catholics of his day. With Bossuet and St. Augustine he held that "to be obliged to do good is always an advantage and that heretics and schismatics, when forced to apply their minds to the consideration of truth, eventually lay aside their erroneous beliefs, whereas they would never have examined these matters had not authority constrained them." Before and after his mission at Saintonge, which lasted but a few months (1686-1687), Fenelon formed many dear friendships. Bossuet was already his friend, the great bishop was at the summit of his fame, and was everywhere looked up to as the oracle of the Church of France. Fenelon showed him the utmost deference, visited him at his country-house at Germany, and assisted at his spiritual conferences and his lectures on the Scriptures at Versailles. It was under his inspiration, perhaps even at his request, that Fenelon wrote about this time his "Refutation du systeme de Malebranche sur la nature et sur la grace". In this he attacks with great velour and at length the theories of the famous Oratorian on optimism, the Creation, and the Incarnation. This treatise, though annoted by Bousset, Fenelon considered it unwise to publish; it saw the light only in 1820. First among the friends of Fenelon at this period were the Duc de Bauvilliers and the Duc de Chevreuse, two influential courtiers, eminent for their piety, who had married two daughters of Colbert, minister of Louis XIV. One of these, the Duchesse de Beauvilliers, mother of eight daughters, asked Fenelon for advice concerning their education. His reply was the "Traite de l'education des filles", in which he insists on education begining at an early age and on the instruction of girls in all the duties of their future condition of life. The religious teaching he recommends is one solid enough to enable them to refute heresies if necessary. He also advises a more serious course of studies than was then customary. Girls ought to be learned without pedantry; the form of instruction should be concrete, sensible, agreeable, and prudent, in a manner to aid their natural abilities. In many ways his pedagogy was ahead of his time, and we may yet learn much from him. The Duc de Beauvilliers, who had been the first to test in his own family the value of the "Traite de l'education des filles", was in 1689 named governor of the grandchildren of Louis XIV. He hastened to secure Fenelon as tutor to the eldest of these princes, the Duke of Burgundy. It was a most important post, seeing that the formation of the future King of France lay in his hands; but it was not without great difficulties, owing to the violent, haughty, and character of the pupil. Fenelon brought to his task a whole-hearted zeal and devotion. Everything down to, the Latin themes and versions, was made to serve in the taming of this impetuous spirit. Fenelon prepared them the better to his plans. With the same object in view, he wrote his "Fables" and his "Dialogues des Morts", but especially his "Telemaque", in which work, under the guise of pleasant fiction, he taught the young prince lessons of self-control, and all the duties required by his exalted position. The results of this training were wonderful. The historian Saint-Simon, as a rule hostile to Fenelon, says: "De cet abime sortit un prince, affable, doux, modere, humain, patient, humble, tout applique `a ses devoirs." It has been asked in our day if Fenelon did not succeed too well. When the prince grew to man's estate, his piety seemed often too refined; he was continually examining himself, reasoning for and against, till he was unable to reach a definite decision, his will being paralysed by fear of doing the wrong thing. However, these defects of character, against which Fenelon in his letters was the first to protest, did not show themselves in youth. About 1695 every one who came in contact with the prince was in admiration at the change in him. To reward the tutor, Louis XIV gave him, in 1694, the Abbey of Saint-Valery, with its annual revenue of fourteen thousand livres. The Academie had opened its doors to him and Madame de Maintenon, the morganatic wife of the king, began to consult him on matters of conscience, and on the regulation of the house of Saint-Cyr, which she had just established for the training of young girls. Soon afterwards the archiepiscopal See of Cambrai, one of the best in France, fell vacant, and the king offered it to Fenelon, at the same time expressing a wish that he would continue to instruct the Duke of Burgundy. Nominated in February, 1696, Fenelon was consecrated in August of the same year by Bossuet in the chapel of Saint-Cyr. The future of the young prelate looked brilliant, when he fell into deep disgrace. The cause of Fenelon's trouble was his connection with Madame Guyon, whom he had met in the society of his friends, the Beauvilliers and the Chevreuses. She was a native of Orleans, which she left when about twenty-eight years old, a widowed mother of three children, to carry on a sort of apostolate of mysticism, under the direction of Pere Lacombe, a Barnabite. After many journeys to Geneva, and through Provence and Italy, she set forth her ideas in two works, "Le moyen court et facile de faire oraison" and "Les torrents spirituels". In exaggerated language characteristic of her visionary mind, she presented a system too evidently founded on the Quietism of Molinos, that had just been condemned by Innocent XI in 1687. There were, however, great divergencies between the two systems. Whereas Molinos made man's earthly perfection consist in a state of uninterrupted contemplation and love, which would dispense the soul from all active virtue and reduce it to absolute inaction, Madame Guyon rejected with horror the dangerous conclusions of Molinos as to the cessation of the necessity of offering positive resistance to temptation. Indeed, in all her relations with Pere Lacombe, as well as with Fenelon, her virtuous life was never called in doubt. Soon after her arrival in Paris she became acquainted with many pious persons of the court and in the city, among them Madame de Maintenon and the Ducs de Beauvilliers and Chevreuse, who introduced her to Fenelon. In turn, he was attracted by her piety, her lofty spirituality, the charm of her personality, and of her books. It was not long, however, before the Bishop of Chartres, in whose diocese Saint-Cyr was, began to unsettle the mind of Madame de Maintenon by questioning the orthodoxy of Madame Guyon's theories. The latter, thereupon, begged to have her works submitted to an ecclesiastical commission composed of Bossuet, de Noailles, who was then Bishop of Chalons, later Archbishop of Paris, and M. Tronson; superior of-Saint-Sulpice. After an examination which lasted six months, the commission delivered its verdict in thirty-four articles known as the "Articles d' Issy", from the place near Paris where the commission sat. These articles, which were signed by Fenelon and the Bishop of Chartres, also by the members of the commission, condemned very briefly Madame Guyon's ideas, and gave a short exposition of the Catholic teaching on prayer. Madame Guyon submitted to the condemnation, but her teaching spread in England, and Protestants, who have had her books reprinted have always expressed sympathy with her views. Cowper translated some of her hymns into English verse; and her autobiography was translated into English by Thomas Digby (London, 1805) and Thomas Upam (New York, 1848). Her books have been long forgotten in France. In accordance with the decisions taken at Issy, Bossuet now wrote his instruction on the "Etats d' oraison", as an explanation of the thirty-four articles. Fenelon refused to sign it, on the plea that his honour forbade him to condemn a woman who had already been condemned. To explain his own views of the "Articles d'Issy", he hastened to publish the "Explication des Maximes des Saints", a rather arid treatise in forty-five articles. Each article was divided into two paragraphs, one laying down the true, the other the false, teaching concerning the love of God. In this work he undertakes to distinguish clearly every step in the upward way of the spiritual life. The final end of the Christian soul is pure love of God, without any admixture of self-interest, a love in which neither fear of punishment nor desire of reward has any part. The means to this end, Fenelon points out, are those Iong since indicated by the Catholic mystics, i.e. holy indifference, detachment, self-abandonment, passiveness, through all of which states the soul is led by contemplation. Fenelon's book was scarcely published when it aroused much opposition. The king, in particular, was angry. He distrusted all religious novelties, and he reproached Bossuet with not having warned him of the ideas of his grandsons' tutor. He appointed the Bishops of Meaux, Chartes, and Paris to examine Fenelon's work and select passages for condemnation, but Fenelon himself submitted the book to the judgement of Holy See (27 April, 1697). A vigorous conflict broke out at once, particularly between Bossuet and Fenelon. Attack and reply followed too fast for analysis here. The works of Fenelon on the subject fill six volumes, not to speak of the 646 letters relating to Quietism, the writer proving himself a skillful polemical writer, deeply versed in spiritual things, endowed with quick intelligence and a mental suppleness not always to be clearly distinguished from quibbling and a straining of the sense. After a long and detailed examination by the consultors and cardinals of the Holy Office, lasting over two years and occupyng 132 sessions, "Les Maxims des Saints" was finally condemned (12 March, 1699) as containing propositions which, in the obvious meaning of the words, or else because of the sequence of the thoughts, were "temerarious, scandalous, ill-sounding, offensive to pious ears, pernicious in practice, and false in fact". Twenty-three propositions were selected as having incurred this censure, but the pope by no means intended to imply that he approved the rest of the book. Fenelon submitted at once. "We adhere to this brief", he wrote in a pastoral letter in which he made known Rome's decision to the flock, "and we accept it not only for the twenty three propositions but for the whole book, simply, absolutely, and without a shadow of reservation." Most of his contemporaries found his submission adequate, edifying and admirable. In recent times, however, scattered letters have enabled a few critics to doubt its sincerity. In our opinion a few words written impulsively, and contradicted by the whole tenor of the writers's life, cannot justify so grave a charge. It must be remembered, too, that at the meeting of the bishops held to receive the Brief of condemnation, Fenelon declared that he laid aside his own opinion and accepted the judgement of Rome, and that if this act of submission seemed lacking in any way, he was ready to do whatever Rome would suggest. The Holy See never required anything more than the above-mentioned spontaneous act. Louis XIV, who had done all he could to bring the condemnation of the "Maximes des Saints", had already punished its author by ordering him to remain within the limits of his diocese. Vexed later at the publication of "Telemaque", in which he saw his person and his government subjected to criticism, the king could never be prevailed upon to revoke this command. Fenelon submitted without complaint or regret, and gave himself up entirely to the care of his flock. With a revenue of two hundred thousand livres and eight hundred parishes, some of which were on Spanish territory, Cambrai, which had been regained by France only in 1678, was one of the most important sees in the kingdom. Fenelon gave up several months of each year to a visitation of his archdiocese, which was not even interrupted by the War of the Spanish Succession, when opposing armies were camped in various parts of his territory. The captains of these armies, full of veneration for his Fenelon, left him free to come and go as he would. The remainder of the year he spent in his episcopal palace at Cambrai, where with his relatives and his friends, the Abbes de Langeron, de Chanterac, and de Beaumont, he led an uneventful life, monastic in its regularity. Every year he gave a Lenten course in one or other important parish of his diocese, and on the principal feasts he preached in his own cathedral. His sermons were short and simple composed after a brief meditation, and never committed to writing; with the exception of some few preached on more important occasions, they have not been preserved. His dealings with his clergy were always marked by condescension and cordiality. "His priests", says Saint-Simon, "to whom he made himself both father and brother, bore him in their hearts." He took a deep interest in their seminary training, assisted at the examination of those who were to be ordained, and gave them conferences during their retreat. He presided over the concursus for benefices and made inquiries among the pastors concerning the qualifications of each candidate. Fenelon was always approachable, and on his walks often conversed with those he chanced to meet. He loved to visit the peasants in their houses, interested himself in their joys and sorrows, and, to avoid paining them, accepted the simple gifts of their hospitality. During the War of the Spanish Succession the doors of his palace were open to all the poor who took refuge in Cambrai. The rooms and stairways were filled with them, and his gardens and vestibules sheltered their live stock. He is yet remembered in the vicinity of Cambrai and the peasants still give their children the name Fenelon, as that of a saint. Engrossed as Fenelon was with the administration of his diocese, he never lost sight of the general interests of the Church. This became evident when Jansenism, quiescent for nearly thirty years, again raised its head on the occasion of the famous Cas de Conscience, by which an anonymous writer endeavoured to put new life into the old distinction between the "question of law" and "question of fact" (question de droit et question de fait), acknowledging that the Church could legally condemn the famous five propositions attributed to Jansenius, but denying that she could oblige any one to believe that they were really to be found in the "Augustinus" of that writer. Fenelon multiplied publications of every kind against the reviving heresy; he wrote letters, pastoral instruction, memoirs, in French and in Latin, which fill seven volumes of his works. He set himself to combat the errors of the Cas de Conscience, to refute the theory known as "respectful silence", and to enlighten Clement XI on public opinion in France Pere Quesnel brought fresh fuel to the strife by his "Reflexions morales sur le Nouveau Testament", which was solemnly condemned by the Bull "Unigenitus" (1713). Fenelon defended this famous pontifical constitution in a series of dialogues intended to influence men of the world. Great as was his zeal against error, he was always gentle with the erring so that Saint-Simon could say "The Low Countries swarmed with Jansenists, and his Diocese of Cambrai, in particular, was full of them. In both places they found an ever-peaceful refuge, and were glad and content to here peaceably under one who was their enemy with his pen. They had no fears of their archbishop, who, though opposed to their beliefs, did not disturb their tranquillity." In spite of the multiplicity of his labours, Fenelon found time to carry on an absorbing correspondence with his relatives, friends, priests, and in fact every one who sought his advice. It is in this mass of correspondence, ten volumes of which have reached us, that we may see Fenelon as a director of souls. People of every sphere of life, men and women of the work, religious, soldiers, courtiers, servants, are here met with, among them Mesdames de Maintenon, de Gramont, de la Maisonfort, de Montebron, de Noailles, members of the Colbert family, the Marquis de Seignelay, the Duc de Chaulnes, above all the Ducs de Chevreuse and de Beauvilliers, not forgetting the Duke of Burgundy. Fenelon shows how well he possessed all the qualities he required from directors, patience, knowledge of the human heart and the spiritual life, equanimity of disposition, firmness, and straightforwardness, "together with a quiet gaiety" altogether removed from any stern or affected austerity". In return he required docility of mind and entire submission of will. He aimed at leading souls to the pure love of God, as far as such a thing is humanly possible, for though the errors of the "Maximes des Saints" do not reappear in the letters of direction, it is still the same Fenelon, with the same tendencies, the same aiming at self-abandonment and detachment from all personal interests, all kept, however, within due limits; for as he says "this love of God does not require all Christians to practice austerities like those of the ancient solitaries, but merely that they be sober, just, and moderate in the use of all things expedient"; nor does piety, "like temporal affairs, exact a long and continuous application"; "the practice of devotion is in no way incompatible with the duties of one's state in life". The desire to teach his disciples the secret of harmonizing the duties of religion with those of everyday life suggests to Fenelon all sorts of advice, sometimes most unexpected from the pen of a director, especially when he happens to be dealing with his friends at court. This has given occasion to some of his critics to accuse him of ambition, and of being as anxious to control the state as to guide souls. It is especially in the writings intended for the Duke of Burgundy that his political ideas are apparent. Besides a great number of letters, he sent him through his friends, the Ducs de Beauvilliers and de Chevreuse, an "Examen de conscience sur les devoirs de la Royaute", nine memoirs on the war of the Spanish Succession, and "Plans de Gouvernement, concretes avec le Duc de Chevreuse". If we add to this the "Telemaque", the "Lettre `a Louis XIV", the "Essai sur le Gouvernement civil", and the "Memoires sur les precautions `a prendre apres la mort du Duc de Bourgogne", we have a complete exposition of Fenelon's political ideas. We shall indicate only the points in which they are original for the period when they were written. Fenelon's ideal government was a monarchy limited by an aristocracy. The king was not to have absolute power; he was to obey the laws, which he was to draw up with the co-operation of the nobility; extraordinary subsidies were to be levied only with the consent of the people. At other times he was to be assisted by the States-General, which was to meet every three years, and by provincial assemblies, all to be advisory bodies to the king rather than representative assemblies. The state was to have charge of education; it was to control public manners by sumptuary legislation and to forbid both sexes unsuit able marriages (mesalliances). The temporal arm and the spiritual arm were to be independent of each other, but to afford mutual support. His ideal state is outlined with much wisdom in his political writings are to be found many ohservations remarkably judicious but also not a little Utopianism. Fenelon also took much interest in literature and philosophy. Monsieur Dacier, perpetual secretary to the Academie Franc,aise, having requested him, in the name of that body, to furnish him with his views on the works it ought to undertake when the "Dictionnaire" was finished, Fenelon replied in his "Lettre sur les occupations de l'Academie Franc,aise", a work still much admired in France. This letter, which treats of the French tongue, of rhetoric, poetry, history, and ancient and modern writers, exhibits a well-balanced mind acquainted with all the masterpieces of antiquity, alive to the charm of simplicity, attached to classical traditions yet discreetly open to new ideas (especially in history), also, however, to some chimerical theories, at least concerning things poetical. At this very time the Duc d'Orleans, the future regent was consulting him on quite different subjects. This prince, a sceptic through circumstances rather than by any force of reasoning, profited by the appearance of Fenelon's "Traite de l'existence de Dieu" to ask its author some questions on the worship due to God, the immortality of the soul, and free will. Fenelon replied in a series of letters, only the first three of which are answers to the difficulties proposed by the prince. Together they form a continuation of the "Traite de l'existence de Dieu", the first part of which had been published in 1712 without Fenelon's knowledge. The second part appeared only in 1718, after its author's death. Though an almost forgotten work of his youth, it was received with much approval, and was soon translated into English and German. It is from his letters and this treatise that we learn something about the philosophy of Fenelon. It borrows from both St. Augustine and Descartes. For Fenelon the strongest arguments for the existence of God were those based on final causes and on the idea of the infinite, both developed along broad lines and with much literary charm, rather than with precision or originality. Fenelon's last years were saddened by the death of his best friends. Towards the end of 1710 he lost Abbe de Langeron, his lifelong companion; in February, 1712, his pupil, the Duke of Burgundy, died. A few months later the Duc de Chevreuse was taken away, and the Duc de Beauvilliers followed in August, 1714. Fenelon survived him only a few months, making a last request to Louis XIV to appoint a successor firm against Jansenism, and to favour the introduction of Sulpicians into his seminary. With him disappeared one of the most illustrious members of the French episcopate, certainly one of the most attractive men of his age. He owed his success solely to his great talents and admirable virtues. The renown he enjoyed during life increased after his death. Unfortunately, however, his fame among Protestants was largely due to his opposition to Bossuet, and among the philosophers to the fact that he opposed and was punished by Louis XIV. Fenelon is therefore for them a precursor of their own tolerant scepticism and their infidel philosophy, a forerunner of Rousseau, beside whom they placed him on the facade of the Pantheon. In our days a reaction has set in, due to the cult of Bossuet and the publication of Fenelon's correspondence, which has brought into bolder relief the contrasts of his character, showing him at once an ancient and a modern, Christian and profane, a mystic and a statesman, democrat and aristocrat, gentle and obstinate, frank and subtle. He would perhaps have seemed more human in our eyes were he a lesser rnan; nevertheless he remains one of the most attractive, brilliant, and puzzling figures that the Catholic Church has ever produced. The most convenient and best edition of Fenelon's works is that begun by Lebel at Versailles in 1820 and completed at Paris by Leclere in 1830. It comprises twenty-two volumes, besides eleven volumes of letters, in all thirty-three volumes, not including an index volume. The various works are grouped under five five headings: (I) Theological and controversial works (Vols. I-XVI), of which the principal are: "Traite de l'existence et des attributs de Dieu", letters on various metaphysical and religious subjects; "Traite du ministere des pasteurs"; "De Summi Pontificis auctoritate", "Refutation du systeme du P. Malebranche sur la nature et la grace"; "Lettre `a l'Eveque d'Arras sur la lecture de l'Ecriture Sainte en langue vulgaire", works on Quietisin and Jansenism. (2) Works on moral and spiritual subjects (Vols. XVII and XVIII): "Traite de l'education des filles"; sermons and works on piety. (3) Twenty-four pastoral charges (XVIII). (4) Literary works (Vols. XIX-XXII): "Dialogues des Morts"; "Telemaque"; "Dialogues sur l'eloquence". (5) Political writings (Vol. XXII): "Examen de conscience sur les devoirs de la Royaute"; various memoirs on the War of the Spanish Succession; "Plans du Gouvernement concertes avec le Duc de Chevreuse". The correspondence includes letters to friends at court, as Beauvilliers, Chevreuse, and the Duke of Burgundy; letters of direction, and letters on Quietism. To these must be added the "Explication des rnaximes des Saints sur la vie lnterieure" (Paris, 1697). DE RAMSAY, Histoire de vie et des ouvrages de Fenelon (London, 1723), De BAUSSET, Histoire de Fenelon (Paris. 1808); TABARAND, Supplement aux histoires de Bossuet et de Fenelon (Paris, 1822), De BROGLIE, Feneton a Cambrai (Paris, 1884); JANET, Fenelon (Paris, 1892); CROUSLE, Fenelon et Bossuet (2 vols., Paris, 1894); DRUON, Fenelon archeveque de Cambrai (Paris, 1905); CAGNAC, Fenelon directeur de conscience (Paris, 1903); BRUNETIRE in La Grande Encyclopedie, s.v.; IDEM, Etudes critiques sur l'histoire de la Iitterature franc,aise (Paris, 1893); DOUEN, L'intolerance de Fenelon (2d ed., Paris,1875); VERLAQUE, Lettres inedites de Fenelon (Paris, 1874)); IDEM, Fenelon Missionnaire (Marseilles, 1884); GUERRIER, Madam Guion, sa vie, sa doctrine, et son influence (Orleans, 1881); MASSON, Fenelon et Madame Guyon (Paris, 1907): DELPHANQUE, Fenelon et la doctrine de l'amour pur (Lille, 1907): SCANNELL, Franc,ois Fenelon in lrish Eccl. Record, XI, (1901) 1-15, 413-432. ANTOINE DEGERT John Fenn John Fenn Born at Montacute near Wells in Somersetshire; d. 27 Dec., 1615. He was the eldest brother of Ven. James Fenn, the martyr, and Robert Fenn, the confessor. After being a chorister at Wells Cathedral, he went to Winchester School in 1547, and in 1550 to New College, Oxford, of which he was elected fellow in 1552. Next year he became head master of the Bury St. Edmunds' grammar-school, but was deprived of this office and also of his fellowship for refusing to take the oath of supremacy under Elizabeth. He thereupon went to Rome where after four years' study he was ordained priest about 1566. Having for a time been chaplain to Sir William Stanley's regiment in Flanders he settled at Louvain, where he lived for forty years. A great and valuable work to which he contrituted was the publication, in 1583, by Father John Gibbons, S.J., of the various accounts of the persecution, under the Title "Concertatio Ecclesiae Catholicae in Anglia", which was the groundwork of the invaluable larger collection published by Bridgewater under the same name in 1588. He also collected from old English sources some spiritual treatises for the Brigettine nuns of Syon. In 1609, when the English Augustinian Canonnesses founded St. Monica's Priory at Louvain, he became their first chaplain until in 1611 when his sight failed. Even then he continued to live in the priory and the nuns tended him till his death. Besides his "Vitae quorundam Martyrum in Anglia", included in the "Concertatio", he translated into Latin Blessed John Fisher's "Treatise on the penitential Psalms" (1597) and two of his sermons; he also published English versions of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, Osorio's reply to Haddon's attack on his letter to Queen Elizabeth (1568), Guerra's "Treatise of Tribulation", an Italian life of St. Catherine of Sienna (1609; 1867), and Loarte's "Instructions How to Meditate the Misteries of the Rosarie". PITS, De Illustribus Angliae Scriptoribus (Paris, 1623); DODD, Church History (Brussels, 1737-42), I, 510; WOOD, ed. BLISS, Athenae Oxonienses, II,; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s.v.; COOPER in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v.; HAMILTON, Chronicle of the English Augustinian Canonesses of St. Monica's Louvain (London, 1904). EDWIN BURTON Ferber, Nicolaus Nicolaus Ferber A Friar Minor and controversialist, born at Herborn, Germany, in 1485; died at Toulouse, 15 April, 1534. He was made provincial of the Franciscan province of Cologne and was honoured by Clement VII with the office of vicar-general of that branch of the order known as the Cismontane Observance, in which capacity he visited the various provinces of the order in England, Germany, Spain, and Belgium. At the instance of the bishops of Denmark, he was called to Copenhagen to champion the Catholic cause against Danish Lutheranism, and there he composed, in 1530, the "Confutatio Lutheranismi Danici", first edited by L. Schmitt, S.J., and published at Quaracchi (1902), which earned for him the sobriquet of Stagefyr (fire-brand). Ferber's principal work is entitled: "Locorum communium adversus hujus temporis haereses Enchiridion", published at Cologne in 1528, with additions in 1529. Besides this he wrote "Assertiones CCCXXV adversus Fr. Lamberti paradoxa impia" etc. (Cologne, 1526, and Paris, 1534); and "Enarrationes latinae Evangeliorum quadragesimalium", preached in German and published in Latin (Antwerp, 1533). SCHMITT. Der Koelner Theolog Nicolaus Stagefyr und der Franziskaner Nicolaus Herborn (Freiburg, 1896); HURTER, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1906), II, 1255-56; SBARALEA, Supplementum ad scriptores Ordinis Menorum, 556. STEPHEN M. DONOVAN. Blessed Ferdinand Blessed Ferdinand Prince of Portugal, b. in Portugal, 29 September, 1402; d. at Fez, in Morocco, 5 June, 1443. He was one of five sons, his mother being Philippa, daughter of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, and his father King John I, known in history for his victories over the Moors and in particular for his conquest of Ceuta, a powerful Moorish stronghold, and his establishment of an episcopal see within its walls. In early life Ferdinand suffered much from sickness, but bodily weakness did not hinder his growth in spirit, and even in his boyhood and youth he gave evidence of remarkable qualities of soul and intellect. With great strength of character and a keen sense of justice and order he combined an innocence, gentleness, and charity which excited the wonder of the royal court. He had a special predilection for prayer and for the ceremonies and devotions of the Church. After his fourteenth year he recited daily the canonical hours, rising at midnight for Matins. Always severe with himself, he was abstemious in his diet and fasted on Saturdays and on the eves of the feasts of the Church. He cared for the spiritual as well as the corporal necessities of his domestics, while his solicitude for the poor and oppressed was unbounded. His generosity towards the monasteries was impelled by his desire to share in their prayers and good works. He had himself enrolled for the same reason in all the pious congregations of the kingdom. Upon the death of his father in 1433, his brother Edward (Duarte) ascended the throne, while he himself received but a small inheritance. It was then that he was induced to accept the grand-mastership of Aviz, in order that he might be better able to help the poor. As he was not a cleric, his brother, the king, obtained for him the necessary papal dispensation. The fame of his charity went abroad, and Pope Eugene IV, through the papal legate, offered him the cardinal's hat. This he refused, not wishing, as he declared, to burden his conscience. Though living a life of great sanctity in the midst of the court, Ferdinand was not a mere recluse. He was also a man of action, and in his boyhood his soul was stirred by the heroic campaign against Ceuta. His mother, the queen, had nurtured the martial spirit of her sons, and it is even said that on her deathbed she gave them each a sword, charging them to use it in defence of widows, orphans, and their country, and in particular against unbelievers. An opportunity soon presented itself. In 1437 Edward planned an expedition against the Moors in Africa and placed his brothers Henry and Ferdinand in command. They set sail 22 Aug., 1437, and four days later arrived at Ceuta. During the voyage Ferdinand became dangerously ill, in consequence of an abcess and fever which he had concealed before the departure, in order not to delay the fleet. Through some mismanagement the Portuguese numbered only 6000 men, instead of 14,000, as ordered by the king. Though advised to wait for reinforcements, the two princes, impatient for the fray, advanced towards Tangiers, to which they lay siege. Ferdinand recovered slowly, but was not able to take part in the first battle. The Portuguese fought bravely against great odds, but were finally compelled to make terms with the enemy, agreeing to restore Ceuta in return for a safe passage to their vessels. The Moors likewise demanded that one of the princes be delivered into their hands as a hostage for the delivery of the city. Ferdinand offered himself for the dangerous post, and with a few faithful followers, including Joao Alvarez, his secretary and later his biographer, began a painful captivity which ended only with his death. He was first brought to Arsilla by Sal`a ben Sal`a, the Moorish ameer. In spite of sickness and bodily sufferings, he continued all his devotions and showed great charity towards his Christian fellow-captives. Henry at first repaired to Ceuta, where he was joined by his brother John. Realizing that it would be difficult to obtain the royal consent to the restoration of the fortress, they proposed to exchange their brother for the son of Sal`a ben Sal`a, whom Henry held as a hostage. The Moor scornfully rejected the proposal, and both returned to Portugal to devise means of setting the prince free. Though his position was perilous in the extreme, the Portuguese Cortes refused to surrender Ceuta, not only on account of the treachery of the Moors, but because the place had cost them so dearly and might serve as a point of departure for future conquests. It was resolved to ransom him if possible. Sal`a ben Sal`a refused all offers, his purpose being to recover his former seat of government. Various attempts were made to free the prince, but all proved futile and only served to make his lot more unbearable. On 25 May, 1438, he was sent to Fez and handed over to the cruel Lazurac, the king's vizier. He was first condemned to a dark dungeon and, after some months of imprisonment, was compelled to work like a slave in the royal gardens and stables. Amid insult and misery Ferdinand never lost patience. Though often urged to seek safety in flight, he refused to abandon his companions and grieved more for their sufferings, of which he considered himself the cause, than for his own. His treatment of his persecutors was respectful and dignified, but he would not descend to flattery to obtain any alleviation of his sufferings. During the last fifteen months of his life he was confined alone in a dark dungeon with a block of wood for his pillow and the stone floor for a bed. He spent most of his time in prayer and in preparation for death, which his rapidly failing health warned him was near at hand. In May, 1443, he was stricken with the fatal disease to which he finally succumbed. His persecutors refused to change his loathsome abode, although they allowed a physician and a few faithful friends to attend him. On the evening of 5 June, after making a general confession and a profession of faith, he peacefully gave up his soul to God. During the day he had confided to his confessor, who frequently visited him, that the Blessed Virgin with St. John and the Archangel Michael had appeared to him in a vision. Lazurac ordered the body of the prince to be opened and the vital organs removed, and then caused it to be suspended head downwards for four days on the walls of Fez. Nevertheless he was compelled to pay tribute to the constancy, innocence, and spirit of prayer of his royal victim. Of Ferdinand's companions, four shortly afterwards followed him to the grave, one joined the ranks of the Moors, and the others regained their liberty after Lazurac's death. One of the latter, Joao Alvarez, his secretary and biographer, carried his heart to Portugal in 1451, and in 1473 his body was brought to Portugal, and laid to rest in the royal vault at Batalha amid imposing ceremonies. Prince Ferdinand has ever been held in great veneration by the Portuguese on account of his saintly life and devotion to country. Miracles are said to have been wrought at his intercession, and in 1470 he was beatified by Paul II. Our chief authority for the details of his life is Joao Alvarez, already referred to. Calderon made him a hero of one of his most remarkable dramas, "El Principe Constante y Martir de Portugal". Alvarez, in Acta SS., June, I; Olfers, Leben des standhaften Prinzen (Berlin, 1827); Dunham, History of Spain and Portugal (New York), III. Henry M. Brock Ferdinand II Ferdinand II Emperor, eldest son of Archduke Karl and the Bavarian Princess Maria, b. 1578; d. 15 February, 1637. In accordance with Ferdinand I's disposition of his possessions, Styria, Carinthia, and Carniola fell to his son Karl. As Karl died in 1590, when his eldest son was only twelve years old, the government of these countries had to be entrusted to a regent during the minority of Ferdinand. The latter began his studies under the Jesuits at Graz, and continued them in company with Maximilian of Bavaria at the University of Ingolstadt, also in charge of the Jesuits. According to the testimony of his professors, he displayed remarkable diligence, made rapid progress in the mathematical sciences, and above all gave evidence of a deeply religious spirit. On the completion of his studies, he took up the reins of government, although not yet quite seventeen. During a subsequent visit to Italy he made a vow in the sanctuary of Loreto to banish all heresy from the territories which might fall under his rule. He was of middle height, compact build, with reddish-blonde hair and blue eyes. His dress and the cut of his hair suggested the Spaniard, but his easy bearing towards all with whom he came into contact was rather German than Spanish. Even in the heat of conflict, a sense of justice and equity never deserted him. On two occasions, when his tenure of power was imperilled, he was unflinching and showed a true greatness of mind. Ferdinand was a man of unspotted morals, but lacking in statesman-like qualities and independence of judgment. He was wont to lay the responsibility for important measures on his counsellors (Freiherr von Eggenberg, Graf von Harrach, the Bohemian Chancellor, Zdencko von Lobkowitz, Cardinal-Prince Dietrichstein, etc.). Liberal even to prodigality, his exchequer was always low. In pursuance of the principle laid down by the Diet of Augsburg, 1555 (cuius regio eius et religio), he established the Counter-Reformation in his three duchies, while his cousin Emperor Rudolf II reluctantly recognized the Reformation. As Ferdinand was the only archduke of his day with sufficient power and energy to take up the struggle against the estates then aiming at supreme power in the Austrian hereditary domains, the childless Emperor Matthias strove to secure for him the succession to the whole empire. During Matthias's life, Ferdinand was crowned King of Bohemia and of Hungary, but, when Matthias died during the heat of the religious war (20 March, 1619), Ferdinand's position was encompassed with perils. A united army of Bohemians and Silesians stood before the walls of Vienna; in the city itself Ferdinand was beset by the urgent demands of the Lower-Austrian estates, while the Bohemian estates chose as king in his place the head of the Protestant Union in Germany (the Palatine Frederick V), who could also count on the support of his father-in-law, James I of England. When the Austrian estates entered into an alliance with the Bohemians, and Bethlen Gabor, Prince of Transylvania, marched triumphantly through Hungary with the assistance of the Hungarian evangelical party, and was crowned king of that country, the end of the Hapsburg dynasty seemed at hand. Notwithstanding these troubles in his hereditary states, Ferdinand was chosen German Emperor by the votes of all the electors except Bohemia and the Palatinate. Spaniards from the Netherlands occupied the Palatinate, and the Catholic League (Bund der katholischen Fuersten Deutschlands) headed by Maximilian of Bavaria declared in his favour, although to procure this support Ferdinand was obliged to mortgage Austria to Maximilian. On 22 June, 1619, the Imperial General Buquoy repulsed from Vienna the besieging General Thurn; Mansfeld was crushed at Budweis, and on 8 November, 1620, the fate of Bohemia and of Frederick V was decided by the Battle of the White Mountain, near Prague. The firm re-establishment of the Hapsburg dynasty was the signal for the introduction of the Counter-Reformation into Bohemia. Ferdinand annulled the privileges of the estates, declared void the concessions granted to the Bohemian Protestants by the Majestaetsbrief of Rudolf II, and punished the heads of the insurrection with death and confiscation of goods. Protestantism was exterminated in Bohemia, Moravia, and Lower Austria; in Silesia alone, on the intercession of the Lutheran Elector of Saxony, the Reformers were treated with less severity. The establishment of a general peace might perhaps now have been possible, if the emperor had been prepared to return his possessions to the outlawed and banished Palatine Elector Frederick. At first, Ferdinand seemed inclined to adopt this policy out of consideration for the Spanish, who did not wish to give mortal offence to James I, the father-in-law of the elector. However, the irritating conduct of Frederick and the Protestant Union, and the wish to recover Austria by indemnifying Maximilian in another way led Ferdinand to continue the war. Entrusted with the execution of the ban against the Elector Palatine, Maximilian assisted by the Spaniards took possession of the electoral lands, and in 1632 was himself raised to the electoral dignity. Uneasy at the rapidly increasing power of the emperor, the estates of the Lower Saxon circle (Kreis) had meanwhile formed a confederation, and resolved under the leadership of their head, King Christian IV of Denmark to oppose the emperor (1625). In face of this combination, the Catholic Union or League under Count Tilly proved too weak to hold in check both its internal and external enemies; thus the recruiting of an independent imperial army was indispensable, though the Austrian exchequer was unable to meet the charge. However, Albrecht von Waldstein (usually known as Wallenstein), a Bohemian nobleman whom Ferdinand had a short time previously raised to the dignity of prince, offered to raise an army of 40,000 men at his own expense. His offer was accepted, and soon Wallenstein and Tilly repeatedly vanquished the Danes, Ernst von Mansfeld and Christian of Brunswick, the leaders of the Protestant forces. On the defeat of Christian at Lutter am Barenberge (27 August, 1626), the Danish Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein fell into the hands of the victorious Tilly, Christian was compelled to make the equitable peace of Luebeck on 12 May, 1629, and Wallenstein was invested with the lands of the Dukes of Mecklenburg, allies of Christian. Contemporaneously, an insurrection broke out among the Austrian peasants for the recovery of their ecclesiastical rights abrogated by the emperor. This rising was soon quelled, but, as Wallenstein did not conceal his intention to establish the emperor's rule in Germany on a more absolute basis, the princes of the empire were unceasing in their complaints, and demanded Wallenstein's dismissal. The excitement of the princes, especially those of the Protestant faith, ran still higher when Ferdinand published, in 1629, the "Edict of Restitution", which directed Protestants to restore all ecclesiastical property taken from the Catholics since the Convention of Passau, in 1552(2 archbishoprics, 12 bishoprics and many monastic seigniories, especially in North Germany). At the meeting of the princes in Ratisbon (1630), when Ferdinand wished to procure the election of his son as King of Rome, the princes headed by Maximilian succeeded in prevailing on the emperor to remove Wallenstein. The command of the now reduced imperial troops was entrusted to Tilly, who with these forces and those of the League marched against Magdeburg; this city, formerly the see of an archbishop, energetically opposed the execution of the Edict of Restitution. Even before Wallenstein's dismissal on 4 July, 1630, Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden, had landed at the mouth of the Oder, but, as the Protestant estates (notable Brandenburg and Saxony) hesitated to enter into an alliance with him, he was unable at first to accomplish anything decisive. When, however, in May, 1631, Tilly stormed and reduced to ashes the town of Magdeburg, the Electors of Brandenburg and Saxony openly espoused the cause of Gustavus Adolphus. After the utter defeat of Tilly at Breitenfeld (September, 1631), Gustavus Adolphus advanced through Thuringia and Franconia to the Rhine, while the Saxon army invaded Bohemia and occupied its capital, Prague. In 1632, the Swedish King invaded Bavaria. Tilly faced him on the Lech, but was defeated, and mortally wounded. Gustavus Adolphus was now master of Germany, the League was overthrown, and the emperor threatened in his hereditary domain. In this crisis Ferdinand induced Wallenstein to raise another army of 40,000 men, and entrusted him with unlimited authority. On 6 November, 1632, a battle was fought at Luetzen near Leipzig, where Gustavus Adolphus was slain, though the Swedish troops remained masters of the battle-field. Wallenstein was now in a position to continue the war with energy, but after the second half of 1633 he displayed an incomprehensible inactivity. The explanation is that Wallenstein had formed the resolution to betray the emperor, and, with the help of France, to seize Bohemia. His plan miscarried, however, and led to his assassination at Eger on 25 February, 1634. The emperor had no hand in this murder. On 27 August of the same year, the imperial army under the emperor's eldest son, Ferdinand, inflicted so crushing a defeat on the Swedes at Noerdlingen that the Protestants of south-western Germany turned for help to France. On 30 May, 1636, by the cession of both Upper and Lower Lausitz, Ferdinand became reconciled with Saxony, which became his ally. On 24 September, the combined imperial and Saxon armies were defeated at Wittstock by the Swedes under Baner. France now revealed its real policy, and dispatched a powerful army to join the ranks of the emperor's foes. Ferdinand lived to witness the election of his son as German Emperor (22 December, 1636), and his coronation as King of Bohemia and Hungary. He died, however, 15 February, 1637, without witnessing the end of this destructive conflict, known as the Thirty Years War. In his will, he expressly provided for the succession of the first-born of is house and the indivisibility of his hereditary states. HURTER, Geschichte Kaiser Ferdinands II und seiner Zeit (11 vols. Schaffhausen, 1850-1864); GINDELY, Geschichte de dreissigjaehrigen Krieges (3 vols., Prague, 1882); KLOPP, Tilly im dreissigjaehrigen Kriege (2 vols., Stuttgart, 1861); HUBER, Geschichte Oesterreichs (5 vols., Prague and Leipzig, 1894). KARL KLAAR St. Ferdinand III St. Ferdinand III King of Leon and Castile, member of the Third Order of St. Francis, born in 1198 near Salamanca; died at Seville, 30 May, 1252. He was the son of Alfonso IX, King of Leon, and of Berengeria, the daughter of Alfonso III, King of Castile, and sister of Blanche, the mother of St. Louis IX. In 1217 Ferdinand became King of Castile, which crown his mother renounced in his favour, and in 1230 he succeeded to the crown of Leon, though not without civil strife, since many were opposed to the union of the two kingdoms. He took as his counsellors the wisest men in the State, saw to the strict administration of justice, and took the greatest care not to overburden his subjects with taxation, fearing, as he said, the curse of one poor woman more than a whole army of Saracens. Following his mother's advice, Ferdinand, in 1219, married Beatrice, the daughter of Philip of Swabia, King of Germany, one of the most virtuous princesses of her time. God blessed this union with seven children: six princes and one princess. The highest aims of Ferdinand's life were the propagation of the Faith and the liberation of Spain from the Saracen yoke. Hence his continual wars against the Saracens. He took from them vast territories, Granada and Alicante alone remaining in their power at the time of his death. In the most important towns he founded bishoprics, reestablished Catholic worship everywhere, built churches, founded monasteries, and endowed hospitals. The greatest joys of his life were the conquests of Cordova (1236) and Seville (1248). He turned the great mosques of these places into cathedrals, dedicating them to the Blessed Virgin. He watched over the conduct of his soldiers, confiding more in their virtue than in their valour, fasted strictly himself, wore a rough hairshirt, and often spent his nights in prayer, especially before battles. Amid the tumult of the camp he lived like a religious in the cloister. The glory of the Church and the happiness of his people were the two guiding motives of his life. He founded the University of Salamanca, the Athens of Spain. Ferdinand was buried in the great cathedral of Seville before the image of the Blessed Virgin, clothed, at his own request, in the habit of the Third Order of St. Francis. His body, it is said, remains incorrupt. Many miracles took place at his tomb, and Clement X canonized him in 1671. His feast is kept by the Minorites on the 30th of May. FERDINAND HECKMANN Diocese of Ferentino Diocese of Ferentino (FERENTINUM) In the province of Rome, immediately subject to the Holy See. The town was in antiquity the chief place of the Hernici. Its ancient origin is borne out by the numerous remains of its cyclopean walls, especially near the site of the ancient fortress where the cathedral now stands. In the days of the kings there was strife between Rome and Ferentinum which then belonged to the Volscians. The Consul Furius gave it over to the Hernici, and in 487, A.U.C., it became a Roman town (municipium), and shared thenceforth the fortunes of Rome. Local legend attributes the first preaching of the Gospel in Ferentinum to Sts. Peter and Paul; they are said to have consecrated St. Leo as its first bishop. In the persecution of Diocletian the centurion Ambrose suffered martyrdom (304) at Ferentino; possibly also the martyrdom of St. Eutychius belongs to that period. In the time of Emperor Constantine the town had its own bishop; but the first known to us by the name is Bassus, present at Roman synods, 487 and 492-493. St. Redemptus (about 570) is mentioned in the "Dialogues" of St. Gregory the Great; and he also refers to a Bishop Boniface. Other known bishops are Trasmondo Sognino (1150), who died in prison; Ubaldo (1150), Iegate of Adrian IV to the princes of Christendom in favour of a crusade, later the consecrator of the antipope Victor IV; Giacomo (A.D. 1276), legate of John XXI to Emperor Michael Palaeologus; Landolfo Rosso (1297), who rendered good service to Boniface VIII; Francesco Filippesio (1799), legate of Julius II to the Emperor Maximilian. Ferentino has (1909) 19 parishes and 45,000 souls, 3 boys' and 2 girls' Schools; 6 monasteries for men; and 8 convents tor women. U. BENIGNI Sts. Fergus Sts. Fergus St. Fergus Cruithneach Died about 730, known in the Irish martyrologies as St. Fergus Cruithneach, or the Pict. The Breviary of Aberdeen states that he had been a bishop for many years in Ireland when he came on a mission to Alba with some chosen priests and other clerics. He settled first near Strageath, in the present parish of Upper Strathearn, in Upper Perth, erected three churches in that district. The churchs of Strageath, Blackford, and Dolpatrick are found there to-day dedicated to St. Patrick. He next evangelized Caithness and established there the churches of Wick and Halkirk. Thence he crossed to Buchan in Aberdeenshire and founded a church at Lungley, a village now called St. Fergus. Lastly, he established a church at Glammis in Forfarshire. He went to Rome in 721 and was present with Sedulius and twenty other bishops at a synod in the basilica of St. Peter, convened by Gregory II. His remains were deposited in the church of Glammis and were the object of much veneration in the Middle Ages. The Abbot of Scone transferred his head to Scone church, and encased it in a costly shrine there is an entry in the accounts of the treasurer of James IV, October, 1503, " An offerand of 13 shillings to Sanct Fergus' heide in Scone". The churches of Wick, Glammis, and Lungley had St. Fergus as their patron. His festival is recorded in the Martyrology of Tallaght for the 8th of September but seems to have been observed in Scotland on the 18th of November. St. Fergus, Bishop of Duleek Died 778, mentioned by Duald MacFirbis, Annals of the Four Masters, Annals of Ulster. St. Fergus, Bishop of Downpatrick Died 583. He was sixth in descent from Coelbad, King of Erin. He built a church or monastery called Killmbain, identified by some as Killyban, Co. Down, and afterwards was consecrated bishop and ruled the cathedral church of Druimleithglais (Down). He was probably the first bishop of that see. His feast is kept on the 30th of March. Ten saints of this name are mentioned in the martyology of Donegal. C. MULCAHY Feria Feria (Lat. for "free day"). A day on which the people, especially the slaves, were not obliged to work, and on which there were no court sessions. In ancient Roman times the feriae publicae, legal holidays, were either stativae, recurring regularly (e.g. the Saturnalia), conceptivae, i.e. movable, or imperativae, i.e. appointed for special occasions. When Christianity spread, the feriae were ordered for religious rest, to celebrate the feasts instituted for worship by the Church. The faithful were obliged on those days to attend Mass in their parish church; such assemblies gradually led to mercantile enterprise, partly from necessity and partly for the sake of convenience. This custom in time introduced those market gatherings which the Germans call Messen, and the English call fairs. They were fixed on saints' days (e.g. St. Barr's fair, St. Germanus's fair, St. Wenn's fair, etc.) Today the term feria is used to denote the days of the week with the exception of Sunday and Saturday. Various reasons are given for this terminology. The Roman Breviary, in the sixth lesson for 31 Dec., says that Pope St. Silvester ordered the continuance of the already existing custom "that the clergy, daily abstaining from earthly cares, would be free to serve God alone". Others believe that the Church simply Christianized a Jewish practice. The Jews frequently counted the days from their Sabbath, and so we find in the Gospels such expressions as una Sabbati and prima Sabbati, the first from the Sabbath. The early Christians reckoned the days after Easter in this fashion, but, since all the days of Easter week were holy days, they called Easter Monday, not the first day after Easter, but the second feria or feast day; and since every Sunday is the dies Dominica, a lesser Easter day, the custom prevailed to call each Monday a feria secunda, and so on for the rest of the week. The ecclesiastical style of naming the week days was adopted by no nation except the Portuguese who alone use the terms Segunda Feria etc. The old use of the word feria, for feast day, is lost, except in the derivative feriatio, which is equivalent to our of obligation. Today those days are called ferial upon which no feast is celebrated. Feriae are either major or minor. The major, which must have at least a commemoration, even on the highest feasts, are the feriae of Advent and Lent, the Ember days, and the Monday of Rogation week; the others are called minor. Of the major feriae Ash Wednesday and the days of Holy Week are privileged so that their office must be taken, no matter what feast may occur. FRANCIS MERSHMAN Jean-Baptiste-Antoine Ferland Jean-Baptiste-Antoine Ferland A French Canadian historian, b. at Montreal, 25 December, 1805; d. at Quebec, 11 January, 1865. He studied at the college of Nicolet and was ordained 1828. He ministered to country parishes until 1841, when he was made director of studies in the college of Nicolet. He became its superior in 1848. Being named a member of the council of the Bishop of Quebec, he took up his residence in that city, where he was also chaplain to the English garrison. From his college days he had devoted himself to the study of Canadian history; the numerous notes which he collected had made him one of the most learned men of the country. It was not, however, until he had reached the age of forty that he thought of writing a history of Canada. In 1853 he published his "Observations sur l' histoire ecclesiastique du Canada", a refutation and criticism of the work of the Abbe Brasseur de Bourburg; it was reprinted in France in 1854. In the latter year he published "Notes sur les registres de Notre Dame de Quebec", a second edition of which, revised and augmented appeared in the "Foyer canadien" for 1863. In 1855 he was appointed professor of Canadian history at the University of Laval (Quebec), and went at once to France to collect new documents to perfect him in his work. He returned in 1857, bringing with him valuable notes. The public courses which he delivered from 1858 to 1862 attracted large audiences, and his lectures, printed as "Cours d' Histoire du Canada", established Ferland's reputation. The first volume appeared in 1861; the second was not published till after the author's death in 1865. This work, written in a style at once simple and exact, is considered authoritative by competent judges. It is, however, incomplete, ending as it does with the conquest of Canada by the English (1759). Ferland aimed above all at establishing the actual facts of history. He desired also to make known the work of the Catholic missions. His judgments are correct and reliable. Ferland also published in the "Soirees Canadiennes" of 1863 the "Journal d'un voyage sur les cotes de la Gaspesie", and in "Litterature Canadienne" for 1863 an "Etude sur le Labrador", which had previously appeared in the "Annales de l'Association pour la Propagation de la Foi". For the "Foyer Canadien" of 1863 he wrote a "Vie de Mgr Plessis", Bishop of Quebec, translated later into English. J. EDMOND ROY Archdiocese of Fermo Archdiocese of Fermo (FIRMANA). In the province of Ascoli Piceno (Central Italy). The great antiquity of the episcopal city is attested by the remains of its cyclopean walls. It was the site of a Roman colony, established in 264 B.C., consisting of 6000 men. With the Pentapolis it passed in the eighth century under the authority of the Holy See and underwent thenceforth the vicissitudes of the March of Ancona. Under the predecessors of Honorius III the bishops of city became the counts, and later princes, of Fermo. In the contest between the Hohenstaufen and the papacy, Fermo was several times besieged and captured; in 1176 by Archbishop Christian of Mainz, in 1192 by Henry Vl, in 1208 by Marcuald, Duke of Ravenna, in 1241 by Frederick 11, in 1245 by Manfred. After this it was governed by different lords, who ruled as more or less legitimate vassals of the Holy See, e.g. the Monteverdi, Giovanni Visconti, and Francesco Storza (banished 1446), Oliverotto Uffreducci (murdered in 1503 by Caesar Borgia), who was succeeded by his son Ludovico, killed at the battle of Monto Giorgio in 1520, when Fermo became again directly subjected to the Holy See. Boniface VIII (1204-1303) established a university there. Fermo is the birth place of the celebrated poet, Annibale Caro. Local legend attributes the first preaching of the Gospel at Fermo to Sts. Apollinarius and Maro. The martyrdom of the bishop, St. Alexander, with seventy companions, is placed in the persecution of Decius (250), and the martyrdom of St. Philip under Aurelian (270-75). Among the noteworthy bishops are: Passinus, the recipient of four letters from Gregory III; Cardinal Domenico Caspranica (1426): Sigismondo Zanettini (1584), under whom Fermo was made the seat of an archdiocese; Giambattista Rinuccini, nuncio in Ireland; and Alessandro Borgia. The suffragans of Fermo are Macerata-Tolentino, Montalto, Ripatransone, and San Severino. The archdiocese has (1908) a population of 18,000; 117 parishes; 368 secular priests and 86 regular; 2 male and 5 female educational institutions; 6 religious houses of men and 50 of women; and a Catholic weekly, the "Voce delle Marche". U. BENIGNI Antonio Fernandez Antonio Fernandez A Jesuit missionary; b. at Lisbon, c. 1569; d. at Goa, 12 November, 1642. About 1602 he was sent to India, whence two years later he went to Abyssinia, where he soon won favour with King Melek Seghed. This monarch, converted to the Faith in 1622, after the arrival of the Latin patriarch, for whom he had petitioned the Holy See, publcly acknowledged the primacy of the Roman See and constituted Catholicism the State religion (1626). For a time innumerable conversions were made, the monarch in his zeal resorting even to compulsory measures. The emperor's son, however, took sides with the schismatics, headed a rebellion, seized his father's throne, and reinstalled the former faith proscribing the Catholic religion under the penalty of death. The missionaries, on their expulsion, found a temporary protector in one of the petty princes of the country, by whom, however, they were soon abandoned. Those who reached the port of Massowah were held for a ransom. Father Fernandez, then over eighty years of age, was one of those detained as hostage, but a younger companion persuaded the pasha to substitute him, and Father Fernandez was allowed to return to India, where he ended his days. On his missions for the king, Father Fernandez had traversed vast tracts of hitherto unexplored territory. He translated various liturgical books into Ethiopian, and was the author of ascetical and polemical works against the heresies prevalent in Ethiopia. F.M. RUDGE Juan Fernandez Juan Fernandez A Jesuit lay brother and missionary; b. at Cordova; d. 12 June, 1567, in Japan. In a letter from Malacca, dated 20 June, 1549, St. Francis Xavier begs the prayers of the Goa brethren for those about to start on the Japanese mission mentioning among them Juan Fernandez, a lay brother. On their arrival in Japan Juan rendered active service in the work of evangelizing. In September, 1550, he accompanied St. Francis to Firando (Hirado), thence to Amanguchi (Yamaguchi), and on to Miako (Saikio) a difficult journey, from which they returned to Amanguchi, where he was left with Father Cosmo Torres in charge of the Christians, when Francis started for China. There is still in the records of the Jesuit college at Coimbra a lengthy document professed to be the translation of an account rendered St. Francis by Ferndndez of a controversy with the Japanese on such questions as the nature of God, creation, the nature and immortality of the soul. The success of Brother Fernandez on this occasion in refuting his Japanese adversaries resulted in the ill will of the bonzes, who stirred up a rebellion against the local prince, who had become a Christian. The missionaries were concealed by the wife of one of the nobles until they were able to resume their work of preaching. St. Francis says in one of his letters: "Joann Fernandez though a simple layman, is most useful on account of the fluency of his acquaintance with the Japanese language and of the aptness and clearness with which he translates whatever Father Cosmo suggests to him." His humility under insults impressed all and on one occasion resulted in the conversion of a brilliant young Japanese doctor, who later became a Jesuit and one of the shining lights in the Japanese Church. Brother Fernandez compiled the first Japanese grammar and lexicon. F.M. RUDGE Diego Fernandez de Palencia Diego Fernandez de Palencia A Spanish conqueror and historian; b. at Palencia in the early part of the sixteenth century. He took up a military career, and went to Peru shortly after the conquest (about 1545). In 1553 and 1554 he took part in the civil struggle among the Spaniards, fighting under the banner of Alonso de Alvarado, Captain-General of Los Charcos, against the rebel Francisco Hernandez de Giron. In 1555 Hurtado de Mendoza, Marquess of Canete, came to Peru as viceroy, and charged Fernandez to write a history of the troubles in which he had just taken part. He then began his history of Peru, and later, when he had returned to Spain, upon the suggestion of Sandoval, President of the Council of the Indies, Fernandez enlarged the scope of his work, and added to it a first part, dealing with the movements of Pizarro and his followers. The whole work was published under the title "Primera y segunda parte de la Historia del Peru (Seville, 1571). Having taken part in many of the events, and known the men who figured in most of the scenes which he describes, Fernandez may be regarded as a historian whose testimony is worth consideration. Garcilaso de la Vega, the Peruvian, who quotes long passages from Fernandez, fiercely attacks his story and accuses him of partiality and of animosity against certain personages. Whatever the reason may have been, however, possibly because of the truth of the story, the fact is, the Council of the Indies prohibited the printing and sale of the book in the provinces under its jurisdiction. A perusal of the book conveys the impression that Fernandez was a man of sound judgment, who set down the fact only after a thorough investigation. The reproaches of the Inca historian may, therefore, be regarded as without foundation. VENTURA FUENTES Diocese of Ferns Ferns DIOCESE OF FERNS (FERNENSIS). Diocese in the province of Leinster (Ireland), suffragan of Dublin. It was founded by St. Aedan, whose name is popularly known as Moaedhog, or "My dear little Aedh", in 598. Subsequently, St. Aedan was given a quasi-supremacy over the other bishops of Leinster, with the title of Ard-Escop or chief bishop, on which account he and some of his successors have been regarded as having archiepiscopal powers. The old annalists style the see Fearna-mor Maedhog, that is "the great plain of the alder trees of St. Moedhog. Even yet Moedhog (Mogue) -- the Irish endearing form of Aedan -- is a familiar Christian name in the diocese, while it is also perpetuted Tubbermogue, Bovlavogue, Cromogue, Island (Breacc Maedoig) are seen in the National Museum, Dublin. Many of his successors find a place in Irish martyrologies, including St. Mochua, St. Moling and St. Cillene. Of these the most famous is St. Moling, who died 13 May, 697. His book-shrine is among the greatest art treasures of Ireland, and his "well" is still visited, but he is best known as patron of St. Mullins (Teach Moling) County Carlow. The ancient monastery of Ferns included a number of cells, or oratories, and the cathedral was built in the Irish style. At present the remains of the abbey (refounded for Austin Canons, in 1160, by Dermot MaeMurrough) include a round tower, about seventy-five feet high in two stories, the lower of which is quadrangular, and the upper polygonal. Close by is the Holy Well of St. Mogue. Ferns was raided by the Scandinavians in 834, 836, 839, 842, 917, 920, 928, and 930, and was burned in 937. St. Peter's Church, Ferns, dates from about the year 1060, and is of the Hiberno-Romanesque style, having been built by Bishop O'Lynam, who died in 1062. The bishops were indifferently styled as of Ferns, Hy Kinsellagh, or Wexford; thus, Maeleoin O'Donegan (d. 1125) is called "Bishop of Wexford", while Bishop O'Cathan (d. 1135) is named "Archbishop of Hy Kinsellagh". This was by reason of the fact that the boundaries of the diocese are coextensive with the territory of Hy Kinsellagh, on which account Ferns includes County Wexford with small portions of Wicklow and Carlow. Dermot MacMurrough, King of Leinster, burned the city of Ferns in 1166, "for fear that the Connacht men would destroy his castle and his house", and, three years later, he brought over a pioneer force of Welshmen. He died in 1171, and, at his own request, was buried "near the shrines of St. Maedhog and St. Moling". The same year Henry II of England landed in Ireland, where he remained for six months. Ailbe O'Molloy, a Cistercian, who ruled from 1185 to 1222, was the last Irish bishop in the pre-Reformation history of Ferns. He attended the Fourth General Council of Lateran (1215) and, on his return, formed a cathedral chapter. His successor, Bishop St. John, was granted by Henry III (6 July, 1226) a weekly market at Ferns and an annual fair, also a weekly market at Enniscorthy. This bishop (8 April, 1227) assigned the manor of Enniscorthy to Philip de Prendergast, who built a castle, still in excellent preservation. In exchange, he acquired six plough-lands forever for the See of Ferns. He held a synod at Selskar (St. Sepulchre) Priory, Wexford (8 September, 1240). The appointment of a dean was confirmed by Clement IV (23 August. 1265). Bishop St. John rebuilt the cathedral of Ferns, which from recent discoveries seems to have been 180 feet in length, with a crypt. A fine stone statue of St. Aedan, evidently early Norman work, is still preserved. In 1346 the castle of Ferns was made a royal appanage, and constables were appointed by the Crown, but it was recovered by Art MacMurrough in 1386. Patrick Barret, who ruled from 1400 to 1415, removed the episcopal chair of Ferns to New Ross, and made St. Mary's his catherdal. His successor, Robert Whitty, had an episcopate of forty years, dying in February, 1458. Under John Purcell (1459-1479), Franciscan friars acquired a foundation in Enniscorthy, which was dedicated 18 October, 1460. Lawrence Neville (1479-1503) attended a provincial council at Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin, on 5 March, 1495. His successor, Edmund Comerford, died in 1509, whereupon Nicholas Comyn was elected. Bishop Comyn resided at Fethard Castle, and assisted at the provincial councils of 1512 and 1518. He was transferred to Waterford and Lismore in 1519, and was replaced by John Purcell, whose troubled episcopate ended on 20 July, 1539. Though schismatically eonsecrated, Alexander Devereux was rehabilitated under Queen Mary as Bishop of Ferns, and died at Fethard Castle on 6 July, 1566 -- the last pre-Reformation bishop. Peter Power was appointed his successor in 1582, but the temporalities of the see were held by John Devereux. Bishop Power died a confessor, in exile, 15 December, 1588. Owing to the disturbed state of the diocese and the lack of revenue no bishop was provided till 19 April, 1624, but meantime Father Daniel O'Drohan, who had to adopt the alias of "James Walshe", acted as vicar Apostolic (1606-1624). John Roche was succeeded by another John Roche, 6 February, 1644, who never entered on possession, the see being administered by William Devereux from 1636 to 1644. Dr. Devereux was an able administrator at a trying period, and he wrote an English catechism, which was used in the diocese until a few years ago. Nicholas French was made Bishop of Ferns 15 September, 1644, and died in exile at Ghent, 23 August, 1679. His episcopate was a remarkable one, and he himself was a most distinguished prelate. Bishop Wadding (1678-1691) wrote some charming Christmas carols, which are still sung in Wexford. His successors, Michael Rossiter (1695-1709), John Verdon (1709-1729), and the Franciscan Ambrose O'Callaghan (1729-1744), experienced the full brunt of the penal laws. Nicholas Sweetman (1745-1786) was twice imprisoned on suspicion of "disloyalty", while James Caulfield (1786-1814) was destined to outlive the "rebellion" of '98. One of the Ferns priests Father James Dixon, who was transported as a "felon", was the first Prefect Apostolic of Australia. All the post-Reformation bishops lived mostly at Wexford until 1809, in which year Dr. Ryan, coadjutor bishop, commenced the building of a cathedral in Enniscorthy, which had been assigned him as a mensal parish. As Bishop Caulfield was an invalid from the year 1809 the diocese was administered by Dr. Ryan, who, with the permission of the Holy See, transferred the episcopal residence to Enniscorthy. Bishop Ryan died 9 March, 1819, and was buried in the cathedral. His successor, James Keating (1819-1849), ruled for thirty years, and commenced building the present cathedral, designed by Pugin. Myles Murphy (1850-1856) and Thomas Furlong (1857-1875) did much for the diocese, while Michael Warren (1875-1884) is still lovingly remembered. From an interesting Relatio forwarded to the Propaganda by Bishop Caulfield in 1796, the Diocese of Ferns is described as 38 miles in length and 20 in breadth, with eight borough towns, and a chapter of nineteen members. In pre-Reformation days it had 143 parishes; 17 monasteries of Canons Regular of St. Augustine; 3 priories of Knights Templars; 2 Cistercian abbeys; 3 Franciscan friaries; 2 Austin friaries; 1 Carmelite friary, and 1 Benedictine priory. It never had a nunnery nor a Dominican friary. (The Jesuits had a flourishing college in New Ross in 1675.) The population was 120,000, of which 114,000 were Catholics, and there were 80 priests, including regulars. There were 36 parishes, many of which had no curates. At present (1909), the population is 108,750, of which 99,000 are Catholics. There are 41 parishes, two of which (Wexford and Enniscorthy) are mensal. The parish priests are 39 and the curates are 66, while the churches number 92. The religious orders include Franciscans (one house), Augustinians (two houses), and Benedietines (one house). The total clergy are 140. In addition, there are 14 convents for religious women, and a House of Missions (Superior Father John Rossiter), as also 6 Christian Brothers schools, diocesan college, a Benedictine college, and several good schools for female pupils. Enniscorthy cathedral was not completed until 1875, and the interior not completely finished till 1908. Most Rev. Dr. James Browne was consecrated Bishop of Ferns 14 September, 1884. He was born at Mayglass, County Wexford in 1842, finished his studies at Maynooth College, where he was ordained in 1865, and served for nineteen years as curate and parish priest with conspicuous ability. COLGAN, Acta Sanct. Hib. (Louvain, 1648); BRENAN Eccl. Hist. of Ireland (Dublin, 1840); ROTHE, Analecta, ed. MORAN (Dublin. 1884); WARE, Bishops of Ireland, ed. HARRIS (Dublin, 1739); RENEHAN, Collections on Irish Church History, ed. MCCARTHY (Dublin, 1874), II; GRATTAN-FLOOD, Hist. of Enniscorthy (Enniscorthy, 1898); IDEM, The Episcopal City of Ferns in Irish Eccl. Record, II, no. 358, IV, no. 368, VI, no. 380, BASSET, Wexford (Dublin, 1885). W.H. GRATTAN-FLOOD Ferrara Ferrara Archdiocese of Ferrara (Ferrariensis). Archdiocese immediately subject to the Holy See. The city, which is the capital of the similarly named province, stands on the banks of the Po di Volano, where it branches off to form the Po di Primaro, in the heart of a rich agricultural district. The origin of Ferrara is doubtful. No mention is made of it before the eighth century. Until the tenth century it followed the fortunes of Ravenna. In 986 it was given as a papal fief to Tedaldo, Count of Canossa, the grandfather of Countess Matilda against whom it rebelled in 1101. From 1115 it was directly under the pope, though often claimed by the emperors. During this period arose the commune of Ferrara. Gradually the Salinguerra family became all-powerful in the city. They were expelled in 1208 for their fidelity to the emperor, whereupon the citizens offered the governorship to Azzo VI d'Este, whose successors kept it, as lieges of the pope, until 1598, with the exception of the brief period from 1313 to 1317, when it was leased to the King of Sicily for an annual tribute. Alfonso I d'Este, hoping to cast off the overlordship of the pope, kept up relations with Louis XII of France long after the League of Cambrai (1508) had been dissolved. In 1510 Julius II attempted in person to bring him back to a sense of duty, but was not successful. In 1519 Leo X tried to capture the town by surprise, but he too failed; in 1522, however, Alfonso of his own accord made his peace with Adrian VI. In 1597 Alfonso II died without issue and named his cousin Cesare as his heir. Clement VIII refused to recognize him and sent to Ferrara his own nephew, Cardinal Pietro Aldobrandini, who in 1598 brought the town directly under papal rule. In 1796 it was occupied by the French, and became the chief town of the Bas-Po. In 1815 it was given back to the Holy See, which governed it by a legate with the aid of an Austrian garrison. In 1831 it proclaimed a provisional government, but the Austrian troops restored the previous civil conditions, which lasted until 1859, when the territory was annexed to the Kingdom of Italy. The dukes of Ferrara, especially Alfonso I (1505-1534) and Alfonso II (1559-1597), were generous patrons of literature and the arts. At their court lived Tasso, Ariosto, Boiardo, V. Strozzi, G. B. Guarini, the historian Guido Bentivoglio, and others. It counted many artists of renown, whose works adorn even yet the churches and palaces of the city, e. g. the ducal palace, the Schifanoia, Diamanti, Rovella, Scrofa-Calcagnini, and other palaces. The more famous among the painters were Benvenuto Tisi (Garofalo), Ercole Grandi, Ippolito Scarsello, the brothers Dossi, and Girolamo da Carpi. Alfonso Cittadella, the sculptor, left immortal works in the duomo, or cathedral (Christ and the Apostles), and in San Giovanni (Madonna). Churches of note are the cathedral, SS. Benedetto and Francesco, San Domenico (with its beautiful carved choir stalls of the fourteenth century). The most famous work of ecclesiastical architecture is the magnificent Certosa. The university was founded in 1391 by Boniface IX. Ferrara was the birthplace of Savonarola and of the great theologian, Silvestro di Ferrara, both Dominicans. The earliest bishop of certain date is Constantine, present at Rome in 861; St. Maurelius (patron of the city) must have lived before this time. Some think that the bishops of Ferrara are the successors to those of Vigonza (the ancient Vicuhabentia). Other bishops of note are Filippo Fontana (1243), to whom Innocent IV entrusted the task of inducing the German princes to depose Frederick II; Blessed Alberto Pandoni (1261) and Blessed Giovanni di Tossignano (1431); the two Ippolito d'Este (1520 and 1550) and Luigi d'Este (1553), all three munificent patrons of learning and the arts; Alfonso Rossetti (1563), Paolo Leoni (1579), Giovanni Fontana (1590), and Lorenzo Magalotti (1628), all four of whom eagerly supported the reforms of the Council of Trent; finally, the saintly Cardinal Carlo Odescalchi (1823). Up to 1717 the Archbishop of Ravenna claimed metropolitan rights over Ferrara; in 1735 Clement XII raised the see to archiepiscopal rank, without suffragans. It has 89 parishes and numbers 130,752 souls; there are two educational institutions for boys and six for girls, nine religious houses of men and nineteen of women. COUNCIL OF FERRARA When Saloniki (Thessalonica) fell into the hands of the Turks (1429) the Emperor John Palaeologus approached Martin V, Eugene IV, and the Council of Basle to secure help against the Turks and to convoke a council for the reunion of the two Churches, as the only means of efficaciously resisting Islam. At first it was proposed to hold the council in some seaport town of Italy; then Constantinople was suggested. The members of the Council of Basle held out for Basle or Avignon. Finally (18 September, 1437), Eugene IV decided that the council would be held at Ferrara, that city being acceptable to the Greeks. The council was opened 8 January, 1438, by Cardinal Nicolo Albergati, and the pope attended on 27 January. The synodal officers were divided into three classes: (1) the cardinals, archbishops, and bishops; (2) the abbots and prelates; (3) doctors of theology and canon law. Before the arrival of the Greeks, proclamation was made that all further action by the Council of Basle as such would be null and void. The Greeks, i. e. the emperor with a train of archbishops, bishops, and learned men (700 in all), landed at Venice 8 February and were cordially received and welcomed in the pope's name by Ambrogio Traversari, the General of the Camaldolese. On 4 March the emperor entered Ferrara. The Greek bishops came a little later. Questions of precedence and ceremonial caused no small difficulty. For preparatory discussions on all controverted points a committee of ten from either side was appointed. Among them were Marcus Eugenicus, Archbishop of Ephesus; Bessarion, Archbishop of Nicaea; Balsamon; Siropolos and others, for the Greeks; while Cardinals Giuliano Cesarini and Nicolo Albergati, Giovanni Turrecremata, and others represented the Latins. The Greek Emperor prevented a discussion on the Procession of the Holy Spirit and on the use of leavened bread. For months the only thing discussed or written about was the ecclesiastic teaching on purgatory. The uncertainty of the Greeks on this head was the cause of the delay. The emperor's object was to bring about a general union without any concessions on the part of the Greeks in matters of doctrine. Everybody deplored the delay, and a few of the Greeks, among them Marcus Eugenicus, attempted to depart secretly, but they were obliged to return. The sessions began 8 October, and from the opening of the third session the question of the Procession of the Holy Spirit was constantly before the council. Marcus Eugenicus blamed the Latins for having added the "Filioque" to the Nicene Creed despite the prohibition of the Council of Ephesus (431). The chief speakers on behalf of the Latins were Andrew, Bishop of Rhodes, and Cardinal Giuliano Cesarini, who pointed out that the addition was dogmatically correct and not at all contrary to the prohibition of the Council of Ephesus, nor to the teaching of the Greek Fathers. Bessarion admitted the orthodoxy of the "Filioque" teaching, but maintained it ought not to have been added to the Creed. Twelve sessions were (III-XV) taken up with this controversy. On both sides many saw no hope of an agreement, and once more many Greeks were eager to return home. Finally the emperor permitted his followers to proceed to the discussion of the orthodoxy of the "Filioque". In the meantime the people of Florence had invited the pope to accept for himself and the council the hospitality of their city. They hoped in this way to reap great financial profit. The offer was accompanied by a large gift of money. Eugene IV, already at a loss for funds and obliged to furnish hospitality and money to the Greeks (who had come to Italy in the pope's own fleet), gladly accepted the offer of the Florentines. The Greeks on their part agreed to the change. The council thus quitted Ferrara without having accomplished anything, principally because the emperor and Marcus Eugenicus did not wish to reach an agreement in matters of doctrine. (See Council of Florence.) ARCHDIOCESE.--CAPPELLETTI, Le Chiese d'Italia (Venice, 1846), IV, 9-11, 24-226; FRIZZI, Memorie per la Storia di Ferrara (Ferrara, 1791); AGNELLI, Ferrara in Italia Artistica (Bergamo, 1902). COUNCIL.--MANSI, Coll. Conc., XXIX; HARDOUIN, Coll. Conc., IX; HEFELE, Konziliengeschichte (2nd ed.), VII; CECCONI, Studi storici sul concilio di Firenze (Florence, 1869). U. BENIGNI. Gaudenzio Ferrari Gaudenzio Ferrari An Italian painter and the greatest master of the Piedmontese School, b. at Valduggia, near Novara. Italy, c. 1470: d. at Milan, 31 January, 1546. His work is vast but poorly known. He seems never to have left his beloved Piedmont or Lombardy save perhaps on one occasion. He had seen Leonardo at work in Milan (1490-98), and learned from him lessons in expression and in modeling. But he owed more to his compatriots in the North: to Bramante and Bramantino in architectural details, above all to Mantegna, whose frescoes of the "Life of St. James" inspired more than one paintings at Varallo. Nothing is more uncertain than the history of this great man. His earliest known works belong to the years 1508 and 1511; at that time he was about forty years of age. He would seem to have been formed in the good old Milanese school of such men as Borgognone, Zenale, and Butinone, which kept aloof from the brilliant fashion in art favoured by the court of the Sforzas, and which prolonged the fifteenth century with its archaisms of expression. Gaudenzio, this youngest and frankest of this group, never fell under the influence of Leonardo, and hence it is that on one point he always held out against the new spirit; he would never daily with the paganism or rationalism of Renaissance art. He was as passionately naturalistic as any painter of his time, before all else, however, he was a Christian artist. He is the only truly religious master of the Italian Renaissance, and this trait it is which makes him stand out in any age where faith and single-mindedness were gradually disappearing, as a man of another country, almost of another time. When we consider the works of Gaudenzio, more especially his earlier ones, in the light of the fact that the district in which he was born was in the direct line of communication between North and South; and reflect that what might be termed the "art traffic" between Germany and Italy was very great in his time, we are forced to recognize that German influence played a considerable part in the development of his genius, in so far at least as his mind was amenable to external stimuli. He is, in fact, the most German of the Italian painters. In the heart of a school where art was becoming more and more aristocratic, he remained the people's painter. In this respect his personality stands out so boldly amongst the Itatian painters of the time that it seems natural to infer that Gaudenzio in his youth travelled to the banks of the Rhine, and bathed long and deep in its mystic atmosphere. Like the Gothic masters, he is perhaps the only sixteenth-century painter who worked exclusively for churches or convents. He is the only one in Italy who painted lengthy sacred dramas and legends from the lives of the saints: a "Passion" at Varallo; a "Life of the Virgin", and a "Life of St. Magdalen", at Vercelli; and at times, after the fashion of the cinquecento, he grouped many different episodes in one scene, at the expense of unity in composition, till they resembled the mysteries, and might be styled "sectional paintings". He was not aiming at art, but at edification. Hence arose a certain negligence of form and a carelessness of execution still more pronounced. The "Carrying of the Cross" at Cannobio, the "Calvary" at Vercelli, the "Deposition" at Turin, works of great power in many ways, and unequalled at the time in Italy for pathos and feeling, are somehow wanting in proportion, and give one the impression that the conventional grouping has been departed from. The soul, being filled as it were with its object, as overpowered by the emotions; and the intellect confesses its inability to synthesize the images which rise tumultuously from an over excited sensibility. Another consequence of this peculiarity of mental conformation is, perhaps, the abuse of the materials at his disposal Gaudenzio never refrained from using doubtful methods, such as ornaments in relief, the use of gilded stucco worked into harness, armour, into the aureolas, etc. And to heighten the effect he does not even hesitate to make certain figures stand out in real, palpable relief; is fact some of his frescoes are as much sculpture as they are painting, by reason of this practice. His history must always remain incomplete until we get further enlightenment concerning that strange movement of the Pietist preachers, which ended in establishing (1487-93) a great Franciscan centre on the Sacro Monte de Varallo. It was in this retreat that Gaudenzio spent the years which saw his genius come to full maturity; it was there he left his greatest works, his "Life of Christ" of 1513, in twenty-one frescoes at Santa Maria delle Grazie, and other works on the Sacro Monte dating between 1523 and 1528. It was there that the combined use of painting and sculpture produced a most curious result. Fresco is only used as an ornament, a sort of background to a scene presenting a tableau vivant of figures in terra-cotta. Some of the groups embrace no less than thirty figures. Forty chapels bring out in this way the principal scenes in the drama of the Incarnation, Gaudenzio is responsible for the chapels of the Magi, the Piet`a, and the Calvary. In his subsequent works, at Vercelli (1530-34) and at Saronno (in the cupola of Santa Maria dei Miracoli, 1535), the influence of Correggio is furiously blended with the above-mentioned German leanings. The freshness and vigour of his inspiration remain untouched in all their homely yet stern grace. The "Assumption" at Vercelli is perhaps the greatest lyric in Italian art; this lyric quality in his painting is still more intense in the wonderful "Glory of Angels", in the cupola at Saronno, the most enthusiastic and jubilant symphony that any art has ever produced. In all Correggio's art there is nothing more charming than the exquisite sentiment and tender rusticity of "The Flight into Egypt", in the cathedral of Como. The artist's latest works were those he executed at Milan, whither he retired in 1536. In these paintings, the creations of a man already seventy years of age, the vehemence of feeling sometimes becomes almost savage, the presentation of his ideas abrupt and apocalyptic. His method becomes colossal and more and more careless, but still in the "Passion" at Santa Maria delle Grazie (1542) we cannot fail to trace the hand of a master. Gaudenzio was married at least twice. By his first marriage a son was born to him in 1509 and a daughter in 1512. He married, in 1528, Maria Mattia della Foppa who died about 1540, shortly after the death of his son. These sorrows doubtless affected the character of his later works. Gaudenzio's immediate influence was scarcely appreciable. His pupils Lanino and Della Cerva are extremely mediocre. Nevertheless when the day of Venice's triumph came with Tintoretto, and Bologna's with the Carraccis in the counter-reform movement, it was the art of Gaudenzio Ferrari that triumphed in them. The blend of Northern and Latin genius in his work, so characteristic of the artists of the Po valley, was carried into the ateliers of Bologna by Dionysius Calvaert. It became the fashion, displacing, as it was bound to do, the intellectual barrenness and artistic exoticism of the Florentine School. LOUIS GILLET Lucius Ferraris Lucius Ferraris An eighteenth-century canonist of the Franciscan Order. The exact dates of his birth and death are unknown, but he was born at Solero, near Alessandria in Northern Italy. He was also professor, provincial of his order, and consultor of the Holy Office. It would seem he died before 1763. He is the author of the "Prompta Bibliotheca canonica, juridica, moralis, theologica, necnon ascetica, polemica, rubricistica, historica", a veritable encyclopedia of religious knowledge. The first edition of this work appeared at Bologna, in 1746. A second edition, much enlarged, also a third, were published by the author himself. The fourth edition, dating from 1763 seems to have been published after his death. This, like those which followed it, contains the additions which the author had made to the second edition under the title of additiones auctoris, and also other enlargements (additiones ex aliena manu) inserted in their respective places in the body of the work (and no longer in the appendix as in the former editions) and supplements. The various editions thus differ from each of her. The most recent are: that of the Benedictines (Naples, 1844-55), reproduced by Migne (Paris, 1861-1863), and an edition published at Paris 1884. A new edition was published at Rome in 1899 at the press of the Propaganda in eight volumes, with a volume of supplements, edited by the Jesuit, Bucceroni, containing several dissertations and the recent and important documents of the Holy See. This supplement serves to keep up to date the work of Ferraris, which will ever remain a precious mine of information, although it is sometimes possible to reproach the author with laxism. A. VAN HOVE Vicente Ferre Vicente Ferre Theologian, b. at Valencia, Spain; d. at Salamanca in 1682. He entered the Dominican Order at Salamanca, where he pursued his studies in the Dominican College of St. Stephen. After teaching in several houses of study of his order in Spain, he was called from Burgos to Rome, where for eighteen years he was regens primarius of the Dominican College of St Thomas ad Minervam. From Rome he went to Salamanca, where he became prior of the convent and, after three years, regent of studies. In his own time he was recognized as one of the best Thomists of the seventeenth century, and posterity acknowledges that ha published works possess extraordinary fullness, clearness, and order. He died while publishing his commentaries on the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas. We have two folio volumes on the Secunda Secundae, covering the treatises of faith, hope, and charity, and the opposite vices. Published at Rome in 1669; three on the Prima, published at Salamanca, in 1675, 1676, and 1678 respectively; and three on the Prima Seeundae, down to Q. cxiii, published at Salamanca, 1679, 1681, and 1690. His confrere Perez `a Lerma added to Q. cxiv the treatise on merit. QUETIF AND ECHARD, Script. Ord. Praed., II, 696; ANTONIO, Bibliotheca Hisp. Nova (Madrid, 1783), II, 261. A.L. MCMAHON Antonio Ferreira Antonio Ferreira A poet, important both for his lyric and his dramatic compositions, b. at Lisbon, Portugal, in 1528; d. there of the plague in 1569. He studied law at Coimbra, where, however, he gave no less ateention to belles-letteres than to legal codes, ardently reading the poetry of classic antiquity. Successful in his chosen profession, he became a judge of the Supreme Court at Lisbon, and enjoyed close relations with eminent personages of the court of John III. Ferreira stands apart from the great majority of the Portuguese poets of his time in that he never used Spanish, but wrote constantly in his native language. Yet he is to be classed with the reformers of literary taste, for, like Sa de Miranda, he abandoned the old native forms to further the movement of the Renaissance. He manifested a decided interest in the Italian lyric measures, already given some elaboration by Sa de Miranda, and displayed some skill in the use of the hendecasyllable. The sonnet, the elegy, the idyll, the verse epistle, the ode, and kindred forms he cuitlvated with a certain felicity, revealing not only his study of the Italian Renaissance poets, but also a good acquaintance with the Greek and Latin masters. It is by his dramatic endeavours that he attained to greatest prominence, for his tragedy "Ines de Castro", in particular is regarded as one of the chief monuments of Portughese literature. He began his work on the drama while still a student at Coimbra, writing there for his own amusement his first comedy, "Bristo", dealing with the old classic theme of lost children and later agnitions, which was often utilized for the stage of the Renaissance and has been made familiar by Shakespeare. Much improvement in dramatic technique is evinced by his second comedy, "O. Cioso", which treats realistically the figure of a jealous husband. It is considered as the earliest character-comedy in modern Europe. Written in prose, it exhibits a clever use of dialogue and has really comical scenes. None of the compositions of Ferreira appeared in print during his lifetime and the first edition of his two comedies is that of 1622. On English translation of the "Cioso" made by Musgrave was published in 1825. His tragedy, "Ines de Casro", imitates in its form the models of ancient Greek literature, and shows ltalian influence in its use of blank verse, but it owes its suject-matter to native Portuguese history, concerning itself with the love of King Pedro for the beautiful for the Ines de Castro, an incident which has also been spendidly treated by Camoes in his "Lusiades", and has furnished the theme for at least ten Portughese and four Spanish plays, and over a score of compositions in foreign languages. If tested by the requirements of the theatre, the play is doubtless far frorn perfect, but the purity of its style and diction ensures its popularity with its author's compatriots. It was rendered into English by Musgrave in 1826. The rather free Spanish version of 1577 was made on the basis of a manuscript copy of the Portughese original, for the first Portughese printed edition is of 1587. J.D.M. FORD Rafael Ferrer Rafael Ferrer A Spanish missionary and explorer; b. at Valencia, in 1570; d. at San Jose, Peru, in 1611. His father had destined him for a military career, but he entered the Society of Jesus, and in 1593 was sent to Quito, Ecuador. In 1601 he penetrated the territory of the Cofanis, a hostle tribe who had been a source of great trouble to the Spanish Government. Within three years the Indians of several villages were so civilized by the influence of religion that the surrounding country was open to colonists. In 1605, at the command of the viceroy of Quito, Ferrer went among the. uncivilized tribes of the River Napo. He was well received by the Indians, and on this journey which lasted two and a half years, he travelled 3600 miles into the interior, bringing back with him a chart of the basin of the Napo, a map of the country he had explored, and an herbarium which he presented to the viceroy. He was appointed governor and chief magistrate of the Cofanis, and received the title of "Chief of the Missions of the Cofanis". After a period of rest at the mission he next journeyed northward from Quito through unexplored forests, and discovered a large lake and the River Pilcomago. In 1610 he returned to his labours among the Indians, bending his energies to the civilization ot the few tribes of the Cofanis who were not yet within the range of his influence. He met his death at the hands of the chief of one of these tribes, whom he had compelled to abandon polygamy. The murderer was slain in turn by his tribesmen, who were enraged on learning of his deed. An extract from Father Ferrer's account of his explorations was published by Fr. Detre in the "Lettres Edifiantes", and the same extract was also published by Father Bernard de Bologne in the "Bibliotheca Societatis Jesu", but the original manuscript was lost and has never been published in its entirety. Besides compiling his "Arte de la Lengua Cofana", Father Ferrer translated the catechism and selections from the Gospels for every Sunday in the year into the language of the Cofanis. BLANCHE M. KELLY Abbey of Ferrieres Abbey of Ferrieres Situated in the Diocese of Orleans, department of Loiret, and arrondissement of Montargis. The Benedictine Abbey of Ferrieres-en-Gatinais has been most unfortunate from the view of historical science, having lost its archives, its charters, and everything which would aid in the reconstruction of its history. Thus legend and the existence of the abbey about the credulity have had full play. But it is interesting to encounter in the work of an obscure Benedictine of the eighteenth century, Dom Philippe Mazoyer, information perhaps the most accurate and circumspect obtainable. According to Dom Mazoyer there was formerly at Ferrieres a chapel dedicated to the Blessed Virgin under the title Notre-Dame de Bethleem de Ferrieres. With regard to the foundation of the abbey, he thinks it cannot be traced beyond the reign of Dagobert (628-38) and he rightly regards as false the Acts of St. Savinian and the charter of Clovis, dated 508, despite the favourable opinion of Dom Morin. Some have based conjectures on the antiquity of portions of the church of Saint-Pierre et Saint-Paul de Ferrieres, which they profess to trace back the sixth century, but this is completely disproved by archeological testimony. On the other hand the existence of the abbey about the year 630 seems certain, and rare documents, such as the diploma of Charles the Bald preserved in the archives of Orleans, bear witness to its prosperity. This prosperity reached its height in the time of the celebrated Loup (Lupus) of Ferrieres (c. 850), when the abbey became a rather active literary centre. The library must have benefited thereby, but it shared the fate of the monastery, and is represented to-day by rare fragments. One of these, preserved at the Vatican library (Reg.1573) recalls the memory of St. Aldric (d. 836), Abbot of Ferrieres before he become Archbishop of Sens. There is here also loosely arranged catalogue of some of the abbots of Ferrieres between 887 and 987, which, imperfect though it is, serves to rectify and complete that of the "Gallia Christiana". Among the last names in the list of the abbots of Ferrieres is that of Louis de Blanchefort, who in the fifteenth century almost entirely restored the abbey. Grievously tried during the war of religion, Ferrieres disappeared with all the ancient abbeys at the time of the French Revolution. Its treasures and library were wasted and scattered. Today there are only to be seen some ruins of the ancient monastic buildings. At the time of the Concordat of 1802 and the ecclesiastical reorganization of France, Ferrieres passed from the Archdiocese of Sens to the Diocese of Orleans. H. LECLERCQ Heinrich, Freiherr von Ferstel Heinrich, Freiherr von Ferstel Architect; with Hansen and Schmidt, the creator of modern Vienna; b. 7 July, 1828, at Vienna; d. at Grinzing, near Vienna, 14 July, 1883. His father was a bank-clerk. After wavering for some time between the different arts, all of which possessed a strong attraction for him, the talented youth finally decided on architecture which he studied at the Academy under Van der Null, Siccardsburg, and Roesner. After several years during which he was in disrepute because of his part in the Revolution, he entered the atelier of his uncle, Stache, where he worked at the votive altar for the chapel of St. Barbara in the cathedral of St. Stephen and co-operated in the restoration and construction of many castles, chiefly in Bohennia. Journeys of some length into Germany, Belgium, Holland, and England confirmed him in his tendency towards Romanticism. It was in Italy, however, where he was sent as a bursar in 1854, that he was converted to the Renaissance style of architecture. This was thenceforth his ideal, not because of its titanic grandeur, but because of its beauty and symmetrical harmony of proportion, realized pre-eminently in Bramante, his favourite master. He turned from the simplicity and restraint of the Late Renaissance to the use of polychromy by means of graffito decoration and terra-cotta. This device, adapted from the Early Renaissance and intended to convey a fuller sense of life, he employed later with marked success in the Austrian Museum. While still in Italy he was awarded the prize in the competition for the votive church (Votivkirche) of Vienna (1855) over seventy-four contestants, for the most part celebrated architects. In the masterpiece of modern ecclesiastical architecture he produced a structure of marvellous symmetry designed along strong architectural principles, with a simple, well-defined ground plan, a harmonious correlation of details, and a sumptuous scheme of decoration (1856-79). After his death this edifice was proposed by Sykes as a model for the new Westminster cathedral in London. Another of Ferstel's monumental works belonging to the same period is the Austro-Hungarian bank in Vienna, in the style of the Early Italian Renaissance (1856-60). The expansion of the city of Vienna enabled Ferstel, with Eitelberger, to develop civic architecture along artistic lines (burgomaster's residence, stock exchange 1859). At the same time he had also the opportunity of putting his ideas into practice in a number of private dwellings and villas at Brunn and Vienna. The more important buildings designed during his later years, passing over the churches at Schonau near Teplitz, really products of his earlier activity are the palace of Archduke Ludwig Victor, his winter palace at Klessheim, the palace of Prince Johahn Liechtenstein in the Rossau near Vienna, the palace of the Austro-Hungarian Lloyd's, at Triest, but above all the Austrian Museum (completed in 1871), a masterpiece of interior economy of space with its impsosing arcaded court. Next to his civic and ecclesiastical masterpieces comes the Vienna University, of masterly construction with wonderfully effective stairways (1871-84). Through a technical error his design for the Berlin Reichstag building received no award. Ferstel is the most distinctively Viennese of all Viennese architects; able to give a structure beauty of design and harmony without prejudice to the purpose it was to subserve, and this because of his artistic versatility and inexhaustible imagination. These qualities also assured him success as a teacher, and were evident in his memoirs and numerous treatises, which are masterpieces of clearness. Special mention should be made those which appeared in Forster's architectural magazine. In 1866 Ferstel was appointed professor at the Polytechnic School, in 1871 chief goverment inspector of public works and in 1879 was raised to the rank of Freiherr. At the time of his death he was still in the full vigour of his strength. JOSEPH SAUER Joseph Fesch Joseph Fesch Cardinal, b. at Ajaccio, Corsica, 3 January, 1763; d. at Rome, 13 May, 1839. He was the son of a captain of a Swiss regiment in the service of Genoa, studied at the seminary of Aix, was made archdeacon and provost of the chapter of Ajaccio before 1789, but was obliged to leave Corsica when his family sided with France against the English, who came to the island in answer to Paoli's summons. The young priest was half-brother to Letizia Ramolino, the mother of Napoleon and upon arriving in France he entered the commissariat department of the army; later, in 1795, became commissary of war under Bonaparte, then in command of the Armee d'Italie. When religious peace was reestablished, Fesch made a month's retreat under the direction of Emery, the superior of Saint-Sulpice and re-entered ecclesiastical life. During the Consulate he became canon of Bastia and helped to negotiate the Concordat of 1801; on 15 August, 1802, Caprara consecrated him Archbishop of Lyons, and in 1803 Pius VII created him cardinal. On 4 April, 1803, Napoleon appointed Cardinal Fesch successor to Cacault as ambassador to Rome, giving him Chateaubriand for secretary. The early part of his sojourn in the Eternal City was noted for his differences with Chateaubriand and his efforts to have the Concordat extended to the Italian Republic. He prevailed upon Pius VII to go to Paris in person and crown Napoleon. This was Fesch's greatest achievement. He accompanied the pope to France and as grand almoner, blessed the marriage of Napoleon and Josephine before the coronation ceremony took place. By a decree issued in 1805, the missionary institutions of Saint-Lazare and Saint-Sulpice were placed under the direction of Cardinal Fesch, who, laden with this new responsibility, returned to Rome. In 1806, after the occupation of Ancona by French troops, and Napoleon's letter proclaiming himself Emperor of Rome, Alquier was named to succeed Fesch as ambassador to Rome. Returning to his archiepiscopal See of Lyons, the cardinal remained in close touch with his nephew's religious policy and strove, occasionally with success, to obviate certain irreparable mistakes. He accepted the coadjutorship to Dalberg, prince-primate, in the See of Ratisbon, but, in 1808, refused the emperor's offer of the Archbishopric of Paris, for which he could not have obtained canonical institution. Although powerless to prevent either the rupture between Napoleon and the pope in 1809 or the closing of the seminaries of Saint-Lazarre, Saint-Esprit, and the Missions Etrangeres, Fresch nevertheless managed to deter Napoleon from signing a decree relative to the Gallican Church. He consented to bless Napoleon's marriage with Marie-Louise, but, according the researches of Geoffrey de Grandmaison, he was not responsible to the same extent as the members of the diocesan officialite for the illegal annulment of the emperor's first marriage. In 1809 and 1810 Fresch presided over the two ecclesiastical commissions charged with the question of canonical institution of bishops, but the proceedings were so conducted that neither commission adopted any schismatic resolutions. As its president, he opened the National Council od 1811, but at the very outset he took and also administered the oath (forma juramenti professionis fidei) required by the Bull "Injunctum nobis" of Pius IV; it was decided by eight votes out of eleven that the method of canonical institution could not altered independently of the pope. A message containing the assurance of the cardinal's loyalty, and addressed to the supreme pontiff, then in exile at Fontainebleau, caused the Fesch to incur the emperor's disfavour and to forfeit the subsidy of 150,000 florins which he had received as Dalberg's coadjutor. Under the Restoration and the Monarchy of July, Fesch lived at Rome, his Archdiocese of Lyons being in charge of an administrator. He died without again returning to France and left a splendid collection of pictures, a part of which was bequeathed to his epicopal city. As a diplomat, Fesch sometimes employed questionable methods. His relationship to the emperor and his cardinalitical dignity often made his position a difficult one; at least he could never be accused of approving the violent measures resorted to by Napoleon. As Archbishop, he was largely instrumental in re-establishing the Brothers of Christian Doctrine and recalling the Jesuits, under the name of Pacanarists. The Archdiocese of Lyons is indebted to him for some eminently useful institutions. It must be admitted, moreover, that in his pastoral capacity Fesch took a genuine interest in the education of priests. GEORGES GOYAU Josef Fessler Josef Fessler Bishop of St. Polten in Austria and secretary of the Vatican Council; b. 2 December, 1813, at Lochau near Bregenz in the Vorarlberg; d. 25 April, 1872. His parents were peasants. He early showed great abilities. His classical studies were done at Feldkirch his philosophy at Innsbruck including a year of legal studies, and has theology at Brixen. He was ordained priest in 1837, and, after a year as master in a school at Innsbruck, studied for two more years in Vienna life then became professor of ecclesiastical history and canon law in the theological school at Brixen, 1841-52. He published at the quest of the Episcopal Conferenee of Wurzburg, in 1848, a useful little book "Ueber die Provincial-Concilien und Dioecesan-Synoden" (Innsbruck, 1849), and in 1850-1 the well-known "Institutiones Patrologiae quas ad frequentiorem utiliorem et faciliorem SS. Patrum lectionem promovendam concinnavit J. Fessler" (Innsbruck, 2 Vols. 8vo). This excellent work superseded the unfinished books of Moehler and Permaneder and was not surpassed by the subsequent works of Alzog and Nirschl. In its new edition by the late Prof. Jungmann of Louvain (Innsbruck, 1890-6), it is still of great value to the student, in spite of the newer information given by Bardenhewer. From 1856 to 1861 Fessler was professor of canon law in the University Of Vienna, after making special studies for six months at Rome. He was consecrated as assistant bishop to the bishop of Brixen, Dr. Gasser, on 31 March, 1862, and became his vicar-general for the Vorarlberg. On 23 Sept., 1864, he was named by the emperor Bishop of St. Polten, not far from Vienna. When at Rome in 1867 he was named assistant at the papal throne. In 1869 Pope Pius IX proposed Bishop Fessler to the Congregation for the direction of the coming Vatican Council as secretary to the council. The appointment was well received, the only objection being from Cardinal Caterini who thought the choice of an Austrian might make the other nations jealous. Bishop Fessler was informed of his appointment on 27 March, and as the pope wished him to come with all speed to Rome, he arrived there on 8 July, after hastily dispatching the business of his diocese. He had a pro-secretary and two assistants. It was certainly wise to choose a prelate whose vast and intimate acquaintance with the Fathers and with ecclesiastical history was equalled only by his thorough knowledge of canon law. He seems to have given universal satisfaction by his work as secretary, but the burden was a heavy one, and in spite of his excellent constitution his untiring labours were thought to have been the cause of his early death. Before the council he published an opportune work "Das letzte und das naechste allgemeine Konsil" (Freiburg, 1869) and after the council he replied in a masterly brochure to the attack on the council by Dr. Schulte, professor of canon law and German law at Prague. Dr. Schulte's pamphlet on the power of the Roman popes over princes, countries, peoples, and individuals, in the light of their acts since the reign of Gregory VII, was very similar in character to the Vaticanism pamphlet of Mr. Gladstone, and rested on just the same fundamental misunderstanding of the dogma of Papal Infallibility as defined by the Vatican Council. The Prussian Government promptly appointed Dr. Schute to a professorship at Bonn, while it imprisoned Catholic priests and bishops. Fessler's reply, "Die wahre und die falsche Unfehlbarkeit der Paepste" (Vienna, 1871), was translated into French by Cosquin editor of "Le Franc,ais", and into English by Father Ambrose St. John, of the Birmingham Oratory (The True and False Infallibility of the Popes, London, 1875). It is still an exceedingly valuable explanation of the true doctrine of Infallibility as taught by the great Italian "Ultramontane" theologians, such as Bellarmine in the sixteenth century, P. Ballerini in the eighteenth, and Perrone in the nineteenth. But it was difficult for those who had been fighting against the definition to realize that the Infallibilists "had wanted no more than this. Bishop Hefele of Rottenburg, who had strongly opposed the definition and afterwards loyally accepted it, said he entirely agree with the moderate view taken by bishop Fessler, but doubted whether such views would be accepted as sound in Rome. It was clear, one would have thought, that the secretary of the council was likely to know; and the hesitations of the pious and learned Hefele were removed by the warm Brief of approbation which Pius IX addressed to the author. ANTON ERDINGER, Dr. Joseph Fessler, Bischof v. St. Polten, ein Lebensbild (Brixen, 1874); MITTERRUTZNER in Kirchenlexikon; GRANDERATH AND KIRCH, Geschichte des Vatiannischen Konzils (Freiburg im Br., 2 vols., 1903). JOHN CHAPMAN Domenico Feti Domenico Feti Feti, Domenico, an Italian painter; born at Rome, 1589; died at Venice, 1624. He was a pupil of Cigoli (Ludovico Cardi, 1559-1613), or at least was much influenced by this master during his sojourn in Rome. >From the end of the sixteenth century Rome again became what she had ceased to be after the sack of 1527, the metropolis of the beautiful. The jubilee of the year 1600 marked the triumph of the papacy. Art, seeking its pole now at Parma, now at Venice, now at Bologna, turning towards Rome, concentrated itself there. Crowds of artists flocked thither. This was the period in which were produced the masterpieces of the Carracci, Caravaggio, Domenichino, Guido, not counting those of many cosmopolitan artists, such as the brothers Bril, Elsheimer, etc., and between 1600 and 1610 Rubens, the great master of the century, paid three visits to Rome. This exceptional period was that of Domenico's apprenticeship; the labour, the unique fermentation in the world of art, resulted, as is well known, in the creation of an art which in its essential characteristics became for more than a century that of all Europe. For the old local and provincial schools (Florentine, Umbrian, etc.) Rome had the privilege of substituting a new one which was characterized by its universality . Out of a mixture of so many idioms and dialects she evolved an international language, the style which is called baroque. The discredit thrown on this school should not lead us to ignore its grandeur. In reality, the reorganization of modern painting dates from it. Domenico is one of the most interesting types of this great evolution. Eclecticism, the fusion of divers characteristics of Correggio, Barrochi, Veronese, was already apparent in the work of Cigoli. To these Feti added much of the naturalism of Caravaggio. From him he borrowed his vulgar types, his powerful mobs, his Bohemians, his beggars in heroic rags. From him also he borrowed his violent illuminations, his novel and sometimes fantastic portrayal of the picturesque, his rare lights and strong shadows, his famous chiaroscuro, which, nevertheless, he endeavoured to develop into full daylight and the diffuse atmosphere of out-of-doors. He did not have time to succeed completely in this. His colouring is often dim, crude, and faded, though at times it assumes a golden patina and seems to solve the problem of conveying mysterious atmospheric effects. At an early age Domenico went to Mantua with Cardinal Gonzaga, later Duke of Mantua, to whom he became court painter (hence his surname of Mantovano), and he felt the transient influence of Giulio Romano. His frescoes in the cathedral, however, are the least characteristic and the feeblest of his works. Domenico was not a good frescoist. Like all modern painters he made use of oils too frequently. By degrees he abandoned his decorative ambitions. He painted few altar-pieces, preference leading him to execute easel pictures, For the most part these dealt with religious subjects, but conceived in an intimate manner for private devotion. Scarcely any of his themes were historical, and few taken from among those, such as the Nativity, Calvary, or the entombment, which had been presented so often by painters. He preferred subjects more human and less dogmatic, more in touch with daily life, romance, and poetry. He drew by preference from the parables, as in "The Labourers in the Vineyard", "The Lost Coin" (Pitti Palace, Florence), "The Good Samaritan", "The Return of the Prodigal Son" (and others at the Museum of Dresden). Again he chose picturesque scenes from the Bible, such as "Elias in the 'Wilderness" (Berlin) and the history of Tobias (Dresden and St. Petersburg). It is astonishing to find in the canvases of this Italian nearly the whole repertoire of Rembrandt's subjects. They had a common liking for the tenderest parts of the Gospel, for the scenes of every day, of the "eternal present", themes for genre pictures. But this is not all. Domenico was not above reproach. It was his excesses which shortened his life. May we not assume that his art is but a history of the sinful soul, a poem of repentance such as Rembrandt was to present? There is found in both painters the same confidence, the same sense of the divine Protection in spite of sin (cf. Feti's beautiful picture, "The Angel Guardian" at the Louvre), and also, occasionally, the same anguish, the same disgust of the world and the flesh as in that rare masterpiece, "Melancholy", in the same museum. Thus Domenico was in the way of becoming one of the first masters of lyric painting, and he was utilizing to the perfection of his art all that he could learn at Venice when he died in that city, worn out with pleasure, at the age of thirty-four. There is no good life of this curious artist. His principal works are to be found at Dresden (11 pictures), St. Petersburg, Vienna, Florence, and Paris. BAGLIONE, Le vite de' pittore (Rome, 1642), 155; LANZI, Storia pittorica dell' Italiana (Milan, 1809); tr. ROSCOE (London, 1847), I, 471; II, 339; CHARLES BLANC, Histoire des peintres: Ecole romaine (Paris, s. d.); BURCKHARDT, Cicerone, ed. BODE, Fr. tr. (Paris, 1897), 809, 816; WOERMANN, Malerei (Leipzig, 1888), III, 233. LOUIS GILLET Fetishism Fetishism Fetishism means the religion of the fetish. The word fetish is derived through the Portuguese feitic,o from the Latin factitius (facere, to do, or to make), signifying made by art, artificial (cf. Old English fetys in Chaucer). From facio are derived many words signifying idol, idolatry, or witchcraft. Later Latin has facturari, to bewitch, and factura, witchcraft. Hence Portuguese feitic,o, Italian fatatura, O. Fr. faiture, meaning witchcraft, magic. The word was probably first applied to idols and amulets made by hand and supposed to possess magic power. In the early part of the sixteenth century, the Portuguese, exploring the West Coast of Africa, found the natives using small material objects in their religious worship. These they called feitic,o, but the use of the term has never extended beyond the natives on the coast. Other names are bohsum, the tutelary fetishes of the Gold Coast; suhman, a term for a private fetish; gree-gree on the Liberian coast; monda in the Gabun country; bian among the cannibal Fang; in the Niger Delta ju-ju -- possibly from the French joujou. i. e. a doll or toy (Kingsley) -- and grou-grou, according to some of the same origin, according to others a native term, but the natives say that it is "a white man's word". Every Congo leader has his m'kissi; and in other tribes a word equivalent to "medicine" is used. C. de Brosses first employed fetishism as a general descriptive term, and claimed for it a share in the early development of religious ideas (Du Culte des Dieux Fetiches, 1760). He compared the phenomena observed in the negro worship of West Africa with certain features of the old Egyptian religion. This comparison led Pietschmann to emphasize the elements of fetishism in the Egyptian religion by starting with its magic character. Basthold (1805) claimed as fetish "everything produced by nature or art, which receives divine honor, including sun, moon, earth, air, fire, water, mountains, rivers, trees, stones, images, animals, if considered as objects of divine worship". Thus the name became more general, until Comte employed it to designate only the lowest stage of religious development. In this sense the term is used from time to time, e.g. de la Rialle, Schultze, Menzies, Hoeffding. Taking the theory of evolution as a basis, Comte affirmed that the fundamental law of history was that of historic filiation, that is, the Law of the Three States. Thus the human race, like the human individual, passed through three successive stages: the theological or imaginative, illustrated by fetishism, polytheism, monotheism; the metaphysical or abstract, which differed from the former in explaining phenomena not by divine beings but by abstract powers or essences behind them; the positive or scientific, where man enlightened perceives that the only realities are not supernatural beings, e.g. God or angels, nor abstractions, e.g. substances or causes, but phenomena and their laws as discovered by science. Under fetishism, therefore, he classed worship of heavenly bodies, nature-worship, etc. This theory is a pure assumption, yet a long time passed before it was cast aside. The ease with which it explained everything recommended it to many. Spencer formally repudiated it (Principles of Sociology), and with Tylor made fetishism a subdivision of animism. While we may with Tylor consider the theory of Comte as abandoned, it is difficult to admit his own view. For the spirit supposed to dwell in the fetish is not the soul or vital power belonging to that object, but a spirit foreign to the object, yet in some way connected with and embodied in it. Lippert (1881), true to his exaggerated animism, defines fetishism as "a belief in the souls of the departed coming to dwell in anything that is tangible in heaven or on earth". Schultze, analysing the consciousness of savages, says that fetishism is a worship of material objects. He claims that the narrow circle of savages' ideas leads them to admire and exaggerate the value of very small and insignificant objects, to look upon these objects anthropopathically as alive, sentient, and willing, to connect them with auspicious or inauspicious events and experiences, and finally to believe that such objects require religious veneration. In his view these four facts account for the worship of stocks and stones, bundles and bows, gores and stripes, which we call fetishism. But Schultze considers fetishism as a portion, not as the whole, of primitive religion. By the side of it he puts a worship of spirits, and these two forms run parallel for some distance, but afterwards meet and give rise to other forms of religion. He holds that man ceases to be a fetish-worshipper as soon as he learns to distinguish the spirit from the material object. To Mueller and Brinton the fetish is something more than the mere object (Rel. of Prim. Peop., Philadelphia, 1898). Menzies (History of Religion, p. 129) holds that primitive man, like the untutored savage of to-day, in worshipping a tree, a snake, or an idol, worshipped the very objects themselves. He regards the suggestion that these objects represented or were even the dwelling-place of some spiritual being, as an afterthought, up to which man has grown in the lapse of ages. The study of the African negro refutes this view. Ellis writes, "Every native with whom I have conversed on the subject has laughed at the possibility of its being supposed that he could worship or offer sacrifice to some such object as a stone, which of itself would be perfectly obvious to his senses was a stone only and nothing more". De La Saussaye regards fetishism as a form of animism, i. e. a belief in spirits incorporated in single objects, but says that not every kind of worship paid to material objects can be called fetishism, but only that which is connected with magic; otherwise the whole worship of nature would be fetishism. The stock and stone which forms the object of worship is then called the fetish. Tylor has rightly declared that it is very hard to say whether stones are to be regarded as altars, as symbols, or as fetishes. He strives to place nature-worship as a connecting link between fetishism and polytheism, though he is obliged to admit that the single stages of the process defy any accurate description. Others, e.g. Reville, de La Saussaye, separate the worship of nature from animism. To Hoeffding, following Usener, the fetish is only the provisional and momentary dwelling-place of a spirit. Others, e.g. Lubbock, Happel, insist that the fetish must be considered as a means of magic -- not being itself the object of worship, but a means by which man is brought into close contact with the deity -- and as endowed with divine powers. De La Saussaye holds that to savages fetishes are both objects of religious worship and means of magic. Thus a fetish may often be used for magic purposes, yet it is more than a mere means of magic, as being itself anthropopathic, and often the object of religious worship. Within the limits of animism, Tiele and Hoeffding distinguish between fetishism and spiritism. Fetishism contents itself with particular objects in which it is supposed a spirit has for a longer or a shorter time taken up its abode. In spiritism, spirits are not bound up with certain objects, but may change their mode of revelation, partly at their own discretion, partly under the influence of magic. Thus Hoeffding declares that fetishism, as the lowest form of religion, is distinguished from spiritism by the special weight it attributes to certain definite objects as media of psychical activity. In selecting objects of fetishism, religion appears, according to Hoeffding, under the guise of desire. He holds that religious ideas are only religious in virtue of this connexion between need and expectation, i. e., as elements of desire, and that it is only when thus viewed that fetishism can be understood. Huebbe-Schleiden, on the contrary, holds that fetishism is not a proper designation for a religion, because Judaism and Christianity have their fetishes as well as the nature religions, and says the word fetish should be used as analogous to a word-symbol or emblem. Haddon considers fetishism as a stage of religious development. Jevons holds magic and fetishism to be the negation of religion. He denies that fetishism is the primitive religion, or a basis from which religion developed, or a stage of religious development. To him, fetishism is not only anti-social, and therefore anti-religious, he even holds that the attitude of superiority manifested by the possessor towards the fetish deprives it of religious value, or rather makes it anti-religious. The fetish differs from an idol or an amulet, though at times it is difficult to distinguish between them. An amulet, however, is the pledge of protection of a divine power. A fetish may be an image, e. g. the New Zealand wakapakoko, or not, but the divine power or spirit is supposed to be wholly incorporated in it. Farnell says an image may be viewed as a symbol, or as infused with divine power, or as the divinity itself. Idolatry in this sense is a higher form of fetishism. Farnell does not distinguish clearly between fetish and amulet, and calls relics, crucifixes, the Bible itself, fetishes. In his view any sacred object is a fetish. But objects may be held as sacred by external association with sacred persons or places without having any intrinsic sanctity. This loose use of the word has led writers to consider the national flag (especially a tattered battle-flag), the Scottish stone of Scone, the mascot, the horseshoe, as fetishes, whereas these objects have no value in themselves, but are prized merely for their associations -- real in the ease of the battle-flag, fancied in the case of the horseshoe. The theory advanced by certain writers that fetishism represents the earliest stage of religious thought, has a twofold basis: + (1) philosophical; + (2) sociological. (1) Philosophical Basis: The Theory of Evolution Assuming that primitive man was a semi-brute, or a semi-idiot, some writers of the Evolutionist School under the influence of Comte taught that man in the earliest stage was a fetish-worshipper, instancing in proof the African tribes, who in their view represent the original state of mankind. This basis is a pure assumption. More recent investigation reveals clearly the universal belief in a Great God, the Creator and Father of mankind, held by the negroes of Africa; Comber (Gram. and Dict, of the Congo language) and Wilson (West Guinea) prove the richness of their languages in structure and vocabulary; while Tylor, Spencer, and most advocates of the animistic theory look upon fetishism as by no means primitive, but as a decadent form of the belief in spirit and souls. Finally, there are no well-authenticated cases of savage tribes whose religion consists of fetish-worship only. (2) Sociological Basis Historians of civilization, impressed by the fact that many customs of savages are also found in the highest stages of civilized life, concluded that the development of the race could best be understood by taking the savage level as a starting-point. The life of savages is thus the basis of the higher development. But this argument can be inverted. For if the customs of savages may be found among civilized races, evident traces of higher ideals are also found among savages. Furthermore, the theory that a savage or a child represents exclusively, or even prominently, the life of primitive man, cannot be entertained. Writers on the philosophy of religion have used the word fetishism in a vague sense, susceptible of many shades of meaning. To obtain a correct knowledge of the subject, we must go to authorities like Wilson, Norris, Ellis, and Kingsley, who have spent years with the African negroes and have made exhaustive investigations on the spot. By fetish or ju-ju is meant the religion of the natives of West Africa. Fetishism, viewed from the outside, appears strange and complex, but is simple in its underlying idea, very logically thought out, and very reasonable to the minds of its adherents. The prevailing notion in West Guinea seems to be that God, the Creator (Anyambe, Anzam), having made the world and filled it with inhabitants, retired to some remote corner of the universe, and allowed the affairs of the world to come under the control of evil spirits. Hence the only religious worship performed is directed to these spirits, the purpose being to court their favour or ward off their displeasure. The Ashantis recognize the existence of a Supreme Being, whom they adore in a vague manner although, being invisible, He is not represented by an idol. At the commencement of the world, God was in daily relations with man. He came on earth, conversed with men, and all went well. But one day He retired in anger from the world, leaving its management to subaltern divinities. These are spirits which dwell everywhere -- in waters, woods, rocks -- and it is necessary to conciliate them, unless one wishes to encounter their displeasure. Such a phenomenon then as fetish- or spirit-worship, existing alone without an accompanying belief in a Supreme Being who is above all fetishes and other objects of worship, has yet to be discovered. Other nations, holding the fundamental idea of one God who is Lord and Creator, say that this God is too great to interest Himself in the affairs of the world; hence after having created and organized the world, He charged His subordinates with its government. Hence they neglect the worship of God for the propitiation of spirits. These spirits correspond in their functions to the gods of Greek and Roman mythology, but are never confounded with the Supreme Being by the natives. Fetishism therefore is a stage where God is quietly disregarded, and the worship due to Him is quietly transferred to a multitude of spiritual agencies under His power, but uncontrolled by it. "All the air and the future is peopled by the Bantu", says Dr. Norris, "with a large and indefinite company of spiritual beings. They have personality and will, and most of the human passions, e.g., anger, revenge, generosity, gratitude. Though they are all probably malevolent, yet they may be influenced and made favorable by worship." In the face of this animistic view of nature and the peculiar logic of the African mind, all the seemingly weird forms and ceremonies of fetishism, e.g. the fetish or witch-doctor, become but the natural consequences of the basal idea of the popular religious belief. There are grades of spirits in the spirit-world. Miss Kingsley holds that fourteen classes of spirits are clearly discernible. Dr. Nassau thinks the spirits commonly affecting human affairs can be classified into six groups. These spirits are different in power and functions. The class of spirits that are human souls, always remain human souls; they do not become deified, nor do they sink in grade permanently. The locality of spirits is not only vaguely in the surrounding air, but in prominent natural objects, e.g. caves, enormous rocks, hollow trees, dark forests. While all can move from place to place, some belong peculiarly to certain localities. Their habitations may be natural (e.g. large trees, caverns, large rocks, capes, and promontories; and for the spirits of the dead, the villages where they had dwelt during the lifetime of the body, or graveyards) or acquired, e.g. for longer or shorter periods under the power wielded by the incantations of the nganga or native doctor. By his magic art any spirit may be localized in any object whatever, however small, and thus placed it is under the control of the "doctor" and subservient, to the wishes of the possessor or wearer of the object in which it is confined. This constitutes a fetish. The fetish-worshipper makes a clear distinction between the reverence with which he regards a certain material object and the worship he renders to the spirit for the time being inhabiting it. Where the spirit, for any reason, is supposed to have gone out of that thing and definitively abandoned it, the thing itself is no longer reverenced, but thrown away as useless, or sold to the curio-hunting white man. Everything the African negro knows by means of his senses, he regards as a twofold entity-partly spirit, partly not spirit or, as we say, matter. In man this twofold entity appears as a corporeal body, and a spiritual or "astral" body in shape and feature like the former. This latter form of "life" with its "heart" can be stolen by magic power while one is asleep, and the individual sleeps on, unconscious of his loss. If the life-form is returned to him before he awakes, he will be unaware that anything unusual has happened. If he awakes before this portion of him has been returned, though he may live for a while, he will sicken and eventually die. If the magician who stole the "life" has eaten the "heart", the victim sickens at once and dies. The connexion of a certain spirit with a certain mass of matter is not regarded as permanent. The native will point out a lightning-struck tree, and tell you its spirit has been killed, i. e., the spirit is not actually dead, but has fled and lives elsewhere. When the cooking pot is broken, its spirit has been lost. If his weapon fails, it is because some one has stolen the spirit, or made it sick by witchcraft. In every action of life he shows how much he lives with a great, powerful spirit-world around him. Before starting to hunt or fight, he rubs medicine into his weapons to strengthen the spirit within them, talking to them the while, telling them what care he has taken of them and what he has given them before, though it was hard to give, and begging them not to fail him now. He may be seen bending over the river, talking with proper incantations to its spirit, asking that, when it meets an enemy, it will upset the canoe and destroy the occupant. The African believes that each human soul has a certain span of life due or natural to it. It should be born, grow up through childhood, youth, and manhood to old age. If this does not happen, it is because some malevolent influence has blighted it. Hence the Africans' prayers to the spirits are always: "Leave us alone!" "Go away!" "Come not into this town, plantation, house; we have never injured you. Go away!" This malevolent influence which cuts short the soul-life may act of itself in various ways, but a coercive witchcraft may have been at work. Hence the vast majority of deaths -- almost all deaths in which no trace of blood is shown -- are held to have been produced by human beings, acting through spirits in their command, and from this idea springs the widespread belief in and witches and witchcraft. Thus every familiar object in the daily life of these people is touched with some curious fancy, and every trivial action is regulated by a reference to unseen spirits who are unceasingly watching an opportunity to hurt or annoy mankind. Yet upon close inspection the tenets of this religion are vague and unformulated, for with every tribe and every district belief varies, and rites and ceremonies diverge. The fetish-man, fetizero, nganga, chitbone, is the authority on all religious observances. He offers the expiatory sacrifice to the spirits to keep off evil. He is credited with a controlling influence over the elements, winds and waters obey the waving of his charm, i. e. a bundle of feathers, or the whistle through the magic antelope horn. He brings food for the departed, prophesies, and calls down rain. One of his principal duties is to find out evil-doers, that is, persons who by evil magic have caused sickness or death. He is the exorcist of spirits, the maker of charms (i. e. fetishes), the prescriber and regulator of ceremonial rites. He can discover who "ate the heart" of the chief who died yesterday; who caused the canoe to upset and gave lives to the crocodiles and the dark waters of the Congo; or even "who blighted the palm trees of the village and dried up their sap, causing the supply of malafu to cease; or who drove away the rain from a district, and withheld its field of nguba" (ground-nuts). The fetish doctors can scarcely be said to form a class. They have no organization, and are honoured only in their own districts, unless they be called specially to minister in another place. In their ceremonies they make the people dance, sing, play, beat drums, and they spot their bodies with their "medicines". Anyone may choose the profession for himself, and large fees are demanded for services. Among the natives on the lower Congo is found the ceremony of n'kimba, i. e. the initiation of young men into the mysteries and rites of their religion. Every village in this region has its n'kimba enclosure, generally a walled-in tract of half an acre in extent buried in a thick grove of trees. Inside the enclosure are the huts of the nganga and his assistants, as well as of those receiving instruction. The initiated alone are permitted to enter the enclosure, where a new language is learned in which they can talk on religious matters without being understood by the people. In other parts of the Congo the office falls on an individual in quite an accidental manner, e.g. because fortune has in some way distinguished him from his fellows. Every unusual action, display of skill, or superiority is attributed to the intervention of some supernatural power. Thus the future nganga usually begins his career by some lucky adventure, e. g. prowess in hunting, success in fishing, bravery in war. He is then regarded as possessing some charm, or as enjoying the protection of some spirit. In consideration of payment he pretends to impart his power to others by means of charms, i. e. fetishes consisting of different herbs, stones, pieces of wood, antelope horns, skin and feathers tied in little bundles, the possession of which is supposed to yield to the purchaser the same power over spirits as the nganga himself enjoys. The fetish-man always carries in his sack a strange assortment of articles out of which he makes the fetishes. The flight of the poisonous arrow, the rush of the maddened buffalo, or the venomous bite of the adder, can be averted by these charms; with their assistance the waters of the Congo may be safely crossed. The Moloki, ever ready to pounce on men, is checked by the power of the nganga. The eye-teeth of leopards are an exceedingly valuable fetish on the Kroo coast. The Kabinda negroes wear on their necks a little brown shell sealed with wax to preserve intact the fetish-medicine within. A fetish is anything that attracts attention by its curious shape (e.g. an anchor) or by its behaviour, or anything seen in a dream, and is generally not shaped to represent the spirit. A fetish may be such by the force of its own proper spirit, but more commonly a spirit is supposed to be attracted to the object from without (e.g. the suhman), whether by the incantations of the nganga or not. These wandering spirits may be natural spirits or ghosts. The Melanesians believe that the souls of the dead act through bones, while the independent spirits choose stones as their mediums (Brinton, Religions of Prim. Peoples, New York, 1897). Ellis says, if a man wants a suhman (a fetish), he takes some object (a rudely cut wooden image, a stone, a root of a plant, or some red earth placed in a pan), and then calls on a spirit of Sasabonsum (a genus of deities) to enter the object prepared, promising it offerings and worship. If a spirit consents to take up its residence in the object, a low hissing sound is heard, and the suhman is complete. Every house in the Congo village has its m'kissi; they are frequently put over the door or brought inside, and are supposed to protect the house from fire and robbery. The selection of the object in which the spirit is to reside is made by the native nganga. The ability to conjure a free wandering spirit into the narrow limits of this material object, and to compel or subordinate its power to the service of some designated person and for a special purpose, rests with him. The favourite articles used to confine spirits are skins (especially tails of bushcats), horns of the antelope, nutshells, snail-shells, eagles' claws and feathers, tails and heads of snakes, stones, roots, herbs, bones of any animal (e.g. small horns of gazelles or of goats), teeth and claws of leopards, but especially human bones -- of ancestors or of renowned men, but particularly of enemies or white men. Newly made graves are rifled for them, and among the bodily parts most prized are portions of human skulls, human eyeballs, especially those of white men. But anything may be chosen -- a stick, string, bead, stone, or rag of cloth. Apparently there is no limit to the number of spirits; there is literally no limit to the number and character of the articles in which they may be confined. As, however, the spirits may quit the objects, it is not always certain that fetishes possess extraordinary powers; they must be tried and give proof of their efficiency before they can be implicitly trusted. Thus, according to Ellis, the natives of the Gold Coast put their bohsum in fire as a probation, for the fire never injures the true bohsum. A fetish then, in the strict sense of the word, is any material object consecrated by the nganga or magic doctor with a variety of ceremonies and processes, by virtue of which some spirit is supposed to become localized in that object, and subject to the will of the possessor. These objects are filled or rubbed by the nganga with a mixture compounded of various substances, selected according to the special work to be accomplished by the fetish. Its value, however, depends not on itself, nor solely on the nature of these substances, but on the skill of the nganga in dealing with spirits. Yet there is a relation, difficult sometimes for the foreigner to grasp, between the substances selected and the object to be attained by the fetish. Thus, to give the possessor bravery or strength, some part of a leopard or of an elephant is selected; to give cunning, some part of a gazelle; to give wisdom, some part of the human brain; to give courage, a portion of the heart; to give influence, some part of the eye. These substances are supposed to please and attract some spirit, which is satisfied to reside in them and to aid their possessor. The fetish is compounded in secret, with the accompaniment of drums, dancing, invocations, looking into mirrors or limpid water to see faces human or spiritual, and is packed into the hollow of the shell or bone, or smeared over the stick or stone. If power over some one be desired, the nganga must receive crumbs from the food, clippings of the finger-nails, some hair, or even a drop of blood of the person, which is mixed in the compound. So fearful are the natives of power being thus obtained over them, that they have their hair cut by a friend; and even then it is carefully burned, or cast into the river. If one is accidentally cut, he stamps out the blood that has dropped on the ground, or cuts away the wood which it has saturated. The African negro in appealing to the fetish is prompted by fear alone. There is no confession, no love, rarely thanksgiving. The being to whom he appeals is not God. True he does not deny that God is; if asked, he will acknowledge His existence. Very rarely and only in extreme emergencies, however, does he make an appeal to Him, for according to his belief God is so far off, so inaccessible, so indifferent to human wants, that a petition to Him would be almost vain. He therefore turns to some one of the mass of spirits whom he believes to be ever near and observant of human affairs, in which, as former human beings, some of them once had part. He seeks not spiritual, but purely physical, safety. A sense of moral and spiritual need is lost sight of, although not quite eliminated, for he believes in a good and a bad. But the dominant feeling is fear of possible natural injury from human or subsidized spiritual enemies. This physical salvation is sought either by prayer, sacrifice, and certain other ceremonies rendered to the spirit of the fetish or to non-localized spirits, or by the use of charms or amulets. These charms may be material, i. e. fetishes; vocal, e.g. utterances of cabbalistic words which are supposed to have power over the local spirits; ritual, e.g. prohibited food, i. e. orunda, for which any article of food may be selected and made sacred to the spirit. At night the Congo chief will trace a slender line of ashes round his hut, and firmly believe that he has erected a barrier which will protect him and his till morning against the attacks of the evil spirit. The African believes largely in preventive measures, and his fetishes are chiefly of this order. When least conscious, he may be offending some spirit with power to work him ill; he must therefore be supplied with charms for every season and occasion. Sleeping, eating, drinking, he must be protected from hostile influences by his fetishes. These are hung on the plantation fence, or from the branches of plants in the garden, either to prevent theft or to sicken the thief over the doorway of the house, to bar the entrance of evil; from the bow of the canoe, to ensure a successful voyage; they are worn on the arm in hunting to ensure an accurate aim; on any part of the person, to give success in loving, hating, planting, fishing, buying; and so through the whole range of daily work and interests. Some kinds, worn on a bracelet or necklace, ward off sickness. The new-born infant has a health-knot tied about its neck, wrist, or loins. Before every house in Whydah, the seaport of Dahomey, one may perceive a cone of baked clay, the apex of which is discoloured with libations of palm-oil, etc. To the end of their lives the people keep on multiplying, renewing, or altering these fetishes. In fetish-worship the African negro uses prayer and sacrifice. The stones heaped by passers-by at the base of some great tree or rock, the leaf cast from a passing canoe towards a point of land on the river bank, are silent acknowledgements of the presence of the ombwiris (i.e. spirits of the place). Food is offered, as also blood-offerings of a fowl, a goat, or a sheep. Until recently human sacrifices were offered, e.g. to the sacred crocodiles of the Niger Delta; to the spirits of the oil-rivers on the upper Guinea coast, where annual sacrifices of a maiden were made for success in foreign commerce; the thousands of captives killed at the "annual custom" of Dahomey for the safety of the king and nation. In fetishism prayer has a part, but it is not prominent, and not often formal and public. Ejaculatory prayer is constantly made in the utterance of cabbalistic words, phrases, or sentences adopted by, or assigned to, almost every one by parent or doctor. According to Ellis no coercion of the fetish is attempted on the Gold Coast, but Kidd states that the negro of Guinea beats his fetish, if his wishes are frustrated, and hides it in his waist-cloth when he is about to do anything of which he is ashamed. The fetish is used not only as a preventive of or defence against evil (i. e. white art), but also as a means of offence, i. e. black art or witchcraft in the full sense, which always connotes a possible taking of life. The half-civilized negro, while repudiating the fetish as a black art, feels justified in retaining it as a white art, i. e. as a weapon of defence. Those who practise the black art are all "wizards" or "witches" -- names never given to practisers of the white art. The user of the white art uses no concealment; a practitioner of the black art denies it, and carries on its practice secretly. The black art is supposed to consist of evil practices to cause sickness and death. Its medicines, dances, and enchantments are also used in the professed innocent white art; the difference is in the work which the spirit is entrusted to perform. Not every one who uses white art is able to use also the black art. Anyone believing in the fetish can use the white art without subjecting himself to the charge of being a wizard. Only a wizard can cause sickness or death. Hence witchcraft belief includes witchcraft murder. There exists in Bantu a society called the "Witchcraft Company", whose members hold secret meetings at midnight in the depths of the forest to plot sickness or death. The owl is their sacred bird, and their signal-call is an imitation of its hoot. They profess to leave their corporeal bodies asleep in their huts, and it is only their spirit-bodies that attend the meeting, passing through walls and over tree-Lops with instant rapidity. At the meeting they have visible, audible, and tangible communications with spirits. They have feasts, at which is eaten "the heart-life" of some human being, who through this loss of his "heart" falls sick and dies unless the "heart" be restored. The early cock-crow is a warning for them to disperse, for they fear the advent of the morning star, as, should the sun rise upon them before they reach their corporeal bodies, all their plans would fail and they would sicken. They dread cayenne pepper; should its bruised leaves or pods be rubbed over their corporeal bodies during their absence, their spirits are unable to re-enter, and their bodies die or waste miserably away. This society was introduced by black slaves to the West Indies, e.g. Jamaica and Hayti, and to the Southern States as Voodoo worship. Thus Voodooism or Odoism is simply African fetishism transplanted to American soil. Authentic records are procurable of midnight meetings held in Hayti, as late as 1888, at which human beings, especially children, were killed and eaten at the secret feasts. European governments in Africa have put down the practice of the black art, yet so deeply is it implanted in the belief of the natives that Dr. Norris does not hesitate to say it would revive if the whites were to withdraw. Fetishism in Africa is not only a religious belief; it is a system of government and a medical profession, although the religious element is fundamental and colours all the rest. The fetish-man, therefore, is priest, judge, and physician. To the believers in the fetish the killing of those guilty of witchcraft is a judicial act; it is not murder, but execution. The fetish-man has power to condemn to death. A judicial system does not exist. Whatever rules there are, are handed down by tradition, and the persons familiar with these old sayings and customs are present in the trial of disputed matters. Fetishes are set up to punish offenders in certain cases where it is considered specially desirable to make the law operative though the crimes cannot be detected (e.g. theft). The fetish is supposed to be able not only to detect but to punish the transgressor. In cases of death the charge of witchcraft is made, and the relatives seek a fetish-man, who employs the ordeal by poison, fire or other tests to detect the guilty person. Formerly mbwaye (i. e. ordeal by poison) was performed by giving to the accused a poisonous drink, the accuser also having to take the test to prove their sincerity. If he vomited immediately he was innocent; if he was shown guilty, the accusers were the executioners. On the upper coast of Guinea the test is a solution of the sassawood, and is called "red water"; at Calahar, the solution of a bean; in the Gabun country, of the akazya leaf or bark; farther south in the Nkami country, it is called mbundu. The distinction between poison and fetish is vague in the minds of many natives, to whom poison is only another material form of a fetish power. It has been estimated that for every natural death at least one -- and often ten or more -- has been executed. The judicial aspect of fetishism is revealed most plainly in the secret societies (male and female) of crushing power and far-reaching influence, which before the advent of the white man were the court of last appeal for individual and tribal disputes. Of this kind were the Egho of the Niger Delta, Ukuku of the Corisco region, Yasi of the Ogowe, M'wetyi of the Shekani, Bweti of the Bakele, Inda and Njembe of the Mpongwe, Ukuku and Malinda of the Batanga region. All of these societies had for their primary object the laudable one of government, and, for this purpose, they fostered the superstitious dread with which the fetish was regarded by the natives. But the arbitrary means employed in their management, the oppressive influences at work, the false representations indulged in, made them almost all evil. They still exist among the interior tribes; on the coast, they have either been entirely suppressed or exist only for amusement (e.g. Ukuku in Gabun), or as a traditional custom (e.g. Njembe). The Ukuku society claimed the government of the country. To put "Ukuku on the white man" meant to boycott him, i. e. that no one should work for him, no one should sell food or drink to him; he was not allowed to go to his own spring. In Dahomey the fetish-priests are a kind of secret police for the despotic king. Thus, while witchcraft was the religion of the natives, these societies constituted their government. Although sickness is spoken of among the natives as a disease, yet the patient is said to be sick because of an evil spirit, and it is believed that when this is driven out by the magician's benevolent spirit, the patient will recover. When the heathen negro is sick, the first thing is to call the "doctor" to find out what spirit by invading the body has caused the sickness. The diagnosis is made by drum, dance, frenzied song, mirror, fumes of drugs, consultation of relics, and conversation with the spirit itself. Next must be decided the ceremony peculiar to that spirit, the vegetable and mineral substances supposed to be either pleasing or offensive to it. If these cannot be obtained, the patient must die. The witch-doctor believes that his incantations have subsidized the power of a spirit, which forthwith enters the body of the patient and, searching through its vitals, drives out the antagonizing spirit which is the supposed actual cause of the disease. The nkinda, "the spirit of disease", is then confined by the doctor in a prison, e.g. in a section of sugar-cane stalk with its leaves tied together. The component parts of any fetish are regarded by the natives as we regard the drugs of our materia medica. Their drugs, however, are esteemed operative not through certain inherent chemical qualities, but in consequence of the presence of the spirit to whom they are favourite media. This spirit is induced to act by the pleasing enchantments of the magic-doctor. The nganga, as surgeon and physician, shows more than considerable skill in extracting bullets from wounded warriors, and in the knowledge of herbs as poisons and antidotes. Whether the black slaves brought to America the okra or found it already existing on the continent is uncertain, but the term gumbo is undoubtedly of African origin, as also is the term mbenda (peanuts or ground-nuts), corrupted into pindar in some of the Southern States. The folk-lore of the African slave survives in Uncle Remus's tales of "Br'er Rabbit". Br'er Rabbit is an American substitution for Brother Nja (Leopard) or Brother Iheli (Gazelle) in Paia N'jambi's (the Creator's) council of speaking animals. Jevons holds that fetishes are private only, although, in fact, not only individuals, but families and tribes have fetishes. The fetish Deute at Krakje and Atia Yaw of Okwaou were known and feared for leagues around. In the Benga tribe of West Africa the family fetish is known by the name of Yaka. It is a bundle of the parts of bodies of their dead, i. e. first joints of fingers and toes, lobe of ear, hair. The value of Yaka depends on the spirits of the family dead being associated with the portions of their bodies, and this combination is effected by the prayer and incantation of the doctor. The Yaka is appealed to in family emergencies, e.g. disease, death, when ordinary fetishes fail. This rite is very expensive and may require a month, during which time all work is suspended. The observances of fetish-worship fade away into the customs and habits of everyday life by gradations, so that in some of the superstitious beliefs, while there may be no formal handling of a fetish amulet containing a spirit nor actual prayer nor sacrifice, nevertheless spiritism is the thought and is more or less consciously held, and consequently the term fetish might perhaps be extended to them. The superstition of the African negro is different from that of the Christian, for it is the practical and logical application of his religion. To the Christian it is a pitiful weakness; to the negro, a trusted belief. Thus some birds and beasts are of ill omen, others of good omen. The mournful hooting of an owl at midnight is a warning of death, and all who hear the call will hasten to the wood and drive away the messenger of ill-tidings with sticks and stones. Hence arises the belief in the power of Ngoi, Moloki, N'doshi or Uvengwa (i. e., evil-spirited leopard, like the German werewolf), viz., that certain possessors of evil spirits have ability to assume the guise of an animal, and reassume at will the human form. To this superstition must be referred the reverence shown fetish leopards, hippopotami, crocodiles, sokos (large monkeys of the gorilla type). (See AMULET, ANIMISM, DEITY, IDOLATRY, MAGIC, NATURISM, RELIGION, SPIRITISM, TOTEMISM, SHAMANISM, SYMBOLISM.) BRINTON, The Religions of Primitive Peoples (New York, 1897); ELLIS, The Tshi-speaking Peoples of the Gold Coast of W. Africa (London, 1887); IDEM, The Yomba-speaking Peoples of the Slave-Coast of W. Africa (London, 1894); FARNELL, Evolution of Religion (London and New York, 1905); HADDON, Magic and Fetichism in Religions, Ancient and Modern (London, 1906); HOeFFDING, The Philosophy of Religion, tr. MEYEA (London and New York, 1906); JEVONS, Introduction to Study of Comparative Religion (New York, 1908); KELLOG, Genesis and Growth of Religion (London and New York, 1892); KIDD, The Essential Kaffir (London, 1904); KINGSLEY, Travels in West Africa (London, 1898); IDEM, West African Studies (London, 1899); LEPPEET, Die Religionen der europaeischen Culturvoelker (Berlin, 1881); MUeLLER, Natural Religion (London, 1892); IDEM, Origin and Growth of Religion (London, 1878); NORRIS, Fetichism in W. Africa (New York, 1904); SCHULTZE, Psychologie der Naturvoelker (Leipzig, 1900); SPENCER ST. JOHN, Hayti and the Black Republic (2d ed., London, 1889); TYLOR, Primitive Culture (2d ed., London, 1873); WILSON, Western Africa (New York, 1856); AMES, African Fetichism (Heli Chatelain) in FolkLore (Oct., Dec., 1894); GLAU, Fetichism in Congo Land in Century (April, 1891); KINGSLEY, The Fetich View of the Human Soul in Folk-Lore (June, 1897); NIPPESLEY, Fetich Faith in W. Africa in Pop. Sc. Monthly (Oct., 1887); LE ROY, La religion des primitifs (Paris, 1909). JOHN T. DRISCOLL. Francois Feuardent Franc,ois Feuardent A Franciscan, theologian, preacher of the Ligue, b. at Coutanees, Normandy, in 1539; d. at Paris, 1 Jan., 1610. Having compteted his humanities at Bayeux, he joined the Friars Minor. After the novitiate, he was sent to Paris to continue his studies, where he received (1576) the degree of Doctor in Theology and taught with great success at the university. He took a leading part in the political and religious troubles in which France was involved at that time. With John Boucher and Bishop Rose of Senlis, he was one of the foremost preachers in the cause of the Catholic Ligue and, as Roennus remarks in an appendix to Feuardent's "Theomachia", there was not a church in Paris in which he had not preached. Throughout France and beyond the frontiers in Lorraine and Flanders, he was an eloquent and ardent defender of the Faith. Nevertheless even Pierre de l'Etoile, a fierce adversary of the Ligue, recognises in his "Memoires" the merits of Feuardent's subsequent efforts in pacifying the country. In his old age he retired to the convent of Bayeux, which he restored and furnished with a good library. His works can be conveniently grouped in three classes: (1) Scriptural; (2) patristical; (3) controversial. Only some of the most remarkable may be pointed out here. (1) A new edition of the medieval Scripturist, Nicholas of Lyra: "Biblia Sacra, cum glossa ordinaria . . . et postilla Nicolai Lyrani" (Paris, 1590), 6 vols. fol.). He also wrote commentaries on various books of Holy Scripture, viz on Ruth Esther, Job, Jonas, the two Epistles of St. Peter, the Epistles of St. Jude and St. James, the Epistle of St. Paul to Philemon, and others. (2) "S. Irenaei Lugd. episcopi adversus Valentini . . . haereses libri quinque" (Paris, 1576); "S. lldephonsi archiepiscopi Toletani de virginitate Mariae liber" (Paris, 1576). Feuardent also wrote an introduction and notes to "Michaelis Pselli Dialogus de energia seu operatione daemonum translatus a Petro Marrello" (Paris, 1577). (3) "Appendix ad libros Alphonsi a Castro (O.F.M.) contra haereses" (Paris, 1578). "Theomachia Calvinistica", his chief work is based on some earlier writings, such as: "Semaine premiere des dialogues auxquels sont examinees et refutees 174 erreurs des Calviniste" (1585); "Seconde semaine des dialogues . . ." (Paris, 1598); "Entremangeries et guerres mininstrales . . ." (Caen, 1601). LIVARIUS OLIGER Baron Ernst von Feuchtersleben Baron Ernst Von Feuchtersleben An Austrian poet, philosopher, and physician; born at Vienna, 29 April, 1806; died 3 September, 1849. After completing his course at the Theresian Academy, he took up the study of medicine in 1825, receiving the degree of Doctor of Medicine in 1833. In 1844 he began a series of free lectures on psychiatry at the University of Vienna, the next year became dean of the medical faculty, and in 1847 was made vice-director of medico-chirurgical studies. In July, 1848, he was appointed under-secretary of state in the ministry of public instruction, and in this capacity he attempted to introduce some important reforms in the system of education, but, discouraged by the difficulties which he encountered, he resigned in December of the following year. As a medico-philosophical writer, Feuchtersleben attained great popularity, especially through his book "Zur Diaetetik der Seele" (Vienna, 1838), which went through many editions (46th in 1896). Hardly less famous is his "Lehrbuch der arztlichen Seelenkunde" (Vienna, 1845), translated into English by H. Evans Lloyd under the title of "Principles of Medical Psychology" (revised and edited by B. C. Babington, London, 1847). He also wrote an essay, "Die Gewissheit und Wuerde der Heilkunst" (Vienna, 1839), a new edition of which appeared under the title "Aerzte und Publikum" (Vienna, 1845). As a poet Feuchtersleben is chiefly known by the well-known song, "Es ist bestimmt in Gottes Rat", which appeared in "Gedichte" (Stuttgart, 1836) and was set to music by Mendelssohn. His later poems are more philosophical and critical. His essays and other prose writings were published under the title "Beitraege zur Litteratur-, Kunst- und Lebenstheorie" (Vienna, 1837-41). His complete works (exclusive of his medical writings) were edited by Friedrich Hebbel (7 vols., Vienna, 1851-53). Consult the autobiography prefixed to the above-mentioned edition; also NECKER, Ernst v. Feuchtersleben, der Freund Grillparzers in Jahrbuch der Grillparzer-Gesellschaft, III (Vienna, 1893). ARTHUR F.J. REMY Feudalism Feudalism This term is derived from the Old Aryan pe'ku, hence Sanskrit pacu, "cattle"; so also Lat. pecus (cf. pecunia); Old High German fehu, fihu, "cattle", "property", "money"; Old Frisian fia; Old Saxon fehu; Old English feoh, fioh, feo, fee. It is an indefinable word for it represents the progressive development of European organization during seven centuries. Its roots go back into the social conditions of primitive peoples, and its branches stretch out through military, political, and judicial evolution to our own day. Still it can so far be brought within the measurable compass of a definition if sufficient allowance be made for its double aspect. For feudalism (like every other systematic arrangement of civil and religious forces in a state) comprises duties and rights, according as it is looked at central or local point of view. (1) As regards the duties involved in it, feudalism may be defined as a contractual system by which the nation as represented by the king lets its lands out to individuals who pay rent by doing governmental work not merely in the shape of military service, but also of suit to the king's court. Originally indeed it began as a military system. It was in imitation of the later Roman Empire, which met the Germanic inroads by grants of lands to individuals on condition of military service (Palgrave, "English Commonwealth", I, 350, 495, 505), that the Carlovingian Empire adopted the same expedient. By this means the ninth century Danish raids were opposed by a semi-professional army, better armed and more tactically efficient than the old Germanic levy. This method of forming a standing national force by grants of lands to individuals is perfectly normal in history, witness the Turkish timar fiefs (Cambridge Modern History, I, iii, 99, 1902), the fief de soudee of the Eastern Latin kingdoms (Brehier, "L'Eglise et l'Orient au moyen age", Paris, 1907, iv, 94), and, to a certain extent, the Welsh uchelwyr (Rhys and Jones, "The Welsh People", London, 1900, vi, 205). On the whole feudalism means government by amateurs paid in land rather than professionals paid in money. Hence, as we shall see, one cause of the downfall of feudalism was the substitution in every branch of civil life of the "cash-nexus" for the "land-nexus". Feudalism, therefore, by connecting ownership of land with governmental work, went a large way toward solving that ever present difficulty of the land question; not, indeed, by any real system of land nationalization, but by inducing lords to do work for the country in return for the right of possessing landed property. Thus, gradually, it approximated to, and realized, the political ideal of Aristotle, "Private possession and common use" (Politics, II, v, 1263, a). To a certain extent, therefore, feudalism still exists, remaining as the great justification of modern landowners wherever, -- as sheriffs, justices of the peace, etc. -- they do unpaid governmental work. (2) As regards the rights it creates, feudalism may be defined as a "graduated system based on land tenure in which every lord judged, taxed, and commanded the class next below him" (Stubbs, "Constitutional History", Oxford, 1897, I, ix, 278). One result of this was that, whenever a Charter of Liberties was wrung by the baronage from the king, the latter always managed to have his concessions to his tenants-in-chief paralleled by their concessions to their lower vassals (cf. Stubbs, "Select Charters", Oxford, 1900, S: 4, 101, 60, 304). Another more serious, less beneficent, result was that, while feudalism centrally converted the sovereign into a landowner, it locally converted the landowner into a sovereign. Origin The source of feudalism rises from an intermingling of barbarian usage and Roman law (Maine, "Ancient Law", London, 1906, ix). To explain this reference must be made to a change that passed over the Roman Empire at the beginning of the fourth century. About that date Diocletian reorganized the Empire by the establishment of a huge bureaucracy, at the same time disabling it by his crushing taxation. The obvious result was the depression of free classes into unfree, and the barbarization of the Empire. Before A.D. 300 the absentee landlord farmed his land by means of a familia rustica or gang of slaves, owned by him as his own transferable property, though others might till their fields by hired labor. Two causes extended and intensified this organized slave system: (1) Imperial legislation that two thirds of a man's wealth must be in land, so as to set free hoarded specie, and prevent attempts to hide wealth and so escape taxation. Hence land became the medium of exchange instead of money, i.e. land was held not by rent but by service. (2) The pressure of taxation falling on land (tributum soli) forced smaller proprietors to put themselves under their rich neighbors, who paid the tax for them, but for whom they were accordingly obliged to perform service (obsequium) in work and kind. Thus they became tied to the soil (ascripti glebae), not transferable dependents. Over them the lord had powers of correction, not apparently, of jurisdiction. Meanwhile, the slaves themselves had become also territorial not personal. Further, the public land (ager publicus) got memorialized by grants partly to free veterans (as at Colchester in England), partly to laeti, -- a semi-servile class of conquered peoples (as the Germans in England under Marcus Antonius), paying, beside the tributum soli, manual service in kind (sordida munera). Even in the Roman towns, by the same process, the urban landlords (curiales) became debased into the manufacturing population (collegiati). In a word, the middle class disappeared; the Empire was split into two opposing forces: an aristocratic bureaucracy and a servile laboring population. Over the Roman Empire thus organized poured the Teutonic flood, and these barbarians had also their organization, rude and changeful though it might be. According to Tacitus (Germania) the Germans were divided into some forty civitates, or populi, or folks. Some of these, near the roman borders, lived under kings, others, more remote, were governed by folk moots or elective princes. Several of these might combine to form a "stem", the only bond of which consisted in common religious rites. The populus, or civitas, on the other hand, was a political unity. It was divided into pagi, each pagus being apparently a jurisdictional limit, probably meeting in a court over which a princeps, elected by the folk moot, presided, but in which the causes were decided by a body of freemen usually numbering about a hundred. Parallel with the pagus, according to Tacitus (Germania, xii), though in reality probably a division of it, was the vicus, an agricultural unit. The vicus was (though Seebohm, "English Historical Review", July, 1892, 444-465 thought not) represented in two types (1) the dependent village, consisting of the lord's house, and cottages of his subordinates (perhaps the relics of indigenous conquered peoples) who paid rent in kind, corn, cattle, (2) the free village of scatt ered houses, each with its separate enclosure. Round this village stretched great meadows on which the villagers pastured their cattle. Every year a piece of new land was set apart to be plowed, of which each villager got a share proportioned to his official position in the community. It was the amalgamation of these two systems that produced feudalism. But here, precisely as to the relative preponderance of the Germanic and Roman systems in manorial feudalism, the discussion still continues. The question turns, to a certain extent, on the view taken of the character of the Germanic inroads. The defenders of Roman preponderance depict these movements as mere raids, producing indeed much material damage, but in reality not altering the race or the institutions of the Romanized peoples. Their opponents, however, speak of these incursions rather as people-wanderings -- of warriors, women, and children, cattle even, and slaves, indelibly stamping and molding the institutions of the race which they encountered. The same discussion focuses around the medieval manor, which is best seen in its English form. The old theory was that the manor was the same as the Teutonic mark, plus the intrusion of a lord (Stubbs, "Constitutional History", Oxford, 1897, I, 32-71). This was attacked by Fustel de Coulanges (Histoire des institutions politiques et de l'ancienne France, Paris, 1901) and by Seebohm (The English Village Community, London, 1883, viii, 252-316, who insisted on a Latin ancestry from the Roman villa, contending for a development not from freedom to serfdom, but from slavery, through serfdom, to freedom. The arguements of the Latin School may be thus summarized: (1) the mark is a figment of the Teutonic brain (cf. Murray's "Oxford English Dictionary", s.v., 167; "markmoot" probably means "a parsley bed"). (2) early German law is based on assumption of private ownership. (3) Analogies of Maine and others from India and Russia not to the point. (4) Romanized Britons, for example, in south-eastern Britain had complete manorial system before the Saxons came from Germany. -- They are thus answered by the Teutonic School (Elton, Eng. Hist. Rev., July, 1886; Vinogradoff, "Growth of the Manor", London, 1905, 87, Maitland, "Domesday Book and Beyond", Cambridge, 1897, 222, 232, 327, 337): (1) the name "mark" may not be applied in England but the thing existed. (2) It is not denied that there are analogies between the Roman vill and the later manor, but analogies do not necessarily prove derivation. (3) The manor was not an agricultural unit only, it was also judicial. If the manor originated in the Roman vill, which was composed of a servile population, how came it that the suitors to the court were also judges? or that villagers had common rights over waste land as against their lord? or that the community was represented in the hundred court by four men and its reeve? (4) Seebohm's evidence is almost entirely drawn from the positions of villas and villeins on the demesnes of kings, great ecclesiastical bodies, or churchmen. Such villages were admittedly dependent. (5) Most of the evidence comes through the tainted source of Norman and French lawyers who were inclined to see serfdom even where it did not exist. On the whole, the latest writers on feudalism, taking a legal point of view, incline to the Teutonic School. Causes The same cause that produced in the later Roman Empire the disappearance of a middle class and the confronted lines of bureaucracy and a servile population, operated on the teutonized Latins and latinized Teutons to develop the complete system of feudalism. (1) Taxation, whether by means of feorm-fultum, danegelt, or gabelle, forced the poorer man to commend himself to a lord. The lord paid the tax but demanded in exchange conditions of service. The service-doing dependent therefore was said to have "taken his land" to a lord in payment for a tax, which land the lord restored to him to be held in fief, and this (i.e. land held in fief from a lord) is the germ-cell of feudalism. (2) Another, and more outstanding cause, was the royal grant of fole-land. Around this, too, historians at one time ranged in dispute. The older view was that fole-land was simply private land, the authoritative possession of which was based upon the witness of the people as opposed to the bok-land, with its written title deeds. But in 1830 John Allen (Rise and Growth of Royal Prerogative) tried to show that fole-land was in reality public property, national, waste, or unappropriated land. His theory was that all land-books (conveyances of land) made by the Anglo-Saxon kings were simply thefts from the national demesne, made for the benefit of the king, his favorites, or the Church. The land-book was an ecclesiastical instrument introduced by the Roman missionaries, first used by that zealous convert, Ethelbert of Kent, though not becoming common until the ninth century. Allen based his theory on two grounds: (a) the king occasionally books land to himself, which could not therefore have been his before; (b) the assent of the Witan was necessary to grants of fole-land, which, therefore, was regarded as a national possession. To this Professor Vinogradoff (Eng. Hist. Rev., Jan., 1893, 1-17) made answer: (a) that even the village knew nothing of common ownership, and that a fortiori, the whole nation would not have had such an idea; (b) that the king in his charters never speaks of terram gentis but terram juris sui; (c) that the land thus conveyed away is often expressly described as being inhabited, cultivated, etc., and therefore cannot have been unappropriated or waste land. Finally, Professor Maitland (Domesday Book and Beyond, Cambridge, 1897, 244) clearly explains what happened by distinguishing two sorts of ownership, economic and political. Economic ownership is the right to share in the agricultural returns of the land, as does the modern landlord, etc. Political ownership is the right to the judicial returns from the soil -- ownership, therefore, in the sense of governing it or exercising ownership over it. By the land-bok, therefore, land was handed over to be owned, not economically but politically; and the men suing on the courts of justice, paying toll, etc., directed their fines, not to the exchequer, but to the newly-intruded lord, who thus possessed suzerainty and its fiscal results. In consequence the local lord received the privilege of the feorm-fultum, or the right to be entertained for one night or more in progress. So, too, in Ireland, until the seventeenth century, the chieftains enjoyed "coigne and livery" of their tribesmen; and in medieval France there was the lord's droit de gete. This land-tax in kind, not unnaturally, helped in villeinizing the freemen. Moreover the king surrendered to the new lord the profits of justice and the rights of toll, making, therefore, the freeman still more dependent on hiss lord. However it must also be stated that the king nearly always retained the more important criminal and civil cases in his own hands. Still the results of the king's transference of rights over fole-land was easy enough to foresee, i.e. the depression of the free village. The steps of this depression may be shortly set out: (a) the Church or lord entitled to food-rents established an overseer to collect this rent in kind. Somehow or other this overseer appropriated land for a demesne, partly in place of, partly along side of, the food-rents; (b) the Church or the lord entitled by the land-bok to jurisdictionl profits made the tenure of land by the villagers depend upon suit to his court; the villager's transfers came to be made at that court, and were finally conceived as having their validity from the gift or grant from its president. (3) Meanwhile the action of the State extended this depression (a) by its very endeavor in the tenth century Capitularies to keep law and order in those rude cattle-lifting societies. For the system evolved was that men should be grouped in such a manner that one man should be responsible for another, especially the lord for his men. As an example of the former may be taken the Capitularies of the Frankish kings, such as of Childebert and Clotaire, and of the English king Edgar. (Stubbs, Select Charters, 69-74); and of the latter the famous ordinance of Athelstan (Conc. Treatonlea, c. 930, ii; Stubbs, Select Charters, Oxford, 1900, 66): "And we have ordained respecting those lordless men of whom no law can be got, that the hundred be commanded that they domicile him to folk right and find him a lord in the folk-moot"; (b) another way was by the institution of central taxation in the eleventh century -- in England by means of danegelt, abroad by various gabelles. These were moneta ry taxes at a time when other payments were still largely made in kind. Accordingly, just as under the later Roman Empire, the poorer man commended himself to a lord, who paid for him, but demanded in stead payment in service, a tributum soli. The dependent developed into a retainer, as in the Lancastrian days of maintenance, to be protected by his lord, even in the royal courts of justice, and repaying his master by service, military and economic, and by the feudal incidents of herlot, wardship, etc. (for details of feudal aids, cf. Maitland, Constitutional history, 27-30) (4) Nor should it be forgotten that a ceorl or merchant could "thrive" (Stubbs, Select Charters, 65; probably of eleventh century date), so as to amass wealth to the loss of his neighbors, and gradually to become a master of villeins -- possessing a church, a kitchen where the said villeins must bake their bread (jus furmi), a semi-fortified bell-house and a burgh-gate where he could sit in judgment. (5) The last great cause that developed feudalism was war. It is an old saying, nearly a dozen centuries old, that "war begat the king". It is no less true that war, not civil, but international, begat feudalism. First it forced the kings to cease to surround themselves with an antiquated fyrd or national militia, that had forgotten in its agricultural pursuits that rapidity of movement was the first essential of military success, and by beating the sword into the plowshare had lost every desire to beat back the iron into its old form. In consequence a new military force was organized, a professional standing army. This army had to be fed and housed in time of peace. As a result its individual members were granted lands and estates. or lived with the king as his personal suite. At any rate, instead of every able-bodied man being individually bound in person to serve his sovereign in the field, the lords or landowners were obliged in virtue of their tenure to furnish a certain quantity of fighting men, armed with fixed and definite weapons, according to the degree, rank and wealth of the combatant. Secondly, it gave another reason for commendation, i.e. protection. The lord was now asked, not to pay a tax, but to extend the sphere of his influence so as to enable a lonely, solitary farmstead to keep off the attacks of a foe, or at least to afford a place of retreat and shelter in time of war. This the lord would do for a consideration, to wit, that the protected man should acknowledge himself to be judicially, politically, economically, the dependent of his high protector. Finally, the king himself was pushed up to the apex of the whole system. The various lords commended themselves to this central figure, to aid them in times of stress, for they saw the uselessness of singly trying to repel a foe. They were continually being defeated because "shire would not help shire" (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, ann. 1010). Thus the very reason why the English left Ethelred the Unready to accept Sweyn as full king (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, ann. 1012) was simply because Ethelred had no idea of centralizing and unifying the nation; just as in the contrary sense the successful resistance of Paris to the Northmen gave to its dukes, the Lords of the Isle of France, the royal titles which the Carlovingians of Laon were too feeble to defend; and the lack of a defensive national war prevented any unification of the unwieldy Holy Roman Empire. This is effectually demonstrated by the real outburst of national feeling that centered round one of the weakest of all the emperors, Frederick III, at the siege of Neuss, simply because Charles the Bold was thought to be threatening Germany by his attack on Cologne. From these wars, then, the kings emerged, no longer as mere leaders of their people but as owners of the land upon which their people lived, no longer as Reges Francorum but as Reges Franciae, nor as Duces Normannorum but as Duces Normanniae, nor as Kings of the Angleycin but of Engla-land. This exchange of tribal for territorial sovereignty marks the complete existence of feudalism as an organization of society in all its relations (economic, judicial, political), upon a basis of commendation and land-tenure. Essence We are now, therefore, in a position to understand what exactly feudalism was. Bearing in mind the double definition given at the beginning, we may, for the sake of clearness, resolve feudalism into its three component parts. It includes a territorial element, an idea of vassalage, and the privilege of an immunity. (1) The territorial element is the grant of the enfeoffment by the lord to his man. At the beginning this was probably of stock and cattle as well as land. Hence its etymology. Littre makes the Low Latin feudum of Teutonic origin, and thus cognate with the Old High German fihu, Gothic faihu, Anglo-Saxon feoh (our fee), modern German vieh. That is to say the word goes back to the day when cattle was originally the only form of wealth; but it came by a perfectly natural process, when the race had passed from a nomadic life to the fixity of abode necessitated by pastoral pursuits, to signify wealth in general, and finally wealth in land. The cattle, stock, or land was therefore handed over by the lord to his dependent, to be held, not in full ownership, but in usufruct, on conditions originally personal but becoming hereditary. (This whole process can be easily traced in Hector Monroe Chadwick's "Studies in Anglo-Saxon Institutions", Cambridge, 1905, ix, 308-354; x, 378-411, where a detailed account is given of how the thegn, a personal servant of the king, developed into a landowner possessing an average of five hides of land and responsible to his sovereign in matters of war and jurisdiction). The influence of the Church, too, in this gradual transference of a personal to a territorial vassalage has been very generally admitted. The monastic houses would be the first to find it troublesome (Liber Eliensis, 275) to keep a rout of knights within their cloistral walls. Bishops, too, howsoever magnificent their palaces, could not fail to wish that the fighting men whom they were bound by their barony to furnish to the king should be lodged elsewhere than close to their persons. Consequently they soon developed the system of territorial vassalage. Hence the medieval legal maxim: nulle terre sans seigneur (Vinogradoff, English Society in the Eleventh Century, Oxford, 1908, ii, 39-89). This enfeoffment of the lord or landowner by the king and of the dependent by the lord was partly in the nature of a reward for past services, partly in the nature of an earnest for the future. It is this primitive idea of the lord who gives land to his supporter that is answerable for the feudal incidents which otherwise seem so tyrannous. For instance, when the vassal died, his arms, horse, military equipment reverted as heriot to his master. So, too, when the tenant died without heirs his property escheated to the lord. If, however, he died with heirs, indeed, but who were still in their minority, then these heirs were in wardship to the feudal superior, who could even dispose of a female ward in marriage to whom he would, on a plea that she might otherwise unite herself and lands to an hereditary enemy. All the way along it is clear that the ever present idea ruling and suggesting these incidents, was precisely a territorial one. The origin, that is, of these incidents went back to earlier days when all that the feudal dependent possessed, whether arms, or stock, or land he had received from his immediate lord. Land had become the tie that knit up into one the whole society. Land was now the governing principle of life (Pollack and Maitland, History of English Law, Cambridge, 1898, I, iii, 66-78). A man followed, not the master whom he chose or the cause that seemed most right, but the master whose land he held and tilled, the cause favored in the geographical limits of his domain. The king was looked up to as the real possessor of the land of the nation. By him, as representing the nation, baronies, manors, knight's fees, fiefs were distributed to the tenants-in-chief, and they, in turn, divided their land to be held in trust by the lower vassals (Vinogradoff, English Society in the Eleventh Century, 42). The statute of Edward I, known from its opening clause as Quia Emptores, shows the extreme lengths to which this subinfeudation was carried (Stubbs, Select Charters, 478). So much, however, had this territorial idea entered into the legal conceptions of the medieval polity, and been passed on from age to age by the most skillful lawyers of each generation, that, up to within the last half century, there were not wanting some who taught that the very peerages of England might descend, not by means of blood only, nor even of will or bequest, but by the mere possession-at-law of certain lands and tenements. Witness the Berkeley Peerage case of 1861 (Anson, Law and Customs of the Constitution, Oxford, 1897, Part I, I, vi, 200-203). (2) Feudalism further implies the idea of vassalage. This is partly concurrent with, partly overlapping, the territorial conception. It is certainly prior to, more primitive than, the notion of a landed enfeoffment. The early banded hordes that broke over Europe were held together by the idea of loyalty to a personal chief. The heretogas were leaders in war. Tacitus says (Germania, vii): "The leaders hold command rather by the example of their boldness and keen courage than by any force of discipline or autocratic rule." It was the best, most obvious, simplest method, and would always obtain in a state of incessant wars and raids. But even when that state of development had been passed, the personal element, though considerably lessened, could not fail to continue. Territorial enfeoffment did not do away with vassalage, but only changed the medium by which that vassalage was made evident. The dependent was, as ever, the personal follower of his immediate lord. He was not merely holding land of that lord; the very land that he held was but the expression of his dependence, the outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible bond. The fief showed who the vassal was and to whom he owed his vassalage. At one time there was a tendency among historians to make a distinction between the theory of feudalism on the Continent and that introduced into England by William I. But a closer study of both has proved their identity (Tout, Eng. Hist. Rev., Jan., 1905, 141-143). The Salisbury Oath, even on the supposition that it was actually taken by "all the land owning men of account there were all over England" (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, ann. 1068), was nothing more than had been exacted by the Anglo-Saxon kings (Stubbs, Select Charters, Doom of Exeter, iv, 64; I, 67; but compare Vinogradoff, Growth of the Manor, Oxford, 1905, 294-306). In Germany, too, many of the lesser knights held directly of the emperor; and overall, whether immediately subject to him or not, he had, at least in theory, sovereign rights. And in France, where feudal vassalage was very strong, there was a royal court to which a dependent could appeal from that of his lord, as there were also royal cases, which none but the king could try. In fact it was perhaps in France, earlier than elsewhere, that the centralizing spirit of royal interference began to busy itself in social, economic, judicial interests of the individual. Besides, on the other hand, the anarchy of Stephen's reign that spread over the whole country (Davis, Eng. Hist. Rev., Oct. 1903) showed how slight even in England was the royal hold over the vassal barons. Moreover, if English feudalism did at all differ from the hierarchic vassalage that caused so much harm abroad, the result was due far more to Henry II and his successors than to the Norman line of kings. And even the work of the Angevins was to no small degree undone by the policy of Edward III. The Statutes of Merton (1278), Mortmain (1279), Quia Emptores (1290) all laid the foundations, though such, of course, was foreign to their object, for the aggregations of lage estates. Then came the marriage of the royal princes to great heiresses; the Black Prince gained the lands of Kent; Lionel, the dowry of Ulster; Thomas of Woodstock the linked manors of Eleanor Bohun. Henry IV, before he deposed Richard II, was "Harry of Hereford, Lancaster, and Derby", as well as Leicester and Lincoln. The result was that England, no less than France, Germany, Italy, and Spain had it's feudal vassals that acquired ascendency over the crown, or were only prevented by their mutual jealousy from doing so. In England, too, the substitution of a feodalite apanagee, or nobility of the blood royal, for the old feodalite territoriale worked the same mischief as it did in France; and the Wars of the Roses paralleled the fatal feuds of Burgundians and Armagnacs, the horrors of the Praguerie and the anarchy of the League of the Public Weal. It will be seen, therefore, that all over Europe the same feudal system prevailed of a hierarchic arrangement of classes, of some vast pyramid of which the apex, pushed high up and separated by intervening layers from its base, represented the king. (3) Feudalism lastly included an idea of an immunity or grants of the profits of justice over a fief or other pieces of land (Vinogradoff, Eng. Soc. in the Eleventh Century, 177-207). We have already stated how by the land books the Anglo-Saxon kings (and the like had been done and was to be repeated all over the Continent) granted to others political ownership over certain territories that till that time had been in the medieval phrase, "doing their own law". The result was that, apparently, private courts were set up typified in England by the alliterative jingle "sac and soc, toll and theam, and infangenthef". Sometimes the lord was satisfied by merely taking the judicial forfeitures in the ordinary courts, without troubling to establish any of his own. But, generally speaking, he seems to have had the right and to have used it, of keeping his own separate courts. Feudalism, therefore, includes not merely service (military and economic) but also suit (judicial). This suit was as minutely insisted upon as was the service. The king demanded from his tenants-in-chief that they should meet in his curia regis. So William I had his thrice yearly crown-wearings, attended by "all the rich men over all England, archbishops and bishops, abbots and earls, thegns and knights" (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, ad ann, 1087). So too, in France there was the cour du roy, dating from the earliest Capetian times, the court of the king's demesne or immediate tenants; at this royal court, whether in England or in France, all the tenants-in-chief, at any rate in the days of the full force of feudalism, were obliged to attend. The same court existed in the Holy Roman Empire and was of great importance, at least till the death of Henry V (Bryce, Holy Roman Empire, London, 1904, viii, 120-129). All those who attended these courts did so in virtue of the tenurial obligations. Now, these royal councils were not constitutional bodies, for we have no evidence of any legislation by them. Rather, like the Parlement in France, they simply registered the royal edicts. But their work was judicial, adjudicating causes too numerous or too complicated for the king alone to deal with. So Phillip Augustus summoned John as a vassal prince to the cour du roy to answer the charge of the murder of Arthur of Brittany. Just as these royal courts were judicial bodies for dealing with questions relating to the tenants-in-chief, so these tenants-in-chief, and in a descending gradation ever y lord and master, had their private courts in which to try the cases of their tenants. The private criminal courts were not strictly feudal, but dependent on a royal grant; such were the franchises, or liberties, or regalities, as in the counties Palatine up and down Europe. Besides these however, there were the librae curiae, courts baron, courts leet, courts customary, and, in the case of the Church, courts Christian (for details, Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, I, 571-594). The very complexity of these courts astonishes us; it astonished contemporaries no less, for Langland, in "Piers Plowman" (Passus III, ii, 318-319) looks forward to a golden day when King's court and common court, consistory and chapter, All shall be one court and one baron judge. Church and Feudalism The Church, too, had her place in the feudal system. She too was granted territorial fiefs, became a vassal, possessed immunities. It was the result of her calm, wide sympathy, turning to the new nations, away from the Roman Empire, to which many Christians thought she was irrevocably bound. By the baptism of Clovis she showed the baptism of Constantine had not tied her to the political system. So she created a new world out of chaos, created the paradox of barbarian civilization. In gratitude kings and emperors endowed her with property; and ecclesiastical property has not infrequently brought evils in its train. The result was disputed elections; younger sons of nobles were intruded into bishoprics, at times even into the papacy. Secular princes claimed lay investiture of spiritual offices. The cause of this was feudalism, for a system that had its basis on land tenure was bound at last to enslave a Church that possessed great landed possessions. In Germany, for example, three out of the mystically numbered seven electors of the empire were churchmen. There were, besides, several prince-bishops within the empire, and mitered abbots, whose rule was more extended and more powerful than that of many a secular baron. A s it was in Germany, so it was in France, England, Scotland, Spain, etc. Naturally there was a growing desire on the part of the king and the princes to force the Church to take her share in the national burdens and duties. Moreover, since by custom the secular rulers had obtained the right of presentation to various benefices or the right of veto, with the title on the Continent of advocates or vogt, the numerous claimants for the livings were only too ready to admit every possible demand of their lord, if only he would permit them to possess the bishopric, abbacy, or whatever else it might be. In short, the Church was in danger of becoming the annex of the State; the pope, of becoming the chaplain of the emperor. Simony and concubinage were rife. Then came the Reforms of Cluny and the remedy of the separation of Church and State, in this sense, that the Church would confer the dignity or office, and the State the barony. But even when this concordat had been arranged (in England between Henry I and Saint Anselm in 1107; the European settlement did not take place until 1122 at Worms), the Church still lay entangled with feudalism. It had to perform its feudal duties. It might owe suit and service to a lord. Certainly, lesser vassals owed suit and service to it. So it was brought into the secular fabric of society. A new tenure was invented for it, tenure by frankalmoyn. But it had more often than not to provide its knights and war-men, and to do justice to its tenants. The old ideal of a world-monarchy and a world-religion, the pope as spiritual emperor, the emperor as temporal pope, as set out with matchless skill in the fresco of the Dominican Church in Florence; S. Maria Novella, had ceased to influence public opinion long before Dante penned his "De Monarchia". Feudalism had shattered that ideal (Barry, in Dublin Review, Oct., 1907, 221-243). There was to be not so much a universal Church as a number of national Churches under their territorial princes, so that feudalism in the ecclesiastical sphere prepared the way for the Renaissance principle, Cujus regio, ejus religio. For while at the beginning the Church sanctified the State and anointed with sacred chrism the king vested in priestly apparel, in the end the State secularized the Church amid the gilded captivity of Avignon. Royal despotism followed the indignities of Anagni; the Church sank under the weight of her feudal duties. Results (1) Evil Results (a) The State instead of entering into direct relations with individuals, entered into relation with heads of groups, losing contact with the members of those groups. With a weak king or disputed succession, these group-heads made themselves into sovereigns. First of all viewing themselves as sovereigns they fought with one another as sovereigns, instead of coming to the State as to the true sovereign to have their respective claims adjudicated. The result was what chroniclers called guerra, or private war (Coxe, House of Austria, I, London, 1807, 306-307). This was forbidden in England even under its mock form the tournament. Still, it was too much tangled with feudalism to be fully suppressed, breaking out as fiercely here from time to time as it did elsewhere. (b) The group-heads tempted their vassals to follow them as against their overlords. So Robert of Bellesme obtained the help of his feudatories against Henry I. So Albert of Austria headed the electors against the Emperor Adolph of Nassau. So Charles of Navarre led his vassals against King John of France. So James of Urgel formed the Privileged Union of Saragossa. (c) These group-heads claimed the right of private coinage, private castles, full judicial authority, full powers of taxation. There was always a struggle between them and their sovereigns, and between them and their lesser vassals as to the degree of their independence. Each manorial group, or honour, or fief endeavored to be self sufficient and to hold itself apart from its next overlord. Each overlord endeavored more and more to consolidate his domains and force his vassals to appeal to him rather than to their direct superior. This continual struggle, the success and failure of which depended on the personal characters of lord and overlord, was the chief cause of the instability of life in medieval times. (d) A last evil may perhaps be added in the power given to the Church. In times of disputed succession the Church claimed the right to, defend herself, then to keep order, and eventually to nominate the ruler. This, however justifiable in itself and however at times beneficial, often drove the ecclesiastical order into the arms of one or other political party; and the cause of the Church often became identified with a particular claimant for other than Church reasons; and the penalties of the Church, even Excommunication were at times imposed to defend worldly interests. As a rule, however, the influence of the Church was directed to control and soften the unjust and cruel elements of the system. (2) Good Results (a) Feudalism supplied a new cohesive force to the nations. At the break-up alike of the Roman Empire and the Germanic tribal loyalty to the tribal chief, a distinct need was felt for some territorial organization. As yet the idea of nationality was non-existent, having indeed little opportunity of expression. How then were the peoples to be made to feel their distinct individuality? Feudalism came with its ready answer, linked Germanic with Roman political systems, built up an inter-connected pyramid that rested on the broad basis of popular possession and culminated in the apex of the king. (b) It introduced moreover into political life the bond of legalitas. Every war of medieval, or rather feudal, times was based on some legal claim, since other casus belli there was none. Political expediency or national expansion were unknown doctrines. No doubt this legalitas as in the English claim to the French throne, often became sheer hypocrisy. Yet on the whole it gave a moral restraint to public opinion in the midst of a passionate age; and the inscription on the simp le tomb of Edward I: Pactum Serva, however at times disregarded by the king himself, still sums up the great bulwark raised inmedieval days against violence and oppression. To break the feudal bond was felony; and more, it was dishonor. On the side of the king or lord, there was the investiture by banner, lance, or other symbol; on the side of the man or tenant, homage for the land, sworn on bended knees with hands placed between the hands of the lord, the tenant standing upright while taking the fealty, as the sign of a personal obligation. (c) Feudalism gave an armed force to Europe when she lay defenseless at the feet of the old mountains over which so many peoples had wandered to conquer the Western world. The onrush of Turk, Saracen, and Moor was checked by the feudal levy which substituted a disciplined professional force for the national fyrd or militia (Oman, Art of War, IV, ii, 357-377, London, 1898). (d) From a modern point of view its most interesting advantage was the fact of its being a real, if only temporary, solution of the land question. It enforced a just distribution of the territorial domains included within the geographical limits of the nation, by allowing individuals to carve out estates for themselves on condition that each landlord, whether secular baron, churchman, even abbess, rendered suit and service to his overlord and demanded them in return from each and every vassal. This effectually taught the principle that owners of land, precisely as such, had to perform in exchange governmental work. Not that there was exactly land nationalization (though many legal and theological expressions of medieval literature seem to imply the existence of this), but that the nation was paid for its land by service in war and by administrative, judicial, and later, by legislative duties. Decline of Feudalism This was due to a multiplicity of causes acting upon one another. Since feudalism was based on the idea of land tenure paid for by governmental work, every process that tended to alter this adjustment tended also to displace feudalism. (1) The new system of raising troops for war helped substitute money for land. The old system of feudal levy became obsolete. It was found impracticable for the lords to retain a host of knights at their service, waiting in idleness for the call of war. Instead, the barons, headed by the Church, enfeoffed these knights on land which they were to own on conditions of service. Gradually these knights, too, found military service exceedingly inopportune and commuted for it a sum of money, paid at first to the immediate lord, eventually demanded directly by the king. Land ceased to have the same value in the eyes of the monarch. Money took its place as the symbol of power. But this was further increased by a new development in military organization. The system by which sheriffs, by virtue of royal writs, summoned the county levy had taken the place of the older arrangements. These commissions of array, issued to the tenants-in-chief, or proclaimed for the lesser vassals in all courts, fairs, and markets, were now exchanged for indentures, by which the king contracted with individual earls, barons, knights, etc, to furnish a fixed number of men at a fixed wage ("They sell the pasture now to buy the horse." -- "Henry V", Prologue to Act II). The old conception of the feudal force had completely disappeared. Further, by means of artillery the attacking force completely dominated the defensive, fortified castles declined in value, archers and foot increased in importance, heavily armored knights were becoming useless in battle, and on the Continent the supremacy of harquebuses and pike was assured. Moreover, as part of this military displacement the reaction against livery and maintenance (cf. Lingard, History of England, IV, v, 139-140, London, 1854) must be noted. The intense evils occasioned all over Europe by this bastard feudalism, or feudalism in caricature, provoked a fierce reaction. In England and on the Continent the new monarchy that sprang from the "Three Magi" of Bacon stimulated popular resentment against the great families of king-makers and broke their power. (2) A second cause of this substitution was the Black Death. For some years the emancipation of villeinage had, for reasons of convenience, been gradually extending. A system had grown up of exchanging tenure by rent for tenure by service, i.e. money was paid in exchange for service, and the lord's fields were tilled by hired laborers. By the Great Pestilence labor was rendered scarce and agriculture was disorganized. The old surplus population that had ever before (Vinogradoff in Eng. Hist. Rev., Oct.,1900, 775-781; April, 1906, 356) drifted from manor to manor no longer existed. The lords pursued their tenants; capital was begging from labor. All statutory enactments to chain labor to the soil proved futile. Villeins escaped in numbers to manors, not of their own lords, and entered into service, this time as hired laborers. That is, the lord became a landlord, the villein became a tenant farmer at will or a landless laborer. Then came the Peasant Revolt all over Europe, the economic complement of the Black Death, by which the old economy was broken up and from which the modern social economy began. On the Continent the result was the metayer system or division of national wealth among small landed proprietors. In England under stock and land leases the same system prevailed for close on a century, then disappeared, emerging eventually after successive ages as our modern "enclosed" agriculture. (3) As in things military and economic, so also in things judicial the idea of landed administrative (sic) sinks below the horizon. All over Europe legal kings, Alphonso the Wise, Phillip the Fair, Charles of Bohemia, Edward I of England, were rearranging the constitutions of their countries. The old curia regis or cour du roy ceases to be a feudal board of tenants-in-chief and becomes, at first partly, then wholly, a body of legal advisors. The king's chaplains and clerks, with their knowledge of civil and canon law, able to spell out the old customaries, take the place of grim warriors. The Placita Regis or cas royaux get extended and simplified. Appeals are encouraged. Civil as well as criminal litigations come into the royal courts. Finance, the royal auditing of the accounts of sheriffs, bailiffs, or seneschals, increases the royal hold on the country, breaks down the power of the landed classes, and draws the king and peoples into alliance against the great nobles. The shape of society is no longer a pyramid but two parallel lines. It can no longer be represented as broadening down from king to nobles, from nobles to people; but the apex and base have withdrawn, the one from completing, the other from supporting the central block. The rise to power of popular assemblies, whether as States General, Cortes, Diets, or Parliaments, betokens the growing importance of the middle class (i.e. of the moneyed, not landed proprietors) is the overthrow of feudalism. The whole literature of the fourteenth century and onward witnesses to this triumph. Henceforward, to the Renaissance, it is eminently bourgeois. Song is no longer an aristocratic monopoly; it passes out into the whole nation. The troubadour is no more; his place is taken by the ballad writer composing in the vulgar tongue a dolce stil nuovo. This new tone is especially evident in "Renard le Contrefait" and "Branche des Royaux Lignage". These show that the old reverence for all that was knightly and of chivalry was passing away. The medieval theory of life, thought, and government had broken down. Stubbs, Constitutional history (Oxford, 1897); Seebohm, English Village Community (London, 1883); Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law (Cambridge, 1898); Maitland, Constitutional History, (Cambridge, 1908), 141-164; Vinogradoff, English Society in the Eleventh Century, (Oxford, 1908); Round, Feudal England, (London, 1895), 225-314; Baldwin, Scutage and Knight Service (Chicago, 1897); Roth, Geschichte des Beneficialwesens (Erlangen, 1850); Waitz, Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte (Berlin, 1880); Lippert, Die deutchen Lehnbuecher (Leipzig, 1903); Rhamen, Die Grosshufen der Nordgermanen (Brunswick, 1905); Luchaire, Histoire des Institutions (Paris, 1883-85); Petit-Deutaillis, Histoire Constitutionelle (1907) tr. Rhodes, (1908); Seignobos in Lavisse and Rambaud, Histoire General, II, (Paris, 1893), I, 1-64; Guilmeroz, Essai sur d'origine de la noblesse en France, (Paris, 1902); Flach, Les origines de l'Ancienne France, III (Paris, 1904). BEDE JARRETT Feuillants Feuillants The Cistercians who, about 1145, founded an abbey in a shady valley in the Diocese of Rieux (now Toulouse) named it Fuliens, later Les Feuillans or Notre-Dame des Feuillans (Lat. folium, leaf), and the religious were soon called Feuillants (Lat. Fulienses). Relaxations crept into the Order of Citeaux as into most religious congregations, and in the sixteenth century the Feuillant monastery was dishonoured by unworthy monks. A reform was soon to be introduced, however, by Jean de la Barriere, b. at Saint-Cere, in the Diocese of Cahors, 29 April, 1544; d. 25 April, 1600. Having completed a successful course in the humanities at Toulouse and Bordeaux, at the age of eighteen he was made commendatory Abbot of the Feuillants by the King of France, succeeding Charles de Crussol, who had just joined the Reformers. After his nomination he went to Paris to continue his studies, and then began his lifelong friendship with the celebrated Arnaud d'Ossat, later cardinal. In 1573 Barriere, having resolved to introduce a reform into his abbey, took the habit of novice, and after obtaining the necessary dispensations, made his solemn profession and was ordained priest, some time after 8 May, 1573. His enterprise was a difficult one. There were twelve monks at Les Feuillans who refused to accept the reform, and unmoved by the example and exhortations of their abbot, resolved to do away with him, by means of poison. Their attempts, however, were frustrated. In 1577, having received the abbatial benediction, he solemnly announced his intention of reforming his monastery, and made the members of the community understand that they had either to accept the reform or leave the abbey; they chose the latter and dispersed to various Cistercian houses. Their departure reduced the community to five persons, two professed clerics, two novices, and the superior. The rule was interpreted in its most rigid sense and in many ways even surpassed. Sartorius in his work "Cistercium bis-tertium" sums up the austerities of the reform in these four points: (1) The Feuillants renounced the use of wine, fish, eggs, butter, salt, and all seasoning. Their nourishment consisted of barley bread, herbs cooked in water, and oatmeal. (2) Tables were abolished; they ate on the floor kneeling. (3) They kept the Cistercian habit, but remained bare-headed and barefoot in the monastery. (4) They slept on the ground or on bare planks, with a stone for pillow. They slept but four hours. Silence and manual labour were held in honour. The community was increased rapidly by the admission of fervent postulants. In 1581 Barriere received from Gregory XIII a Brief of commendation and in 1589 one of confirmation, establishing the Feuillants as a separate congregation. In spite of the opposition of the abbots and general chapters of Citeaux, the reform waxed strong. In 1587 Sixtus V called the Feuillants to Rome, where he gave them the church of S. Pudentiana, and the same year, Henry III, King of France, constructed for them the monastery of St. Bernard, in the Rue Saint-Honore, Paris. In 1590, however, the Peasants' War brought about dissensions. While Barriere remained loyal to Henry III, the majority of his religious declared for the League. As a result, in 1592 Barriere was condemned as a traitor to the Catholic cause, deposed, and reduced to lay communion. It was not until 1600 that, through the efforts of Cardinal Bellarmine, he was exonerated and reinstated. Early in the same year, however, he died in the arms of his friend Cardinal d'Ossat. In 1595 Clement VIII exempted the reform from all jurisdiction on the part of Cistercian abbots, and allowed the Feuillants to draw up new constitutions, containing some mitigations of the primitive rigour. These were approved the same year. In 1598 the Feuillants took possession of a second monastery in Rome, San Bernardo alle Terme. In 1630 Pope Urban VIII divided the congregation into two entirely distinct branches: that of France, under the title of Notre-Dame des Feuillants; and that of Italy, under the name of Bernardoni or Reformed Bernardines. In 1634 the Feuillants of France, and in 1667 the Bernardines of Italy modified somewhat the constitutions of 1595. In 1791 at the time of the suppression of the religious orders, the Feuillants possessed twenty-four abbeys in France; almost all the religious were confessors, exiles, or martyrs. The Bernardines of Italy eventually combined with the Order of Citeaux. The congregation of the Feuillatns has given a number of illustrious personages to the Church, among others: Cardinal Bona, the celebrated liturgist and ascetical writer (d. 1674); Gabriele de Castello (d. 1687), general of the Italian branch, who also received the cardinal's hat; Dom Charles de Saint-Paul, first general of the Feuillants of France, afterwards Bishop of Avranche, who published in 1641 the "Geographia Sacra"; among theologians, Pierre Comagere (d. 1662), Laurent Apisius (d. 1681), and Jean Goulu (d. 1629). Special mention should be made of Carlo Giuseppe Morozzi (Morotius), author of the most important history of the order, the "Cistercii reflores centis ... chronologica historia". Many martyrologies give Jean de la Berriere (25 April) the title of Venerable. The Abbey des Feuillants was authorized by papal Brief to publicly venerate his remains, but the cause of beatification has never been introduced. The Feuillantines, founded in 1588 by Jean de la Barriere, embraced the same rule and adopted the same austerities as the Feuillants. Matrons of the highest distinction sought admission into this severe order, which soon grew in numbers, but during the Revolution, in 1791, the Feuillantines disappeared. HElyot, Hist. des ordres (Paris, 1719); Caretto, Santorale del S. Ordine Cisterciense (Turin, 1708); Sartorius, Cistercium bis-tertium (Prague, 1700); Bazy, Vie du Venerable Jean de la Barriere (Toulouse, 1885); Morotius, Cistercii reflorescentis ... chronologica historia (Turin, 1690); Chalemot, Serie Sanctorum et Beatorum S. O. Cist. (Paris, 1670); Gallia Christiana, XIII; Janauschek, Orig. Cist. (Vienna, 1877); Voyage litteraire de deux religieux de la cong. de S. Maur in MartEne and Durand (Paris, 1717); Jongelinus, Notitia abbatiarum Ord. Cist. (Cologne, 1640). Edmond M. Obrecht. Louis Feuillet Louis Feuillet (FEUILLEE) Geographer, b. at Mane near Forcalquier, France, in 1660; d. at Marseilles in 1732. He entered the Franciscan Order and made rapid progress in his studies, particularly in mathematics and astronomy. He attracted the attention of members of the Academy of Sciences and in 1699 was sent by order of the king on a voyage to the Levant with Cassini to determine the geographical positions of a number of seaports and other cities. The success of the undertaking led him to make a similar journey to the Antilles. He left Marseilles, 5 Feb., 1703, and arrived at Martinique 11 April. A severe sickness was the cause of considerable delay, but in September of the following year he began a cruise along the northern coast of South America, making observations at numerous ports. He likewise collected a number of botanical specimens. Upon his return to France in 1706, his work won recognition from the Government, and he immediately began preparations for a more extended voyage along the western coast of South America to continue his observations. He received the title of royal mathematician, and armed with letters from the ministry set sail from Marseilles, 14 Dec., 1707. He rounded Cape Horn after a tempestuous voyage and visited the principal western ports as far north as Callao. At Lima he spent several months studying the region. He returned to France in 1711, bringing with him much valuable data and a collection of botanical specimens. Louis XIV granted him a pension and built an observatory for him at Marseilles. Feuillet was of a gentle and simple character, and while an enthusiastic explorer, was also a true ecclesiastic. He was the author of "Journal des observations physiques, mathematiques, et botaniques" (Paris, 1714); "Suite du Journal" (Paris, 1725). HENRY M. BROCK Paul-Henri-Corentin Feval Paul-Henri-Corentin Feval Novelist, b. at Rennes, 27 September, 1817; d. in Paris, 8 March 1887. He belonged to an old family of barristers, and his parents wished him to follow the family traditions. He received his secondary instruction at the lycee of Rennes and studied law at the university of the same city. He was admitted to the bar at the age of nineteen, but the loss of first case disgusted him with the practice of law, and he went to Paris, where he secured a position as a bank clerk. His fondness for reading which caused him to neglect his professional duties, led to his dismissal a few months later. He is next found in the service of an advertising concern, then then on the staff of an obscure Parisian paper, and finally as proof-reader in the offices of "Le Nouvelliste." He had already begun to write. A short story, "Le club des Phoques", which he published in "La Revue de Paris", in 1841, attracted attention and opened to Feval the columns of the most important Parisian newspapers. In 1844, under the pseudonym of Francis Trolopp, he wrote "Les mysteres de Londres", which had great success and was translated into several languages. From this time on he hardly ever censed writing, sometimes publishing as many as four novels at a time. Some of them he also tried to adapt for stage but, with the exception of "Le Bossu" which had played many times, his ventures in that direction were unsuccessful. Feval's writings had not always been in conformity with the teachings of the Church. In the early seventies he sincerely returned to his early belief, and between 1877 and 1882 published a revised edition of all his books. He also wrote some new works which show the change. His incessant labour and the financial reverses he had suffered told on his constitution; he was stricken with paralysis. The Societe des Gens de Letteres, of which he was the president, had him placed in the home of Les Freres de Jean de Dieu, where he died. Most of Feval's novels are romantic; in fact he may be considered as the best imitator of the elder Dumas; his fecundity, his imagination, and his power of interesting the reader rival those of his great predecessor; the style, however, too often betrays the haste in which his novels were written. The list of his works is a very long one; the best known besides those already mentioned are: "Etapes d' une conversion" (Paris, 1877); "Merveilles du Mont-Saint-Michael" (Paris, 1879). PIERRE MARQUE Benito Jeronimo Feyjoo y Montenegro Benito Jeronimo Feyjoo y Montenegro A celebrated Spansh writer, b. at Casdemiro, in the parish of Santa Maria de Molias, Galicia, Spain, 8 October, 1676, d. at Oviedo, 26 September, 1764. Intended by his parents for a literary career, he showed from a very early age a predilection for ecclesiastical studies, and in 1688 received the cowl of the Order of St. Benedict at the monastery of San Juan de Samos. A man of profound learning, Feyjoo wrote on a great variety of subjects, embracing nearly every branch of human knowledge. In his writings he attacked many old institutions, customs, superstitions. He criticized, among other things, the system of public instruction in Spain, offering suggestions for reforms; and it was owing to his agitation that many universities adopted new and better methods of teaching logic, physics, and medicine. He naturally stirred up many controversies and was the object of bitter attacks, but he was not without his supporters and defenders. In his long life he wrote many works, the full list of which may be found in Vol. LVI of "La Biblioteca de Autores Espanoles" (Madrid, 1883). The subjects may be conveniently grouped as follows: arts, astronomy and geography; economics, philosophy and metaphysics; philology; mathematics and physics; cultural history; literature, history, medicine. Nearly all are included in the eight volumes which bear the title "Teatro critico universal o discursos varios en todo genero de materias para desengano de errores comunes" (Madrid, 1726-39) and in the five volumes of his "Cartas Eruditas" (Madrid, 1742-60). During the life of the author his works were translated into French, Italian, German, and after his death into English. At his death Feyjoo was laid to rest in the church of San Vicente at Oviedo. A fine statue in his memory ornaments the entrance to the National Library at Madrid. VENTURA FUENTES St. Fiacc St. Fiacc (Lived about 415-520.) A poet, chief bishop of Leinster, and founder of two churches. His father, MacDara, was prince of the Hy-Bairrche in the country around Carlow. His mother was sister of Dubhtach, the chief bard and brehon of Erin, the first of Patrick's converts at Tara, and the apostle's lifelong friend. Fiacc was a pupil to his uncle in the bardic profession and soon embraced the Faith. Subsequently, when Patrick came to Leinster, he sojourned at Dubhtach's house in Hy-Kinsellagh and selected Fiacc, on Dubhtach's recommendation, to be consecrated bishop for the converts of Leinster. Fiacc was then a widower; his wife had recently died, leaving him one son named Fiacre. Patrick gave him an alphabet written with his own hand, and Fiacc acquired with marvellous rapidity the learning necessary for the episcopal order. Patrick consecrated him, and in after time appointed him chief bishop of the province. Fiacc founded the church of Domnach-Fiech, east of the Barrow. Dr. Healy identifies its site at Kylebeg. To this church Patrick presented sacred vestments, a bell, the Pauline Epistles and pastoral staff. After many years of austere life in this place, Fiacc was led by angelic command to remove to the west of the Barrow, for there "he would find the place of his resurrection". The legends state that he was directed to build his oratory where he should meet a hind, his refectory where he should find a boar. He consulted Patrick, the latter fixed the site of his new church at Sletty--"the highland"--a mile and a half northwest of Carlow. Here while built a large monastery, which he ruled as abbot while at the same time he governed the surrounding country as bishop. His annual Lenten retreat to the cave of Drum-Coblai and the rigours of his Lenten fast, on five barley loaves mixed with ashes, are mentioned in his life by Jocelyn of Furness. He suffered for many years from a painful disease and Patrick, commiserating his infirmity, sent him a chariot and a pair of horses to help him in the visitation of the diocese. He lived to a very old age; sixty of his pious disciples were gathered to their rest before him. His festival ha been always observed on the 12th of October. He was buried in his own church at Sletty, his son Fiacre, whom Patrick had ordained priest, occupying the same grave. They are mentioned in several calendars as jointly revered in certain churches. St. Fiacc is the reputed author of the metrical life of St. Patrick in Irish, a document of undoubted antiquity and of prime importance as the earliest biography of the saint that has come down to us. A hymn on St. Brigid, "Audite virginis laudes", has been sometimes attributed to him, but on insufficient grounds. C. MULCAHY St. Fiacre St. Fiacre Abbot, born in Ireland about the end of the sixth century; died 18 August, 670. Having been ordained priest, he retired to a hermitage on the banks of the Nore of which the townland Kilfiachra, or Kilfera, County Kilkenny, still preserves the memory. Disciples flocked to him, but, desirous of greater solitude, he left his native land and arrived, in 628, at Meaux, where St. Faro then held episcopal sway. He was generously received by Faro, whose kindly feelings were engaged to the Irish monk for blessings which he and his father's house had received from the Irish missionary Columbanus. Faro granted him out of his own patrimony a site at Brogillum (Breuil) surrounded by forests. Here Fiacre built an oratory in honour of the Blessed Virgin Mary, a hospice in which he received strangers, and a cell in which he himself lived apart. He lived a life of great mortification, in prayer, fast, vigil, and the manual labour of the garden. Disciples gathered around him and soon formed a monastery. There is a legend that St. Faro allowed him as much land as he might surround in one day with a furrow; that Fiacre turned up the earth with the point of his crosier, and that an officious woman hastened to tell Faro that he was being beguiled; that Faro coming to the wood recognized that the wonderworker was a man of God and sought his blessing, and that Fiacre henceforth excluded women, on pain of severe bodily infirmity, from the precincts of his monastery. In reality, the exclusion of women was a common rule in the Irish foundations. His fame for miracles was widespread. He cured all manner of diseases by laying on his hands; blindness, polypus, fevers are mentioned, and especially a tumour or fistula since called "le fic de S. Fiacre". His remains were interred in the church at Breuil, where his sanctity was soon attested by the numerous cures wrought at his tomb. Many churches and oratories have been dedicated to him throughout France. His shrine at Breuil is still a resort for pilgrims with bodily ailments. In 1234 his remains were placed in a shrine by Pierre, Bishop of Meaux, his arm being encased in a separate reliquary. In 1479 the relics of Sts. Fiacre and Kilian were placed in a silver shrine, which was removed in 1568 to the cathedral church at Meaux for safety from the destructive fanaticism of the Calvinists. In 1617 the Bishop of Meaux gave part of the saint's body to the Grand Duke of Tuscany, and in 1637 the shrine was again opened and part of the vertebrae given to Cardinal Richelieu. A mystery play of the fifteenth century celebrates St. Fiacre's life and miracles. St. John of Matha, Louis XIII, and Anne of Austria were among his most famous clients. He is the patron of gardeners. The French cab derives its name from him. The Hotel de St-Fiacre, in the Rue St-Martin, Paris, in the middle of the seventeenth century first let these coaches on hire. The sign of the inn was an image of the saint, and the coaches in time came to be called by his name. His feast is kept on the 30th of August. C. MULCAHY Marsilio Ficino Marsilio Ficino A philosopher, philologist, physician, b. at Florence, 19 Oct., 1433; d. at Correggio, 1 Oct, 1499. Son of the physician of Cosmo de' Medici, he served the Medicis for three generations and received from them a villa at Monte Vecchio. He studied at Florence and at Bologna; and was specially protected in his early work by Cosmo de' Medici, who chose him to translate the works of Plato into Latin. The Council of Florence (1439) brought to the city a number of Greek scholars, and this fact, combined with the founding of the Platonic Academy, of which Ficino was elected president, gave an impetus to the study of Greek and especially to that of Plato. Ficino became an ardent admirer of Plato and a propagator of Platonism, or rather neo-Platonism, to an unwarranted degree, going so far as to maintain that Plato should be read in the churches, and claiming Socrates and Plato as fore-runners of Christ. He taught Plato in the Academy of Florence, and it is said he kept a light burning before a bust of Plato in his room. It is supposed that the works of Savonarola drew Ficino closer to the spirit of the Church. He was ordained priest in 1477 and became a canon of the cathedral of Florence. His disposition was mild, but at times he had to use his knowledge of musle to drive away melancholy. His knowledge of medicine was applied very largely to himself, becoming almost a superstition in its detail. As a philologist his worth was recognized and Renchlin sent him pupils from Germany. Angelo Poliziano was one of his pupils. As a translator his work was painstaking and falthful, though his acquaintance with Greek and Latin was by no means perfect. He translated the "Argo-nautica", the "Orphic Hymns", Homer's "Hymns", and Hesiod's "Theogony"; his translation of Plato appeared before the Greek text of Plato was published. He also translated Plotinus, Porphyry, Proclus, Iamblichus, Alcinous, Synesius, Psellus, the "Golden Thoughts" of Pythagoras, and the works of Dionysius the Areopagite. When a young man he wrote an "Introduction to the Philosophy of Plato"; his most important work was "Theologia Platonica de animarum lmmortalitate" (Florence, 1482); a shorter form of this work is found in his "Compendium theologiae Platonicae". He respects Aristotle and calls St. Thomas the "glory of theology"; yet for him Plato is the philosopher. Christianity, he says, must rest on philosophic grounds; in Plato alone do we find the arguments to support its claims, hence he considers the revival of Plato an intervention of Providence. Plato does not stop at immediate causes, but rises to the highest cause, God, in Whom he sees all things. The Philosophy of Plato is a logical outcome of previous thought, beginning with the Egyptians and advancing step by step till Plato takes up the mysteries of religion and casts them in a form that made it possible for the neo-Platonist to set them forth clearly. The seed is to be found in Plato, its full expression in the neo-Platonists. Ficino follows this line of thought in speaking of the human soul, which he considered as the image of the God-head, a part of the great chain of existence coming forth from God and leading back to the same source, giving us at the same time a view of the attributes of God of his relations to the world. His style is not always clear. Perhaps his distinctive merit rests on the fact that he introduced Platonic philosophy to Europe. Besides the works already mentioned, he left: "De religione Christiana et fidei pietate", dedicated to Lorenzo de' Medici; "In Epistolas Pauli commentaria", Marsilii Ficini Epistolae (Venice, 1491; Florence, 1497). His collected works: Opera (Florence,1491, Venice, 1516, Basel, 1561). M. SCHUMACHER Julius Ficker Julius Ficker (More correctly Caspar von Ficker). Historian, b. at Paderborn, Germany, 30 April, 1826; d. at Innsbruck, 10 June, 1902. He studied history and law at Bonn, Muenster, and Berlin, and during 1848-49 lived in Frankfort-on-the-Main, where he was closely associated with the noted historian, Bohmer who proved himself a generous friend and patron. In 1852 he proceeded to Bonn, but shortly afterwards accepted an invitation from Count Leo Thun, the reorganizer of the Austrian system of education, to settle at Innsbruck as professor of general history. In 1863, however, he joined the faculty of jurisprudence, and his lectures on political and legal history drew around him a large circle of devoted and admiring pupils. In 1866 he was elected member of the Academy of Sciences, but retired, after being ennobled by the Emperor of Austria, in 1879. His numerous and important works extend over three branches of scientific history (i.e. political and legal history and the science of diplomacy), and in each division he discovered new methods of investigation. Among his writings those of especial note are: "Rainald von Dassel, Reichskanzler und Erzbischof von Koeln" (Cologne, 1850); "Muensterische Chroniken des Mittelalters" (Muenster, 1851); "Engelbert der Heilige, Erzbischof von Koeln" (Cologne, 1853); "Die Ueberreste des deutschen Reichsarchivs in Pisa" (Vienna, 1855). The second division of his works includes "Ueber einen Spiegel deutscher Leute" (Vienna, 1857); "Uber die Entstehungszeit des Sachsenspiegels" (Innsbruck 1859); "Vom Reichsfuerstenstande" (Innsbruck, 1861); "Forschunzen zur Reichs-u. Rechtsgeschichte Italiens" (4 vols, Innsbruck, 1868-74); "Untersuchunsgen zur Rechtsgeschichte" (3 vols., Innsbruck, 1891-97). Finally he proved himself a master in diplomatics in his "Beitraege zur Urkundenlehre" (2 vols., Innsbruck, 1877-78). During the period 1859-1866, he was engaged in a literary controversy with the historian, Heinrich von Sybel, on the significance of the German Empire. Ficker advocated and defended the theory that Austria, on account of its blending of races, was best fitted as successor of the old empire to secure the political advancement both of Central Europe and of Germany. In support of his theory, he wrote "Das deutsche Kaiserreich in seinen universalen und nationalen Beziehungen" (Innsbruck, 1871), and "Deutsches Koenigtum und Kaisertum" (Innsbruck, 1872). As legatee of Bohmer's literary estate, he published the "Acta Imperii selecta" (lnnsbruck, 1870) and directed the completion and revision of the "Regesta Imperii". PATRICUS SCHLAGER Fideism Fideism (Latin fides, faith). A philosophical term meaning a system of philosophy or an attitude of mind, which, denying the power of unaided human reason to reach certitude, affirms that the fundamental act of human knowledge consists in an act of faith, and the supreme criterion of certitude is authority. Fideism has divers degrees and takes divers forms, according to the field of truth to which it is extended, and the various elements which are affirmed as constituting the authority. For some fideists, human reason cannot of itself reach certitude in regard to any truth whatever; for others, it cannot reach certitude in regard to the fundamental truths of metaphysics, morality, and religion, while some maintain that we can give a firm supernatural assent to revelation on motives of credibility that are merely probable. Authority, which according to fideism is the rule of certitude, has its ultimate foundation in divine revelation, reserved and transmitted in all ages through society and manifested by tradition, common sense or some other agent of a social character. Fideism was maintained by Huet, Bishop of Avranches, in his work "De imbecillitate mentis humanae" (Amsterdam, 1748); by de Bonald, who laid great stress on tradition in society as the means of the transmission of revelation and the criterion of certitude; by Lamennais, who assigns as a rule of certitude the general reason (la raison generale) or common consent of the race (Defense de l'essai sur l'indifference, chs. viii, xi); by Bonnetty in "Annales de philosophie chretienne"; by Bautain, Ventura, Ubaghs, and others at Louvain. These are sometimes called moderate fideists, for, though they maintained that human reason is unable to know the fundamental truths of the moral and religious orders, they admitted that, after accepting the teaching of revelation concerning them, human intelligence can demonstrate the reasonableness of such a belief. (cf. Ubaghs, Logicae seu Philosophiae rationalis elementa, Louvain, 1860). In addition to these systematic formulae of fideism, we find throughout the history of philosophy from the time of the sophists to the present day a fideistic attitude of mind, which became more or less conspicuous at different periods. Fideism owes its origin to distrust in human reason, and the logical sequence of such an attitude is scepticism. It is to escape from this conclusion that some philosophers, accepting as a principle the impotency of reason, have emphasized the need of belief on the part of human nature, either asserting the primacy of belief over reason or else affirming a radical separation between reason and belief, that is, between science and philosophy on the one hand and religion on the other. Such is the position taken by Kant, when he distinguishes between pure reason, confined to subjectivity, and practical reason, which alone is able to put us by an act of faith in relation with objective reality. It is also a fideistic attitude which is the occasion of agnosticism, of positivism, of pragmatism and other modern forms of anti-intellectualism. As against these views, it must be noted that authority, even the authority of God, cannot be the supreme criterion of certitude, and an act of faith cannot be the primary form of human knowledge. This authority, indeed, in order to be a motive of assent, must be previously acknowledged as being certainly valid; before we believe in a proposition as revealed by God, we must first know with certitude that God exists, that He reveals such and such a proposition, and that His teaching is worthy of assent, all of which questions can and must be ultimately decided only by an act of intellectual assent based on objective evidence. Thus, fideism not only denies intellectual knowledge, but logically ruins faith itself. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Church has condemned such doctrines. In 1348, the Holy See proscribed certain fideistic propositions of Nicholas d'Autrecourt (cf. Denzinger, Enchiridion, 10th ed., nn. 553-570). In his two Encyclicals, one of September, 1832, and the other of July, 1834, Gregory XVI condemned the political and philosophical ideas of Lamenais. On 8 September, 1840, Bautain was required to subscribe to several propositions directly opposed to Fideism, the first and the fifth of which read as follows: "Human reason is able to prove with certitude the existence of God; faith, a heavenly gift, is posterior to revelation, and therefore cannot be properly used against the atheist to prove the existence of God"; and "The use of reason precedes faith and, with the help of revelation and grace, leads to it." The same proposition were subscribed to by Bonnetty on 11 June, 1855 (cf. Denzinger, nn. 1650-1652). In his Letter of 11 December, 1862, to the Archbishop of Munich, Pius IX, while condemning Frohschammer's naturalism, affirms the ability of human reason to reach certitude concerning the fundamental truths of the moral and religious order (cf. Denzinger, 1666-1676). And, finally, the Vatican Council teaches as a dogma of Catholic faith that "one true God and Lord can be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason by means of the things that are made" (Const., De Fide Catholica", Sess. III, can. i, De Revelatione; cf. Granderath, "Constitutiones dogmaticae Conc. Vatic.", Freiburg, 1892, p. 32 cf. Denzinger, n. 1806). As to the opinion of those who maintain that our supernatural assent is prepared for by motives of credibility merely probable, it is evident that it logically destroys the certitude of such an assent. This opinion was condemned by Innocent XI in the decree of 2 March, 1679 (cf. Denzinger, n. 1171), and by Pius X in the decree "Lamentabili sane" n. 25: "Assensus fidei ultimo innititur in congerie probabilitatum" (The assent of faith is intimately based on a sum of probabilities). Revelation, indeed, is the supreme motive of faith in supernatural truths, yet, the existence of this motive and its validity has to be established by reason. No one will deny the importance of authority and tradition or common consent in human society for our knowledge of natural truths. It is quite evident that to despise the teaching of the sages, the scientific discoveries of the past, and the voice of common consent would be to condemn ourselves to a perpetual infancy in knowledge, to render impossible any progress in science, to ignore the social character of man, and to make human life intolerable: but, on the other hand, it is an error to make these elements the supreme criteria of truth, since they are only particular rules of certitude, the validity of which is grounded upon a more fundamental rule. It is indeed true that moral certitude differs from mathematical, but the difference lies not in the firmness or validity of the certainty afforded, but in the process employed and the dispositions required by the nature of the truths with which they respectively deal. The Catholic doctrine on this question is in accord with history and philosophy. Rejecting both rationalism and fideism, it teaches that human reason is capable (physical ability) of knowing the moral and religious truths of the natural order; that it can prove with certainty the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, and can acknowledge most certainly the teaching of God; that, however, in the present conditions of life, it needs (of moral necessity) the help of revelation to acquire a sufficient knowledge of all the natural truths necessary to direct human life according to the precepts of natural religion (Conc. Vatic., "De Fide Cath.", cap. ii; cf. St. Thomas, "Cont. Gent.", Lib. I, c, iv). PERRONE, Praelectiones theologicae, vol. I: De ver Religione; OLLE-LAPRUNE, De la Certitude Morale (5th ed., Paris, 1905); MERCIER, Crit riologie g n rale (4th ed., Louvain, 1900), III, ch. i; JOHN RICKABY, The First Principles of Knowledge (4th ed., London, 1901), chs. xii, xiii. G.M. SAUVAGE St. Fidelis of Sigmaringen St. Fidelis of Sigmaringen Born in 1577, at Sigmaringen, Prussia, of which town his father Johannes Rey was burgomaster; died at Sevis, 24 April, 1622. On the paternal side he was of Flemish ancestry. He pursued his studies at the University of Freiburg in the Breisgau, and in 1604 became tutor to Wilhelm von Stotzingen, with whom he travelled in France and Italy. In the process for Fidelis's canonization Wilhelm von Stotzingen bore witness to the severe mortifications his tutor practised on these journeys. In 1611 he returned to Freiburg to take the doctorate in canon and civil law, and at once began to practise as an advocate. But the open corruption which found place in the law courts determined him to relinquish that profession and to enter the Church. He was ordained priest the following year, and immediately afterwards was received into the Order of Friars Minor of the Capuchin Reform at Freiburg, taking the name of Fidelis. He has left an interesting memorial of his novitiate and of his spiritual development at that time in a book of spiritual exercises which he wrote for himself. This work was re-edited by Father Michael Hetzenauer, O.F.M. Cap., and republished in 1893 at Stuttgart under the title: "S. Fidelis a Sigmaringen exercitia seraphicae devotionis". From the novitiate he was sent to Constance to finish his studies in theology under Father John Baptist, a Polish friar of great repute for learning and holiness. At the conclusion of his theological studies Fidelis was appointed guardian first of the community at Rheinfelden, and afterwards at Freiburg and Feldkirch. As a preacher his burning zeal earned for him a great reputation. From the beginning of his apostolic career he was untiring in his efforts to convert heretics nor did he confine his efforts in this direction to the pulpit, but also used his pen. He wrote many pamphlets against Calvinism and Zwinglianism though he would never put his name to his writings. Unfortunately these publications have long been lost. Fidelis was still guardian of the community at Feldkirch when in 1621 he was appointed to undertake a mission in the country of the Grisons with the purpose of bringing back that district to the Catholic Faith. The people there had almost all gone over to Calvinism, owing partly to the ignorance of the priests and their lack of zeal. In 1614 the Bishop of Coire had requested the Capuchins to undertake missions amongst the heretics in his diocese, but it was not until 1621 that the general of the order was able to send friars there. In that year Father Ignatius of sergamo was commissioned with several other friars to place himself at the disposal of this bishop for missionary work, and a similar commission was given to Fidelis who however still remained guardian of Feldkirche. Before setting out on this mission Fidelis was appointed by authority of the papal nuncio to reform the Benedictine monastery at Pfafers. He entered upon his new labours in the true apostolic spirit. Since he first entered the order he had constantly prayed, as he confided to a fellow-friar, for two favours: one, that he might never fall into mortat sin; the other, that he might die for the Faith. In this Spirit he now set out, ready to give his life in preaching the Faith. He took with him his crucifix, Bible, Breviary, and the book of the rule of his order; for the rest, he went in absolute poverty, trusting to Divine Providence for his daily sustenance. He arrived in Mayenfeld in time for Advent and began at once preaching and catechizing; often preaching in several places the same day. His coming aroused strong opposition and he was frequently threatened and insulted. He not only preached in the Catholic churches and in the public streets, but occasionally in the conventicles of the heretics. At Zizers one of the principal centres of his activity, he held conferences with the magistrates and chief townsmen, often far into the night. They resulted in the conversion of Rudolph de Salis, the most influential man in the town, whose public recantation was followed by many conversions. Throught the winter Fidelis laboured indefatigably and with such success that the heretic preachers were seriously alarmed and set themselves to inflame the people against him by representing that his mission was political rather than religious and that he was preparing the way for the subjugation of the country by the Austrians. During the Lent of 1622 he preached with especial fervour. At Easter he returned to Feldkirch to attend a chapter of the order and settle some affairs of his community. By this time the Congregation of the Propaganda had been established in Rome, and Fidelis was formally constituted by the Congregation, superior of the mission in the Grisons. He had, however, a presentiment that his laborers would shortly be brought to a close by a martyr's death. Preaching a farewell sermon at Feldkirch he said as much. On re-entering the country of the Grisons he was met everywhere with the cry: "Death to the Capuchins!" On 24 April, being then at Grusch, he made his confession and afterwards celebrated Mass and preached. Then he set out for Sevis. On the way his companions noticed that he was particularly cheerful. At Sevis he entered the church and began to preach, but was interrupted by a sudden tumult both within and without the church. Several Austrian soldiers who were guarding the doors of the church were killed and Fidelis himself was struck. A Calvinist present offered to lead him to a place of security. Fidelis thanked the man but said his life was in the hands of God. 0utside the church he was surrounded by a crowd led by the preachers who offered to save his life if he would apostatize. Fidelis replied: "I came to extirpate heresy, not to embrace it", whereupon he was struck down. He was the first martyr of the Congregation of Propaganda. His body was afterwards taken to Feldkirch and buried in the church of his order, except his head and left arm, which were placed in the cathedral at Coire. He was beatified in 1729, and canonized in 1745. St. Fidelis is usually represented in art with a crucifix and with a wound in the head; his emblem is a bludgeon. His feast is kept on 24 April. FATHER CUTHBERT Fiesole Fiesole DIOCESE OF FIESOLE (FAESULANA). Diocese in the province of Tuscany, suffragan of Florence. The town is of Etruscan origin, as may be seen from the remains of its ancient walls. In pagan antiquity it was the seat of a famous school of augurs, and every year twelve young men were sent thither from Rome to study the art of divination. Sulla colonized it with veterans, who afterwards, under the leadership of Manlius, supported the cause of Catiline. Near Fiesole the Vandals and Suevi under Radagaisus were defeated (405) by hunger rather than by the troops of Stilicho. During the Gothic War (536-53) the town was several times besieged. In 539 Justinus, the Byzantine general, captured it and razed its fortifications. In the early Middle Ages Fiesole was more powerful than Florence in the valley below, and many wars arose between them. In 1010 and 1025 Fiesole was sacked by the Florentines, and its leading families obliged to take up their residence in Florence. According to local legend the Gospel was first preached at Fiesole by St. Romulus, a disciple of St. Peter. The fact that the ancient cathedral (now the Abbazia Fiesolana) stands outside the city is a proof that the Christian origins of Fiesole date from the period of the persecutions. The earliest mention of a Bishop of Fiesole is in a letter of Gelasius I (492-496). A little later, under Vigilius (537-55), a Bishop Rusticus is mentioned as papal legate at one of the Councils of Constantinople. The legendary St. Alexander is said by some to belong to the time of the Lombard King Autari (end of the sixth century), but the Bollandists assign him to the reign of Lothair (middle of the ninth century). A very famous bishop is St. Donatus, an Irish monk, the friend and adviser of Emperors Louis the Pious and Lothair. He was elected in 826 and is buried in the cathedral, where his epitaph, dictated by himself, may still be seen. He founded the abbey of San Martino di Mensola; Bishop Zanobi in 890 founded that of St. Michael at Passignano, which was afterwards given to the Vallombrosan monks. Other bishops were Hildebrand of Lucca (1220), exiled by the Florentines; St. Andrew Corsini (1352), born in 1302 of a noble Florentine family, and who, after a reckless youth, became a Carmelite monk, studied at Paris, and as bishop was renowned as a peacemaker between individuals and States. He died 6 January, 1373, and was canonized by Urban VIII. Other famous bishops were the Dominican Fra Jacopo Altovita (1390), noted for his zeal against schism; Antonio Aglio (1466), a learned humanist and author of a collection of lives of the saints; the Augustinian Guglielmo Bachio (1470), a celebrated preacher, and author of commentaries on Aristotle and on the "Sentences" of Peter Lombard; Francesco Cataneo Diaceto (1570), a theologian at the Council of Trent and a prolific writer; Lorenzo della Robbia (1634), who built the seminary. Among the glories of Fiesole should be mentioned the painter Lorenzo Monaco (1370-1424). But the greatest name associated with the history of the city is that of Blessed Giovanni Angelico, called da Fiesole (1387-1455). His baptismal name was Guido, but, entering the convent of the Reformed Dominicans at Fiesole, he took the name of Giovanni in religion; that of Angelico was afterwards given to him in allusion to the beauty and purity of his works. The Cathedral of St. Romulus was built in 1028 by Bishop Jacopo Bavaro with materials taken from several older edifices; it contains notable sculptures by Mino da Fiesole. The old cathedral became a Benedictine abbey, and in course of time passed into the hands of the regular canons of Lateran. It once possessed a valuable library, long since dispersed. The abbey was closed in 1778. The diocese has 254 parishes and 155,800 souls. Within its limits there are 12 monasteries of men, including the famous Vallombrosa, and 24 convents for women. The principal holy places of Fiesole are: (1) the cathedral (Il Duomo), containing the shrine of St. Romulus, martyr, according to legend the first Bishop of Fiesole, and that of his martyred companions, also the shrine of St. Donatus of Ireland; (2) the Badia or ancient cathedral at the foot of the hill on which Fiesole stands, supposed to cover the site of the martyrdom of St. Romulus; (3) the room in the bishop's palace where St. Andrew Corsini lived and died; (4) the little church of the Primerana in the cathedral square, where the same saint was warned by Our Lady of his approaching death; (5) the church of S. Alessandro, with the shrine of St. Alexander, bishop and martyr; (6) the monastery of S. Francesco on the crest of the hill, with the cells of St. Bernardine of Siena and seven Franciscan Beati; (7) S. Girolamo, the home of Venerable Carlo dei Conti Guidi, founder of the Hieronymites of Fiesole (1360); (8) S. Domenico, the novice-home of Fra Angelico da Fiesole and of St. Antoninus of Florence; (9) Fontanelle, a villa near S. Domenico where St. Aloysius came to live in the hot summer months, when a page at the court of Grand Duke Francesco de' Medici; (10) Fonte Lucente, where a miraculous crucifix is greatly revered. A few miles distant is (11) Monte Senario, the cradle of the Servite Order, where its seven holy founders lived in great austerity and were cheered at their death by the songs of angels; also (12) S. Martino di Mensola, with the body of St. Andrew, an Irish saint, still incorrupt. CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d'Italia (Venice, 1846), XVII, 7-72; AMMIRATO, Gli Vescovi di Fiesole (Florence, 1637); PHILLIMORE, Fra Angelico (London, 1881). U. BENIGNI Francisco de Figueroa Francisco de Figueroa A celebrated Spanish poet, surnamed "the Divine", b. at Alcala de Henares, c. 1540, d. there, 1620. Little is known of his life except that he was of noble family, received his education at the University of Alcala, and followed a military career for a time, taking part in campaigns in Italy and Flanders. From a very early age Figueroa showed unusual poetical talent, and his poems are full of fire and passion. His work first attracted attention in Italy, where he resided for a time, but it was not long before he had earned a brilliant reputation in his own country. Following in the footsteps of Boscan Almogaver and Garcilaso, to whose school he belonged, he wrote pastoral poems in the Italian metres, and was one of the first Spanish poets who used with much success blank verse, which had been introduced by Boscan in 1543. His best-known and most likely praised work is the eclogue "Tirsis", written entirely in blank verse. He was highly praised by Cervantes in his "Galatea". It is unfortunate that but a small part of the works of this brilliant poet have reached us, the greater portion having been burned by his direction just before his death. A small part, however, was preserved and published by Louis Tribaldos de Toledo, at Lisbon in 1625. They were reprinted in 1785 and again in 1804. The best of Figueroa's works appear in "La Biblioteca de Auctores Espanoles" of Rivadeneira, vol XLII. TICKNOR, History of Spanish Literature (3 vols., New York, 1849). VENTURA FUENTES Francisco Garcia de la Rosa Figueroa Francisco Garcia de la Rosa Figueroa Franciscan, b. in the latter part of the eighteenth century at Toluca, in the Archdiocese of Mexico; date of death unknown. Figueroa possessed extraordinary administrative powers and for more than forty years directed the affairs of his order with singular prudence and ability, being lector emeritus of his order, prefect of studies of the college of Tlaltelulco, superior of general convents, definitor, custodian, twice provincial of the province of Santo Evangelio, and visitor to the other provinces of New-Spain. He was much beloved by the people and highly esteemed by the viceroys and bishops. On 21 Feb., 1790, a royal order was received directing that all documents shedding light on the history of New Spain should be copied and sent to Spain, the order designating in some instances special documents which were wanted. D. Juan Vincente de Guemes Pacheco de Padilla, second Count of Revillagigedo, viceroy from 1789 to 1794, entrusted to Father Figueroa the work od selecting, arranging, and copying these manuscripts. To this task Father Figueroa brought such marvellous activity and rare judgment, both in selecting the material and the copyists, that in less than three years he turned over to the Government thirty-two folio volumes of almost a thousand pages each, in duplicate, containing copies of original documents collected from the archives of convents and private collections, for the most part almost forgotten, and of greatest value for the knowledge of political and ecclesiastical history of the provinces. Such a collection contained quite inevitably some material not of the first importance; there were documents of all kinds, but the collection as a whole was one of great value. One copy, which was sent to Spain and examined by the chronicler Munoz, is preserved in the Academia de Historia; the other was kept in Mexico in the Secretaria del Virreinado, and from there was transferred to the general archives of the Palacio Nacional where it is still kept. The first volume of this was missing, but about 1872 a copy of it was made from that preserved in Madrid. To the original thirty-two volumes another was added, compiled years afterwards by some Franciscans, which contains a minute index of the contents of the work. Two other copies of the thirty-two volumes were found; one is in Mexico, the property of Senor Agueda, and the other in the United States in the H.H. Bancroft collection. As this work of Figueroa's has never been published it may be of interest to summarize the contents of the different volumes. They are as follows: I. Thirty fragments from the Museo de Boturini, among them four letters from Father Salvatierra. II. Treatise on political virtues by D. Carlos Sigueenza; life and matyrdom of the children of Tlaxcala; narrative of Mexico by Father Geronimo Salmeron, Father Velez, and others. III. Report of Father Posadas on Texas; three fragments on ancient history, Canticles of Netzahualcoyotl, etc. IV. Narrative of Ixtlixochitl. V-VI. Conquest of the Kingdom of New Galicia by D. Matias de la Mota Padilla. VII-VIII. Introduction to the history of Michoacan. IX-X-XI. Chronicle of Michoacan by Fray Pablo Beaumont. XII. Mexican Chronicle by D. Hernando Alvarado Tezozomoc. XIII. History of the Chichimces by Ixtlilxochitl. XIV. Reminiscences of the City of Mexico. Reminiscences for tlie history of Sinaloa. XVI-XVII. Notes for the history of Sonora. XVIII. Important letters to elucidate the history of Sonora and Snaloa. XIX-XX. Documents for the history of New vizcaya (Durango). XXI. Establishment and progress of the Missions of Old California. XXII-XXIII. Notes on New California. XXIV. Log-book kept by the Fathers Garces, Barbastro, Font, and Capellio; voyage of the frigate "Santiago"; "Diario" of Urrea and of D.J.B. Anza, etc. XXV-XXVI. Documents for the ecclesiastical and civil history of New Mexico. XXVII-XXVIII. Documents for the civil and ecclesiastical history of the Province of Texas. XXIX. Documents for the history of Coahuila and Central Mexico (Seno Mexicano). XXX. Tampico, Rio Verde, and Nuevo Leon. XXXI. Notes on the cities of Vera Cruz, Cordova, Oaxaca, Puebla, Tepotzotlan, Queretaro, Guanajuato, Guadalajara, Zacatecas, Nootka. XXXII. Pious reminiscences of the Indian nation. CAMILLUS CRIVELLI Francesco Filelfo Franscesco Filelfo A humanist, b. at Tolentino, 25 July, 1398; d. at Florence 31 July, 1481. He studied grammar, rhetoric, and Latin literature at Padua, where he was appointed professor at the age of eighteen. In 1417 he was invited to teach eloquence and moral philosophy at Venice, where the rights citizenship were conferred upon him. Two years later he was appointed secretary tot he Venetian consul-general at Constantinople. Arriving there in 1420, he at once began the study of Greek under John Chrysoloras, whose daughter he afterwards married, and he was received with great favour by the Emperor John Palaeologus, by whom he was employed on several important diplomatic missions. In 1427, receiving an invitation to the chair of eloquence at Venice, Filelfo returned there with a great collection of Greek books. The following year he was called to Bologna and in 1429 to Florence, where he was received with the greatest enthusiasm. During his five years residence there he engaged in numerous quarrels with the Florentine scholars and incurred the hatred of the Medici, so that in 1434 he was forced to leave the city. He went to Siena and later to Milan, where he was welcomed by Filippo Maria Visconti, who showered honours upon him. Some years later, after Milan had been forcibly entered by Francesco Storza, Filelfo wrote a history of Storza's life in a Latin epic poem of sixteen books, called the "Storziad". In 1474 he left Milan to accept a professorship at Rome, where, owing to a disagreement with Sixtus IV, he did not remain long. He went back to Milan, but left there in 1481 to teach Greek at Florence, having long before become reconciled with the Medici. He died in poverty only a fortnight after his arrival. The Florentines buried him in the church of the Annunziata. Filelfo was the most restless of all the humanists, as is indicated by the number of places at which he taught. He was a man of indefatigable activity but arrogant, rapacious, fond of luxury, and always ready to assail his literary rivals. His writings include numerous letters (last ed. by Legrand, Paris, 1892), speeches (Paris, 1515), and satires (Venice, 1502); besides many scattered pieces in prose, published under the title "Convivia Mediolanensia", and a great many Latin translations from the Greek. In both these languages he wrote with equal fluency. SYMONDS, Renaissance in Italy (New York, 1900), II: The Revival of Learning; ROSMINI, Vita di Fr. Filelfo (3 vols., Milan, 1808); VOIGT, Die Wiederbelebung des classischen Alterthums (Berlin, 1893), I; SANDYS, History of Classified Scholarship, (Cambridge, 1908), I, 55-57. EDMUND BURKE Filial Church Filial Church (Latin filialis, from filia, daughter), a church to which is annexed the cure of souls, but which remains dependent on another church. As this dependence on the mother church may be of various degrees, the term filial church may have naturally more than one signification as to minor details. Ordinarily, a filial church is a parish church which has been constituted by the dismemberment of an older parish. Its rector is really a parish priest, having all the essential rights of such a dignity, but still bound to defer in certain accidental matters to the pastor of the mother church. The marks of deference required are not so fixed that local custom may not change them. Such marks are: obtaining the baptismal water from the mother church, making a moderate offering of money (fixed by the bishop) to the parish priest of the mother church annually, and occasionally during the year assisting with his parishioners in a body at services in the older church. In some places this last includes a procession and the presentation of a wax candle. If the filial church has been endowed from the revenues of the mother church, the parish priest of the latter has the right of presentation when a pastor for the dependent church is to be appointed. This term is also applied to churches established within the limits of an extensive parish, without any dismemberment of the parochial territory. The Pastor of such a filial church is really only a curate or assistant of the parish priest of the mother church, and he is removable at will, except in cases where he has a benefice. The parish priest may retain to himself the right of performing baptism, assisting at marriages and similar offices in the filial church, or he may ordain that such functions be performed only in the parish church, restricting the services in the filial church to Mass and Vespers. In practice, however, the curates of such filial churches act as parish priests for their districts, although by canon law the dependence upon the pastor of the mother church remains of obligation, though all outward manifestation of subjection has ceased. In the union of two parishes in the manner called "union by subjection", the less important of the parish churches may sink into a condition scarcely distinguisable from that of a filial church and be comprehended under this term. In other words, the parish priest may govern such a church by giving it over to one of his assistants. It is true that the subjected church does not lose its parochial rights, yet its dependence on the parish priest of another church and its administration by a vicar has led to its being included loosely under the designation filial church. Historically, this term has also been applied to those churches, often in different countries, founded by other and greater churches. In this sense the great patriarchical Sees of Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Constantinople established many filial churches which retained a special dependence upon the church founding them. The term Mother Church, however, as applied to Rome, has a special significance as indicating its headship of all churches. WILLIAM H. W. FANNING Vincenzo Da Filicaja Vincenzo da Filicaja Lyric poet; born at Florence, 30 December, 1642; died there 24 September, 1707. At Pisa he was trained for the legal profession, which he later pursued, but during his academic career he devoted no little attention to philosophy, literature, and music. Returning to Florence, he was made a member of the Accademia della Crusca and of the Arcadia, and enjoined the patronage of the illustrious convert to the Catholic faith, Christina, ex-Queen of Sweden, who with her purse helped to lighten his family burdens. A lawyer and magistrate of integrity, he never attained wealth. His probity and ability, however, were acknowledged by those in power, and he was appointed to several public offices of great trust. Thus, already a senator by the nomination of Grand Duke Cosmo III, he was chosen governor of Volterra in 1696, and of Pisa in 1700, and then was given the important post of Segretario delle Tratte at Florence. An ardent Catholic, he not infrequently gives expression to his religious feeling in his lyrics, which, even though they may not entitle him to rank among the greatest of Italian poets, will always attract attention because of their relative freedom from the literay vices of the time, the bombast, the exaggerations and obscurity of Marinism. Notable among his compositions are the odes or canzoni, which deal with the raising of the siege of Vienna by John Sobieski, when in 1683 it was beleaguered by the Turks, and the sonnets in which he bewails the woes of Italy whose beauty had made her the object of foreign cupidity and whose sons were incapable of fighting for her and could only enlist mercenaries to defend her. The most famous of the sonnets is perhaps the "Italia, Italia, O tu cui feo la sorte", which Byron rendered with skill in the fourth canto of Chide Harold. Some letters, elogi, orazioni, and Latin carmina, constitute the rest of his literary output. After the death of Filicaja, an edition of the "Poesie toscane", containing the lyrics, was given to the world by his son (Florence, 1707); a better edition is that of Florence, 1823; selected poems are given in "Lirici del secolo XVII", published by Sonzogno. J.D.M. FORD Filioque Filioque Filioque is a theological formula of great dogmatic and historical importance. On the one hand, it expresses the Procession of the Holy Ghost from both Father and Son as one Principle; on the other, it was the occasion of the Greek schism. Both aspects of the expression need further explanation. I. DOGMATIC MEANING OF FILIOQUE The dogma of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son as one Principle is directly opposed to the error that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, not from the Son. Neither dogma nor error created much difficulty during the course of the first four centuries. Macedonius and his followers, the so-called Pneumatomachi, were condemned by the local Council of Alexandria (362) and by Pope St. Damasus (378) for teaching that the Holy Ghost derives His origin from the Son alone, by creation. If the creed used by the Nestorians, which was composed probably by Theodore of Mopsuestia, and the expressions of Theodoret directed against the ninth anathema by Cyril of Alexandria, deny that the Holy Ghost derives His existence from or through the Son, they probably intend to deny only the creation of the Holy Ghost by or through the Son, inculcating at the same time His Procession from both Father and Son. At any rate, the double Procession of Holy Ghost was discussed at all in those earlier times, the controversy was restricted to the East and was of short duration. The first undoubted denial of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost we find in the seventh century among the heretics of Constantinople when St. Martin I (649-655), in his synodal writing against the Monothelites, employed the expression "Filioque". Nothing is known about the further development of this controversy; it doesnot seem to have assumed any serious proportions, as the question was not connected with the characteristic teaching of the Monothelites. In the Western church the first controversy concerning the double Procession of the Holy Ghost was conducted with the envoys of the Emperor Constantine Copronymus, in the Synod of Gentilly near Paris, held in the time of Pepin (767). The synodal Acts and other information do not seem to exist. At the beginning of nineth century, John, a Greek monk of the monastery of St. Sabas, charged the monks of Mt. Olivet with heresy, they had inserted the Filioque into the Creed. In the second half the same century, Photius the successor of the unjustly deposed Ignatius, Patriarch of Constatinople (858), denied the Procession of Holy Ghost from the Son, and opposed the insertion of the Filioque into the Constantinopolitan creed. The same position was maintained towards the end of the tenth century by the Patriarchs Sisinnius and Sergius, and about the middle of the eleventh century by the Patriarch Michael Caerularius, who renewed and completed the Greek schism. The rejection of the Filioque, or the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son, and the denial of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff constitute even to-day the principal errors of the Greek church. While outside the Church doubt as to the double Procession of the Holy Ghost grew into open denial, inside the Church the doctrine of the Filioque was declared to be a dogma of faith in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Second Council of Lyons (1274), and the Council of Florence (1438-1445). Thus the Church proposed in a clear and authoritative form the teaching of Sacred Scripture and tradition on the Procession of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity. As to the Sacred scripture, the inspired writers call the holy Ghost the Spirit of the Son (Gal., iv, 6), the spirit of Christ (Rom., viii, 9), the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Phil., i, 19), just as they call Him the Spirit of the Father (Matt., x, 20) and the Spirit of God (I Cor., ii, ll). Hence they attribute to the Holy Ghost the same relation to the Son as to the Father. Again, according to Sacred Scripture, the Son sends the Holy Ghost (Luke, xxiv, 49; John, xv, 26; xvi, 7; xx, 22; Acts, ii, 33,; Tit., iii.6), just as the Father sends the Son (Rom., iii. 3; etc.), and as the Father sends the Holy Ghost (John, xiv, 26). Now the "mission" or "sending" of one Divine Person by another does not mean merely that the Person said to be sent assumes a particular character, at the suggestion of Himself in the character of Sender, as the Sabellians maintained; nor does it imply any inferiority in the Person sent, as the Arians taught; but it denotes, according to the teaching of the weightier theologians and Fathers, the Procession of the Person sent from the Person Who sends. Sacred Scripture never presents the Father as being sent by the Son, nor the Son as being sent by the Holy Ghost. The very idea of the term "mission" implies that the person sent goes forth for a certain purpose by the power of the sender, a power exerted on the person sent by way of a physical impulse, or of a command, or of prayer, or finally of production; now, Procession, the analogy of production, is the only manner admissible in God. It follows that the inspired writers present the Holy Ghost as proceeding from the Son, since they present Him as sent by the Son. Finally, St. John (XVI, 13-15) gives the words of Christ: "What things soever he [the Spirit] shall hear, he shall speak; ...he shall receive of mine, and shew it to you. All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine." Here a double consideration is in place. First, the Son has all things that the Father hath, so that He must resemble the Father in being the Principle from which the Holy Ghost proceeds. Secondly, the Holy Ghost shall receive "of mine" according to the words of the Son; but Procession is the only conceivable way of receiving which does not imply dependence or inferiority. In other words, the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son. The teaching of Sacred Scripture on the double Procession of the Holy Ghost was faithfully preserved in Christian tradition. Even the Greek Orthodox grant that the Latin Fathers maintain the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the son. The great work on the Trinity by Petavius (Lib. VII, cc. iii sqq.) develops the proof of this contention at length. Here we mention only some of the later documents in which the patristic doctrine has been clearly expresssed: the dogmatic letter of St. Leo I to Turribius, Bishop of Astorga, Ep. XV, c. i (447); the so-called Athanasian Creed; several councils held at Toledo in the years 447, 589 (III), 675 (XI), 693 (XVI); the letter of Pope Hormisdas to the Emperor Justius, Ep. lxxix (521); St. Martin I's synodal utterance against the Monothelites, 649-655; Pope Adrian I's answer to the Caroline Books, 772-795; The Synods of Merida (666), Braga (675), and Hatfield (680); the writing of Pope Leo III (d. 816) to the monks of Jerusalem; the letter of Pope Stephen V (d. 891) to the Moravian King Suentopolcus (Suatopluk), Ep. xiii; the symbol of Pope Leo IX (d. 1054); the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215; the Second Council of Lyons, 1274; and the council of Florence, 1439. Some of the foregoing conciliar documents may be seen in Hefele, "Conciliengeschichte" (2d ed.), III, nn. 109, 117, 252, 411; cf. P.G. XXVIII, 1557 sqq. Bessarion, speaking in the Council of Florence, inferred the tradition of the Greek Church from the teaching of the Latin; since the Greek and Latin Fathers before the nineth century were the members of the same Church, it is antecedently improbable that the Eastern Fathers should have denied a dogma firmly maintained by the Western. Moreover, there are certain considerations which form a direct proof for the belief of the Greek Fathers in the double Procession of the Holy Ghost. + First, the Greek Fathers enumerate the Divine Persons in the same order as the Latin Fathers; they admit that the Son and the Holy Ghost are logically and ontologically connected in the same way as the son and Father [St. Basil, Ep. cxxv; Ep. xxxviii (alias xliii) ad Gregor. fratrem; "Adv.Eunom.", I, xx, III, sub init.] + Second, the Greek Fathers establish the same relation between the Son and the Holy ghost as between the Father and the Son; as the Father is the fountain of the Son, so is the Son the fountain of the Holy Ghost (Athan., Ep. ad Serap. I, xix, sqq.; "De Incarn.", ix; Orat. iii, adv. Arian., 24; Basil, "Adv. Eunom.", v, in P.G.., XXIX, 731; cf. Greg. Naz., Orat. xliii, 9). + Third, passages are not wanting in the writings of the Greek Fathers in which the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son is clearly maintained: Greg. Thaumat., "Expos. fidei sec.", vers. saec. IV, in Rufius, Hist. Eccl., VII, xxv; Epiphan., Haer., c. lxii, 4; Greg. Nyss. Hom. iii in orat. domin.); Cyril of Alexandria, "Thes.", ass. xxxiv; the second canon of synod of forty bishops held in 410 at Seleucia in Mesopotamia; the Arabic versions of the Canons of St. Hippolytus; the Nestorian explanation of the Symbol. The only Scriptural difficulty deserving our attention is based on the words of Christ as recorded in John, xv, 26, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, without mention being made of the Son. But in the first place, it can not be shown that this omission amounts to a denial; in the second place, the omission is only apparent, as in the earlier part of the verse the Son promises to "send" the Spirit. The Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son is not mentioned in the Creed of Constantinople, because this Creed was directed against the Macedonian error against which it sufficed to declare the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father. The ambiguous expressions found in some of the early writers of authority are explained by the principles which apply to the language of the early Fathers generally. II. HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE OF THE FILIOQUE It has been seen that the Creed of Constantinople at first declared only the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father; it was directed against the followers of Macedonius who denied the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. In the East, the omission of Filioque did not lead to any misunderstanding. But conditions were different in Spain after the Goths had renounced Arianism and professed the Catholic faith in the Third Synod of Toledo, 589. It cannot be acertained who first added the Filioque to the Creed; but it appears to be certain that the Creed, with the addition of the Filioque, was first sung in the Spanish Church after the conversion of the Goths. In 796 the Patriarch of Aquileia justified and adopted the same addition at the Synod of Friaul, and in 809 the Council of Aachen appears to have approved of it. The decrees of this last council were examined by Pope Leo III, who approved of the doctrine conveyed by the Filioque, but gave the advice to omit the expression in the Creed. The practice of adding the Filioque was retained in spite of the papel advice, and in the middle of the eleventh century it had gained a firm foothold in Rome itself. scholars do not agree as to the exact time of its introduction into Rome, but most assign it to the reign of Benedict VIII (1014-15). The Catholic doctrine was accepted by the Greek deputies who were present at the Second Council of florence, in 1439, when the Creed was sung both in greek and Latin, with the addition of the word Filioque. On each occasion it was hoped that the Patriarch of Constantinople and his subjects had abandoned the state of heresy and schism in which they had been living since time of Photius, who about 870 found in the Filioque an excuse for throwing off all dependence on Rome. But however sincere the individual Greek bishops may have been, they failed to carry their people with them, and the breach between East and West continues to this day. It is a matter for surprise that so abstract a subject as the doctrine of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost should have appealed to the imagination of the multitude. But their national feelings had been aroused by the desire of liberation from the rule of the ancient rival of Constantinople; the occasion of lawfully obtaining their desire appeared to present itself in the addition of Filioque to the Creed of Constantinople. Had not Rome overstepped her rights by disobeying the injunction of the Third Council, of Ephesus (431), and of the Fourth, of Chalcedon (451)? It is true that these councils had forbidden to introduce another faith or another Creed, and had imposed the penalty of deposition on bishops and clerics, and of excommunication on monks and laymen for transgressing this law; but the councils had not forbidden to explain the same faith or to propose the same Creed in a clearer way. Besides, the conciliar decrees affected individual transgressors, as is plain from the sanction added; they did not bind the Church as a body. Finally, the Councils of Lyons and Florence did not require the Greeks to insert the Filioque into the Creed, but only to accept the Catholic doctrine of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost. (See HOLY GHOST and CREED.) A. J. MAAS Guillaume Fillastre (Philastrius) Guillaume Fillastre (Philastrius) French cardinal, canonist, humanist, and geographer, b. 1348 at La Suze, Maine, France; d. at Rome, 6 November, 1428. After graduating as doctor juris utriusque, Fillastre taught jurisprudence at Reims, and in 1392 was appointed dean of its metropolitan chapter. During the Western Schism he showed at first much sympathy for Benedict XIII (Peter de Luna). In 1409, however, he took part in the attempt to reconcile the factions at the Council of Pisa. John XXIII conferred on him and his friend d'Ailly the dignity of cardinal (1411), and in 1413 he was made Archbishop of Aix. Fillastre took a very important part in the Council of Constance, where he and Cardinal d'Ailly were the first to agitate the question of the abdication of the rival claimants (February, 1415). He won special distinction through the many legal questions on which he gave decisions. Martin V, in whose election he had been an important factor, appointed him legatus a latere to France (1418), where he was to promote the cause of Church unity. In recognition of his successful efforts in this capacity, he was made Archpriest of the Lateran Basilica. In 1421 he resigned the See of Aix, and in 1422 was assigned to the See of Saint-Pons-de-Thomieres. He died at Rome in his eightieth year, as Cardinal-Priest of San Marco. During the Council of Constance Fillastre kept a diary discovered by Heinrich Finke, first reviewed by him in the "Roemische Quartalschrift" (1887), and there partly edited by him. It is the most important historical source for the Council of Constance, and was edited by Finke in its entirety in 1889 (in his "Forschungen und Quellen", see below, 163-242). Fillastre's notes throw new light on the principal participants in the council, as well as on the two popes who were deposed and their trial, on the college of cardinals as a body, and in particular on Cardinals d'Ailly, Fillastre, Zabarella, etc. Fillastre is our only authority concerning the preliminary motions on the method of voting and the extremely difficult position of the college of Cardinals; he gives us our first clear conception of the quarrels that arose among the "nations" over the matter of precedence, and the place which the Spanish "nation" held at the council; he also furnishes the long-sought explanation of the confirmation of Sigismund as Holy Roman Emperor by Martin V. Fillastre's diary derives its highest value, however, from the exposition of the relations between the king and the council and the description of the conclave. While Fillastre was in Constance (where, it may be remarked, he translated several of Plato's works into Latin), he rendered important services to the history of geography and cartography, as well as to the history of the council. Thus he had copied the Latin translation of Ptolemy's geography (without maps), which had been completed by Jacobus Angelus in 1409, a manuscript he had great difficulty in securing from Florence. Together with this precious Ptolemy codex, he sent in 1418 to the chapter-library of Reims, which he had founded and already endowed with many valuable manuscripts, a large map of the world traced on walrus skin, and a codex of Pomponius Mela. The two geographical codices are still preserved as precious "cimelia" in the municipal library of Reims, but the map of the world unfortunately disappeared during the eighteenth century. About 1425 Fillastre wrote one of his most important canonical works on interest and usury; it has been handed down in numerous manuscripts. In 1427, though now an old man, he was as indefatigible as ever, and had the maps of Ptolemy drawn from a Greek original, but on a diminished scale, and arranged with Latin terminology, to go with his Latin Ptolemy. Since Ptolemy had no knowledge of the Scandinavian Peninsula, much less of Greenland, Fillastre completed his codex by adding to Ptolemy's ten maps of Europe an eleventh. This "eleventh map of Europe", with the subjoined detailed description of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Greenland, is the only existing copy of the "first map" of Claudius Clavus, "the first cartographer of America". This precious cartographic treasure is still preserved in the municipal library of Nancy. Marlot, Metropolis remensis historia (Reims, 1679), II, 693 sqq.; AlbanEs, Gallia Christ. (novissima) (1899), I, 96 sqq.; Finke, Forschungen und Quellen zur Geschichte des Konstanzer Konzils (Paderborn, 1889), 73 sqq.; Storm, Den danske geogr. Claudius Clavus (Stockholm, 1891), 129 sqq.; Fischer, Discoveries of the Norsemen (London, 1903), 58 sqq., 83 sqq.; BjOernbo and Petersen, Claudius Clavus (Innsbruck, 1908). Joseph Fischer Vincenzo Filliucci Vincenzo Filliucci Jesuit moralist; b. at Sienna, Italy, 1566; d. at Rome 5 April, 1622. Having entered the Society of Jesus at the age of eighteen and made the usual course in classics, science, philosophy, and theology, he professed philosophy and mathematics for some years, and later became rector of the Jesuit college in his native city. Being summoned to Rome to fill the chair in moral theology in the Roman College, he taught there for ten years with great distinction. Paul V appointed him penitentiary of St. Peter's, a post he filled until his death in the following pontificate. Fillucci's greatest work, "Moralium Quaestionem de Christianis Officiis et Causibus Conscientiae Tomi Duo", appeared in 1622, together with a posthumous "Appendix, de Statu Clericorum", forming a third volume, has frequently been reprinted in several counties of Europe. A "Synopsis Theologiae Moralis", which likewise appeared posthumously in 1626, went through numerous editions. Fillucci is also known for his excellent "Brevis Instructio pro Confessionibus Excipiendis" (Ravensburg, 1626); this work is generally published as an appendix in all subsequent editions of his "Synopsis." Besides these published works, there is a manuscript, "Tractis de Censuris", preserved in the archives of the Roman College. As an authority in moral theology, Fr. Fillucci has ever been accorded high rank, though this did not save him from the attacks of the Jansenists. The "Provincial Letters" of Pascal, and "Les Extraits des Assertions" makes much capital out of their garbled quotations from his writings; while, in the anti-Jesuit tumult of 1762, the "parlement" of Bordeaux forbade his works, and the "parlement" of Rouen burnt them, together with twenty-eight other works by Jesuit authors. Sommervogel, Bibl. de la C. de J., III, 735; IX, 340; de Backer, Bibl des Ecrevains de la Comp. de Jesu, I, 308; Hurter, Nomenclator Literarius, I, 364. JOHN F.X. MURPHY Felix Filliucius Felix Filliucius (Or, as his name is more often found, in its Italian form, FIGLIUCCI). An Italian humanist, a philosopher, and theologian of note, was b. at Siena about the year 1525; supposed to have d. at Florence c. 1590. He completed his studies in philosophy at Padua and was for a time in the service of Cardinal Del Monte, afterwards Julius III. In spite of the fact that he gained a great reputation as an orator and poet, and had a wide knowledge of Greek, no mention of his name is found in such standard works on the Renaissance as Burchardt, Voigt (Die Wiederbelebung des class. Alterthums), and Belloni (Il Seicento). After having enjoyed the pleasures of the worldly life at the court in 1551 he entered the Dominican convent at Florence, where he assumed the name Alexus. His works are both original in Italian and translations into that language from the Greek. Worthy of mention are: "Il Fedro, ovvero del bello" (Rome, 1544); "Delle divine lettere del gran Marsilio Ficino" (Venice, 1548); "Le undici Filippiche di Demostene dichiarate" (Rome, 1550); "Della Filosofia morale d'Aristotile" (Rome, 1551); "Della Politica, ovvero Scienza civile secondo la dottrina d'Aristotile, libri VIII scritti in modo di dialogo" (Venice, 1583). Filliucius attended the Council of Trent, where he delivered a remarkable Latin oration and, at the order of St. Pius V, translated into Italian, under his cloister name of Alexus, the Latin Catechism of the Council of Trent (Catechismo, cioe istruzione secondo il decreto del concilio di Trento, Rome, 1567), often reprinted. JOSEPH DUNN St. Finan St. Finan Second Bishop of Lindisfarne; died 9 February, 661. He was an Irish monk who had been trained in Iona, and who was specially chosen by the Columban monks to succeed the great St. Aidan (635-51). St. Bede describes him as an able ruler, and tells of his labours in the conversion of Northumbria. He built a cathedral "in the Irish fashion", employing "hewn oak, with an outer covering of reeds", dedicated to St. Peter. His apostolic zeal resulted in the foundation of St. Mary's at the mouth of the River Tyne; Gilling, a monastery on the sight where King Oswin had been murdered, founded by Queen Eanfled, and the great abbey of Streanaeshalch, or Whitby. St. Finan (Finn-an -- little Finn) converted Peada, son of Penda, King of the Middle Angles, "with all his Nobles and Thanes", and gave him four priests, including Diuma, whom he consecrated Bishop of Middle Angles and Mercia, under King Oswy. The breviary of Aberdeen styles him "a man of venerable life, a bishop of great sanctity, an eloquent teacher of unbelieving races, remarkable for his training in virtue and his liberal education, surpassing all his equals in every manner of knowledge as well as in circumspection and prudence, but chiefly devoting himself to good works and presenting in his life, a most apt example of virtue". In the mysterious ways of Providence, the Abbey of Whitby, his chief foundation, was the scene of the famous Paschal controversy, which resulted in the withdrawal of the Irish monks from Lindisfarne. The inconvenience of the two systems -- Irish and Roman -- of keeping Easter was specially felt when on one occasion King Oswy and his Court were celebrating Easter Sunday with St. Finan, while on the same day Queen Eanfled and her attendants were still fasting and celebrating Palm Sunday. Saint Finan was spared being present at the Synod of Whitby. His feast is celebrated on the 9th of February. W.H. GRATTAN-FLOOD St. Finbarr St. Finbarr (Lochan, Barr). Bishop and patron of Cork, born near Bandon, about 550, died at Cloyne, 25 September, 623, was son of Amergin. He evangelized Gowran, Coolcashin, and Aghaboe, and founded a school at Eirce. For some years he dwelt in a hermitage at Gougane Barra, where a beautiful replica of Cormac's chapel has recently been erected in his honour. Finbarr was buried in the cathedral he built where Cork city now stands. He was specially honoured also at Dornoch and Barra, in Scotland. There are five Irish saints of this name. (See CORK.) Life by Walsh (New York, 1864); Banba (Dublin), 207. A.A. MACERLEAN Ven. John Finch Ven. John Finch A martyr, b. about 1548; d. 20 April, 1584. He was a yeoman of Eccleston, Lancashire, and a member of a well-known old Catholic family, but he appears to have been brought up in schism. When he was twenty years old he went to London where he spent nearly a year with some cousins at Inner Temple. While there he was forcibly struck by the contrast between Protestantism and Catholicism in practice and determined to lead a Catholic life. Failing to find advancement in London he returned to Lancashire where he was reconciled to Catholic Church. He then married and settled down, his house becoming a centre of missionary work, he himself harbouring priests and aiding them in every way, besides acting as catechist. His zeal drew on him the hostility of the authorities, and at Christmas, 1581, he was entrapped into bringing a priest, George Ostliffe, to a place where both were apprehended. It was given out that Finch, having betrayed the priest and other Catholics, had taken refuge with the Earl of Derby, but in fact, he was kept in the earl's house as a prisoner, sometimes tortured and sometimes bribed in order to pervert him and induce him to give information. This failing, he was removed to the Fleet prison at Manchester and afterwards to the House of Correction. When he refused to go to the Protestant church he was dragged there by the feet, his head beating on the stones. For many months he lay in a damp dungeon, ill-fed and ill-treated, desiring always that he might be brought to trial and martyrdom. After three years' imprisonment, he was sent to be tried at Lancaster. There he was brought to trial with three priests on 18 April, 1584. He was found guilty and, 20 April, having spent the night in converting some condemned felons, he suffered with Ven. James Bell at Lancaster. The cause of his beatification with those of the other English Martyrs was introduced by decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 4 Dec., 1886. EDWIN BURTON Ven. John Finglow Ven. John Finglow An English martyr; b. at Barnby, near Howden, Yorkshire; executed at York, 8 August, 1586. He was ordained priest at the English College, Reims, 25 March, 1581, whence the following month he was sent on the English mission. After labouring for some time in the north of England, he was seized and confined in Ousebridge Kidcote, York, where for a time he endured serious discomforts, alleviated slightly by a fellow-prisoner. He was finally tried for being a Catholic priest and reconciling English subjects to the ancient Faith, and condemned to be hanged, drawn, and quartered. F.M. RUDGE Finland Grand Duchy of Finland A department or province of the Russian Empire; bounded on the north by Norway, on the west by Sweden and the Gulf of Bothnia, on the south by the Gulf of Finland. Its limits extend from about 60DEG to 70DEG N. lat., and from about 19DEG to 33DEG E. long.; the area is 141,617 sq. miles. Finland abounds in lakes and forests, buit the proportion of arable soil is small. The population numbers 2,900,000 souls, chiefly Finns; the coasts are inhabited by the descendants of Swedish settlers. Up to the beginning of the twelfth century the people were pagans, about this date efforts for the conversion of the Finns were made from two sides. The Grand Duke of Novgorod, Vassievolodovich, sent Russian missionaries to the Karelians, Finns living on the Lake of Ladoga in east Finland, While in 1157 King Erik of Sweden undertook a crusade to Finland. Erik established himself firmly on the south-western coast and from this base extended his power. Henrik, Bishop of Upsala, who had accompanied Erik on this expedition, devoted himself to preaching the Gospel and suffered the death of a martyr in 1158. His successor, Rodulfus, met the same fate about 1178, while the next following bishop, Folkvin, died a natural death. Finland attained an independent church organization under Bishop Thomas (1220; d. 1248), whose see was Raentemaekai; at a later date the episcopal residence was transferred to AAbo. The successors of Thomas were: Bero I (d. 1258); Ragvald I (1258-66); Kettil (1266-86); Joannes I (1286-90); Magnus I (1290-1308), who was the first Finn to become bishop; he transferred the see to AAbo; Ragvald II (1309-21); Bengt (1321-38); Hemming (1338- 66), who made wise laws, built numerous churches, began the collection of a library, and died in the odour of sanctity; in 1514 his bones were taken up, the relics now being in the museum of the city of AAbo, but he was not canonized; Henricus Hartmanni (1366-68); Joannes II Petri (1368-70); Joannes III Westfal (1370-85), a bishop of German descent; Bero II (1385- 1412); Magnus II Olai Tavast (1412-50), the most important prince of the Church of Finland, who, when eighty-eight years old, undertook arduous visitations; he also went on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land whence he brought back objects of art and manuscripts; Olaus Magni (1450-60), who in earlier years was twice rector of the Sorbonne, a college of the University of Paris, and was also procurator and bursar of the "English nation" at the university. As representative of these he settled the disagreement between Charles VII and the university arising from the part the latter had taken in the burning of Joan of Arc; Conrad I Bitz (1460-89), who in 1488 had the "Missale ecclesiae AAboensis" printed; Magnus III Stjernkors (1489-1500); Laurentius Suurpaeae (1500-06); Joannes IV Olavi (1506-10); Arvid Kurck (1510-20), who was drowned in the Baltic; Ericus Svenonis (1523), the chancellor of King Gustavus Vasa; this prelate resigned the see as his election was not confirmed by Rome. He was the last Catholic Bishop of Finland. The king now, on his own authority, appointed his favourite, the Dominican Martin Skytte, as bishop; Skytte did all in his power to promote the violent introduction of Lutheranism. The people were deceived by the retention of Catholic ceremonies; clerics and monks were given the choice of apostasy, expulsion, or death. The only moderation shown was that exhibited towards the Brigittine nunnery of Nidendal. But on the other hand, the Dominicans at AAbo and Viborg, and the Franciscans at Koekars were rudely driven out and apparently the inmates of the monastery of Raumo were hung. Then, as later, the Church of Finland did not lack martyrs, among them being Joens Jussoila, Peter Ericius, and others. By the end of the sixteenth century the Catholic Church of Finland may be said to have ceased to exist. In its place appeared an inflexible and inquisitorial Lutheranism. When in 1617 Karelia (East Finland) fell to Sweden, an effort was made to win the native population, which belonged to the Greek Orthodox Church, for the "pure Gospel". As this did not succeed, the war of 1566-68 was used for the massacre and expulsion of the people. In consequence of the victories of Peter the Great matters after a while took another course; in 1809 Russia became the ruler of Finland and the Orthodox Greek Church has of late grown in strength. It numbers now 50,000 members under an archbishop; it has fine church buildings, especially in Helsingfors, wealthy monasteries (Valaam and Konevetz), a church paper published at Viborg, and numerous schools. Under Russian sovereignty the long repressed Catholic Church received again (1869 and 1889) the right to exist, but it is still very weak, and numbers only about 1000 souls; there are Catholic churches at AAbo and Helsingfors. The great majority of the inhabitants belong now, as before, to the various sects of Protestantism. The State Church of former times, now the "National" Church, to which the larger part of the population adhere, is divided into four dioceses: AAbo, Kuopio, Borgaa, and Nyslott; these contain altogether 45 provostships and 512 parishes. The finest of its church buildings are the domed church of St. Nicholas at Helsingfors and the church at AAbo, formerly the Catholic cathedral. Education is provided for by a university and technical high school at Helsingfors, by lyceums of the rank of gymnasia, modern scientific schools, and primary schools. Finland has a rich literature both in Swedish and Finnish. Besides the followers of Christianity there are both Jews and Mohammedans in Finland, but they have no civil rights. Since the middle of the nineteenth century about 200,000 Finns have emigrated to the United States, settling largely in Minnesota and Michigan. The town of Hancock, Michigan, is the centre of their religious and educational work. Windy, Finland as It Is (New York, 1902); Nordisk Familjebok, VIII, Pts. III-IV; Sveriges historia (Stockholm, 1877-81), VI; Phipps, The Grand Duchy of Finland (London, 1903); Schybergoon, Finlands historia (1903), II; Styffe, Skandinavien under unionstiden (Stockholm, 1880); Leinberg, Det odelade Finska Biskopsstiftets Herdamine (Jyaefskylae, 1894); Idem, De Finska Klostrens historia (Helsingfors, 1890); Idem, Skolstaten inuvarande AAbostift (Jyvaeskylae, 1893); Idem, Finska studerande vid utrikes universiteter foere 1640 (Helsingfors, 1896); Idem, Om Finska studerande i Jesuitkollegier (Helsingfors, 1890); Retzius, Finlandi i Nordiska Museet (Stockholm, 1881); Allgemeine Weltgefruehesten Zeiten bis zur Gegenwart (Leipzig, 1873); Schweitzer, Geschichte der skandinavischen Litteratur (Leipzig, 1885), III; Neher in Kirchenlex., s. v. Finnland; Konversationslex., s. v. Finland; Baumgartner, Nordische Fahrten, II; Lavisse and Rambaud, Histoire generale (Paris, 1893-1901), XII; Galitzin, La Finlande (Paris, 1852), II; Brockhaus and Ephron, Konversationslexikon; Statesman's Year Book (London, 1908), 1462-66). P. Witmann St. Finnian of Moville St. Finnian of Moville Born about 495; died 589. Though not so celebrated as his namesake of Clonard, he was the founder of a famous school about the year 540. He studied under St. Colman of Dromore and St. Mochae of Noendrum (Mahee Island), and subsequently at Candida Casa (Whithern), whence he proceeded to Rome, returning to Ireland in 540 with an integral copy of St. Jerome's Vulgate. St. Finnian's most distinguished pupil at Moville (County Down) was St. Columba, whose surreptitious copying of the Psaltery led to a very remarkable sequel. What remains of the copy, together with the casket that contains it, is now in the National Museum, Dublin. It is known as the Cathach or Battler, and was wont to be carried by the O'Donnells in battle. The inner case was made by Cathbar O'Donnell in 1084, but the outer is fourteenth-century work. So prized was it that family of MacGroarty were hereditary custodians of this Cathach, and it finally passed, in 1802, to Sir Neal O'Donnell, County Mayo. St. Finnian of Moville wrote a rule for his monks, also a penitential code, the canons of which were published by Wasserschleben in 1851. His festival is observed on 10 September. Colgan, Acta Sanct. Hib. (Louvain, 1645); O'Laverty, Down and Connor (Dublin, 1880), II; O'Hanlon, Lives of the Irish Saints (Dublin, s.d.); Healy, Ireland's Ancient Schools and Scholars (Dublin, 1902); Hyde, Lit. Hist. of Ireland (Dublin, 1901). W.H. GRATTAN-FLOOD Joseph M. Finotti Joseph M. Finotti Born at Ferrara, Italy, 21 September, 1817; died at Central City, Colorado, 10 January, 1879. In 1833 the young Finotti was received into the Society of Jesus in Rome, and for several years taught and studied in the colleges of the order in Italy. He was one of the recruits whom Fr. Ryder, in 1845, brought from Europe to labour in the Maryland Province. After his ordination at Georgetown, D.C., Fr. Finotti was appointed pastor of St. Mary's Church, Alexandria, Virginia, and given charge of outlying missions in Maryland and Virginia. In 1852 he left the Society of Jesus and went to Boston. For many years he held the position of literary editor of "The Pilot", while acting as pastor of Brookline and later of Arlington, Massachusetts. The last few years of his life he spent in the West, becoming, in 1877, pastor of Central City, Colorado, and retaining charge of that parish up to the time of his death. Fr. Finotti was a great book lover, giving much time to literary pursuits and displaying special interest in the Catholic literary history of America. Among his literary productions are, "Month of Mary", 1853, which reached a sale of 50,000 copies; "Life of Blessed Paul of the Cross", 1860; "Diary of a Soldier", 1861; "The French Zouave", 1863; "Herman the Pianist", 1863; "Works of the Rev. Arthur O'Leary"; "Life of Blessed Peter Claver", etc. Most of these publications were translated or edited by him. His best-known work, never completed, is his "Bibliographica Catholica Americana" which took years of study and care. It was intended to be a catalogue of all the Catholic books published in the United States, with notices of their authors, and epitomes of their contents. The first part, which brings the list down to 1820 inclusive, was published in 1872; the second volume, which was to include the works of Catholic writers from 1821 to 1875, was never finished, though much of the material for it had been industriously gathered from all available sources. His last literary effort, which he did not live to see published, entitled "The Mystery of Wizard Clip" (Baltimore, 1879), is a story of preternatural occurrences at Smithfield, West Virginia, which is partly told in the life of Father Gilitzin. Illustrated Catholic Family Almanac, 1880; biographical Sketch in MS., Georgetown College archives; McGee's Weekly, Feb. 15, 1879; Ave Maria, Feb., 1879; Sommervogel, II, 747. EDWARD P. SPILLANE Sts. Fintan Sts. Fintan St. Fintan of Clonenagh A Leinster saint, b. about 524; d. 17 February, probably 594, or at least before 597. He studied under St. Columba of Terryglass, and in 550 settled in the solitude of the Slieve Bloom Mountains, near what is now Maryborough, Queen's County. His oratory soon attracted numerous disciples, for whom he wrote a rule, and his austerities and miracles recalled the apostolic ages. Among his pupils was the great St. Comgall of Bangor. When he attained his seventieth year he chose Fintan Maeldubh as his successor in the Abbey of Clonenagh. He has been compared by the Irish annalists to St. Benedict, and is styled "Father of the Irish Monks". St. Fintan (Munnu) of Taghmon Son of Tulchan, an Ulster saint, d. at Taghmon, 636. He founded his celebrated abbey at Taghmon (Teach Munnu) in what is now County Wexford, in 599. He is principally known as the defender of the Irish method of keeping Easter, and, in 630, he attended the Synod of Magh Lene, at which he dissented from the decision to adopt the Roman paschal method. Another synod was held somewhat later at Magh Ailbe, when St. Fintan again upheld his views in opposition to St. Laserian (Mo Laisre). But the views of the University Church prevailed. His feast is observed on 21 October. The beautiful stone cross of "St. Munn" still stands in the churchyard of the village. W.H. GRATTAN-FLOOD Fioretti di San Francesco d'Assisi Fioretti di San Francesco d'Assisi Little Flowers of Francis of Assisi, the name given to a classic collection of popular legends about the life of St. Francis of Assisi and his early companions as they appeared to the Italian people at the beginning of the fourteenth century. Such a work, as Ozanam observes, can hardly be said to have one author; it is the product rather of gradual growth and must, as Sabatier remarks, remain in a certain sense anonymous, because it is national. There has been some doubt as to whether the "Fioretti" were written in Italian in the first instance, as Sbaralea thought, or were translated from a Latin original, as Wadding maintained. The latter seems altogether more probable, and modern critics generally believe that a larger Latin collection of legends, which has come down to us under the name of the "Actus B. Francisci et Sociorum Ejus', represents an approximation to the text now lost of the original "Floretum", of which the "Fioretti" is a translation. A striking difference is noticeable between the earlier chapters of the "Fioretti", which refer to St. Francis and his companions, and the later ones which deal with the friars in the province of the March of Ancina. The first half of the collection is, no doubt, merely a new form given to traditions that go back to the early days of the order; the other is believed to be subtantially the work of a certain Fra Ugolino da Monte Giorgio of the noble family of Brunfote (see Brunforte, Ugolino), who, at the time of his death in 1348, was provincial of the Friors Minor in the March. Living as he did a century after the death of St. Francis, Ugolino was dependent on hearsay for much of his information; part of it he is said to have learned from Fra Giacomo da Massa who had been well known and esteemed by the companions of the saint, and who had lived on terms of intimacy with Fra Leone, his confessor and secretary. Whatever may have been the sources from which Ugolino derived his materials, the fifty-three chapters which constitute the Latin work in question seem to have been written before 1328. The four appendixes on the Stigmata of St. Francis, the life of Fra Ginepro, and the life and the sayings of the Fra Egidio, which occupy nearly one half of the printed text of the "Fioretti", as we now have it, form no part of the original collection and were probably added by later compilers. Unfortunately the name of the fourteenth-century Franciscan friar who translated into Italian fifty-three of the seventy-six chapters found in the "Actus B. Francisci" and in translating immortalized them as the "Fioretti", remains unknown. The attribution of this work to Giovanni di San Lorenzo rests wholly upon conjecture. It has been surmised that the translator was a Florentine. However this may be, the vernacular version is written in the most limpid Tuscan and is reckoned among the masterpieces of Italian literature. The "Fioretti" have been described as "the most exquite expression of the religious life of the Middle Ages". That perhaps which gives these legends such a peculiar charm, is what may be called their atmosphere; they breathe all the delicious fragrance of the early Francisan spirit. Nowhere can there be found a more childlike faith, a livelier sense of the supernatural, or a simpler literalness in the following Christ than in the pages of the "Fioretti", which more than any other work transport us to the scenes amid which St. Francis and his first followers live, and enable us to see them as they saw themselves. These legends, moreover, bear precious witness to the vitality and enthusiasm with which the memory of the life and teaching of the Poverello was preserved, and they contain much more history, as distinct from mere poetry, than it was customary to recognize when Suyskens and Papini wrote. In Italy the "Fioretti" have always enjoyed an extraordinary popularity; indeed, this liber aureus is said to have been more widely read there than any book, not excepting even the Bible or the Divine Comedy. Certain it is that the "Fioretti" have exercised an immense influence forming in the popular conception of St. Francis and his companions. The earliest known MS of the "Fioretti", now preserved at Berlin, is dated 1390; the work was first printed at Vicenza in 1476. Manzoni has collected many interesting details about the wellnigh innumerable codices and editions of the "Fioretti". The best edition for the general reader is unquestionably that of Father Antonio Cesari (Verona, 1822) which is based on the epoch-making edition of Filippo Buonarroti (Florence, 1718). The Crusca quote from this edition which has been often reprinted. The "Fioretti" have been translated into nearly every European language and in our day are being much read and studied in Northern countries. There are several well-known English versions. PASCHAL ROBINSON Liturgical Use of Fire Liturgical Use of Fire Fire is one of the most expressive and most ancient of liturgical symbols. All the creeds of antiquity accorded a prominent place to this element whose mysterious nature and irresistible power frequently caused it to be adored as a god. The sun, as the principle of heat and light for the earth, was regarded as an igneous mass and had its share in this worship. Christianity adapted this usual belief, but denied the divine title to heat and light, and made them the symbols of the divinity, which enlightens and warms humanity. The symbolism led quite naturally to the liturgical rite by which the Church on the Eve of Easter celebrates the mystery of the Death and Resurrection of Christ, of which the extinguished and rekindled fire furnishes the expressive image. The beginning of the office also reflects ancient beliefs. The new fire is struck from a flint and is blessed with this prayer: Lord God, Almighty Father, inextinguishable light, Who hast created all light, bless this light sanctified and blessed by Thee, Who hast enlightened the whole world; make us enlightened by that light and inflamed with the fire of Thy brightness; and as Thou didst enlighten Moses when he went out of Egypt, so illuminate our hearts and senses that we may attain life and light everlasting through Christ our Lord. Amen. When the fire has been struck from the flint the three-branched candle is lighted and the deacon chants the "Exultet", a liturgical poem whose style is as lively and charming as the melody which accompanies it. It is yet preserved in the Roman Liturgy. In the East the ceremony of the new fire occupies a place of considerable importance in the paschal ritual of the Greek Church at Jerusalem. This ceremony is the occasion for scandalous demonstrations of a piety which frequently degenerates into orgies worthy of pagan rites. The Journal of the Marquis de Nointel, in the seventeenth century, relates scenes which cannot be transcribed and which take place periodically. This ceremony is peculiar to the Holy City and does not figure in the ordinary Byzantine ritual. In the West we see the Irish, as early as the sixth century, lighting large fires at nightfall on the Eve of Easter. The correspondence of St. Boniface with Pope Zachary furnishes a curious detail on this subject. These fires were kindled, not with brands from other fires, but with lenses; they were therefore new fires. There is no trace of this custom in Gaul, where the Merovingian liturgical books are silent on the point. It is difficult to say what took place in Spain, for although the Mozarabic Missal contains a blessing of fire at the beginning of the vigil of Easter, it can hardly be admitted that this ceremony was primitive. It may have been inserted in this missal at a later date as it was in the Roman Missal, in the case of which fire is obtained from a flint and steel. It is possible that the custom, of Breton or Celtic origin, was imposed upon the Anglo-Saxons, and the missionaries of that nation brought it to the continent in the eighth century. An altogether different rite, though of similar meaning, was followed at Rome. On Holy Thursday, at the consecration of the holy chrism, there was collected in all the lamps of the Lateran basilica a quantity of oil sufficient to fill three large vases deposited in the corner of the church. Wicks burned in this oil until the night of Holy Saturday, when there were lighted from these lamps the candles and other luminaries by which, during the Eve of Easter, light was thrown on the ceremonies of the administration of baptism. The rite must have been attended with a certain solemnity since the letter of Pope Zachary to St. Boniface prescribes that a priest, perhaps even a bishop, should officiate on this occasion. Unhappily we are reduced to this somewhat vague information, for neither the Roman "Ordines", nor the Sacramentaries tell us anything concerning this ceremony. This blessing of the paschal candle and the fire at the beginning of Easter Eve is foreign to Rome. The large lamps prepared on Holy Thursday provided fire on the Friday and Saturday without necessitating the solemn production of a new fire. The feast of the Purification or Candlemas (2 February) has a celebrated rite with ancient prayers concerning the emission of liturgical fire and light. One of them invokes Christ as "the true light which enlightenest every man that cometh into this world". The canticle of Simeon, "Nunc Demittis", is chanted with the anthem "A light (which my eyes have seen) for the revelation of the Gentiles and for the glory of thy people Israel." SCHANZ. Apologia (tr.) II, 96, 101; DE LA SAUSSAYE, Comparative Religion, II, 185; DUCHESNE, Origins of Christian Worship (London, 1904); KELLNER, Heortology (London, 1908); HAMPSON, Medii =AEvi Kalendarium, HONE'S Every Day Book. H. LECLERCQ Firmament Firmament (Sept. stereoma; Vulgate, firmamentum). The notion that the sky was a vast solid dome seems to have been common among the ancient peoples whose ideas of cosmology have come down to us. Thus the Egyptians conceived the heavens to be an arched iron ceiling from which the stars were suspended by means of cables (Chabas, LAEAntiquiteAE historique, Paris, 1873, pp. 64-67). Likewise to the mind of the Babylonians the sky was an immense dome, forged out of the hardest metal by the hand of Merodach (Marduk) and resting on a wall surrounding the earth (Jensen, Die Kosmologie der Babylonier, Strasburg, 1890, pp. 253, 260). According to the notion prevalent among the Greeks and Romans, the sky was a great vault of crystal to which the fixed stars were attached, though by some it was held to be of iron or brass. That the Hebrews entertained similar ideas appears from numerous biblical passages. In the first account of the creation (Gen., i) we read that God created a firmament to divide the upper or celestial from the lower or terrestrial waters. The Hebrew word means something beaten or hammered out, and thus extended; the Vulgate rendering, ofirmamentumoe corresponds more closely with the Greek stereoma (Septuagint, Aquila, and Symmachus), osomething made firm or solidoe. The notion of the solidity of the firmament is moreover expressed in such passages as Job, xxxvii, 18, where reference is made incidentally to the heavens, owhich are most strong, as if they were of molten brassoe. The same is implied in the purpose attributed to God in creating the firmament, viz. to serve as a wall of separation between the upper and lower of water, it being conceived as supporting a vast celestial reservoir; and also in the account of the deluge (Gen., vii), where we read that the oflood gates of heaven were openedoe, and shut upoe (viii, 2). (Cf. also IV 28 sqq.) Other passages e.g. Is., xlii, 5, emphasize rather the idea of something extended: oThus saith the Lord God that created the heavens and stretched them outoe (Cf. Is., xliv, 24, and xl, 22). In conformity with these ideas, the writer of Gen., i, 14-17, 20 represents God as setting the stars in the firmament of heaven, and the fowls are located beneath it, i.e. in the air as distinct from the firmament. On this point as on many others, the Bible simply reflects the current cosmological ideas and language of the time. LeseAEtre in Vig., Dict. de la Bible, s. v.: Whitehouse in Hastings, Dict. of the Bible. s. v. Cosmogony, I, 502. JAMES F. DRISCOLL Firmicus Maternus Firmicus Maternus Christian author of the fourth century, wrote a work "De errore profanarum religionum". Nothing is known about him except what can be gleaned from this work, which is found in only one MS. (Codex Vaticano-Palatinus, Saec. X). Some references to the Persian Wars, and the fact that the work was addressed to the two emperors, Constantius II and Constans I, have led to the conclusion that it was composed during their joint reign (337-350). The work is valuable because it gives a picture of the character which the paganism of the later Roman Empire had taken, under the stress of the new spiritual needs aroused by contact with the religions of Egypt and the East. It aims, if one may judge from the mutilated introduction, at presenting from a philosophical and historical standpoint, reasons showing the superiority of Christianity over the superstitions and licentiousness of heathenism. In a general survey of pagan creeds and beliefs the author holds up to scorn the origin and practices of the Gentile cults. All its parts are not of equal merit or importance, from the purely historical standpoint. The first portion, in which the religions of Greece and the East are described, is merely a compilation from earlier sources, but in the latter section of the work, in which the mysteries of Eleusis, Isis, and especially Mithra are set forth in detail, with their system of curious passwords, formulae, and ceremonies, the author seems to speak from personal experience, and thus reveals many interesting facts which are not found elsewhere. The emperors are exhorted to stamp out this network of superstition and immorality, as a sacred duty for which they will receive a reward from God Himself, and ultimately the praise and thanks of those whom they rescue from error and corruption. The theory that the author of the Christian work was identical with Julius Firmicus Maternus Siculus, who wrote a work on astrology (De Nativitatibus sive Matheseos), assigned by Mommsen to the year 337 ["Hermes", XXIX (1894), 468 sq.], is favourably received by some, as well because of the identity of names and dates, as because of similarities in style which they are satisfied the two documents exhibit. This theory of course supposes that the author wrote one work before, the other after, his conversion. Critical edition by Halm (Vienna, 1867) in "Corpus Scrip. Eccles. Lat.", II. PATRICK J. HEALY Firmilian Firmilian Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, died c. 269. He had among his contemporaries a reputation comparable to that of Dionysius or Cyprian. St. Gregory of Nyssa tells us that St. Gregory the Wonder-Worker, then a pagan, having completed his secular studies, "fell in with Firmilian, a Cappadocian of noble family, similar to himself in character and talent, as he showed in his subsequent life when he adorned the Church of Caesarea." The two young men agreed in their desire to know more of God, and came to Origen, whose disciples they became, and by whom Gregory, at least, was baptised. Firmilian was more probably brought up as a Christian. Later, when bishop, Eusebius tells us, he had such a love for Origen that he invited him to his own country for the benefit of the Churches, at the time (232-5) when the great teacher was staying in Caesarea of Palestine, on account of his bishop's displeasure at his having been ordained priest in that city. Firmilian also went to him subsequently and stayed with him some time that he might advance in theology (Hist. Eccl., VII, xxviii, 1). He was an opponent of the antipope Novatian, for Dionysius in 252-3 writes that Helenus of Tarsus, Firmilian, and Theoctistus of Caesarea in Palestine (that is, the Metropolitans of Cilicia, Cappadocia, and Palestine) had invited him to a synod at Antioch, where some were trying to support the heresy of Novatian (Euseb., Hist. Eccl., VI, xlvi, 3). Dionysius counts Firmilian as one of "the more eminent bishops" in a letter to Pope Stephen (ibid., VII, v, 1), where his expression "Firmilian and all Cappadocia" again implies that Caesarea was already a metropolitan see. This explains why Firmilian could invite Origen to Cappadocia, "for the benefit of the Churches". In a letter to Pope Sixtus II (257-8), Dionysius mentions that Pope St. Stephen in the baptismal controversy had refused to communicate with Helenus of Tarsus, Firmilian, and all Cilicia and Cappadocia, and the neighbouring lands (Euseb., VII, v, 3-4). We learn the cause of this from the only writing of St. Firmilian's which remains to us. When the baptismal controversy arose, St. Cyprian wished to gain support from the Churches of the East against Pope Stephen for his own decision to rebaptize all heretics who returned to the Church. At the end of the summer of 256, he sent the deacon Rogatian to Firmilian with a letter, together with the documents on the subject-letters of the pope, of his own, and of his council at Carthage in the spring, and the treatise "De Eccl. Cath. Unitate". Firmilian's reply was received at Charthage about the middle of November. It is a long letter, even more bitter and violent than that of Cyprian to Pompeius. It has come down to us in a translation made, no doubt, under St. Cyprian's direction, and apparently very literal, as it abounds in Graecisms (Ep. lxxv among St. Cyprian's letters). St. Cpyrian's arguments against St. Stephen are reiterated and reinforced, and the treatise on Unity is laid under contribution. It is particularly interesting to note that the famous fourth chapter of that treatise must have been before the writer of the letter in its original form, and not in the alternative "Roman" form (c. xvi). It is the literal truth when Firmilian says: "We have received your writings as our own, and have committed them to memory by repeated reading" (c. iv) The reasoning against the validity of heretical baptism is mainly that of St. Cyprian, that those who are outside the Church and have not the Holy Spirit cannot admit others to the Church or give what they do not possess. Firmilian is fond of dilemmas: for instance, either the heretics do not give the Holy Ghost, in which case rebaptism is necessary, or else they do give it, in which case Stephen should not enjoin the laying on of hands. It is important that Firmilian enables us to gather much of the drift of St. Stephen's letter. It is "ridiculous" that Stephen demanded nothing but the use of the Trinitarian formula. He had appealed to tradition from St. Peter and St. Paul: this is an insult to the Apostles, cries Firmilian, for they execrated heretics. Besides (this is from Cyprian, Ep. lxxiv, 2), "no one could be so silly as to believe this", for the heretics are all later than the Apostles! And Rome has not preserved the Apostolic traditions unchanged, for it differs from Jerusalem as to the observances at Easter and as to other mysteries. "I am justly indignant with Stephen's obvious and manifest silliness, that he so boasts of his position, and claims that he is the successor of St. Peter on whom were laid the foundations of the Church; yet he brings in many other rocks, and erects new buildings of many Churches when he defends with his authority the baptism conferred by heretics; for those who are baptized are without doubt numbered in the Church, and he who approves their baptism affirms that there is among them a Church of the baptized.... Stephen, who declares that he has the Chair of Peter by succession, is excited by no zeal against heretics" (c. xvii). "You have cut yourself off-do not mistake-since he is the true schismatic who makes himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For in thinking that all can be excommunicated by you, you have cut off yourself alone from the communion of all" (c. xxiv). We thus learn the claims of the pope to impose on the whole Church by his authority as successor of Peter, a custom derived by the Roman Church from Apostolic tradition. Firmilian tells the Africans that with them the custom of rebaptizing may be new, but in Cappadocia it is not, and he can answer Stephen by opposing tradition to tradition, for it was their practice from the beginning (c. xix); and some time since, he had joined in a council at Iconium with the bishops of Galatia and Cilicia and other provinces, and had decided to rebaptize the Montanists (c. vii and xix). Dionysius, in a letter to the Roman priest Philemon, also mentions the Council of Iconium with one of Synnada "among many". It was presumably held in the last years of Alexander Severus, c. 231-5. Firmilian also took part in the two councils of 264-5 at Antioch which deposed Paul of Samosata. He may even have presided. The letter of the third council says he was too easily persuaded that Paul would amend; hence the necessity of another council (Euseb., Hist. Eccl., VII, iii-v). He was on his way to this assembly when death overtook him at Tarsus. This was in 268 (Harnack) or 269. Though he was cut off from communion by Pope Stephen, it is certain that the following popes did not adhere to this severe policy. He is commemorated in the Greek Menaea on 28 Oct., but is unknown to the Western martyrologies. His great successor, St. Basil, mentions his view on heretical baptism without accepting it (Ep. clxxxviii), and says, when speaking of the expression "with the Holy Ghost" in the Doxology: "That our own Firmilian held this faith is testified by the books [logoi] which he has left" (De. Spir. Sanc., xxix, 74). We hear nothing else of such writings, which were probably letters. Bossue, in Acta SS., 28 Oct., gives an elaborate dissertation on this saint; Benson in Dict. Christ. Biog.; the genuineness of the letter was arbitrarily contested by Missorius, In Epist. ad Pomp. inter Cypr. (Venice, 1733), and by Molkenbuhr, Binae diss. de S. Firm. (Muenster, 1790, and in P. L., III, 1357); Ritschl, Cyprian v. Karth (Goettingen, 1895), argued that the letter had been interpolated at Carthage in the interests of Cyprian's party; so also Harnack in Gesch. der altchr. Lit. (Leipzig, 1893), I, 407, and Soden, Die cyprianische Briefsammlung (Berlin, 1904); this was disproved by Ernst, Die Echtheit des Briefes Firmilians in Zeitschr. fuer kath. Theol. (1894), XVIII, 209, and Zur Frage ueber die Echheit des Briefs F.'s an Cyprian (ibid., XX, 364), also by Benson, Cyprian (London, 1897), p. 377, and Harnack later expressed himself convinced (Gesch., II, ii, p. 359, 1904). Moses of Chorene, Hist. Arm., II, lxxv, attributed to Firmilian "many books, among them a history of the persecutions of the Church in the days of Maximus, Decius and later of Diocletian". This is a mistake. It seems there were letters from Firmilian in the published correspondence of Origen, according to St. Jerome's version of the list of Origen's works by Pamphilus and Eusebius: "Origenis Firmiani [sic] et Gregorii" [ed. by Klostermann, Sitzungsberichte der Real-Akad (Berlin, 1897); see Harnack, op. cit., II, ii, p. 47]; the letter to Gregory Thaum. is extant. A fragment of a letter from Origen to Firmilian, cited by Victor of Capua, was published by Pitra, Spic. Solesm., I, 268. St. Augustine seems not to have known the letter to Cyprian, but Cresconius seems to have referred to it, C. Cresc., iii, 1 and 3. The letter is not quoted by any ancient writer, and is found in at most 28 out of the 431 MSS. of St. Cyprian enumerated by von Soden, op. cit. See also Bardenhewer, Gesch. der altkirchl. Lit., II, 269; Batiffol, Litt. grecque (Paris, 1898); Idem, L'Eglise naissante et le Catholicisme (Paris, 1909); see also references under Cyprian of Carthage , Saint . John Chapman. First-Born First-Born The word, though casually taken in Holy Writ in a metaphorical sense, is most generally used by the sacred writers to designate the first male child in a family. The first-cast male animal is, in the English Bibles, termed "firstling". The firstlings, both human and animal, being considered as the best representatives of the race, because its blood flows purest and strongest in them, were commonly believed, among the early nomad Semitic tribes, to belong to God in a special way. Hence, very likely, the custom of sacrificing the first-cast animals; hence also the prerogatives of the first-born son; hence, possibly, even some of the superstitious practices which mar a few pages of the history of Israel. Among the Hebrews, as well as among other nations, the first-born enjoyed special privileges. Besides having a greater share in the paternal affection, he had everywhere the first place after his father (Gen., xliii, 33) and a kind of directive authority over his younger brothers (Gen., xxxvii, 21-22, 30, etc.); a special blessing was reserved to him at his father's death, and he succeeded him as the head of the family, receiving a double portion among his brothers (Deut., xxi, 17). Moreover, the first-birthright, up to the time of the promulgation of the Law, included a right to the priesthood. Of course this latter privilege, as also the headship of the family, to which it was attached, continued in force only when brothers dwelt together in the same house; for; as soon as they made a family apart and separated, each one became the head and priest of his own house. When God chose unto Himself the tribe of Levi to discharge the office of priesthood in Israel, He wished that His rights over the first-born should not thereby be forfeited. He enacted therefore that every first-born be redeemed, one month after his birth, for five sicles (Num., iii, 47; xviii, 15-16). This redemption tax, calculated also to remind the Israelites of the death inflicted upon the first-born of the Egyptians in punishment of Pharaoh's stubbornness (Ex., xiii, 15-16), went to the endowment-fund of the clergy. No law, however, stated that the first-born should be presented to the Temple. It seems, however, that after the Restoration parents usually took advantage of the mother's visit to the sanctuary to bring the child thither. This circumstance is recorded in St. Luke's Gospel, in reference to Christ (ii, 22-38). It might be noted here that St. Paul refers the title primogenitus to Christ (Heb., i, 6), the "first-born" of the Father. The Messianic sacrifice was the first-fruits of the Atonement offered to God for man's redemption. It must be remembered, however, contrary to what is too often asserted and seems, indeed, intimated by the liturgical texts, that the "pair of turtle-doves, or two young pigeons" mentioned in this connexion, were offered for the purification of the mother, and not for the child. Nothing was especially prescribed with regard to the latter. As polygamy was, at least in early times, in vogue among the Israelites, precise regulations were enacted to define who, among the children, should enjoy the legal right of primogeniture, and who were to be redeemed. The right of primogeniture belonged to the first male child born in the family, either of wife or concubine; the first child of any woman having a legal status in the family (wife or concubine) was to be redeemed, provided that child were a boy. As the first-born, so were the firstlings of the Egyptians smitten by the sword of the destroying angel, whereas those of the Hebrews were spared. As a token of recognition, God declared that all firstlings belonged to Him (Ex., xiii, 2; Num., iii, 3). They accordingly should be immolated. In case of clean animals, as a calf, a lamb, or a kid (Num., xviii, 15-18), they were, when one year old, brought to the sanctuary and offered in sacrifice; the blood was sprinkled at the foot of the altar, the fat burned, and the flesh belonged to the priests. Unclean animals, however, which could not be immolated to the Lord, were redeemed with money. Exception was made in the case of the firstling of the ass, which was to be redeemed with a sheep (Ex., xxxiv, 20) or its own price (Josephus, Ant. Jud., IV, iv, 4), or else to be slain (Ex., xiii, 13; xxxiv, 20) and buried in the ground. Firstlings sacrificed in the temple should be without blemish; such as were "lame or blind, or in any part disfigured or feeble", were to be eaten unconditionally within the gates of the owner's home-city. CHARLES L. SOUVAY First-Fruits First-Fruits The practice of consecrating first-fruits to the Deity is not a distinctly Jewish one (cf. Iliad, IX, 529; Aristophanes, "Ran.", 1272; Ovid, "Metam.", VIII, 273; X, 431; Pliny, "Hist. Nat.", IV, 26; etc.). It seems to have sprung up naturally among agricultural peoples from the belief that the first -- hence the best -- yield of the earth is due to God as an acknowledgment of His gifts. "God served first", then the whole crop becomes lawful food. The offering of the first-fruits was, in Israel, regulated by laws enshrined in different parts of the Mosaic books. These laws were, in the course of ages, supplemented by customs preserved later on in the Talmud. Three entire treatises of the latter, "Bikkurim", "Teru-moth", and "Hallah", besides numerous other passages of both the Mishna and Gemarah, are devoted to the explanation of these customs. First-fruit offerings are designated in the Law by a threefold name: Bikkurim, Reshith, and Terumoth. There remains much uncertainty about the exact import of these words, as they seem to have been taken indiscriminately at different epochs. If, however, one considers the texts attentively, he may gather from them a fairly adequate idea of the subject. There was a first-fruit offering connected with the beginning of the harvest. Leviticus, xxiii, 10-14, enacted that a sheaf of ears should be brought to the priest, who, the next day after the Sabbath, was to lift it up before the Lord. A holocaust, a meal-offering, and a libation accompanied the ceremony; and until it was performed no "bread, or parched corn, or frumenty of the harvest" should be eaten. Seven weeks later two loaves, made from the new harvest, were to be brought to the sanctuary for a new offering. The Bikkurim consisted, it seems, of the first ripened raw fruits; they were taken from wheat, barley, grapes, figs, pomogranates, olives, and honey. The fruits offered were supposed to be the choicest, and were to be fresh, except in the case of grapes and figs, which might be offered dried by Israelites living far from Jerusalem. No indication is given in Scripture as to how much should be thus brought to the sanctuary. But the custom was gradually introduced of consecrating no less than one-sixtieth and no more than one-fortieth of the crop (Bikk., ii, 2, 3, 4). Occasionally, of course, there were extraordinary offerings, like that of the fruit of a tree the fourth year after it bad been planted (Lev., xix, 23-25); one might also, for instance, set apart as a free offering the harvest of a whole field. No time was, at first, specially set apart for the offering; in later ages, however, the feast of Dedication (25 Casleu) was assigned as the limit (Bikk., i, 6; Hallah, iv, 10). In the Book of Deuteronomy, xxvi, 1-11, directions are laid down as to the manner in which these offerings should be made. The first-fruits were brought in a basket to the sanctuary and presented to the priest, with an expression of thanksgiving for the deliverance of Israel from Egypt and the possession of the fertile land of Palestine. A feast, shared by the Levite and the stranger, followed. Whether the fruits offered were consumed in that meal is not certain; Numbers, xviii, 13, seems to intimate that they henceforth belonged to the priest, and Philo and Josephus suppose the same. Other offerings were made of the prepared fruits, especially oil, wine, and dough (Deut., xviii, 4; Num., xv, 20-21; Lev., ii, 12, 14-15; cf. Ex., xxii, 29, in the Greek), and "the first of the fleece". As in the case of the raw fruits, no quantity was determined; Ezechiel affirms that it was one-sixtieth of the harvest for wheat and barley and one-one hundredth for oil. They were presented to the sanctuary with ceremonies analogous to those alluded to above, although, unlike the Bikkurim, they were not offered at the altar, but brought into the store-rooms of the temple. They may he looked upon, therefore, not so much as sacrificial matter as a tax for the support of the priests. (See ANNATES.) SMITH, The Religion of the Semites (2d ed., London, 1907): WELLHAUSEN, Prolegomena to the History of Israel, tr. BLACK AND MENZIEB (Edinburgh, 1885), 157-58; PHILO, De festo cophini; ID., De proemiis sacerdotum; JOSEPHUS, Ant. Jud., IV, viii, 22; RELAND, Antiquitates sacroe; SCHUeRER, Geschichte des jued. Volkes im Zeit. J. C. (Leipzig, 1898), II, 237-50. CHARLES L. SOUVAY. Fiscal Procurator Fiscal Procurator (Lat. PROCURATOR FISCALIS). The duties of the fiscal procurator consist in preventing crime and safeguarding ecclesiastical law. In case of notification or denunciation it is his duty to institute proceedings and to represent the law. His office is comparable to that of the state attorney in criminal cases. The institution of the procuratores regii or procureurs du roi (king's procurators) was established in France during the thirteenth century, and has developed from that time onward; though canon law, previous to that time, had imposed on the bishops the duty of investigating the commission of crimes and instituting the proper judicial proceedings. It is to be noted that formerly canon law admitted the validity of private as well as of public accusation or denunciation. At present custom has brought it about that all criminal proceedings in ecclesiastical courts are initiated exclusively by the fiscal procurator. The Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 11 June, 1880, called attention to the absolute necessity of the fiscal procurator in every episcopal curia, as a safeguard for law and justice. The fiscal procurator may be named by the bishop, either permanently, or his term of office may he limited to individual cases (see Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, 1884, no. 299; App., p. 289). This official appears not only in criminal proceedings but also in other ecclesiastical matters. In matrimonial cases, canon law provides for a defender of the matrimonial tie whose duty it is to uphold the validity of the marriage, as long as its invalidity has not been proven in two lower ecclesiastical courts. This defender of the matrimonial tie represents both ecclesiastical law and public morality, whose ultimate objects would not be attained if the validity or invalidity of a marriage were decided in a too easy or informal way. A similar office is that of the defender of the validity of sacred orders and solemn vows. When the validity of either of these acts, and their pertinent obligations, is attacked, it becomes the duty of this official to bring forward whatever arguments may go to establish their binding force. In all these cases the defensor, like the fiscal procurator in criminal processes, represents the public interests; the institution of this office was all the more necessary, as it takes cognizance of causes in which both parties frequently display a desire to have the contract nullified. In the processes of beatification and canonization it devolves on the promotor fidei to investigate strictly the reasons urged in favour of canonization, and to find out and emphasize all objections which can possibly be urged against it. He is therefore popularly known as the advocatus diaboli, i. e. "devil's lawyer". It is the duty of the promotor fidei, therefore, to take up the negative side in the discussion which has a place amongst the preliminaries to beatification and canonization, and to endeavour, by every legitimate means, to prevent the completion of the process. PERIES, Le Procureur Fiscal ou promoteur (Paris, 1897); LEGA, De Judiciis Ecclesiasticis, Bk. I, vol. I, 2nd ed. (Rome, 1905). FISCAL OF THE HOLY OFFICE The Holy Office, i.e. the supreme court in the Catholic Church for all matters that affect its faith or are closely connected with its teaching, has an officialis fiscalis, whose duties are similar to those of the fiscal procurator in episcopal courts. The officialis fiscalis is present at all sessions of the Holy Office, when criminal cases are sub judice, and as adviser to the ordinary when the process is referred to the episcopal court. By the reorganization of the Roman Curia, 29 June, 1908, the Holy Office continues to retain its exclusive competency in all cases of heresy and kindred crimes. The office of fiscalis to this Congregation therefore remains unchanged. JOSEPH LAURENTIUS. Symbolism of the Fish Symbolism of the Fish Among the symbols employed by the primitive Christians, that of the fish ranks probably first in importance. While the use of the fish in pagan art as a purely decorative sign is ancient and constant, the earliest literary reference to the symbolic fish is made by Clement of Alexandria, born about 150, who recommends his readers (Paedagogus, III, xi) to have their seals engraved with a dove or a fish. Clement did not consider it necessary to give any reason for this recommendation, from which it may be safely be inferred that the meaning of both symbols was unnecessary. Indeed, from monumental sources we know that the symbolic fish was familiar to Christians long before the famous Alexandrian was born; in such Roman monuments as the Capella Greca and the Sacrament Chapels of the catacomb of St. Callistus, the fish was depicted as a symbol in the first decades of the second century. The symbol itself may have been suggested by the miraculous multification of the loaves and fishes or the repast of the seven Disciples, after the Resurrection, on the shore of the Sea of Galilee (John 21:9), but its popularity among Christians was due principally, it would seem, to the famous acrostic consisting of the initial letters of five Greek words forming the word for fish (Ichthys), which words briefly but clearly described the character of Christ and His claim to the worship of believers: Iesous Christos Theou Yios Soter, i.e. Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour. (See the discourse of Emperor Constantine, "Ad coetum Sanctorum" c. xviii.) It is not improbable that this Christian formula originated in Alexandria, and was intended as a protest against the pagan apotheosis of the emperors; on a coin from Alexandria of the reign of Domitian (81-96) this emperor is styled Theou Yios (Son of God). The word Ichthys, then, as well as the representation of a fish, held for Christians a meaning of the highest significance; it was a brief profession of faith in the divinity of Christ, the Redeemer of mankind. Believers in this mystic Ichthys were themselves : "little fishes", according to the well-known passage of Tertullian (De baptismo, c. 1): "we, little fishes, after the image of our Ichthys, Jesus Christ, are born in the water". The association of the Ichthys with the Eucharist is strongly emphasized in the epitaph of Abercius, the second century Bishop of Hieropolis in Phrygia (see Inscription of Abercius), and in the somewhat later epitaph of Pectorius of Autun. Abercius tells us on the aforesaid monument that in his journey from his Asiatic home to Rome, everywhere on the way he received as food "the Fish from the spring, the great, the pure", as well as "wine mixed with water, together with bread". Pectorius also speaks of the Fish as a delicious spiritual nurture supplied by the "Saviour of the Saints". In the Eucharistic monuments this idea is expressed repeatedly in the pictorial form; the food before the banqueters is invariably bread and fish on two separate dishes. The peculiar significance attached to the fish in this relation is well brought out in such early frescoes as the Fractio Panis scene in the cemetery of St. Priscilla, and the fishes on the grass, in closest proximity to the baskets containing bread and wine, in the crypt of Lucina. (See Symbolism of the Eucharist.) The fish symbol was not, however, represented exclusively with symbols of the Eucharist; quite frequently it is found associated with such other symbols as the dove, the anchor, and the monogram of Christ. The monuments, too, on which it appears, from the first to the fourth century, include frescoes, sculptured representations, rings, seals, gilded glasses, as well as enkolpia of various materials. The type of fish depicted calls for no special observation, save that, from the second century, the form of the dolphin was frequently employed. The reason for this particular selection is presumed to be the fact that, in popular esteem, the dolphin was regarded as friendly to man. Besides the Eucharistic frescoes of the catacombs a considerable number of objects containing the fish-symbol are preserved in various European museums, one of the most interesting, because of the grouping of the fish with several other symbols, being a carved gem in the Kircherian Museum in Rome. On the left is a T-form anchor, with two fishes beneath the crossbar, while next in order are a T-form cross with a dove on the crossbar and a sheep at the foot, another T-cross as the mast of a ship, and the good shepherd carrying on His shoulders the strayed sheep. In addition to these symbols the five letters of the word Ichthys are distributed round the border. Another ancient carved gem represents a ship supported by a fish, with doves perched on the mast and stern, and Christ on the waters rescuing St. Peter. After the fourth century the symbolism of the fish gradually disappeared; representations of fishes on baptismal fonts and on bronze baptismal cups like those found at Rome and Trier, now in the Kircherian Museum, are merely of an ornamental character, suggested, probably by the water used in baptism. MAURICE M. HASSETT Philip Fisher Philip Fisher (An alias, real name THOMAS COPLEY) Missionary, b. in Madrid, 1595-6; d. in Maryland, U. S., 1652. He was the eldest son of William Copley of Gatton, England, of a Catholic family of distinction who suffered exile in the reign of Elizabeth. He arrived in Maryland in 1637, and, being a man of great executive ability, took over the care of the mission, "a charge which at that time required rather business men than missionaries". In 1645, Father Fisher was wantonly seized and carried in chains to England, with Father Andrew White, the founder of the English mission in America. After enduring many hardships he was released, when he boldly returned to Maryland (Feb., 1648), where, after an absence of three years, he found his flock in a more flourishing state than those who had opposed and plundered them. That he made an effort to enter the missionary field of Virginia, appears from a letter written 1 March, 1648, to the Jesuit General Caraffa in Rome, in which he says: "A road has lately been opened through the forest to Virginia; this will make it but a two days' journey, and both places can now be united in one mission. After Easter I shall wait upon the Governor of Virginia upon business of great importance." Unfortunately there is no further record bearing on the projected visit. Neill, in his "Terra Mariae" (p. 70), and Smith in his "Religion under the Barons of Baltimore" (p. VII), strangely confound this Father Thomas Copley of Maryland with an apostate John Copley, who was never a Jesuit. Father Fisher is mentioned with honourable distinction in the missionary annals of Maryland, and, according to Hughes, was "the most distinguished man among the fourteen Jesuits who had worked in Maryland". HUGHES, "History of the Society of Jesus in North America" (London and New York, 1907), Text, I passim; Documents I, part I; SHEA, "The Catholic Church in Colonial Days" (New York, 1886), 38, 46-47, 53; FOLEY, "Records of English Province S.J. (London, 1882), VII, 255; DORSEY, "Life of Father Thomas Copley", published in "Woodstock Letters", XIV, 223; "Woodstock Letters", XI, 18-24; XII, 104-105; XV, 44, 47; OLIVER, "Collections . . . Scotch, English and Irish Members of S.J." (London, 1845), 91, 92; RUSSELL, "Maryland, the Land of the Sanctuary" (Baltimore, 1907), 88, 125, 127, 156-159, 171-173; "Dict. of National Biography" (New York, 1908), IV, 1114. EDWARD P. SPILLANE Daniel Fitter Daniel Fitter Born in Worcestershire, England, 1628; died at St. Thomas' Priory, near Stafford, 6 Feb., 1700. He entered Lisbon College at the age of nineteen, went through his studies with some distinction, and was raised to the priesthood in 1651. A year or two later, he returned to England, and was appointed chaplain to William Fowler, Esq., of St. Thomas' Priory, near Stafford, where he remained until his death. During the reign of James II, he opened a school at Stafford, which was suppressed at the revolution in 1688. At the period of excitement ensuing upon the Titus Oates plot (1678), he, with a few others, upheld the lawfulness of taking the oath then tendered to every well-known Catholic. He himself subscribed it, and defended his action on the ground of a common and legal use of the term "spiritual". In consequence of this, when the chapter chose him as Vicar-General of the Counties of Stafford, Derby, Cheshire and Salop, they required that he should "sign a Declaration made by our Brethren in Paris against the Oath of Supremacy". In a letter to the clergy of England and Scotland (1684), Cardinal Philip Howard recommended warmly the "Institutum clericorum in communi viventium", founded in 1641 by the German priest Bartolomaus Holzhauser, and approved by Innocent XI in 1680 and 1684. The institute met with eager acceptance in England, and Fitter was appointed its first provincial president and procurator for the Midland district. The association was, however, dissolved shortly after his death by Bishop Giffard in 1702, on account of a misunderstanding between its members and the rest of the secular clergy. Fitter had bequeathed property to "The Common Purse" of the institute, with a life-interest in favour of his elder brother Francis; but when the institute ceased to exist, Francis, by a deed of assignment, established a new trust (1703), called "The Common Fund" for the benefit of the clergy of the district. This fund became subsequently known as "The Johnson Fund" and still exists. Daniel Fitter also left a fund for the maintenance of a priest, whose duty it should be to reside in the county of Stafford and take spiritual charge of the poor Catholics of the locality. HENRY PARKINSON James Fitton James Fitton Missionary, b. at Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A., 10 April, 1805; d. there, 15 Sept., 1881. His father, Abraham Fitton, went to Boston from Preston, England; his mother was of Welsh origin and a convert to the Faith. His primary education was received in the schools of his native city, and his classical course was made at Claremont, New Hampshire, at an academy conducted by Virgil Horace Barber, an early New England convert to the Faith. His theology he learned from the lips of Bishop Fenwick, by whom he was ordained priest, 23 Dec., 1827. Thenceforth for nearly a quarter of a century the whole of New England became the theatre of his zealous missionary labours. Carrying a valise containing vestments, chalice, and all necessaries for offering the Holy Sacrifice, his breviary under his arm, he travelled, often on foot, from Eastport and the New Brunswick line on the northeast, to Burlington and Lake Champlain on the northwest; from Boston in the east, to Great Barrington and the Berkshire Hills in the west; from Providence and Newport in the southeast, to Bridgeport and the New York State line in the southwest. In the course of his ministry he was often exposed to insult and hardship, but he considered these as trifles when souls were to be saved. During his missionary career he was pastor of the first Catholic church at Hartford, Connecticut, and at Worcester, Massachusetts. He erected the church of Our Lady of the Isle at Newport, Rhode Island. In 1840, while pastor of the church at Worcester, he purchased the present site of Holy Cross College, and erected a building for the advanced education of Catholic young men. In 1842 he deeded the grounds and building to Bishop Fenwick, who placed it under the care of the Jesuits. In 1855 he was appointed by Bishop Fenwick pastor of the church of the Most Holy Redeemer in East Boston. Here he laboured for the remaining twenty-six years of his life, and built four more churches. In 1877 he celebrated the golden jubilee of his priesthood. ARTHUR T. CONNOLLY Henry Fitzalan Henry Fitzalan Twelfth Earl of Arundel, b. about 1511; d. in London, 24 Feb., 1580 (O.S. 1579). Son of William, eleventh earl, and Lady Anne Percy, he was godson to Henry VIII, in whose palace he was educated. From 1540 he was governor of Calais till 1543, when he succeeded to the earldom. In 1544 he beseiged and took Boulogne, being made lord-chamberlain as a reward. In the reign of Edward VI he opposed Protector Somerset and supported Warwick, who eventually unjustly accused him of peculation and removed him from the council. On the death of Edward he abandoned the cause of Lady Jane Grey and proclaimed Mary as queen. Throughout her reign he was in favour as lord-steward and was employed in much diplomatic business. Even under Elizabeth he at first retained his offices and power though distrusted by her ministers. Yet he was too powerful to attack, and, being a widower, was considered as a possible consort for the queen. But in 1564 he fell into disgrace, and Elizabeth did not again employ him till 1568. Being the leader of the Catholic party, he desired a marriage between Mary, Queen of Scots, and his son-in-law, the Duke of Norfolk, but was too cautious to commit himself, so that even after the futile northern rebellion of 1569 he was recalled to the council. But the discovery of the Ridolfi conspiracy, in 1571, again led to his confinement, and he spent the rest of his life in retirement. EDWIN BURTON Maria Anne Fitzherbert Maria Anne Fitzherbert Wife of King George IV; b. 26 July, 1756 (place uncertain); d. at Brighton, England, 29 March, 1837; eldest child of Walter Smythe, of Bainbridge, Hampshire, younger son of Sir John Smythe, of Eshe Hall, Durham and Acton Burnell Park, Salop, a Catholic baronet. In 1775 she married Edward Weld, of Lulworth, Dorset (uncle of Cardinal Weld), who died before the year was out. Her next husband was Thomas Fitzherbert, of Swynnerton, Staffordshire, whom she married in 1778 and who died in 1781. A young and beautiful widow with a jointure of -L-2000 a year, she took up her abode in 1782 at Richmond, Surrey, having at the same time a house in town. In or about 1784 happened her first meeting with George, Prince of Wales, then about twenty-two years of age, she about six years older. He straightway fell in love with her. Marriage with her princely suitor being legally impossible, Mrs. Fitzherbert turned a deaf ear to the prince's solicitations, to get rid of which she withdrew to the Continent. However, on receipt of an honourable offer from the prince, she returned after a while to England, and they were privily married in her own London drawing-room and before two witnesses, 15 Dec., 1785, the officiating minister being an Anglican curate. Thenceforth, though in separate houses, they lived together as man and wife, she being treated on almost every hand with unbounded respect and deference, until 1787, when, upon the prince's application to Parliament for payment of his debts, Fox authoritatively declared in the House of Commons that no marriage between the prince and Mrs. Fitzherbert had ever taken place. However, upon the prince's solemn and oft-repeated assurance that Fox had no authority for this degrading denial, the breach between the offended wife and her husband was healed. So they continued to live together on a matrimonial footing until 1794, when, being about to contract a forced legal marriage with his cousin, Caroline of Brunswick, the prince very reluctantly cast Mrs. Fitzherbert off, at the same time continuing the pension of -L-3000 a year, which he had allowed her ever since their marriage. Shortly after the birth of Princess Charlotte in 1796, the prince, who hated the Princess of Wales, separated from her and besought the forsaken Mrs. Fitzherbert to return to him. This, after consultation with Rome, she at length did in 1800, and remained with him some nine years more, when they virtually parted. At last, in 1811, because of a crowning affront put upon her on occasion of a magnificent fete given at Carlton House by the prince, lately made regent, at which entertainment no fixed place at the royal table had been assigned her, she broke off connexion with the prince for ever; withdrawing into private life upon an annuity of -L-6000. Her husband, as King George IV, died in 1830, with a locket containing her miniature round his neck, and was so buried. Mrs. Fitzherbert survived him seven years, dying at the age of eighty, at Brighton, where she was buried in the Catholic church of St. John the Baptist, to the erection of which she had largely contributed, and wherein a mural monument to her memory is still to be seen. Kebbel in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v.; Gillow, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s. v.; Annual Register for 1837 (London); Langdale, Memoirs of Mrs. Fitzherbert (London, 1856); Wilkins, Mrs. Fitzherbert and George IV (London, 1905). C.T. Boothman Sir Anthony Fitzherbert Sir Anthony Fitzherbert Judge, b. in 1470; d. 27 May, 1538. He was the sixth son of Ralph Fitzherbert of Norbury, Derbyshire, and Elizabeth Marshall. His brothers dying young, he succeeded his father as lord of the manor of Norbury, an estate granted to the family in 1125 and still in their hands. Wood states that he was educated at Oxford, but no evidence of this exists; nor is it known at which of the inns of court he received his legal training, though he is included in a list of Gray's Inn readers (Douthwaite, Gray's Inn, p. 46.) He was called to the degree of serjeant-at-law, 18 Nov., 1510, and six years later he was appointed king's serjeant. He had already published (in 1514) his great digest of the yearbooks which was the first systematic attempt to provide a summary of English law. It was known as "La Graunde Abridgement" and has often been reprinted, both entire and in epitomes, besides forming the foundation of all subsequent abridgments. He also brought out an edition of "Magna charta cum diversis aliis statutis" (1519). In 1522 he was made a judge of common pleas and was knighted; but his new honours did not check his literary activity and in the following year (1523) he published three works: one on law, "Diversite de courtz et leur jurisdictions" (tr. by Hughes in 1646); one on agriculture, "The Boke of Husbandire"; and one of law and agriculture combined, "The Boke of Surveyinge and Improvements". All three were frequently reprinted and though Sir Anthony's authorship of the "Boke of Husbandrie" was formerly questioned it is now regarded as established. Meanwhile his integrity and ability caused much business to be entrusted to him. In 1524 Fitzherbert was sent on a royal commission to Ireland; Archbishop Warham appointed him by will sole arbitrator in the administration of his estate; and in 1529 when Wolsey fell, he was made a commissioner to hear chancery causes in place of the chancellor, and he subsequently signed the articles of impeachment against him. As one of the judges he unwillingly took part in the trials of the martyrs Fisher, More, and Haile, but he strongly disapproved of the king's ecclesiastical policy, particularly the suppression of the monasteries and he bound his children under oath never to accept or purchase any abbey lands. In 1534 he brought out "that exact work, exquisitely penned" (Coke, Reports X, Pref.), "La Novelle Natura Brevium", which remained one of the classical English law books until the end of the eighteenth century. His last works were the constantly reprinted "L'Office et Auctoryte des justices de peas" (1538), the first complete treatise on the subject, and "L'Office de Viconts Bailiffes, Escheators, Constables, Coroners". Sir Anthony was twice married, first to Dorothy Willoughby who died without issue, and secondly to Matilda Cotton by whom he had a large family. His descendants have always kept the Faith and still own his estate of Norbury as well as the family seat at Swynnerton. EDWIN BURTON Thomas Fitzherbert Thomas Fitzherbert Born 1552, at Swynnerton, Staffs, England; died 17 Aug., 1640, at Rome. His father having died whilst Thomas was an infant, he was, even as a child, the head of an important family and the first heir born at Swynnerton, where his descendants have since flourished and still remain Catholics. He was trained to piety and firmness in his religion by his mother, and when sent to Oxford in his sixteenth year he confessed his faith with a courage that grew with the various trials, of which he has left us an interesting memoir (Foley, "Records of English Province S.J.", II, 210). At last he was forced to keep in hiding, and in 1572 he suffered imprisonment. In 1580 he married and had issue, but he did not give up his works of zeal. When Campion and Persons commenced their memorable mission, Fitzherbert put himself at their service, and helped Campion in the preparation of his "Decem Rationes" by verifying quotations and copying passages from the fathers in various libraries, to which it would have been impossible for the Jesuit to obtain admission. Unable at last to maintain his position in face of the ever-growing persecution, he left England in 1582, and took up his residence in the north of France. Here, as a lay Catholic of birth, means, and unexceptionable character, he was much trusted by the Catholic leaders, and as sedulously watched by Walsingham's emissaries, whose letters contain frequent insinuations against his intentions and ulterior objects (see Foley, "Records of English Province S.J.", II, 220-228). His wife died in 1588, and he soon afterwards took a vow of celibacy. He is next found in the household of the young Duke of Feria, whose mother was Lady Anne Dormer. With him or in his service he lived in Flanders, Spain, Milan, Naples, and Rome for some twenty years, until the duke died in 1607, on the point of setting out for a diplomatic mission to Germany, on which Fitzherbert was to have accompanied him. It was during this period that he was charged in 1598 by Squire with having tempted him to murder Queen Elizabeth; in 1595 a charge of contradictory implication had been preferred against him to the Spanish Government, viz. that he was an agent of Elizabeth. Both charges led to the enhancement of his reputation. An interesting series of 200 letters from the duke to him is preserved in the archives of the Archdiocese of Westminster. In 1601, while in Spain, he felt moved to take a vow to offer himself for the priesthood, and he was ordained in Rome 24 March, 1602. After this he acted as Roman agent for the archpriest Harrison until he was succeeded, in 1609, by the future bishop, Richard Smith. But in 1606 he had made a third vow, namely, to enter the Society of Jesus, which he did about the year 1613. He was soon given the important post of superior in Flanders, 1616 to 1618, afterwards recalled and made rector of the English College, Rome, from 1618 to 1639. He died there, closing, at the age of eighty-eight years, a life that had been filled with an unusual variety of important duties. His principal works are: "A Defence of the Catholycke Cause, By T.F., with an Apology of his innocence in a fayned conspiracy of Edward Squire" (St-Omer, 1602); "A Treatise concerning Policy and Religion" (Douai, 1606-10, 1615), translated into Latin in 1630. This work was highly valued for its sound and broad-minded criticism of the lax political principles professed in those days. He also wrote books in the controversy that grew out of King James's Oath of Allegiance: "A Supplement to [Father Persons's] the Discussion of M. D. Barlow" (St-Omer, 1613); "A Confutation of certaine Absurdities uttered by M. D. Andrews" (St-Omer, 1613); "Of the Oath of Fidelity" (St-Omer, 1614); "The Obmutesce of F. F. to the Epphata of D. Collins" (St-Omer, 1621). We have also from his pen a translation of Turcellini's "Life of St. Francis Xavier" (Paris, 1632). J.H. POLLEN William John Fitzpatrick William John Fitzpatrick Historian, b. in Dublin, Ireland, 31 Aug., 1830; d. there 24 Dec., 1895. The son of a rich merchant, he had ample means to indulge his peculiar tastes, and these were for biography, and especially for seeking out what was hitherto unknown and not always desirable to publish about great men. Educated partly at a Protestant school, partly at Clongowes Wood College, he early took to writing and in 1855 published his first work -- "The Life, Times and Correspondence of Lord Cloncurry". The same year he wrote a series of letters to "Notes and Queries" charging Sir Walter Scott with plagiarism in his Waverley novels, and attributing the chief credit of having written these novels to Sir Walter's brother Thomas. The latter was dead, but his daughters repudiated Fitzpatrick's advocacy and their father's supposed claims, and the matter ended there. In 1859 Fitzpatrick published "The Friends, Foes and Adventures of Lady Morgan". From that date to his death, his pen was never idle. His research was great, his industry a marvel, his patience and care immense, nor is he ever consciously unjust. For these reasons, though his style is unattractive, his works are valuable, especially to the Irish historical student. Notable examples are "The Sham Squire" (1866), "Ireland before the Union" (1867), "The Correspondence of Daniel O'Connell" (1888), "Secret Service under Pitt" (1892). Fitzpatrick also wrote works dealing with Archbishop Whately, Charles Lever, Rev. Dr. Lanigan, Father Tom Burke, O.P., and Father James Healy of Bray. In 1876 he was appointed professor of history by the Hibernian Academy of Arts. Fitzpatrick's painstaking research as well as his spirit of fair play are specially to be commended and have earned words of praise from two men differing in many other things -- Lecky and Gladstone. E.A. D'ALTON Richard Fitzralph Richard Fitzralph Archbishop of Armagh, b. at Dundalk, Ireland, about 1295; d. at Avignon, 16 Dec., 1360. He studied in Oxford, where we first find mention of him in 1325 as an ex-fellow and teacher of Balliol College. He was made doctor of theology before 1331, and was chancellor of Oxford University in 1333. In 1334 he was made chancellor of Lincoln Cathedral, and in Jan., 1335, canon and prebendary of Lichfield, "notwithstanding that he has canonries and prebends of Crediton and Bosham, and has had provision made for him of the Chancellorship of Lincoln and the canonries and prebends of Armagh and Exeter, all of which he is to resign" (Bliss, Calendar of Entries in Papal Registers, II, 524). He was archdeacon of Chester when made dean of Lichfield in 1337. On 31 July, 1346, he was consecrated Archbishop of Armagh. Fitzralph was a man who pre-eminently joined the speculative temperament with the practical. One of the great Scholastic luminaries of his day, and a close friend of the scholarly Richard of Bury, he fostered learning among his priests by sending many of them to take higher studies in Oxford. He was zealous too in visiting the various church provinces, and in bettering financial as well as spiritual conditions in his own see. He contended for his primatial rights against the immunity claimed by the See of Dublin; and on various occasions acted as peacemaker between the English and the Irish. He was in great demand as a preacher, and many of his sermons are still extant in manuscript. Whilst at Avignon in 1350, Fitzralph presented a memorial from the English clergy reciting certain complaints against the mendicant orders. After serving on a commission appointed by Clement VI to inquire into the points at issue, he embodied his own views in the treatise "De Pauperie Salvatoris", which deals with the subject of evangelical poverty, as well as the questions then agitated concerning dominion, possession, and use, and the relation of these to the state of grace in man. Part of this work is printed by Poole in his edition of Wyclif's "De Dominio Divino" (London, 1890). It was probably during this visit that Fitzralph also took part in the negotiations going on between the Armenian delegates and the pope. He composed an elaborate apologetico-polemic work, entitled "Summa in Quaestionibus Armenorum" (Paris, 1511), in which he displayed his profound knowledge of Scripture with telling effect in refuting the Greek and Armenian heresies. Fitzralph's controversy with the friars came to a crisis when he was cited to Avignon in 1357. Avowing his entire submission to the authority of the Holy See, he defended his attitude towards the friars in the plea entitled "Defensorium Curatorum" (printed in Goldast's "Monarchia" and elsewhere). He maintained as probable that voluntary mendicancy is contrary to the teachings of Christ. His main plea, however, was for the withdrawal of the privileges of the friars in regard to confessions, preaching, burying, etc. He urged a return to the purity of their original institution, claiming that these privileges undermined the authority of the parochial clergy. The friars were not molested, but by gradual legislation harmony was restored between them and the parish clergy. Fitzralph's position, however, was not directly condemned, and he died in peace at Avignon. In 1370 his remains were transferred to St. Nicholas' church, Dundalk; miracles were reported from his tomb and for several centuries his memory was held in saintly veneration. His printed works are mentioned above. His "Opus in P. Lombardi Sententias" and several other works (list in the "Catholic University Bulletin", XI, 243) are still in manuscript. JOHN J. GREANEY Henry Fitzsimon Henry Fitzsimon (Fitz Simon). Jesuit, b. 1566 (or 1569), in Dublin, Ireland; d. 29 Nov., 1643 (or 1645), probably at Kilkenny. He was educated a Protestant at Oxford (Hart Hall, and perhaps Christ Church), 1583-1587. Going thence to the University of Paris, he became a zealous protagonist of Protestantism, "with the firm intention to have died for it, if need had been". But having engaged in controversy with "an owld English Jesuit, Father Thomas Darbishire, to my happiness I was overcome. " Having embraced Catholicism, he visited Rome and Flanders, where in 1592, he "elected to militate under the Jesuits' standard, because they do most impugn the impiety of heretics". In 1595 there was a call for Jesuit laborers for Ireland, which had been deprived of them for ten years. He at once offered himself for the post of danger, and he shares with Father Archer the honour of having refound that mission on a basis that proved permanent amid innumerable dangers and trials. Keeping chiefly to Dublin and Drogheda, he was wondrously successful in reconciling Protestants, and he loudly and persistently challenged the chief Anglican divines to disputation. With the same fighting spirit, he laughed at his capture in 1600. "Now", he said, "my adversaries cannot say that they do not know where to find me", and he would shout his challenges from his prison window at every passing parson. But his opponents, James Ussher, Meredith Hanmer, and John Rider, in spite of their professions, carefully avoided coming to close quarters with their redoubtable adversary. Banished in 1604, he visited Spain, Rome, and Flanders, 1611-1620, everywhere earnest and active with voice and pen in the cause of Ireland. At the outbreak of the Thirty Years War in 1620, he served as chaplain to the Irish soldiers in the imperial army, and published a diary, full of life and interest, of his adventurous experiences. He probably returned to Flanders in 1621 and in 1630 went back to Ireland where he continued to work with energy and success until the outbreak of the Civil War (1640). In the ensuing tumult and confusion, we are unable to follow his later movements with certainty. At one time we hear he was under sentence of death, from which he escaped in the winter of 1641 to the Wicklow Mountains, and after many sufferings died in peace, probably in Kilkenny. "Not many, if any Irishmen", says his biographer, reflecting on the many universities, towns, courts, and armies which Father Fitzsimon had visited, "have known, or been known to, so many men of mark". Besides one controversial work in manuscript, not known to previous biographers, now at Oscott College, Birmingham, which is entitled "A revelation of contradictions in reformed articles of religion", dated 1633, he wrote two manuscript treatises, now lost, against Rider, and afterwards printed against him "A Catholic Confutation" (Rouen, 1608); Britannomachia Ministrorum" (1614); "Pugna Pragensis" (1620) and "Buquoii Quadrimestreiter, Auctore Constantio Peregrino" (Bruenn, 1621, several editions, also Italian and English versions); Catalogus Praecipuorum Sanctorum Hiberniae" (1611, several editions), important as drawing attention to Irish hagiography at a time of great depression. His "Words of Comfort to Persecuted Catholics", "Letters from a Cell in Dublin Castle", and "Diary of the Bohemian War of 1620", together with a sketch of his life, were published by Father Edmund Hogan, S.J. (Dublin, 1881). Hogan, Distinguished Irishmen of the Sixteenth Century (Dublin, 1894), 198-310; Foley, Records S. J., VII, 260; Sommervogel, Bibliotheque, III, 766-768; Cooper in Dict. Nat Biog., s. v. J.H. POLLEN Thomas Fitz-Simons Thomas Fitz-Simons American merchant, b. in Ireland, 1741; d. at Philadelphia, U.S.A., 26 Aug., 1811. There is no positive date of his arrival in America, but church records in Philadelphia show he was there in 1758. In 1763 he was married to Catherine, sister of George Meade, and he was Meade's partner as a merchant until 1784. In the events that led up to the revolt of the colonists against England he took a prominent part. He was one of the deputies who met in conference in Carpenter's Hall, Philadelphia, out of which conference grew the Continental Congress that assembled 4 Sept., 1774, and of which he was a member. His election as one of the Provincial Deputies in July, 1774, is the first instance of a Catholic being named for a public office in Pennsylvania. At the breaking-out of hostilities he organized a company of militia and took part in the Trenton campaign in New Jersey. After this service in the field he returned to Philadelphia and was active with other merchants in providing for the needs of the army. On 12 Nov., 1782, he was elected a member of the Congress of the old Confederacy and was among the leaders in its deliberations. He was a member of the Convention that met in Philadelphia 25 May, 1787, and framed the Constitution of the United States. Daniel Carroll of Maryland being the only other Catholic member. In this convention Fitz-Simons voted against universal suffrage and in favour of limiting it to free-holders. Under this constitution he was elected a member of the first Congress of the United States and in it served on the Committee on Ways and Means. In politics he was an ardent Federalist. He was re-elected to the second and the third Congresses, but was defeated for the fourth, in 1794, and this closed his political career. Madison wrote to Jefferson, on 16 Nov., 1794, that the failure of Fitz-Simons to be selected was a "stinging blow for the aristocracy". The records of Congress show that he was among the very first, if not the first, to advocate the fundamental principles of a protective tariff system to help American industries. When Washington was inaugurated the first president, Fitz-Simons was one of the four laymen, Charles and Daniel Carroll of Maryland, and Dominic Lynch of New York being the others, to sign the address of congratulation presented to him by the Catholics of the country. He was among the founders of Georgetown College, and was considered during his long life one of the most enlightened merchants in the United States. On all questions connected with commerce and finance his advice was always sought and regarded with respect in the operations that laid the foundation of the commercial prosperity of the new republic. THOMAS F. MEEHAN Placidus Fixlmillner Placidus Fixlmillner Astromomer, b. at Achleuthen near Kremsmuenster, Austria, in 1721; d. at Kremsmuenster, Austria, 27 August, 1791. He received his early education at Salzburg, where he displayed a talent for mathematics. He joined the Benedictines at the age of sixteen and became distinguished for his broad scholarship. In 1756 he published a small treatise entitled "Reipublicae sacrae origines divinae". He intended to continue this work but the transit of Venus in 1761 again aroused his interest in mathematics. Though already forty years of age he resumed his old studies with ardour, and an opportunity soon presented itself for work in astronomy. He was appointed director of the observatory of Kremsmuenster, which had been established by his uncle in 1748 while abbot. His first task was to improve the equipment and have new instruments constructed, and as soon as possible he determined the latitude and longitude of the observatory. He continued in charge of the observatory until his death and by his industry accumulated a number of observations of great variety and value. He did not, however, devote all his time to astronomy. For many years he was in charge of the college connected with the abbey and at the same time acted as professor of canon law. As such he was honoured with the dignity of notary Apostolic of the Roman Court. Fixlmillner is best known for his work in astronomy. He was one of the first to compute the orbit of Uranus after its discovery by Herschel. His numerous observations of Mercury were of much service to Lalande in constructing tables of that planet. Besides the treatise already mentioned he was the author of "Meridianus speculae astronomicae cremifanensis" (Steyer, 1765), which treats of his observations in connexion with the latitude and longitude of his observatory, and "Decennium astronomicum" (Steyer, 1776). After his death his successor P. Derfflinger published the "Acta cremifanensia a Placido Fixlmillner" (Steyer, 1791), which contain his observations from 1776 to 1791. SCHLICHTEGROLL, Nekrolog der Deutschen (Gotha, 1791-1806), supplement; ZACH, Ephemerides geographiques (1799); NICOLLET in Biog. Universelle, XIV. H. M. BROCK Armand-Hippolyte-Louis Fizeau Armand-Hippolyte-Louis Fizeau Physicist, b. at Paris, 23 Sept., 1819; d. at Nanteuil, Seine-et-Marne, 18 Sept., 1896. His father, a distinguished physician and professor of medicine in Paris during the Restoration, left him an independent fortune, so that he was able to devote himself to scientific research. He attended Stanislas College and then began to study medicine, but had to abandon it on account of ill-health and travelled for awhile. Then followed Arago's lessons at the Observatory, Regnault on optics at the college of France, and a thorough study of his brother's notebooks of the courses at the Ecole Polytechnique. In 1839 he became interested in the new photography and succeeded in getting permanent pictures by the daguerreotype. Foucault came to consult him about this work and became associated with him in their epoch-making experiments in optics, showing the identity of radiant heat and light, the regularity of the light vibrations, and the validity of the undulatory theory. Just as they were ready to develop the experimentum crucis (see FOUCAULT) overthrowing the emission theory, they parted company and worked independently. Fizeau was the first to determine experimentally the velocity of light (1849). He used a rotating cogwheel and a fixed mirror several miles distant; light passed between two teeth of the wheel to the distant mirror and then returned. If the wheel turned fast enough to obscure the reflection, then the reflected beam struck a cog. The time it took the wheel to move the width of one tooth was then equal to the time it took the light to travel twice the distance between the wheel an the mirror. He also experimented successfully to show that the ether is carried along by moving substances, since light travels faster through a stream of water in the direction of its motion than in the opposite direction. In his measurements of vanishingly small distances, such as the expansion of crystals, he made use of the extremely small and very regular wave-length of light. His addition of a condenser in the primary circuit of the induction coil increased the effectiveness of this device considerably. On the recommendation of the Academy of Sciences he was awarded the Grand Prix (10,000 francs) of the Institute in 1856. He was elected a member of the Academy of Sciences in 1860, an a member of the Bureau des Longitudes in 1878. He received the decoration of the Legion of Honour in 1849 and became officer in 1875. In 1866 the Royal Society of London awarded him the Rumford Medal. Cornu says of him: "He was a practical and convinced Christian and did not hide that fact." In the presidential address before the academy (Comptes Rendus, 1879), Fizeau calls attention to "the dignity and independence of natural science as well as to its limits of action, preventing it from interfering in philosophic or social questions, and not permitting it to put itself in opposition to the noble emotions of the heart nor to the pure voice of conscience". Most of his published works appeared in the "Comptes Rendus" and in the "Annales de physique et de chimie". A few of the titles are: "Sur la dageurreotypie"; "Sur l'interference entre deux rayons dans le cas de grandes differences de marche"; "Vitesse de la lumiere"; "Interference des rayons calorifiques"; "Refraction differentielle"; "Vitesse de l'electricite"; "Dilatation des cristaux". GRAY, Nature (London, 1896); CORNU, Annuaire pour l'an 1898 of the Bureau des Longitudes (Paris) WILLIAM FOX Flabellum Flabellum The flabellum, in liturgical use, is a fan made of leather, silk, parchment, or feathers intended to keep away insects from the Sacred Species and from the priest. It was in use in the sacrifices of the heathens and in the Christian Church from very early days, for in the Apostolic Constitutions, a work of the fourth century, we read (VIII, 12): "Let two of the deacons, on each side of the altar, hold a fan, made up of thin membranes, or of the feathers of the peacock, or of fine cloth, and let them silently drive away the small animals that fly about, that they may not come near to the cups". Its use was continued in the Latin Church to about the fourteenth century. In the Greek Church to the present day, the deacon, at his ordination, receives the hagion ripidion, or sacred fan, which is generally made to the likeness of a cherub's six-winged face, and in the sacrifice of the Mass he waves it gently over the species from the time of the Offertory to the Communion -- in the Liturgy of St. Basil only during the Consecration. Among the ornaments found belonging to the church of St. Riquier, in Ponthieu (813), there is a silver flabellum (Migne, P. L., CLXXIV, 1257), and for the chapel of Cisoin, near Lisle, another flabellum of silver is noted in the will of Everard (died 937), the founder of that abbey. When, in 1777, Martene wrote his "Voyage Litteraire", the Abbey of Tournus, on the Saone in France, possessed an old flabellum, which had an ivory handle two feet long, and was beautifully carved; the two sides of the ivory circular disc were engraved with fourteen figures of saints. Pieces of this fan, dating from the eighth century, are in the Musee Cluny at Paris, and in the Collection Carrand. The circular disc is also found in the Slavic flabellum of the thirteenth century, preserved at Moscow, and in the one shown in the Megaspileon monastery in Greece. On this latter disc are carved the Madonna and Child and it is encircled by eight medallions containing the images of cherubim and of the Four Evangelists. The inventory, taken in 1222, of the treasury of Salisbury, enumerates a silver fan and two of parchment. The richest and most beautiful specimen is the flabellum of the thirteenth century in the Abbey of Kremsmuenster in Upper Austria. It has the shape of a Greek cross and is ornamented with fretwork and the representation of the Resurrection of Our Lord. A kind of fan with a hoop of little bells is used by the Maronites and other Orientals and is generally made of silver or brass. Apart from the foregoing liturgical uses, a flabellum, in the shape of a fan, later of an umbrella or canopy, was used as a mark of honour for bishops and princes. Two fans of this kind are used at the Vatican whenever the pope is carried in state on the sedia gestatoria to or from the altar or audience-chamber. Through the influence of Count Ditalmo di Brozza, the fans formerly used at the Vatican were, in 1902, presented to Mrs. Joseph Drexel of Philadelphia, U. S. A., by Leo XIII, and in return she gave a new pair to the Vatican. The old ones are exhibited in the museum of the University of Pennsylvania. They are splendid creations. The spread is formed of great ostrich plumes tipped with peacock feathers; on the sticks are the papal arms, worked in a crimson field in heavy gold, the crown studded with rubies and emeralds. St. Paul's Cathedral, London, had a fan made of peacock feathers, and York Cathedral's inventory mentions a silver handle of a fan, which was gilded and had upon it the enamelled picture of the bishop. Haymo, Bishop of Rochester (died 1352), gave to his church a fan of silver with an ivory handle. ROCK, Church of our Fathers (London, 1904), II, 209; DU CANGE, Glossarium (Niort, 1885); STREBER in kirchenlexicon, s. v.; KRAUS, Gesch. der kirchl. Kunst (Freiburg, 1896), I, 552. FRANCIS MERSHMAN. Aelia Flaccilla AElia Flaccilla (Plakilla) Empress, wife of Theodosius the Great, died c. a.d. 385 or 386. Like Theodosius himself, his first wife, AElia Flaccilla, was of Spanish descent. She may have been the daughter of Claudius Antonius, Prefect of Gaul, who was consul in 382. Her marriage with Theodosius probably took place in the year 376, when his father, the comes Theodosius, fell into disfavour and he himself withdrew to Cauca in Gallaecia, for her eldest son, afterwards Emperor Arcadius, was born towards the end of the following year. In the succeeding years she presented two more children to her husband Honorius (384), who later became emperor, and Pulcheria, who died in early childhood, shortly before her mother. Gregory of Nyssa states expressly that she had three children; consequently the Gratian mentioned by St. Ambrose, together with Pulcheria, was probably not her son. Flaccilla was, like her husband, a zealous supporter of the Nicene Creed and prevented the conference between the emperor and the Arian Eunomius (Sozomen, Hist. eccl., VII, vi). On the throne she was a shining example of Christian virtue and ardent charity. St. Ambrose describes her as "a soul true to God" (Fidelis anima Deo. -- "De obitu Theodosii", n. 40, in P. L., XVI, 1462). In his panegyric St. Gregory of Nyssa bestowed the highest praise on her virtuous life and pictured her as the helpmate of the emperor in all good works, an ornament of the empire, a leader of justice, an image of beneficence. He praises her as filled with zeal for the Faith, as a pillar of the Church, as a mother of the indigent. Theodoret in particular exalts her charity and benevolence (Hist. eccles., V, xix, ed. Valesius, III, 192 sq.). He tells us how she personally tended cripples, and quotes a saying of hers: "To distribute money belongs to the imperial dignity, but I offer up for the imperial dignity itself personal service to the Giver." Her humility also attracts a special meed of praise from the church historian. Flaccilla was buried in Constantinople, St. Gregory of Nyssa delivering her funeral oration. She is venerated in the Greek Church as a saint, and her feast is kept on 14 September. The Bollandists (Acta SS., Sept., IV, 142) are of the opinion that she is not regarded as a saint but only as venerable, but her name stands in the Greek Menaea and Synaxaria followed by words of eulogy, as is the case with the other saints (cf. e.g. Synaxarium eccl. Constantinopolitanae, ed. Delehaye, Brussels, 1902, col. 46, under 14 Sept.). GREGORY OF NYSSA, Oratio funebris de Placilla in P. G., XLVI, 877-92; THEMISTIUS, Oratio, ed. DINDORF, 637 sqq.; TILLEMONT. Histoire des empereurs, V (Brussels, 1732), 62, 109 sq., notes 33, 40 sq.; ARGLES in Dict. Christ. Biog., s. v. Flaccilla (1); GUeLDENPENNING AND IFLAND, Der Kaiser Theodosius der Grosse (Halle, 1878), 56, 132. J. P. KIRSCH. Flagellants Flagellants A fanatical and heretical sect that flourished in the thirteenth and succeeding centuries, Their origin was at one time attributed to the missionary efforts of St. Anthony of Padua, in the cities of Northern Italy, early in the thirteenth century; but Lempp (Zeitschrift fuer Kirchengeschichte, XII, 435) has shown this to be unwarranted. Every important movement, however, has its forerunners, both in the idea out of which it grows and in specific acts of which it is a culmination. And, undoubtedly, the practice of self-flagellation, familiar to the folk as the ascetic custom of the more severe orders (such as the Camaldolese, the Cluniacs, the Dominicans), had but to be connected in idea with the equally familiar penitential processions popularized by the Mendicants about 1233, to prepare the way for the great outburst of the latter half of the thirteenth century. It is in 1260 that we first hear of the Flagellants at Perugia. The terrible plague of 1259, the long-continued tyranny and anarchy throughout the Italian States, the prophecies concerning Antichrist and the end of the world by Joachim of Flora and his like, had created a mingled state of despair and expectation among the devout lay-folk of the middle and lower classes. Then there appeared a famous hermit of Umbria, Raniero Fasani, who organized a brotherhood of "Disciplinati di Gesu Cristo", which spread rapidly throughout Central and Northern Italy. The brotherhoods were known by various names in various localities (Battuti, Scopatori, Verberatori, etc.), but their practices were very similar everywhere. All ages and conditions were alike subject to this mental epidemic. Clergy and laity, men and women, even children of tender years, scourged themselves in reparation for the sins of the whole world. Great processions, amounting sometimes to 10,000 souls, passed through the cities, beating themselves, and calling the faithful to repentance. With crosses and banners borne before them by the clergy, they marched slowly through the towns. Stripped to the waist and with covered faces, they scourged themselves with leathern thongs till the blood ran, chanting hymns and canticles of the Passion of Christ, entering the churches and prostrating themselves before the altars. For thirty-three days and a half this penance was continued by all who undertook it, in honour of the years of Christ's life on earth. Neither mud nor snow, cold nor heat, was any obstacle. The processions continued in Italy throughout 1260, and by the end of that year had spread beyond the Alps to Alsace, Bavaria, Bohemia, and Poland. In 1261, however, the ecclesiastical and civil authorities awoke to the danger of such an epidemic, although its undesirable tendencies, on this occasion, were rather political than theological. In January the pope forbade the processions, and the laity realized suddenly that behind the movement was no sort of ecclesiastical sanction. It ceased almost as quickly as it had started, and for some time seemed to have died out. Wandering flagellants are heard of in Germany in 1296. In Northern Italy, Venturino of Bergamo, a Dominican, afterwards beatified, attempted to revive the processions of flagellants in 1334, and led about 10,000 men, styled the "Doves", as far as Rome. But he was received with laughter by the Romans, and his followers deserted him. He went to Avignon to see the pope, by whom he was promptly relegated to his monastery, and the movement collapsed. In 1347 the Black Death swept across Europe and devastated the Continent for the next two years. In 1348 terrible earthquakes occurred in Italy. The scandals prevalent in Church and State intensified in the popular mind the feeling that the end of all things was come. With extraordinary suddenness the companies of Flagellants appeared again, and rapidly spread across the Alps, through Hungary and Switzerland. In 1349 they had reached Flanders, Holland, Bohemia, Poland, and Denmark. By September of that year they had arrived in England, where, however, they met with but little success. The English people watched the fanatics with quiet interest, even expressing pity and sometimes admiration for their devotion; but no one could be induced to join them, and the attempt at proselytism failed utterly. Mean- while in Italy the movement, in accordance with the temperament of the people, so thorough, so ecstatic, yet so matter-of-fact and practical in religious matters, spread rapidly through all classes of the community. Its diffusion was marked and aided by the popular laudi, folk-songs of the Passion of Christ and the Sorrows of Our Lady, while in its wake there sprang up numberless brotherhoods devoted to penance and the corporal works of mercy. Thus the "Battuti" of Siena, Bologna, Gubbio, all founded Case di Dio, which were at once centres at which they could meet for devotional and penitential exercises, and hospices in which the sick and destitute were relieved. Though tendencies towards heresy soon became apparent, the sane Italian faith was unfavourable to its growth. The confraternities adapted themselves to the permanent ecclesiastical organization, and not a few of them have continued, at least as charitable associations, until the present day. It is noticeable that the songs of the Laudesi during their processions tended more and more to take on a dramatic character. From them developed in time the popular mystery-play, whence came the beginnings of the Italian drama. As soon, however, as the Flagellant movement crossed the Alps into Teutonic countries, its whole nature changed. The idea was welcomed with enthusiasm; a ceremonial was rapidly developed, and almost as rapidly a specialized doctrine, that soon degenerated into heresy. The Flagellants became an organized sect, with severe discipline and extravagant claims. They wore a white habit and mantle, on each of which was a red cross, whence in some parts they were called the "Brotherhood of the Cross". Whosoever desired to join this brotherhood was bound to remain in it for thirty-three and a half days, to swear obedience to the "Masters" of the organization, to possess at least four pence a day for his support, to be reconciled to all men, and, if married, to have the sanction of his wife. The ceremonial of the Flagellants seems to have been much the same in all the northern cities. Twice a day, proceeding slowly to the public square or to the principal church, they put off their shoes, stripped themselves to the waist and prostrated themselves in a large circle. By their posture they indicated the nature of the sins they intended to expiate, the murderer lying on his back, the adulterer on his face, the perjurer on one side holding up three fingers, etc. First they were beaten by the "Master", then, bidden solemnly in a prescribed form to rise, they stood in a circle and scourged themselves severely, crying out that their blood was mingled with the Blood of Christ and that their penance was preserving the whole world from perishing. At the end the "Master" read a letter which was supposed to have been brought by an angel from heaven to the church of St. Peter in Rome. This stated that Christ, angry at the grievous sins of mankind, had threatened to destroy the world, yet, at the intercession of the Blessed Virgin, had ordained that all who should join the brotherhood for thirty-three and a half days should be saved. The reading of this "letter", following the shock to the emotions caused by the public penance of the Flagellants, aroused much excitement among the populace. In spite of the protests and criticism of the educated, thousands enrolled themselves in the brotherhood. Great processions marched from town to town, with crosses, lights, and banners borne before them. They walked slowly, three or four abreast, bearing their knotted scourges and chanting their melancholy hymns. As the number grew, the pretences of the leaders developed. They professed a ridiculous horror of even accidental contact with women and insisted that it was of obligation to fast rigidly on Fridays. They cast doubts on the necessity or even desirability of the sacraments, and even pretended to absolve one another, to cast out evil spirits, and to work miracles. They asserted that the ordinary ecclesiastical jurisdiction was suspended and that their pilgrimages would be continued for thirty-three and a half years. Doubtless not a few of them hoped to establish a lasting rival to the Catholic Church, but very soon the authorities took action and endeavoured to suppress the whole movement. For, while it was thus growing in Germany and the Netherlands, it had also entered France. At first this fatuus novus ritus was well received. As early as 1348, Pope Clement VI had permitted a similar procession in Avignon in entreaty against the plague. Soon, however, the rapid spread and heretical tendencies of the Flagellants, especially among the turbulent peoples of Southern France, alarmed the authorities. At the entreaty of the University of Paris, the pope, after careful inquiry, condemned the movement and prohibited the processions, by letters dated 20 Oct., 1349, which were sent to all the bishops of France, Germany, Poland, Sweden, and England. This condemnation coincided with a natural reaction of public opinion, and the Flagellants, from being a powerful menace to all settled public order, found themselves a hunted and rapidly dwindling sect. But, though severely stricken, the Flagellant tendency was by no means eradicated. Throughout the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries there were recrudescences of this and similar heresies. In Germany, about 1360, there appeared one Konrad Schmid, who called himself Enoch, and pretended that all ecclesiastical authority was abrogated, or rather, transferred to himself. Thousands of young men joined him, and he was able to continue his propaganda till 1369, when the vigorous measures of the Inquisition resulted in his suppression. Yet we still hear of trials and condemnations of Flagellants in 1414 at Erfurt, in 1446 at Nordhausen, in 1453 at Sangerhausen, even so late as 1481 at Halberstadt. Again the "Albati" or "Bianchi" are heard of in Provence about 1399, with their processions of nine days, during which they beat themselves and chanted the "Stabat Mater". At the end of the fourteenth century, too, the great Dominican, St. Vincent Ferrer, spread this penitential devotion throughout the north of Spain, and crowds of devotees followed him on his missionary pilgrimages through France, Spain, and Northern Italy. In fact, the great outburst of 1349, while, perhaps, more widespread and more formidable than similar fanaticisms, was but one of a series of popular upheavals at irregular intervals from 1260 until the end of the fifteenth century. The generating cause of these movements was always an obscure amalgam of horror of corruption, of desire to imitate the heroic expiations of the great penitents, of apocalyptic vision, of despair at the prevailing corruption in Church and State. All these things are smouldering in the minds of the much-tried populace of Central Europe. It needed but a sufficient occasion, such as the accumulated tyranny of some petty ruler, the horror of a great plague, or the ardent preaching of some saintly ascetic, to set the whole of Christendom in a blaze. Like fire the impulse ran through the people, and like fire it died down, only to break out here and there anew. At the beginning of each outbreak, the effects were generally good. Enemies were reconciled, debts were paid, prisoners were released, ill-gotten goods were restored. But it was the merest revivalism, and, as always, the reaction was worse than the former stagnation. Sometimes the movement was more than suspected of being abused for political ends, more often it exemplified the fatal tendency of emotional pietism to degenerate into heresy. The Flagellant movement was but one of the manias that afflicted the end of the Middle Ages; others were the dancing-mania, the Jew-baiting rages, which the Flagellant processions encouraged in 1349, the child-crusades, and the like. And, according to the temperament of the peoples among whom it spread, the movement became a revolt and a fantastic heresy, a rush of devotion settling soon into pious practices and good works, or a mere spectacle that aroused the curiosity or the pity of the onlookers. Although as a dangerous heresy the Flagellants are not heard of after the fifteenth century, their practices were revived again and again as a means of quite orthodox public penance. In France, during the sixteenth century, we hear of White, Black, Grey, and Blue Brotherhoods. At Avignon, in 1574, Catherine de' Medici herself led a procession of Black Penitents. In Paris, in 1583, King Henry III became patron of the "Blancs Battus de l'Annonciation". On Holy Thursday of that year he organized a great procession from the Augustinians to Notre-Dame, in which all the great dignitaries of the realm were obliged to take part in company with himself. The laughter of the Parisians, however, who treated the whole thing as a jest, obliged the king to withdraw his patronage. Early in the seventeenth century, the scandals arising among these brotherhoods caused the Parliament of Paris to suppress them, and under the combined assaults of the law, the Gallicans, and the sceptics, the practice soon died out. Throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries Flagellant processions and self-flagellation were encouraged by the Jesuits in Austria and the Netherlands, as well as in the far countries which they evangelized. India, Persia, Japan, the Philippines, Mexico, and the States of South America, all had their Flagellant processions; in Central and South America they continue even to the present day, and were regulated and restrained by Pope Leo XIII. In Italy generally and in the Tyrol similar processions survived until the early years of the nineteenth century; in Rome itself they took place in the Jesuit churches as late as 1870, while even later they occurred in parts of Tuscany and Sicily. Always, however, these later Flagellant processions have taken place under the control of ecclesiastical authority, and must by no means he connected with the heretical epidemic of the later Middle Ages. One of the best modern accounts of flagellation and the Flagellants is an article by HAUPT, Geisselune, kirchliche, und Geisslerbruderschaften, in Realencykl. fuer prot. Theol. It contains full and excellent bibliographies. Some of the original authorities for the outbreak in 1260 will be found in PERTZ, Mon. Germ. Hist., XVII, 102-3, 105, 191, 402, 531, 714; XIX, 179. For the heresy of 1348 may be consulted: Chroniken der deutschen Staedte, VII, 204 sqq.; IX, 105 sqq.; Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte, XXI (1881), 21 sqq.; Recueil des chroniques de Flandre, II (Bruges, 1841), 111 sqq.; FREDERICQ, Corpus documentorum inquisitionis hoereticoe pravitatis neerlandicoe, I (Ghent, 1889), 190 sqq.; BERLIERE, Trois traites inedits sur les Flagellants de 1349, in Revue Benedictine, July, 1908. Good accounts are to be found in MURATORI, Antiquitt. Ital. med., oevi, VI (Milan, 1738-42), diss. lxxv; GRETSER, Opera, IV (Ratisbon, 1734), 43-5; ZOeCKLER, Askese und Moenchtum, II (Frankfort, 1897), 518, 530-7. LESLIE A. ST. L. TOKE. Flagellation Flagellation The history of the whip, rod, and stick, as instruments of punishment and of voluntary penance, is a long and interesting one. The Hebrew words for "whip" and "rod", are in etymology closely related (Gesenius). Horace (Sat., I, iii) tells us not to use the horribile flagellum, made of thongs of ox-hide, when the offender deserves only the scutica of twisted parchment; the schoolmaster's ferula -- Eng. ferule (Juvenal, Sat., I, i, 15) -- was a strap or rod for the hand (see ferule in Skeat). The earliest Scriptural mention of the whip is in Ex., v, 14, 16 (flagellati sunt; flagellis coedimur), where the Heb. word meaning "to strike" is interpreted in the Greek and the Latin texts, "were scourged" -- "beaten with whips". Roboam said (III Kings, xii, 11, 14; II Par., x, 11, 14): "My father beat you with whips, but I will beat you with scorpions", i. e. with scourges armed with knots, points, etc. Even in Latin scorpio is so interpreted by St. Isidore (Etym., v, 27), "virga nodosa vel aculeata". Old-Testament references to the rod might be multiplied indefinitely (Deut., xxv, 2, 3; II Kings, vii, 14; Job, ix, 34; Prov., xxvi, 3, etc.). In the New Testament we are told that Christ used the scourge on the money-changers (John, ii, 15); He predicted that He and His disciples would be scourged (Mat., x, 17; xx, 19); and St. Paul says: "Five times did I receive forty stripes, save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods" (II Cor., xi, 24, 25; Deut., xxv, 3; Acts, xvi, 22). The offender was to be beaten in the presence of the judges (Deut., xxv, 2, 3), but was never to receive more than forty stripes. To keep within the law, it was the practice to give only thirty-nine. The culprit was so attached to a Low pillar that he had to lean forward -- " they shall lay him down", says the law, to receive the strokes. Verses of thirteen words in Hebrew were recited, the last always being: "But he is merciful, and will forgive their sins: and will not destroy them" [Ps. lxxvii (Heb. lxxviii) 38]; but the words served merely to count the blows. Moses allowed masters to use the rod on slaves; not, however, so as to cause death (Ex., xxi, 20). The flagellation of Christ was not a Jewish, but a Roman punishment, and was therefore administered all the more cruelly. It was suggested by Pilate's desire to save Him from crucifixion, and this was inflicted only when the scourging had failed to satisfy the Jews. In Pilate's plan flagellation was not a preparation, but rather a substitute, for crucifixion. As the earliest monuments of Egypt make the scourge or whip very conspicuous, the children of Israel cannot have been the first on whom the Egyptians used it. In Assyria the slaves dragged their burdens under the taskmaster's lash. In Sparta even youths of high social standing were proud of their stoical indifference to the scourge; while at Rome the various names for slaves (flagriones, verberones, etc.) and the significant term lorarii, used by Plautus, give us ample assurance that the scourge was not spared. However, from passages in Cicero and texts in the New Testament, we gather that Roman citizens were exempt from this punishment. The bamboo is used on all classes in China, but in Japan heavier penalties, and frequently death itself, are imposed upon offenders. The European country most conspicuous at the present day for the whipping of culprits is Russia, where the knout is more than a match for the worst scourge of the Romans. Even in what may be called our own times, the use of the whip on soldiers under the English flag was not unknown; and the State of Delaware yet believes in it as a corrective and deterrent for the criminal class. If we refer to the past, by Statute 39 Eliz., ch. iv, evil-doers were whipped and sent back to the place of their nativity; moreover, Star-chamber whippings were frequent. "In Partridge's Almanack for 1692, it is stated that Oates was whipt with a whip of six thongs, and received 2256 lashes, amounting to 13536 stripes" (A Hist. of the Rod, p. 158). He survived, however, and lived for years. The pedagogue made free use of the birch. Orbillus, who flogged Horace, was only one of the learned line who did not believe in moral suasion, while Juvenal's words: "Et nos ergo manum ferulae subduximus" (Sat., I, i, 15) show clearly the system of school discipline existing in his day. The priests of Cybele scourged themselves and others, and such stripes were considered sacred. Although these and similar acts of penance, to propitiate heaven, were practised even before the coming of Christ, it was only in the religion established by Him that they found wise direction and real merit. It is held by some interpreters that St. Paul in the words: "I chastise my body" refers to self-inflicted bodily scourging (I Cor., ix, 27). The Greek word hypopiazo (see Liddell and Scott) means "to strike under the eye", and metaphorically "to mortify"; consequently, it can scarcely mean "to scourge", and indeed in Luke, xviii, 5, such an interpretation is quite inadmissible. Furthermore, where St. Paul certainly refers to scourging, he uses a different word. We may therefore safely conclude that he speaks here of mortification in general, as Piconio holds (Triplex Expositio). Scourging was soon adopted as a sanction in the monastic discipline of the fifth and following centuries. Early in the fifth century it is mentioned by Palladius in the "Historia Lausiaca" (c. vi), and Socrates (Hist. Eccl., IV, xxiii) tells us that, instead of being excommunicated, offending young monks were scourged. See the sixth-century rules of St. Caesarius of Aries for nuns (P. L., LXVII, 1111), and of St. Aurelian of Arles (ibid., LXVIII, 392, 401-02). Thenceforth scourging is frequently mentioned in monastic rules and councils as a preservative of discipline (Hefele, "Concilieng.", II, 594, 656). Its use as a punishment was general in the seventh century in all monasteries of the severe Columban rule (St. Columbanus, in "Regula Coenobialis", c. x, in P. L., LXXX, 215 sqq.); for later centuries of the early Middle Ages see Thomassin, "Vet. ac nova ecc. disciplina, II (3), 107; Du Cange, "Glossar. med. et infim. latinit.", s. v. "Disciplina"; Gretser, "De spontanea disciplinarum seu flagellorum cruce libri tres" (Ingolstadt, 1603); Kober, "Die koerperliche Zuechtigung als kirchliches Strafmittel gegen Cleriker und Moenche" in Tueb. "Quartalschrift" (1875). The Canon law (Decree of Gratian, Decretals of Gregory IX) recognized it as a punishment for ecclesiastics; even as late as the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, it appears in ecclesiastical legislation as a punishment for blasphemy, concubinage, and simony. Though doubtless at an early date a private means of penance and mortification, such use is publicly exemplified in the tenth and eleventh centuries by the lives of St. Dominic Loricatus (P. L., CXLIV, 1017) and St. Peter Damian (died 1072). The latter wrote a special treatise in praise of self-flagellation; though blamed by some contemporaries for excess of zeal, his example and the high esteem in which he was held did much to popularize the voluntary use of the scourge or "discipline" as a means of mortification and penance. Thenceforth it is met with in most medieval religious orders and associations. The practice was, of course, capable of abuse, and so arose in the thirteenth century the fanatical sect of the Flagellants, though in the same period we meet with the private use of the "discipline" by such saintly persons as King Louis IX and Elizabeth of Thuringia. UNGER, Die Flagellanten (1902); COOPER (pseudonym), Flagellation and the Flagellants, A History of the Rod, etc. (new ed., London, 1896), an anti-Catholic and biased work; BARNEY, Circumcision and Flagellation among the Filipinos (Carlisle, Pa., 1903); CALMET'S Dict. of the Bible, s. v. Scourging; KITTO, Cyclop. of Biblical Lit., s. v. Punishment. JOHN J. TIERNEY. Benedict Joseph Flaget Benedict Joseph Flaget First Bishop of Bardstown (subsequently of Louisville), Kentucky, U.S.A., b. at Contournat, near Billom, Auvergne, France, 7 November, 1763; d. 11 February, 1850, at Louisville, Kentucky. He was a posthumous child and was only two years old when his mother died, leaving him and two brothers to the care of an aunt; they were welcomed at the home of Canon Benoit Flaget, their uncle, at Billom. In his seventeenth year, he went to the Sulpician seminary of Clermont to study philosophy and theology, and joining the Society of St. Sulpice, 1 November, 1783, he was ordained priest in 1787, at Issy, where Father Gabriel Richard, the future apostle of Michigan, was then superior. Flaget taught dogmatic theology at Nantes for two years, and filled the same chair at the seminary of Angers when that house was closed by the Revolution. He returned to Billom in 1791 and on the advice of the Sulpician superior, Father Emery, determined to devote himself to the American mission. He sailed in January, 1792, with Father J. B. M. David, his future coadjutor, and the subdeacon Stephen Badin, landing in Baltimore, 29 March, 1792. He was studying English with his Sulpician brethren, when Bishop Carroll tested his self-sacrifice by sending him to Fort Vincennes, as missionary to the Indians and pastor of the Fort. Crossing the mountains he reached Pittsburg, where he had to tarry for six months owing to low water in the Ohio, doing such good work that he gained the lasting esteem of General Anthony Wayne. The latter recommended him to the military commander Colonel Clark, at the Falls of the Ohio, who deemed it an honour to escort him to Fort Vincennes, where he arrived 21 December, 1792. Father Flaget stayed here two years and then, recalled by his superiors, he became professor at the Georgetown College under the presidency of Father Dubourg. In November, 1798, he was sent to Havana, whence he returned in 1801 with twenty-three students to Baltimore. On 8 April, 1808, Bardstown, Kentucky, was created a see and Flaget was named its first bishop. He refused the honour and his colleagues of St. Sulpice approved his actiion, but when in 1809 he went to Paris, his superior, Father Emery, received him with the greeting: "My Lord, you should be in your diocese! The pope commands you to accept." Leaving France with Father Simon William Brute, the future Bishop of Vincennes, and the subdeacon, Guy Ignatius Chabrat, his future coadjutor in Kentucky. Flaget landed in Baltimore, and was consecrated 4 November, 1810, by Archbishop Carroll. The Diocese of Bardstown comprised the whole North-West, bounded East and West by Louisiana and the Mississippi. Bishop Flaget, handicapped by poverty, did not leave Baltimore until 11 May, 1811, and reached Louisville, 4 June, whence the Rev. C. Nerinckx escorted him to Bardstown. He arrived there 9 June. On Christmas of that year he ordained priest the Rev. Guy Ignatius Chabrat, the first priest ordained in the West. Before Easter, 1813, he had established priestly conferences, a seminary at St. Stephen's (removed to St. Thomas', November, 1811), and made two pastoral visits in Kentucky. That summer he visited the outlying districts of Indiana, Illinois, and Eastern Missouri, confirming 1275 people during the trip. Bishop Flaget's great experience, absolute self-denial, and holy life gave him great influence in the councils of the Church and at Rome. Most of the bishops appointed within the next twenty years were selected with his advice. In October, 1817, he went to St. Louis to prepare the way for Bishop Dubourg. He recommended Bishop Fenwick for Ohio, then left on a trip through that State, Indiana, and Michigan in 1818. In the latter State he did great missionary work at Detroit and Monroe, attending also a rally of 10,000 Indians at St. Mary's. Upon his return to Kentucky in 1819 he consecrated his new cathedral in Bardstown, 8 August, and consecrated therein his first coadjutor bishop, Rev. J. B. M. David, on the 15th. In 1821 he started on a visitation of Tennessee, and bought property in Nashville for the first Catholic church. The years 1819 to 1821 were devoted to missionary work among the Indians. He celebrated the first Synod of Bardstown, 8 August, 1823, and continued his labours until 1828, when he was called to Baltimore to consecrate Archbishop Whitfield; there he attended the first Council of Baltimore in 1829. In 1830 he consecrated one of his own priests, Rev. Richard Kenrick, as Bishop of Philadelphia. A great friend of education, he invited the Jesuits to take charge of St. Mary's College, Bardstown, in 1832. In the meantime he had resigned his see in favour of Bishop David with Bishop Chabrat as coadjutor. Both priests and people rebelled, and their representations were so instant and continued that Rome recalled its appointment and reinstated Bishop Flaget, who during all this time was, regardless of age and infirmities, attending the cholera-stricken in Louisville, Bardstown, and surrounding country during 1832 and 1833. Bishop Chabrat became his second coadjutor and was consecrated 20 July, 1834. Only Kentucky and Tennessee were now left under Flaget's jurisdiction, and in the former he founded various religious institutions, including four colleges, two convents, one foundation of brothers, and two religious institutions of priests. Tennessee became a diocese with see at Nashville in 1838. His only visit to Europe and Rome was not undertaken until 1835. He spent four years in France and Italy in the interests of his diocese and of the propogation of the Faith, visiting forty-six dioceses. Everywhere he edified the people by the sanctity of his life, and well authenticated miracles are ascribed to his intercession. He returned to America in 1839, transferred his see to Louisville, and crowned his fruitful life by consecrating, 10 September, 1848, a young Kentucky priest, Martin John Spalding, as his third coadjutor and successor in the see of Louisville. The corner-stone of the cathedral of Louisville was laid 15 August, 1849. He died peacefully at Louisville, sincerely mourned and remembered to this day. His only writings are his journal and a report of his diocese to the Holy See. Spalding, Life, Times and Character of Benedict Joseph Flaget (Louisville, 1852); Shea, Hist. Cath. Ch. in U. S. (New York, 1904); Webb, The Centenary of Catholicity in Kentucky (Louisville, 1884). Camillus P. Maes Thomas Canon Flanagan Thomas Canon Flanagan Born in England in 1814, though Irish by descent; died at Kidderminster, 21 July, 1865. He was educated at Sedgley Park School. At the age of eighteen he proceeded to Oscott -- that is "Old Oscott", now known as Maryvale -- to study for the priesthood. The president at that time was Dr. Weedall, under whose supervision the present imposing college buildings were about to be erected. The students and professors migrated there in 1838, after the summer vacation, Flanagan being thus one of the original students at the new college. There he was ordained in 1842, Bishop (afterwards Cardinal) Wiseman being then president. At this time Oscott was the centre of much intellectual activity, many of the Oxford converts during the following years visiting the college, where some made their first acquaintance with Catholic life. Flanagan, who throughout his course had been an industrious and persevering student, was asked by Wiseman to remain as a professor, and as such he came into contact with the new converts, his own bent towards historical studies creating a strong bond of sympathy between him and those who had become convinced of the truth of Catholicism on historical grounds. In 1847 Flanagan brought out his first book, a small manual of British and Irish history, containing numerous statistical tables the preparation of which was congenial to his methodical mind. The same year he became prefect of studies and acted successfully in that capacity until 1850, when he was appointed vice-president and then president of Sedgley Park School, and he became one of the first canons of the newly formed Birmingham Diocese in 1851. The active life of administration was, however, not congenial to his tastes, and he was glad to resume his former position at Oscott in 1853. It was at this time that he began writing his chief work, a "History of the Church in England". In order to allow him more leisure for this, he was appointed chaplain to the Hornyold family at Blackmore Park, and his history appeared in two volumes, during his residence there, in 1857. It was at that time the only complete work on the Church in England continued down to present times, and, though marred by some inaccuracies, on the whole it bore witness to much patient work and research on the part of the author. His style, however, was somewhat concise, and Bishop Ullathorne's remark, that Canon Flanagan was a compiler of history rather than a vivid historian, has often been quoted. The year after the appearance of his Church history, we find Flanagan once more installed in his old position as prefect of studies at Oscott, where he remained for eighteen months, when his health gave way. The last years of his life were spent as assistant priest at St. Chad's Cathedral, Birmingham. He died at Kidderminster, whither he had gone for his health. BERNARD WARD Flanders Flanders (Flem. VLAENDEREN; Ger. FLANDEREN; Fr. FLANDRE). Designated in the eighth century a small territory around Bruges; it became later the name of the country bounded by the North Sea, the Scheldt, and the Canche; in the fifteenth century it was even used by the Italians and the Spaniards as the synonym for the Low Countries; to-day Flanders belongs for the most part to Belgium, comprising the provinces of East Flanders and West Flanders. A part of it, known as French Flanders, has gone to France, and another small portion to Holland. Flanders is an unpicturesque lowland, whose level is scarcely above that of the sea, which accounts for the fact that a great part of it was for a long time flooded at high water. The country took its present aspect only after a line of downs had been raised by the sea along its shore. The soil of Flanders, which for the most part was unproductive, owes its present fertility to intelligent cultivation; its products are various, but the most important are flax and hemp; dairying, market-gardening, and the manufacture of linens are the main Flemish industries. At the time of its conquest by the Romans, Flanders was inhabited by the Morini, the Menapii, and the Nervii. Most probably these tribes were of partly Teutonic and partly Celtic descent, but, owing to the almost total absence of Roman colonies and the constant influx of barbarians, the Germanic element soon became predominant. The Flemings of to-day may be considered as a German people whose language, a Low-German dialect, has been very slightly, if at all, influenced by Latin. It is likely that Christianity was first introduced into Flanders by Roman soldiers and merchants, but its progress must have been very slow, for Saint Eloi (Eligius, c. 590-660) tells us that in his days almost the whole population was still heathen, and the conversion of the Flemings was not completed until the beginning of the eighth century. Towards the middle of the ninth century, the country around Bruges was governed by a marquess or "forester" named Baldwin, whose bravery in fighting the Northmen had won him the surname of Iron Arm. Baldwin married Judith, daughter of the Emperor Charles the Bald, and received from his father-in-law, with the title of count, the country bounded by the North Sea, the Scheldt, and the Canche. Thus was founded, in 864, the County of Flanders. Baldwin I was a warm protector of the clergy, and made large grants of land to churches and abbeys. He died in 878. His successors were Baldwin II, the Bald (878-919), Arnold I (919-964), Baldwin III (958-961), and Arnold II (964-989), who could not prevent Hugh Capet from annexing the County of Boulogne to the royal domain of France. The son of Arnold II, Baldwin IV, the Bearded (989-1036), was a brave and pious prince. He received from the Emperor Henry II the imperial castle of Ghent and its territory. From that time there were two Flanders: Flanders under the Crown, a French fief; and imperial Flanders, under the suzerainty of Germany. Baldwin V, of Lille (1036-67), added to his domains the County of Eenhan or Alost. He was regent of France during the minority of Philip I. Baldwin VI, of Mons (1067-70), was also Count of Hainault in consequence of his marriage to Richilde, heiress of that county. He reigned only three years, and was succeeded in Flanders by his brother Robert the Friesman (1070-1093). Robert II, of Jerusalem (1093-1111), took a leading part in the First Crusade. He annexed Tournai to Flanders and died fighting for his suzerain. His son Baldwin VII, Hapkin (1111-1119), enforced strict justice among the nobility. Like his father, he died while supporting the cause of his suzerain. His successor was Charles, son of Saint Canute of Denmark (1119-27). The new count was a saintly prince and a great lover of peace. His stern justice, however, angered a few greedy nobles, who murdered him while he was praying in the church of Saint-Donat in Bruges. Louis VI, King of France, then gave the County of Flanders to William of Normandy, a grandson of the Conqueror, but William's high-handed way of governing the country soon made him unpopular and the Flemings turned to Thierry of Alsace, a descendant of Robert I. William died in the war which ensued, and Thierry's candidacy received the royal sanction. Thierry (1128-68) granted privileges to the Flemish communes, whose origin dates from this period, and took part in the Second Crusade. His son Philip (1168-91) granted new privileges to the communes, did much to foster commerce and industry, and was a generous protector of poets. He made a political blunder when he gave up Artois to France as the dowry of his niece, as this dismemberment of the county led to many wars with the latter country. Philip died in the Holy Land during the Third Crusade. His successor was his brother-in-law, Baldwin VIII, the Bold, of Hainault (1191-95). Baldwin IX (1195-1205) is famous in history as the first Latin Emperor of Constantinople. He died in 1205 in a war against the Bulgarians, and the Counties of Flanders and Hainault passed to his daughter Jeanne, who had married Ferdinand of Portugal. This prince was involved in the war of King John of England against Philip II of France, and was made a prisoner at the battle of Bouvines (1214). He was released in 1228, only to die shortly afterwards. Jeanne (1205-1244) administered the counties wisely during her husband's captivity, and after his death she increased the liberties of the communes to counteract the influence of the nobility--a policy which was followed by her sister Margaret, who succeeded her in 1244. Upon Margaret's death, in 1279, her children by her first husband (Bouchard d'Avesnes) inherited Hainault, while Flanders went to the Dampierres, her children by her second husband. The battle of Bouvines was the beginning of a new era in the history of Flanders. Up to that time the counts had occupied the foreground; their place was henceforth taken by the communes, whose power reaches its acme in the course of the thirteenth century. Bruges, the Venice of the North, had then a population of more than 200,000 inhabitants; its fairs were the meeting place of the merchants of all Europe; Ghent and Ypres had each more than 50,000 men engaged in the cloth industry. This commercial and industrial activity, in which the rural classes had their share, brought to Flanders a wealth which manifested itself everywhere--in the buildings, in the fare of the inhabitants, in their dress. "I thought I was the only queen here," said the wife of Philip the Fair on a visit to Bruges, "but I see hundreds of queens around me." The intellectual and artistic activity of the time was no less remarkable. Then flourished Henry of Ghent, the Solemn Doctor; Van Maerlant, the great Flemish poet, and his continuator, Louis van Velthem; Philip Mussche, the chronicler, who became Bishop of Tournai; and the mystic Jan van Ruysbroeck. Then, too, were built the beautiful guild-halls, city-halls, and churches, which bear witness at once to the popular love for the fine arts and Flemish religious zeal-the guild-halls of Bruges and Ypres, the churches of the Holy Saviour and of Our Lady at Bruges, those of Saint-Bavon, Saint-Jacques and Saint-Nicolas at Ghent, and of Saint-Martin at Ypres. Still more worthy of admiration was the internal organization of the communes, which, owing to the beneficent influence of the Church, had become so powerful a factor in the moral welfare of the masses. Guy of Dampierre (1279-1305) succeeded his mother Margaret, and inaugurated a new policy in the administration of the county. His predecessors had on the whole been friendly to the wealthy classes in the Flemish cities, in whose hands were the most important offices of the communes. Guy, who aimed at absolute rule, sought the support of the guilds in his conflict with the rich. The latter appealed from his decisions to the King of France, the wily Philip the Fair, who readily seized upon this opportunity of weakening the power of his most important vassal. Philip constantly ruled against the count, who finally appealed to arms, but was defeated. Flanders then received a French governor, but the tyranny of the French soon brought about an insurrection, in the course of which some 3000 French were slaughtered in Bruges, and at the call of the two patriots, de Coninck and Breydel, the whole country rose in arms. Philip sent into Flanders a powerful army, which met with a crushing defeat at Courtrai (1302); after another battle, which remained undecided, the King of France resorted to diplomacy, but in vain, and peace was restored only in 1320, after Pope John XXII had induced the Flemings to accept it. Guy of Dampierre, who died in prison in 1305, was succeeded by his son Robert of Bethune, who had an uneventful reign of seventeen years. The successor of the latter was his grandson, Louis of Nevers (1322-1346), who was unfit for the government of Flanders on account of the French education he had received. Shortly after his accession, the whole country was involved in a civil war, which ended only after the Flemings had been defeated at Cassel by the King of France (1328). At the breaking out of the Hundred Years War, the Flemish communes, whose prosperity depended on English wool, followed the advice of Ghent's great citizen, Jacques van Artevelde, and remained neutral; the count and nobility took the part of the French king. When the policy of neutrality could no longer be adhered to, the Flemings sided with the English and helped them to win the battle of Sluis (1340). By that time Van Artevelde had become practically master of the country, which was very prosperous under his rule. He was murdered in 1345, and Louis of Nevers was killed the next year at the battle of Crecy. His son Louis of Male (1346-1384) was a spendthrift. The communes paid his debts several times, but they finally refused to give him any more money. He managed, however, to get some from Bruges by granting to that city a licence to build a canal, which Ghent considered a menace to her commerce. A new civil war broke out between the two cities, and peace was not restored until Charles VI of France had defeated the insurgents at Roosebeke (1382). Louis of Male's successor was his son-in-law, Philip the Bold, Duke of Burgundy (1384-1404). This prince and his son, John the Fearless (1404-1419), being mostly interested in the affairs of France, paid little attention to those of Flanders. The situation changed after Philip the Good, third Duke of Burgundy (1419-1467), had united under his rule the whole of the Low Countries. Philip wanted to weaken the power of the communes for the benefit of the central government, and soon picked a quarrel with Bruges, which was compelled to surrender some of its privileges. Ghent's turn came next. A contention had arisen between that city and the duke over a question of taxes. War broke out, and the army of Ghent was utterly defeated at Gavre (1452), which city had to pay a heavy fine and to surrender her privileges. In 1446, Philip created the Great Council of Flanders, which, under Charles the Bold, became the Great Council of Mechlin. Appeals from the judgments of local courts were henceforth to be made to this council, not to the Parliament of Paris as before. Thus were severed the bonds of vassalage which for six centuries had connected Flanders to France. Philip was succeeded by Charles the Bold (1467-1477), the marriage of whose daughter to Maximilian, Archduke of Austria, brought Flanders with the rest of the Low Countries under the rule of the House of Hapsburg in 1477. In 1488, the communes tried to recover their independence. The attempt was unsuccessful, and the war was disastrous for Bruges, because it hastened her approaching decline. The main causes of this decline were: the silting up of her harbour, which became inaccessible to large vessels; the discovery of America, which opened new fields for European enterprise; the dissolution of the Flemish Hanse, whose seat was in Bruges; the unintelligent policy of the dukes towards England; and the civil wars of the preceding fifty years. The prosperity of Bruges passed to Antwerp. The reign of the House of Burgundy, in many respects so harmful to Flanders, was a period of artistic splendour. To that time belong Memling and the Van Eycks, the first representatives of the Flemish school of painters. Flemish literature on the whole declined, but a Fleming, Philippe de Comines, was the leading French writer of the fifteenth century. Another Fleming of that time, Thierry Maertens of Alost, was the Gutenberg of the Low Countries. Flanders can also claim two of the greatest scientists of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries: Simon Stevin, mathematician and engineer, and the Jesuit Father Gregoire de Saint-Vincent, whom Leibniz considered the equal of Descartes. Although the material condition of Flanders is today very satisfactory, the country has not recovered its former prosperity. And it is not likely that it ever will, not because of any decrease in the energy of the Flemish race, but because economic conditions have changed. Intellectually the Flemings of the twentieth century are still the true sons of the glorious generations which produced Van Maerlant, Van Artevelde, Rubens, and Van Dyck; perhaps it is not an exaggeration to say that they have taken the lead in promoting the prosperity of Belgium. The Flemish tongue, which during the eighteenth century had fallen so low that in 1830 it was little more than a patois, has risen again to the rank of a literary language and can claim the larger portion of the literary production of Belgium in the last seventy-five years; nay, the Flemings have even made important contributions to French literature. In the fine arts, in the sciences, in politics, their activity is no less remarkable. They have given the Belgian Parliament some of its best orators and its ablest statesmen: Malou, Jacobs, Woeste, Beernaert, Schollaert. Above all they have retained, as the most precious inheritance of the past ages, the simple, fervent, vigorous faith of the crusaders and their filial attitude towards the Church. No country sends out a larger proportion of secular and regular missionaries, some of whom (like Father P. J. De Smet, the apostle of the American Indians) have attained a world-wide celebrity. Flanders may, indeed, be considered the bulwark of Catholicism in Belgium. The Socialists are well aware of this fact, but the Catholics realize it just as clearly, and their defence is equal to the enemy's attack. Every Flemish community has its parochial schools; the Catholic press is equal to its task; and the "Volk" of Ghent has been organized to counteract the evil influence of the Socialist "Voruit". KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, Hist. de Flandre (Brussels, 1848-50); M0KE AND HUBERT, Hist. de Belgique (Brussels, 1895); KURTH, Origines de la Civilisation Moderne (Brussels, 1886); HYMANS, Histoire parlementaire de la Belgique (Brussels, 1877-1906). P.J. MARIQUE Jean-Hippolyte Flandrin Jean-Hippolyte Flandrin French painter, b. at Lyons, 23 March, 1809; d. at Rome, 21 March, 1864. He came of a family of poor artisans and was a pupil of the sculptor Legendre and of Revoil. In his education, however, two elements must above all be taken into account. The first is the Lyonnaise genius. Various causes, physical and historical, have combined to give the city of Lyons a character all its own. This is twofold -- religious and democratic -- and the labouring classes have always been an active centre of idealism. This is especially noticeable in its poets, from Maurice Sceve to Lamartine. Lyons has also always been the great entrepot for Italy, and the province was a permanent centre of Roman culture. The second factor in Flandrin's development was the influence of Ingres, without which it is doubtful whether Flandrin would have achieved any fame. In 1829 Flandrin, with his brother Jean-Paul (the landscape painter), went to Paris, where he became a pupil of Ingres, who conceived a paternal affection for him. In Paris the young man experienced the bitterest trials. He was often without a fire, sometimes without bread, but he was sustained by a quiet but unshakable faith, and finally (1832) carried off the Grand Prix de Rome through "The Recognition of Theseus by his Father". At Rome, where, after 1834, Ingres was director of the French Academy, his talents expanded and blossomed under the influence of natural beauty, a mild climate, and the noble spectacle of the works of classic and Christian antiquities. He sent thence to the French salons: "Dante and Virgil" (Lyons Museum, 1835); "Euripides" (Lyons Museum, 1835); "St. Clare Healing the Blind" (Cathedral of Nantes, 1836); "Christ Blessing the Children" (Lisieux Museum, 1837). The serenity of his nature, his chaste sense of form and beauty, his taste for effective disposition of details, his moral elevation, and profound piety, found expression in these early efforts. On his return to Paris, in 1838, he was all intent upon producing great religious works. At this time there sprang up throughout the French School a powerful reaction against "useless pictures", against the conventional canvases exhibited since the end of the eighteenth century (Quatremere de Quincy, "Notices historiques", Paris, 1834, 311). There was a return to an art more expressive of life, less arbitrary, more mural and decorative. Delacroix, Chasseriau, and the aged Ingres were engaged on mural paintings. It was above all, however, the walls of the churches which offered an infinite field to the decorators, to Chasseriau, Victor Mottez, Couture, and Amaury Duval. Within fifteen or twenty years this great pictorial movement, all too obscure, left on the walls of the public buildings and churches of Paris pictorial treasures such as had not been seen since the age of Giotto. It is possible, and even probable that the first impulse towards this movement (especially so far as religious paintings are concerned) was due to the Nazarene School. Ingres had known Overbeck and Steinle at Rome; Flandrin may well have known them. In any case it is these artists whom he resembles above all in purity of sentiment and profound conviction, though he possessed a better artistic education. From 1840 his work is scarcely more than a painstaking revival of religious painting. The artist made it his mission in France to serve art more brilliantly than ever, for the glory of God, and to make beauty, as of old, a source of instruction and an instrument of edification to the great body of the faithful. He found a sort of apostolate before him. He was one of the petits predicateurs de l'Evangile. Artistic productions in the mid-nineteenth century, as in the Middle Ages, became the Biblia Pauperum. Henceforth Flandrin's life was passed almost entirely in churches, hovering between heaven and earth on his ladders and scaffolds. His first work in Paris was in the chapel of St-Jean in the church of St-Severin. He next decorated the sanctuary and choir of the church of St-Germain-des-Pres (1842-48). On either side of the sanctuary he painted "Christ's Entry into Jerusalem" and "The Journey to Calvary", besides the figures of the Apostles and the symbols of the Evangelists. All these are on a gold background with beautiful arabesques which recall the mosaic of Torriti at Santa Maria Maggiore. At St. Paul, Nimes (1847-49), he painted a lovely garland of virgin martyrs, a prelude to his masterpiece, the frieze in the nave of the church of St-Vincent-de-Paul in Paris. The last is a double procession, developing symmetrically between the two superimposed arches, without any exaggeration, a Christian Panathenaea, as it was called by Theophile Gautier. It might be shown how the ancient Greek theme is subjected, in the work of the modern painter, to a more flexible, less uniform, and more complex rhythm, how the melodic procession, without losing any of its grandeur or its continuity, is strengthened by silences, pauses, cadences. But it is more important to note the originality in the return to the most authentic sources of Christian iconography. Hitherto painters of this class hardly went back beyond the fourteenth or fifteenth century. But Flandrin turned to the first centuries of the Church, and drew his inspiration from the very fathers of religious thought. In the frieze of St-Vincent-de-Paul fifteen centuries of Christian tradition are unrolled. In 1855 the artist executed a new work in the apse of the church of Ainay near Lyons. On his return he undertook his crowning work, the decoration of the nave of St-Germain-des-Pres. He determined to illustrate the life of Christ, not from an historical, but from a theological, point of view, the point of view of eternity. He dealt less with facts than with ideas. His tendency to parallelism, to symmetry, found its element in the symbolism of the Middle Ages. He took pleasure in considering, according to this system of harmony and relations, the Old Testament as the prototype of the New, the burning bush as representing the Annunciation, and the baptism of Christ as prefiguring the crossing of the Red Sea. It was, perhaps, the first time since the frescoes of Perugino and Botticelli in the Sistine Chapel, that Christian art returned to its ancient genius. The interrupted tradition was renewed after three centuries of the Renaissance. Unhappily the form, despite its sustained beauty, possesses little originality. It is lacking in personality. The whole series, though exhibiting a high degree of learning and poise, of grace, and even of strength, lacks charm and life. The colouring is flat, crude, and dull, the design neutral, unaccented, and commonplace. It is a miracle of spiritual power that the seriousness of thought, the truth of sentiment, more harsh in the Old Testament, and more tender in the Christian, scenes, glow through this pedantic and poor style. Certain scenes, such as "The Nativity", which strongly recalls that of Giotto at Padua, possess a sweetness which is quite human in their conventional reserve. Others, such as "Adam and Eve after the Fall", and "The Confusion of Tongues", are marked by real grandeur. This was Flandrin's last work. He was preparing a "Last Judgment" for the cathedral of Strasburg, when he went to Rome, where he died. Apart from his religious work, Flandrin is the author of some very charming portraits. In this branch of painting he is far from possessing the acute and powerful sense of life of which Ingres possessed the secret. Nevertheless, pictures such as the "Young Girl with a Pink", and the "Young Girl Reading", of the Louvre, will always be admired. Nothing could be more maidenly and yet profound. His portraits of men are at times magnificent. Thus in the "Napoleon III" of the Versailles Museum the pale massive countenance of Caesar and his dream-troubled eyes reveal the impress of destiny. An admirable "Study of a Man" in the Museum of the Louvre, is quite "Ingresque" in its perfection, being almost equal to that master's Oedipus. What was lacking to the pupil in order that the artistic side of his work should equal its merits from the religious and philosophic side was the power of always painting in the style displayed in this portrait. DELABORDE, Lettres et pensees d'Hippolyte Flandrin (Paris, 1865); BLANC, Artistes de mon temps (Paris, 18--), 263; Gazette des Beaux-Arts, XVII (1864), 105, 243; XVIII (1865), 63, 187; XXIV (1868), 20; GAUTIER, Les Beaux-Arts en Europe, 1855, I, 283; MAURICE HAMEL in Musee d'art, Paris, no date, II, 86. LOUIS GILLET Flathead Indians Flathead Indians A name used in both Americas, without special ethnologic significance, to designate tribes practising the custom of compressing the skull in infancy by artificial means. Curiously enough the tribe best known under this name, the Salish or Flathead proper of Western Montana, never practised the custom, the confusion arising from the fact that the early traders felt compelled to adopt the local Indian classification, which considered the prevailing compressed skull of the neighbouring tribes as pointed and the naturally shaped Salish skull by contrast as flat. The Salish or Flathead Indians of the mountain region of north-western Montana are the easternmost tribe of the great Salishan stock which occupied much of the Columbia and Fraser River region westward to the Pacific. Although never a large tribe, they have always maintained an exceptional reputation for bravery, honesty, and general high character and for their friendly disposition towards the whites. When first known, about the beginning of the last century, they subsisted chiefly by hunting and the gathering of wild roots, particularly camas, dwelt in skin tipis or mat-covered lodges, and were at peace with all tribes excepting their hereditary enemies, the powerful Blackfeet. Their religion was the ordinary animism of the Indians and they had a number of ceremonial dances, apparently including the Sun Dance. Having learned through the Catholic Iroquois of the Hudson Bay Company something of the Catholic religion, they voluntarily adopted its simpler forms and prayers, and in 1831 sent a delegation all the long and dangerous way to St. Louis to ask of the resident government Indian superintendent that missionaries be sent to them. This was not then possible and other delegations were sent, until in 1840 the noted Jesuit Father Pierre De Smet (q.v.) responded and was welcomed on his arrival in their country by a great gathering of some 1600 Indians of the allied mountain tribes. In 1841 he founded on Bitter Root river the mission of St. Mary, which was abandoned in 1850, in consequence of the inroads of the Blackfeet, for the new mission of St. Ignatius on Flathead Lake. This still exists in successful operation, practically all the confederated Indians of the reservation-Flathead, Pend d'Oreille, Kutenai, and Spokan-having been consistent Catholics for half a century. In 1855 the Flatheads made a treaty ceding most of their territory, but retaining a considerable reservation south of Flathead Lake and including the mission. They number now about 620, the confederated body together numbering 2200 souls, being one of the few Indian communities actually increasing in population. They are prosperous and industrious farmers and stockmen, moral, devoted Catholics, and in every way a testimony to the zeal and ability of their religious teachers, among whom, besides De Smet, may be named such distinguished Jesuit priests and scholars as Canestrelli, Giorda, Mengarini, Point, and Ravalli, several of whom have made important contributions to Salishan philology. The mission is (1908) in charge of Rev. L. Tallman, assisted by several Jesuits, together with a number of Christian Brothers, Sisters of providence, and Ursulines. Director's Report of the Bureau of Catholic Ind. Missions (Washington, 1906); CLARK, The Indian Sign Language (Philadelphia, 1885); RONAN, Sketch of the Flathead Nation (Helena, Mont., 1890); SHEA, Hist. of the Catholic Missions, etc. (New York, 1854); DE SMET, Oregon Missions (New York, 1847); IDEM, Western Missions and Missionaries (New York, 1863); STEVENS in Rept. of Com. of Ind. Affairs (Washington, 1854); O'CONNOR, The Fladhead Indians in Records of The Am. Cath. Hist. Soc. (Philadelphia, 1888), III, 85-110; POST, Worship Among the Flatheads and Kaliopels in The Messenger (New York, 1894), 528-29. JAMES MOONEY Ven. Mathew Flathers Ven. Mathew Flathers (Alias Major). An English priest and martyr; b. probably c. 1580 at Weston, Yorkshire, England; d. at York, 21 March, 1607. He was educated at Douai, and ordained at Arras, 25 March, 1606. Three months later he was sent to English mission, but was discovered almost immediately by the emissaries of the Government, who, after the Gunpowder Plot, had redoubled their vigilance in hunting down the priests of the proscribed religion. He was brought to trial, under the statute of 27 Elizabeth, on the charge of receiving orders abroad, and condemned to death. By an act of unusual clemency, this sentence was commuted to banishment for life; but after a brief exile, the undaunted priest returned to England in order to fulfil his mission, and, after ministering for a short time to his oppressed coreligionists in Yorkshire was again apprehended. Brought to trial at York on the charge of being ordained abroad and exercising priestly functions in England, Flathers was offered his life on condition that he take the recently enacted Oath of Allegiance. On his refusal, he was condemned to death and taken to the common place of execution outside Micklegate Bar, York. The usual punishment of hanging, drawing, and quatering seems to have been carried out in a peculiarly brutal manner, and eyewitnesses relate how the tragic spectacle excited the commiseration of the crowds of Protestant spectators. H.G. WINTERSGILL Flavia Domitilla Flavia Domitilla A Christian Roman matron of the imperial family who lived towards the close of the first century. She was the third of three persons (mother, daughter, and grand-daughter) who bore the same name. The first of these was the wife of the Emperor Vespasian; the second was his daughter and sister to the Emperors Titus artd Dornitian; her daughter, the third Domitilla, married her mother's first cousin to Titus Flavius Clemens, a nephew of the Emperor Vespasian and first cousin to Titan and Domitian. From this union there were born two sons, who, while children, were adopted as his successors by Domitian and commanded to assume the names Vespasianus and Domitianus. It is quite probable that these two lads had been brought up as Christians by their pious mother, and the possibility thus presents itself that two Christian boys at the end of the first century were designated for the imperial purple in Rome. Their later fate is not known, as the Flavian line ended with Domitian. Clement, their father, was the emperor's colleague in the consular dignity, but had no sooner laid down his office than he was tried on charges of the most trivial character (ex tenuissima suspicione -- Suetonius, Vita Domit.). Dio Cassius (lxvii, 14) says that husband and wife alike were guilty of atheism and practice of Jewish rites and customs. Such accusations, as is clear from the works of the Christian apologists, could have meant nothing else than that both had become Christians. Though doubts have been expressed, because of the silence of Christian tradition on the subject, as to whether Clement was a Christian, the affirmative view is considerably strengthened by the further accusation of Suetonius that he was a man of the most contemptible inactivity (contemptissimae inertiae). Such charge is easily explained on the ground that Clement found most of the duties of his office as consul so incompatible with Christian faith and practice as to render total abstention from public life almost an absolute necessity. In the case of Domitilla no doubt can remain, since De Rossi showed that the "Coemeterium Domitillae" (see EARLY CHRISTIAN CEMETERIES) was situated on ground belonging to the Flavia Domitilla who was banished for her faith, and that it was used as a Christian burial place as early as the first century. As a result of the accusations made against them Clement was put to death, and Flavia Domitilla was banished to the island of Pandataria in the Tyrrhenian Sea. Eusebius (H.E., III, 18; Chron. ad an. Abrahami, 2110), the spurious acts of Nereus and Achilles, and St. Jerome (Ep., CVIII, 7) represent Flavia Domitilla as the niece, not the wife ot the consul Flavius Clemens, and say that her place of exile was Pontia, an island also situated in the Tyrrrhenian Sea. These statements have given rise to the opinion that there were two Domitillas (aunt and niece) who were Christians, and latter generally referred to as Flavia Domitilla the Younger. Lightfoot has shown that this opinion, adopted by Tillemont and De Rossi and still maintained by many writers (among them Allard and Duchesne), is derived entirely from Eusebius who was led into this error by mistakes in transcription, or ambiguity of expression, in the sources which he used. P.J. HEALY St. Flavian St. Flavian Bishop of Constantinople, date of birth unknown; d. at Hypaepa in Lydia, August, 449. Nothing is known of him before his elevation to the episcopate save that he was a presbyter and skeuophylax or sacristan, of the Church of Constantinople, and noted for the holiness of his life. His succession to St. Proclus as bishop was in opposition to the wishes of the eunuch Chrysaphius minister of Emperor Theodosius, who sought to bring him into imperial disfavour. He persuaded the emperor to require of the new bishop certain eulogiae on the occasion of his appointment, but scornfully rejected the proffered blessed bread on the plea that the emperor desired gifts of gold. Flavian's intrepid refusal, on the ground of the impropriety of thus disposing of church the treasures, aroused considerable enmity against him. Pulcheria, the emperor's sister, being Flavian's staunch advocate Chrysaphius secured the support of the Empress Eudocia. Although their first efforts to involve St. Flavian in disgrace miscarried, an opportunity soon presented itself. At a council of bishops convened at Constantinople by Flavian, 8 Nov., 448, to settle a dispute which had arisen among his clergy, the the archimandrite Eutyches, who was a relation of Chrysaphius was accused of heresy by Eusebius of Dorylaeum. (For the proceedings of the council see EUSEBIUS OF DORYLAEUM; EUTYCHES.) Flavian exercised clemency and urged moderation, but in the end the refusal of Eutyches to make an orthodox declaration on the two natures of Christ forced Flavian to pronounce the sentence of degradation and excommunication. He forwarded a full report of the council to Pope Leo I, who in turn gave his approval to Flavian's decision (21 May, 449) and the following month (13 June) sent him his famous "Dogmatic Letter". Eutyches' complaint that justice had been violated in the council and that the Acts had been tampered with resulted in an imperial order for the revision of Acts, executed (8 and 27 April, 449). No materior could be established, and Flavian was justified. The long-standing rivalry between Alexandria and Constantinoble now became a strong factor in the dissensions. It had been none the less keen since the See of Constantinoble had been officially declared next in dignity to Rome, and Dioscurus, Bishop of Alexandria, was quite ready to join forces with Eutyches against Flavian. Even before the revision of the Acts of Flavian's council, Chrysaphius had persuaded the emperor of the necessity for an oecumenical council to adjust matters, and the decree went forth that one should convene at Ephesus under the presidency of Dioscurus, who also controlled the attendance of bishops, Flavian and six bishops who had assisted at the previous synod were allowed no voice, being, as it were, on trial. (For a full account of the proceedings see EPHESUS, ROBBER COUNCIL OF). Eutyches was absolved of heresy, and despite the protest of the papal legate Hilary (later pope), who by his Contradicitur annulled the decisions of the council, Flavian was condemned and deposed. In the violent scenes which ensued he was so ill-used that three days later he died in his place of exile. Anatolius, a partisan of Dioscurus, was appointed to succeed him. St. Flavian was repeatedly vindicated by Pope Leo, whose epistle of commendation failed to reach him before his death. The pope also wrote in his favour to Theodosius, Pulcheria, and the clergy of Constantinople, besides convening a council at Rome, wherein he designated the Council of Ephesus Ephecinum non judicium sed latrocinium. At the council of Chalcedon (451) the Acts of the Robber Council were annulled and Flavian eulogized as a martyr for the Faith. Pope Hilary had Flavian's death represented pictorially in a Roman church erected by him. On Pulcheria's accession to power, after the death of Theodosius, she brought the remains of her friend to Constantinople where they were received in triumph and interred with those of his predecessors in the see. In the Greek Menology and the Roman Martyrology his feast is entered 18 February, the anniversary of the translation of his body. Relics of St. Flavian are honoured in Italy. St. Flavian's appeal to Pope Leo against the Robber Council has been published by Amelli in his work "S. Leone Magno e l'Oriente" (Monte Cassino, 1890), also by Lacey (Cambridge, 1903). Two other (Greek and Latin) letters to Leo are preserved in Migne, P.L. (LIV, 723-32, 743-51), and one to Emperor Theodosius also in Migne, P.G. (LXV, 889-92). F.M. RUDGE Flavias Flavias A titular see of Cilicia Secunda. Nothing is known of its ancient name and history, except that it is said to be identical with Sis. Lequien (II, 899) gives the names of several of its bishops: Alexander, later Bishop of Jerusalem and founder of the famous library of the Holy Sepulchre in the third century; Nicetas, present at the Council of Nicaea (325); John, who lived in 451; Andrew in the sixth century; George (681); and Eustratus, Patriarch of Antioch about 868. If the identification of Flavias with Sis, which is probable, be admitted, it will be found that it is first mentioned in Theodoret's life of St. Simeon Stylites. In 704 the Arabs laid siege to the stronghold of Sis. From 1186 till 1375 the city was the capital of the Kings of Lesser Armenia. In 1266 it was captured and burned by the Egyptians. Definitely conquered by the latter in 1375, it passed later into the power of the Ottomans. In the Middle Ages it was the religious centre of Christian Armenians, at least until the catholicos established himself at Etschmiadzin. Sis is still the residence of an Armenian catholicos who has under his jurisdiction several bishops, numerous villages and convents. It is the chief town of the caza of the same name in the vilayet of Adana and numbers 4000 inhabitants, most of whom are Armenians. The great heats compel the inhabitants to desert it during the summer months. It is surrounded by vineyards and groves of cypress and sycamore trees. Ruins of churches, convents, castles and palaces may be seen on all sides. S. VAILHE Abbey of Flavigny Abbey of Flavigny A Benedictine abbey in the Diocese of Dijon, the department of Cote-d'Or, and arroundissement of Semur. This monastery was founded in 721, the first year of the reign of Thierry IV, by Widerad, who richly endowed it. According to the authors of the "Gallia Christiana" the new abbey, placed under the patronage of St. Prix, Bishop of Clermont, and martyr, was erected on the site of an ancient monastic foundation, dating, it is said, from the time of Clovis, and formerly under the patronage of St. Peter. This titular eventually overshadowed and superseded St. Prix. Pope John VIII dedicated the new church about the year 877, from which time the first patronage, that of St. Peter, appears to have prevailed definitively. The fame of Flavigny was due partly to the relics which it preserved, and partly to the piety of its religious. The monastery was at the height of its reputation in the eighth century, in the time of the Abbot Manasses, whom Charlemagne authorized to found the monastery of Corbigny. The same Manasses transferred from Volvic to Flavigny the relics of St. Prix. There were also preserved here the relics of St. Regina, whom her acts represent as having been beheaded for the faith in the borough of Alise (since called Alise-Sainte-Reine). The history of the translation of St. Regina (21-22 March, 864) was the subject of a contemporary account. Unfortunately the "Chronicle", the "Martyrology", and the "Necrology" of the Abbot Hugues, and the "Livre contenant les choses notables" have either perished or contain few facts of real interest. The liturgical books, notably the "Lectionary", have disappeared. The abbatial list contains few names worthy to be preserved, with the exception of that of Hugues of Flavigny. The monastery was rebuilt in the seventeenth century and occupied by Benedictines of the Congregation of St. Maur, who were actively employed in research concerning the historical documents of the abbey, but it disappeared during the French Revolution. Hitherto it had formed a part of the Diocese of Autun; but after the concordat of 1802 the new partition of the diocese placed Flavigny in the Diocese of Dijon. Lacordaire rebuilt and restored all that remained of the monastery surrounded by a portion of its ancient estate, and established there a convent of the order of St. Dominic. H. LECLERCQ Flaviopolis Flaviopolis A titular see in the province of Honorias. The city, formerly called Cratia, originally belonged to Bithynia (Ptolemy, V, i, 14), but was later attached to Honorias by Justinian (Novella xxix). Under Constantine the Great it received the name of Flaviopolis. No less than ten of its bishops are known from 343 to 869 (Lequien, I, 575-78). One of them, Paul, was the friend and defender of St. John Chrysostom. The most noted was St. Abraham, bishop in the sixth century, whose life has recently been published (Vailhe, "Saint Abraham de Cratia" in "Echos d'Orient", VIII, 290-94). The diocese was still in existence in the twelfth century. Flaviopolis, now known as Guerede, is a caza situated in the sanjak of Bolou, and the vilayet of Castamouni. Its 4000 inhabitants, are nearly all Mussulmans; there are only 200 Christians, 40 of whom are Armenian Catholics. A small river, the Oulou Sou, irrigates the very fertile country. Fruit trees (peach, apricot, and cherry) grow there in great abundance. S. VAILHE Esprit Flechier Esprit Flechier Bishop; b. at Pernes, France, 1632; died at Montpellier, 1710; member of the Academy, and together with Bourdaloue, Bossuet, Fenelon, and Mascaron, one of the greatest sacred orators of his century; his earliest studies were made at Tarascon, under the guidance of his uncle, who was superior of a religious congregation. He himself entered this congregation where he received holy orders, but soon left it and went to Paris in 1660. It was not long before he acquired a reputation as a wit and spiritual writer. A Latin poem in honour of Louis XIV first won for him the favour of the Court. He devoted to literature and history the leisure which remained after the fulfilment of his duties as tutor in the household of Caumartin. Councillor of State, and it was then he wrote his chief historical work "Memoires sur les grands jours tenus a Clermont en 1665". He was tutor to the Dauphin when his preaching began to make him famous. His funeral eulogies in particular won for him rnore than one comparison with Bossuet. It happened that on a number of occasions he had to treat the same subjects as the Bishop of Meaux, for instance the funeral oration of Maria Theresa, and to arouse almost the same sentiments of admiration. He was received a member of the French Academy in 1673, on the same day as Racine. Having been consecrated bishop in 1685, he left the See of Lavaur for that of Nimes in 1687. During his administration he was remarkable for his great charity and his zeal in converting Protestants, but this did not prevent him from devoting himself to letters and to making the Academy of Nimes, of which he was the director, shine with particular brilliancy. He was less a preacher of the Gospel than a remarkable panegyrist. His sermons are as different from those of Bourdaloue orator than a severe moralist and humble preacher. He delighted ingenious turns of phrase, sonorous words and pretentious periods which have the appearance of seeking applause and which are hardly in accord with the spirit of the Gospel. His funeral oration for Turenne is in every classical handbook. His oratorical works have been collected under the title of "Oraisons Funebres" (Paris, 1878), "Sermons", and "Panegyriques". In history he has left an "Histoire du Cardinal Ximenes" (Paris, 1693), the "Vie de Theodose le Grand" and "Lettres choisies sur divers sujet". The last edition of the "Oeuvres" of Flechier is in two volumes (Paris, 1886). LOUIS LALANDE Bertholet Flemael Bertholet Flemael (The name was also spelled FLEMALLE and FLAMAEL). Painter, b. at Liege, Flanders, in 1614; d. there in 1675. The son of a glass painter, he was instructed in his art by Trippez and Douffet successively. He visited Rome in 1638 was invited by the Duke of Tuscany to Florence and employed in decorating one of his galleries, thence he passed to Paris where he carried out some elaborate decorative work at Versailles and painted for the sacristy of the church of the Augustinians his picture of the "Adoration of the Magi". He returned to Liege in 1647 and executed many paintings for the churches of his native town. In 1670 he was invited to return to Paris, and painted the ceiling of the audience room in the Tuileries. Louis XIV made him a professor of the Royal Academy of Paris. Towards the close of his life he returned to Liege and was elected a lay canon of the church of St. Paul, and painted several works for the prince-bishop of the city. A few years before he died he fell into a state of profound melancholy and had to be placed under the care of a medical man, in whose house he died. He was a painter of the "grand style", full of inventive genius, but his colouring is pate and weak and his figures somewhat artificial. He is believed to have painted a portrait of Colbert and by some writers is stated to have been a pupil at one time of Jordaens, but this has never been verified. GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON Patrick Fleming Patrick Fleming Franciscan friar b. at Lagan, Couny Louth, Ireland, 17April, 1599; d. 7 November, 1631. His father was great-grandson of Lord Slane; his mother was daughter of Robert Cusack, a baron of the exchequer and a near relative of Lord Delvin. In 1612, at a time when religious persecution raged in Ireland, young Fleming went to Flanders, and became a student, first at Douai, and then at the College of St. Anthony of Padua at Louvain. In 1617 he took the Franciscan habit and a year later made his solemn profession. He then assumed in religion the name of Patrick, Christopher being the name he received at baptism. Five years after his solemn profession he went to Rome with Hugh MacCaghwell, the definitor general of the order, and when he had completed his studies at the College of St. Isidore, was ordained priest. From Rome he was sent by his superiors to Louvain and for some years lectured there on philosophy. During that time he established a reputation for scholarship and administrative capacity, and when the Franciscans of the Strict Observance opened a college at Prague in Bohemia, Fleming was appointed its first superior. He was also lecturer in theology. The Thirty Years War was raging at this time, and in 1631 the Elector of Saxony invaded Bohemia and threatened Prague. Fleming, accompanied by a fellow-countryman named Matthew Hoar, fled from the city. On 7 November the fugitives encountered a party of armed Calvinist peasants; and the latter animated with the fierce fanaticism of the times, fell upon the friars and murdered them. Fleming's body was carried to the monastery of Voticium, four miles distant from the scene of the murder and there buried. Eminent both in philosophy and theology, he was specially devoted to ecclesiastical history, his tastes in this direction being still further developed by his friendship for his learned countryman Father Hugh Ward. The latter, desirous of writing on early Christian Ireland, asked for Fleming's assistance which was readily given. Even before Fleming left Louvain for Prague he had massed considerable materials and had written a "Life of St. Columba". It was not, however, published in his lifetime. That and other MSS. fell into the hands of Thomas O'Sheerin, lecturer in theology at the College of St. Anthony of Padua who edited and published them at Louvain in 1667. Fleming also wrote a life of Hugh MacCaghwell (q.v.), Primate of Armagh, a chronicle of St. Peter's monastery at Ratisbon (an ancient Irish foundation), and letters to Hugh Ratison on the lives and works of the Irish saints. The letters have been published in "The Irish Ecclesiastical Record" (see below). The work published at Louvain in 1667 is now rare and costly; one copy in recent years was sold for seventy pounds. E.A. D'ALTON Richard Fleming Richard Fleming (FLEMMING, FLEMMYNGE). Bishop of Lincoln and founder of Lincoln College, Oxford; b. of a good Yorkshire family about 1360, Croston being sometimes mentioned, though without clear authority, as his birthplace; d. at Sleaford, 25 Jan., 1431. He studied at University College, Oxford, and became junior proctor in 1407. In 1409 he was chosen by convocation as one of the twelve commissioners appointed to examine the writings of Wyclif, though at this time he was suspected of sympathy with the new movement and is mentioned by name in a mandate which Archbishop Arundel addressed to the chancellor in 1409 in order to suppress this tendency in the university. If the archbishop's description is correct the date usually assigned for Fleming's birth must be far too early, for a man close on fifty could not be mentioned as one of a company of beardless boys who had scarcely put away the playthings of youth (Wilkins, Conc. Magn. Brit., III, 322). If he ever had any sympathy with Wyclif it did not extend to Wyclif's heretical doctrines, for his own orthodoxy was beyond suspicion and it subsequently became his duty as bishop to burn the exhumed body of Wyclif in 1428. He held successively the prebends of South Newbald (22 Aug.,1406) and Langtoft (21 Aug. 1415), both in York Diocese, and subsequently was rector of Boston. He became bachelor in divinity some time before 1413. Finally he was elected Bishop of Lincoln, 20 Nov., 1419, in succession to Philip Repyngdon, and was consecrated at Florence, 28 April, 1420. In 1422 he was in Germany at the head of an embassy, and in June 1423 he acted as president of the English representatives at the Council of Pavia which was transferred to Siena and finally developed into the Council of Basle. More than once he preached before the council, but as he supported the rights of the pope against the assembled Fathers his views were disapproved of. The pope, however, showed him favour by appointing him as his chamberlain and naming him Archbishop of York in 1424. Difficulties, however, arose with the king's ministers, and the appointment was set aside. On returning to Lincoln, the bishop began the foundation of Lincoln College, which he intended to be a collegiolum of theologians connected with the three parish churches of St. Mildred, St. Michael, and Allhallows, Oxford. The preface which he wrote to the statutes is printed in the "Statutes of Lincoln College" (Oxford 1853). He proved a vigorous administrator of his diocese, and added to his cathedral a chantry in which he was subsequently buried. One work now lost, "Super Angliae Etymologia", is attributed to him by Bale. EDWIN BURTON Thomas Fleming Thomas Fleming Archbishop of Dublin, son of the Baron of Slane, b. in 1593; d. in 1665. He studied at thy Franciscan College of Louvain, became a priest of the Franciscan Order, and after finishing his studies continued at Louvain for a number of years as professor. In October, 1623, he was appointed by Urban VIII to Dublin as successor of Archbishop Matthews. His appointment gave great offense to opponents of the religious orders, and a bitter onslaught was begun against the new archbishop by the priest Paul Harris, in his "Olfactorium" and other brochures. Archbishop Fleming convened and presided at a provincial synod of the province of Dublin in 1640. When the Confederate war broke out (1641-1642) the archbishop, though rather a man of peace, felt constrained to take sides with the Confederates and despatched a procurator to represent him at the synod of the clergy held in Kilkenny (May, 1642). Later on, when the general assembly was convoked at Kilkenny for October, the archbishop resolved to attend personally and take part in the deliberations. As might be expected from his antecedents, and especially from his connection with the Anglo-Irish nobility of the Pale, he was opposed to the "thorough" policy of the Old Irish, and wished for peace at all costs. In 1643 he was one of the prelates who signed the commission empowering representatives of the Confederates to treat with Ormond for a cessation of hostilities. He also opposed Scarampa and Rinuccini, the later of whom was strongly identified with Old-Irish party. In 1649, when all was lost, and the defeated Irish were confronted with Cromwell, a reconciliation was effected with Ormond at a synod of bishops, a step which Archbishop Fleming favoured. But even then King Charles could not recognize his real friends, and the alliance was broken off. The remainder of the archbishop's life was much disturbed by religious persecution carried on by the government of Cromwell. He died in 1655, and the severity of the persecution may be judged from the fact that until 1669 no successor could be appointed. The diocese was administered by vicars until the nomination of Peter Talbot in 1669. JAMES MACCAFFREY John Fletcher John Fletcher A missionary and theologian, b. at Ormskirk, England, of an old Catholic family; educated at Douai and afterwards at St. Gregory's, Paris; d. about 1848. After ordination to the priesthood he became a professor at the College at St-Omer, of which his great-uncle, Rev. William Wilkinson, had been president. When the French Revolution broke out he was taken prisoner with the other collegians and spent many months in captivity at Arras and Dourlens. After they were released in 1795 he returned to England and acted as priest first at Hexham, then at Blackburn, and finally at Weston Underwood (1827), the seat of the Throckmortons. Having acted for a time as chaplain to the dowager Lady Throckmorton he took charge of Leamington Mission (1839-1844). He removed thence to Northampton in 1844 and resigned, owing to his great age, in 1848, after which his name does not appear in the "Catholic Directory", though his death is not therein recorded. Dr. Fletcher's works are: "Sermons on various Religious and Moral Subjects for all the Sundays after Pentecost" (2 vols., 1812, 1821), the introduction is "An Essay on the Spirit of Controversy", also published separately; "The Catholic's Manual", translated from Bossuet with a commentary and notes (1817, 1829); "Thoughts on the Rights and Prerogatives of Church and State, with some observations upon the question of Catholic Securities" (1823); "A Comparative View of the Grounds of the Catholic and Protestant Churches" (1826), "The Catholic's Prayerbook", compiled from a MS. drawn up in 1813 by Rev. Joseph Berington (q.v.); "The Prudent Christian; or Considerations on the Importance and Happiness of Attending to the Care of Our Salvation" (1834); "The Guide to the True Religion" (1836); "Transubstantiation: a Letter to the Lord--" (1836); "On the Use of the Bible"; "The Letters of Fenelon, with Illustrations" (1837); "A Short Historical View of the Rise, Progress and Establishment of the Anglican Church" (1843). He translated Blessed Edmund Campion's "Decem Rationes" (1827); de Maistre's "Letters on the Spanish Inquisition" (1838); and Fenelon's "Reflections for Every Day of the Month" (1844). He also brought out an edition of "My Motives for Renouncing the Protestant Religion" by Antonio de Dominis (1828). EDWIN BURTON William Flete William Flete An Augustinian hermit friar, a contemporary and great friend of St. Catherine of Siena; the exact place and date of his birth are unknown and those of his death are disputed. He was an English mystic, and lived in the latter half of the fourteenth century; educated at Cambridge, he afterwards joined the Austin Friars in England, but desiring a stricter than they were living, and hearing that there were two monasteries of his order which had returned to primitive discipline near Siena, he set out for Italy. On reaching the forest of Lecceto near Siena, in which one of these monasteries stood, he found the place, which abounded in caves, suited to the contemplative life, that with the consent of his superiors he joined this community. Henceforth he spent his days in study and contemplation in one of these caves, and returned to the monastery at night to sleep. He was called the "Bachelor of the Wood"; here he became acquainted with St. Catherine, who occasionally visited him at Lecceto and went to confession to him. He had so great a love for solitude, that he declined to leave it when invited by Pope Urban VI to go to Rome, to assist him with his counsel at the time of the papal schisms then disturbing the Church. He wrote a long panegyric on St. Catherine at her death, which, with another of his works, is preserved in the public library at Siena. For at least nineteen years he led a most holy and austere life in this wood, and is said by Torellus to have returned to England, immediately after St. Catherine's death in 1383, and, after introducing the reform of Lecceto, to have died the same year. Others say he died in 1383, but there is no mention of his death in the book of the dead at Lecceto, and the exact date of it is uncertain. He was considered a saint by his contemporaries. None of his works have been printed: they consist of six manuscripts; (1) an epistle to the provincial of his order; (2) a letter to the doctors of the province; (3) an epistle to the brethren in general; (4) predictions to the English of calamities coming upon England (in this he prophesied that England would lose the Catholic faith); (5) divers epistles; (6) a treatise on remedies against temptations. A fifteenth century manuscript of this last is now in the University Library at Cambridge, to which it was presented by George I. FRANCESCA M. STEELE Zenaide-Marie-Anne Fleuriot Zenaide-Marie-Anne Fleuriot A French novelist, b. at Saint-Brieuc, 12 September, 1829; d. at Paris, 18 December, 1890. She published her first novel, "Les souvenirs d' une douairiere", in 1859, and its success led her to adopt the literary profession. Either under her real name or the pseudonym of "Anna Edianez de Saint-B", she published a large number of novels, most of which were intended for women and girls. She was a constant contributor to "Le Journal de la jeunesse" and "La Bibliotheque rose", whose aim is to provide young people with unobjectionable reading. Her novels are written in a simple, easy style which leaves the reader's whole attention free to occupy itself with the interest of the story; they are Catholic in the true sense of the word, for they not only contain no unorthodox opinion, but present none of those evil suggestions with which many writers have won popularity and lucre. The following deserve to be specially mentioned: "La vie en Famille" (Paris, 1862); "La clef d'or" (Paris, 1870); "Le theatre chez soi" (Paris, 1873); "Monsieur Nostradamus" (Paris, 1875); "Sans beaute" (Paris, 1889). PIERRE MARIQUE Abbey of Fleury Abbey of Fleury (More completely FLEURY-SAINT-BENOIT) One of the oldest and most celebrated Benedictine abbeys of Western Europe. Its modern name is Saint-Benoit-sur-Loire, applicable both to the monastery and the township with which the abbey has always been associated. Situated, as its name implies, on the banks of the Loire, the little town is of easy access from Orleans. Its railway station, St-Benoit--St-Aignan (Loiret) is a little over a mile from the old Floriacum. Long before reaching the station, the traveller is struck by the imposing mass of a monastic church looming up solitary in the plain of the Loire. The church of Floriacum has survived the stately habitation of abbot and monks. The list of the abbots of Fleury contains eighty-nine names, a noble record for one single abbey. From Merovingian names like St. Mommolus, and Carlovingian names like St. Abbo, we come upon names that arouse different feelings, like Odet de Coligny (Cardinal de Chatillon), Armand du Plessis (Cardinal de Richelieu). The last twenty-two abbots held the abbey in commendam. The list closes with Georges-Louis Phelypeaux, Archbishop of Bourges, in 1789. Tradition, accepted by Mabillon, attributes the foundation of Fleury to Leodebaldus, Abbot of St-Aignan (Orleans) about 640. Before the days of the monks there was a Gallo-Roman villa called Floriacum, in the Vallis aurea. This was the spot selected by the Abbot of St-Aignan for his foundation, and from the very St. Fleury seems to have known the Benedictine rule. Rigomarus was its first abbot. Church building must have made busy men of many abbots of Fleury. From the very start the abbey boasted of two churches, one in honour of St. Peter and the other in honour of the Blessed Virgin. This latter became the great basilica that started the erection of a gigantic feudal tower, intending it to be one day the west front of the abbey church. His bold plan became a reality, and in 1218 the edifice was completed. It is a fine specimen of the romanesque style, and the tower of Abbot Gauzlin, resting on fifty columns, forms a unique porch. The church is about three hundred feet long and one hundred and forty feet wide at the transepts. The crypt alone would repay an artist's journey. The choir of the church contains the tomb of a French monarch, Philip I, buried there in 1108. But the boast of Fleury is the relics of St. Benedict, the father of Western monasticism. Mommolus, the second Abbot of Fleury, is said to have effected their transfer from Monte Cassino when that abbey fell into decay after the ravages of the Lombards. Nothing is more certain than the belief of western Europe in the presence of these precious relics at Fleury. To them more than to its flourishing schools Fleury owed wealth and fame, and today French piety surrounds them with no less honour than when kings came thither to pray. The monks of Monte Cassino impugn the claims of Fleury, but without ever showing any relics to make good their contention that they possess the body of the founder. No doubt there is much fabulous matter in the Fleury accounts of the famous transfer, but we must remember they were written at the when even good causes were more effectively defended by introducing the supernatural than by the most obvious natural explanations. ANSCAR VONIER Andre-Hercule de Fleury Andre-Hercule de Fleury Born at Lodeve, 26 June, 1653; died at Paris, 29 January, 1742. He was a protege of Cardinal de Bonzi and become chaplain to Maria Theresa in 16790, and to Louis XIV in 1683. He was appointed bishop of Frejus in 1698, but resigned the see in 1715, when he received the Abbey of Tournus and was appointed tutor to the young Louis XV. Naturally cold and imperturbable, he remained in the background during the regency. When Louis XV attained his majority in 1723, it was at the instance of Fleury that the Duc de Bourbon was made prime minister, and quarrelling with the Duke, Fleury pretended to retire to Issy. Louis XV, however, who admired and loved his tutor, sent the Duke into exile, and entrusted the government to Fleury. True to his habits of discretion, and accustomed, as Duclos says, "to bridle the envious", he never assumed the title of prime minister. He was made cardinal in September, 1726, and until his death remained the guiding spirit in French politics. Comparing the three cardinals, d'Argenson said: "Richelieu bled France, Mazarin purged it, and Fleury put it on a diet". He alluded in this bantering way to the cardinal's policy of economy which, among other drawbacks, retarded the development of the French military marine at the very period when the mercantile marine, thanks to private enterprise, was making considerable progress. In spite of this, Fluery had the qualities of a great minister. He was the first to foresee that France would not always be at enmity with the Hapsburghs. In connection with the Polish succession and the Duchy of Lorraine, he availed himself of the best advice of the diplomat Chauvelin, when it became necessary to play a cautious game with Austria. But, as Vandal says, the policy of Chauvelin was that of the past. Fleury, in redoubling his efforts to bring about as quickly as possible pleasant relations between the King of France and the emperor, was the precursor of Choisuel, Vergennes, and Talleyrand. He was accused of timidity when, at the outbreak of the War of Austrian Succession he wrote a letter to general Koenigseck, in which he seemed to apologize for this war. But, in truth, Fleury was simply anticipating the policy of the renversement des alliances (breaking up of the alliances), which began in 1756, and which by uniting France and Austria was to be more in conformity with the Catholic traditions of both countries. The opinions of historians like Vandal and Masson with regard to this renversement des alliances, so long the object of criticism, tends to justify Cardinal Fleury. During the period of Fleury's power, Jansenism was gaining ground among the masses as a superstitious sect, as is evidenced by the miracles of the deacon Paris, while among the upper classes it took shape as a political faction. Fleury was the minister who had to contend with a Jansenist opposition in the Parliament of Paris. He reserved to royal authority all matters relating to Jansenists, one consequence of which was a "strike" on the part of the magistrates and lawyers, which Fleury suppressed with certain measures of severity. He became a member of the Academy in 1717 and was the first to propose sending a scientific expedition to the far north and to Peru to measure the degrees of the meridian. Marais, Memoires (Paris, 1857); D'Argenson, Journal (Paris, 1859-67); Duclos, Memoires secrets (Paris, 1791); Lacretelle, Histoire de France pendant le 18e siecle (Partis, 1830); Jobez, La France sous Louis XV (Paris, 1861-73); Duc de Broglie, Le Cardinal de Fleury et la Pragmatqiue imperiale in Revue historique (1882). GEORGES GOYAU Flodoard Flodoard (Or FRODOARD) French historian and chronicler, b. at Epernay in 894; d. in 966. He was educated at Reims, where he became canon of the cathedral and keeper of the episcopal archives. He visited Rome during the pontificate of Leo VII (936-939) and was shown much favour by the pope. In gratitude he wrote a long poem in Latin hexameters, celebrating the deeds of Christ and of the first saints in Palestine and Antioch, adding a versified narration of the history of the popes. The whole work, which is legendary rather than historical, was dedicated to Archbishop Rotbert of Trier. When his patron and protector, Archbishop Artold of Reims, was deposed through the intrigues of the powerful Heribert, Count of Vermandois, Flodoard remained loyal to him, and after Artold's re-establishment became his trusted counsellor. In 952 he retired to a monastery, probably that of St. Basol, and became abbot. This dignity he laid down when seventy years of age. At the instance of Archbishop Rotbert Flodoard undertook to write a history of the Church of Reims, "Historia Remensis ecclesiae", for which he used the episcopal archives as well as the writings of Bishop Hinemar. This work is of the greatest value on account of the completeness of the material as well as the truthfulness of the narration. Flodoard's other great work is the "Annales", which covers the period from 919 to 966. With the most painstaking exactness he narrates in plain, simple language all the events that happened during these years, and thus the work is of the utmost importance for a knowledge of the history of France, Lorraine, and the East Franconian realm. With this chronicle he was occupied almost to the day of his death. An addition was made subsequently to cover the period from 976-978. The "Historia Remensis ecclesiae" was first edited by Sirmond (Paris, 1611); the best edition is that of Heller and Waitz in the "Monumenta Germaniae historica: Scriptores", XIII, 405-599 (Hanover, 1881). The "Annales" were edited by Pertz in the same work, III, 363-408 (Hanover, 1839). The poem was published in Mabillon's "Acta Sanctorum", vol. III (Paris, 1668-1701). Flodoard's complete works were published with a French translation by the Academy of Reims (Reims, 1854-55, 3 vols.) and in Migne's Latin Patrology, CXXXV, 1-866. ARTHUR F.J. REMY Abbey of Floreffe Abbey of Floreffe Pleasantly situated on the right bank of the Sambre, about seven miles southwest of Namur, Belgium, owes its foundation to Godfrey, Count of Namur, and his wife Ermensendis. When St. Norbert, in the year after the foundation his order, returned from Cologne with a rich treasure of relics for his new church at Premontre, Godfrey and Ermensendis went to meet him and received him in their castle at Namur. So edified were they with what they had seen and heard, that they besought the saint to found a house at Floreffe. The charter by which they made over a church and house to Norbert and his order bears the date of 27 Novemher, 1121 that Floreffe is chronologically speaking, the second abbey of the order. Norbert laid the foundations of the church which was called Salve, and the abbey received the sweet name of Flos Mariae, the Flower of Mary. The chronicles of Floreffe record the following event: While celebrating Mass at Floreffe, the saint saw a drop of Blood issuing from the Sacred Host to the paten. Distrusting his own eyes, he said to the deacon who assisted him: "Brother, do you see what I see?" "Yes, Father" answered the deacon, "I see a drop of Blood which gives out a brilliant light". The altar stone on which St. Norbert celebrated Mass is still preserved at Floreffe. St. Norbert placed Richard, one of his first disciples, at the head of the young community. The second abbot, Almaric, was commissioned by Pope Innocent II to preach the Gospel in Palestine. Accompanied by a band of chosen religious of Floreffe, he journeyed to Holy Land and founded the abbey of St. Habacuc (1137). Philip Count of Namur, gave to Weric, the sixth abbot, a large piece of the Holy Cross which he had received from his brother Baldwin, emperor of Constantinople. The chronicles record that twice, namely in 1204 and 1254, Blood flowed from this relic on the Feast of the Invention of the Holy Cross, the miracle being witnessed by the religious and by a large concourse of people. At the suppression of the Abbey of Floreffe, the relic was removed to a place of safety. When a few years ago, the Norbertine canons, who had been expelled from France, bought an old Augustinian Monastery at Bois-Seigneur-Isaac, this precious relic was restored to them, so that it is again in the custody of the sons of St. Norbert. All the abbeys and convents founded by the Abbey of Floreffe have ceased to exist with the exception of Postel and Leffe. Louis de Fromantau, elected in 1791, was the fifty-fifth and last abbot of Floreffe. When the French Republican army over-ran Belgium the religious were expelled, and the abbey with all its possessions was confiscated. Put up for sale in 1797, it was bought back for the abbot and his community. After the Concordat the abbot and a few of his religious returned to the abbey, but so great were the difficulties that after the death of the last religious the abbey became the property of the Bishop of Namur and is now the seat of a flourishing seminary. F.M. GEUDENS Florence Florence (Lat. Florentia; It. Firenze). ARCHDIOCESE OF FLORENCE (FLORENTINA). Located in the province of Tuscany (Central Italy). The city is situated on the Arno in a fertile plain at the foot of the Fiesole hills, whence came its first inhabitants (about 200 B.C.). In 82 B.C. Sulla destroyed it because it supported the democratic party at Rome. In 59 B.C. it was rebuilt by Caesar at a short distance from its original site. It served then as a military post and commanded the ford of the Arno. Soon afterwards it became a flourishing municipium. EARLY MEDIEVAL HISTORY Besieged and probably captured by Totila (541), it was retaken (552) by the Byzantine general Narses. The most famous of its few antiquities dating from Roman times is the amphitheatre known as the Parlagio. In ancient times it was a town of small importance; its prosperity did not begin until the eleventh century. During the Lombard period Florence belonged to the Duchy of Chiusi; after the absorption of the Lombard kingdom by Charlemagne, who spent at Florence the Christmas of 786, it was the residence of a count whose overlord was margrave of Tuscany. In the two centuries of conflict between the popes and the emperors over the feudal legacy of Countess Matilda (d. 1115) the city played a prominent part; it was precisely to this conflict that the republic owed its wonderful development. During this period Florence stood always for the papacy, knowing well that it was thus ensuring its own liberty. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries the Florentines fought successfully against Fiesole, which was destroyed in 1125, and against several neighbouring feudal lords who had harassed the trade of the town, the Alberti, Guido Guerra, the Buondelmonti (whose castle of Montebuoni was destroyed in 1135), the Uberti, the Cadolinghi, the Ubaldini, and others. These nobles were all obliged to take up their residence in the town, and spend there at least three months of every year. In 1113 the Florentines, never partial to the German Emperors, rose against the imperial vicar in Florence. The first public meeting of the townsfolk which paved the way for the establishment of the "Commune" was convened by Bishop Ranieri in 1105. About the same time they helped the Pisans in the conquest of the Balearic Isles (1114) asking no other reward than two porphyry columns for the great central doorway of the Baptistery (San Giovanni). By 1155 they had grown so powerful that they dared to close their gates against Frederick Barbarossa. The nobles (magnates, grandi), forced to become citizens, were not slow in creating disturbances in the town by their rival factions, and in hindering the work of the consuls who chanced to be displeasing to them. In this way there was endless friction an strife, and thus was laid the foundation of the two great parties that for centuries divided the city, Guelphs and Ghibellines. The former was democratic, republican, favourable to the papacy; the latter was the party of the old Florentine aristocracy and the emperor. In 1197 the Tuscan League (in imitation of the successful Lombard League) was formed at San Ginesio between the cities of Florence, Lucca, Siena, Prato, San Miniato, and the Bishop of Volterra, in presence of papal legates. These cities bound them selves on that occasion not to acknowledge the author ity of emperor, king, duke, or marquis without the ex press order of the Roman Church. At that time, in the interest of better administration, Florence abolished its old-time government by two consuls, and substituted a podest`a, or chief magistrate (1193), with a council of twelve consuls. In 1207 a law was passed which made it obligatory for the podest`a to be an outsider. The legislative power originally resided in the Statuto, a commission nominated by the consuls. After the introduction of a podest`a it was exercised by the priors of the chief guilds (the artes majores), seven in number (carpenters, wool-weavers, skinners, tanners, tailors, shoemakers, and farriers), to which were afterwards added the fourteen lesser guilds (the judges, the notaries-public, doctors, money-changers, and others). To hold any public office it was necessary to belong to one or other of these guilds (arti); the nobles were therefore wont to enter their names on the books of the wool-weavers' guild. The management of all political affairs rested with the Signoria, and there was a kind of public parliament which met four times a year. Public business was attended to by the podest`a, assisted in their turns by two of the consuls. GUELPHS AND GHIBELLINES A broken engagement between one of the Buondelmonti and a daughter of the house of Amidei, and the killing of the young man, were the causes of a fierce civil strife in 1215 an long after. Some sided with the Buondelmonti and the Donati, who were Guelphs; others sympathized with the Amidei and the Uberti, who were Ghibellines. Up to 1249 the two factions fought on sight; in that year Emperor Frederick II, who wished to have Florence on his side in his struggle with the papacy, sent the Uberti reinforcements of German mercenaries with whose aid they drove out the Buondelmonti and so many of their followers that the Guelph party was completely routed. The Ghibellines straightway established an aristocratic government but retained the podest`a. The people were deprived of their rights, but they assembled on 20 October, 1250, in the church of Santa Croce and deposed the podest`a and his Ghibelline administration. The government was then entrusted to two men, one a podest`a, the other a Capitano del Popolo (captain of the people), both of them outsiders; besides these the six precincts of the town nominated each two anziani, or elders. For military purposes the town was divided into twenty gonfaloni or banner-wards, the country around about into sixty-six, the whole force being under the command of the gonfaloniere. The advantage of the new arrangement was quickly shown in the wars against neighbouring towns once their allies, but which had fallen under Ghibelline control. In 1253 Pistoia was taken, and was forced to recall the exiled Guelphs. The year 1254 has been called the year of victories. Siena, Volterra, and Pisa were then constrained to accept peace on severe terms, and to expel the Ghibellines. In 1255 it was the turn of Arezzo; Pisa was once more defeated at Ponte Serchio, and forced to cede to Florence the Castello di Mutrone, overlooking the sea. Hence forward war was continuous between Pisa and Florence until the once powerful Pisa passed completely into the power of the Florentines. In 1260, however, Farinata degli Uberti, leader of the outlawed Ghibellines, with the help of Siena and of the German bands in King Manfred's pay, but mostly by deceiving the Florentines into believing that he would betray Siena into their hands, defeated (4 Sept.) the Florentine army of 30,000 foot and 3,000 horse in the battle of Montaperti. The Guelphs thereupon chose exile for themselves and their families. The people's government was again overturned; the citizens had to swear allegiance to King Manfred, and German troops were called on to support the new order of things. The podest`a, Guido Novello, was appointed by Manfred. After the latter's death the Guelphs again took courage, and Guido Novello was forced to make concessions. Finally, in 1266, the people rose, and barricaded the streets with locked chains; Guido lost courage and on 4 November, accompanied by his cavalry, fled from the city. The popular government of the guild-masters or priors (Capi delle arti) was restored; Charles of Anjou, brother of St. Louis of France and King of Naples, was called in as peacemaker (paciere) in 1267, and was appointed podest`a. Florence took again the lead in the Tuscan League, soon began hostilities against the few remaining Ghibelline towns, and with the help of Pope Nicholas III succeeded in ridding itself of the embarrassing protection of King Charles (1278). Nicholas also attempted to reconcile the two factions, and with some success. Peace was concluded (Cardinal Latini's peace) in 1280 and the exiles returned. The government was then carried on by the podest`a and the capitano del popolo, aided by fourteen buoni uomini, i.e. reputable citizens (eight Guelphs and six Ghibellines), afterwards replaced by three (later six) guild-masters, elected for two months, during which time they lived together in the palace of the Signoria. Nor could they be reelected till after two years. There were, moreover, two councils, in which also the guild-masters took part. As a result of the assistance Florence gave Genoa in the war against Pisa (1284 and 1285) its territory was greatly extended. The victory at Campaldino (1289) over Ghibelline Arezzo established firmly the hegemony of Florence in Tuscany. In 1293 Pisa was obliged to grant Florence the right to trade within its walls. Fresh troubles, however, were in store for Florence. In 1293 the burgesses, exulting in their success, and acting under the influence of Giano della Bella, excluded the nobles from election to the office of guild-master. On the other hand, even the lesser guilds were allowed to retain a share in the government. To crown the insult a new magistrate, styled gonfaloniere di giustizia, was appointed to repress all abuses on the part of the nobles. The latter chose as their leader and defender Corso Donati; the burgesses gathered about the Cerchi family, whose members had grown rich in trade. The common people or artisan class sided with the Donati. In 1295 Giano della Bella was found guilty of violating his own ordinances, and was forced to leave Florence. The opposing factions united now with similar factions in Pistoia; that of the Cerchi with the Bianchi or Whites, that of the Donati with the Neri or Blacks. To restore peace the guild-masters in 1300 exiled the leaders of both factions; among them went Dante Alighieri. The leaders of the Bianchi were, however, soon recalled. Thereupon the Neri appealed to Boniface VIII, who persuaded Charles of Valois, brother of Philip the Fair of France, to visit Florence as peace maker. He at once recalled the Donati, or Neri, and set aside the remonstrances of the Bianchi, who were once more expelled, Dante among them. The exiles negotiated successively with Pisa, Bologna, and the chiefs of the Ghibelline party for assistance against the Neri; for a while they seemed to infuse new life into the Ghibelline cause. Before long, however, both par ties split up into petty factions. In 1304 Benedict XI essayed in vain to restore peace by causing the recall of the exiles. The city then became the wretched scene of incendiary attempts, murders, and robberies. In 1306 the Ghibellines were once more driven out, thanks to Corso Donati (Il Barone), who aimed at tyrannical power and was soon hated by rich and poor alike, Aided by his father-in-law, Uguccione della Faggiuola, leader of the Ghibellines in Romagna, he attempted to overthrow the Signoria, accusing it of corruption and venality. The people assembled and the guild-masters condemned him as a traitor; he shut himself up in his fortress-like house, but soon after wards fell from his horse and was killed (13 Sept., 1308). In 1310 Emperor Henry VII invaded Italy, and obliged successively the cities of Lombardy to recognize his imperial authority. The Florentine exiles (particularly Dante in his Latin work "De Monarchia"), also the Pisans, ardently denounced Florence to the emperor as the hotbed of rebellion in Italy. Great was, therefore, the terror in Florence. AU the exiles, save Dante, were recalled; but in order to have an ally against the emperor, whose overlordship they refused to acknowledge, they did homage to Robert, King of Naples. On his way to Rome (1312) Henry found the gates of Florence closed against him. He besieged it in vain, while Florentine money fanned the flames of further revolt in all the cities of Lombardy. On his return journey in October he was again obliged to abandon his siege of Florence. At Pisa he laid Florence under the ban of the empire, deprived it of all rights and privileges, and permitted the counterfeiting of its coinage, the famous "florins of San Giovanni", Pisa and Genoa were now eager for revenge on their commercial rival, when suddenly Henry died. The Pisans then elected as podest`a the aforesaid exiled Florentine, Uguccione della Faggiuola, who be came master of several other towns of which Lucca was the most important (1314). In 1315 he defeated the Florentines near Montecatini, and already beheld Florence in his power and himself master of Tuscany. Unfortunately, at this juncture Lucca, under Castruccio Castracane, rebelled against him and drove him out, nor was he ever able to return. Castruccio, himself a Ghibelline, was a menace to the liberty of the Tuscan League, always Guelph in character. After a guerrilla warfare of three years, the army of the League under Raimondo Cardona was defeated at Altopascio (1325), though the Florentines succeeded in making good their retreat. To ensure the safety of the city, Florence offered Charles, Duke of Calabria, son of King Robert of Naples, the Signoria for ten years. He came, and greatly curtailed the privileges of the citizens. Happily for Florence he died in 1329, There upon, Florence, having regained its freedom, remod elled its government, and created five magistracies: (1) guild-masters (priori) or supreme administrative power; (2) the Gonfalonieri charged with the military operations; (3) the capitani di parte (Guelphs, common people); (4) a board of trade (Guidici di commercio); (5) consuls for the guilds (Consoli delle arli). Moreover, two councils or assemblies were established, one composed of three hundred Guelphs and the humbler citizens, the other of various groups of rich and poor under the presidency of the podest`a. These councils were renewed every four months. LATER MEDIEVAL HISTORY It has always been a cause for wonder that aamid so many political, economical, and military vicissitudes the prosperity of Florence never ceased to grow. Majestic churches arose amid the din of arms, and splendid palaces were built on all sides, though their owners must have been at all times uncertain of peaceful possession. At the date we have now reached forty-six towns and walled castelli, among them Fiesole and Empoli, acknowledged the authority of Florence, and every year its mint turned out between 350,000 and 400,000 gold forms. Its coinage was the choicest and most reliable in Europe. The receipts of its exchequer were greater than those of the Kings of Sicily and Aragon. Merchants from Florence thronged the markets of the known world, and established banks wherever they went. In the city itself there were 110 churches, It openly aimed at sovereignty over all Tuscany. Arms and money won for it Pistoia (1329) and Arezzo (1336). It aided Venice (1338) against Mastino della Scala, a peril to Florence since he became master of Lucca. Knowing well the commercial greed of the Florentines, Mastino, to free himself from their opposition, offered to sell them Lucca. But the Pisans could not allow their ancient enemy to come so near; they took up arms, captured Lucca, and defeated the Florentines at La Ghiaia (1341). Seeing now that their militia needed a skilful leader, the Florentines offered the command and a limited dictatorship, first to Jacopo Gabrielli d'Agabio, and when he proved unfit, to a French freebooter, Gauthier de Brienne (1342), who styled himself Duke of Athens on the strength of his descent from the dukes of Achaia. He played his part so skilfully that he was proclaimed Signore for life. In this way Florence imitated most other Italian cities, which in their weariness of popular government had by this time chosen princes to rule over them. Gauthier de Brienne, however, became despotic, favoured the nobility and the populace (always allies in Florence), and harassed the rich middle-class families (Altoviti, Medici, Rucellai, Ricci). The populace soon tired of him, and joined by the peasants (genti del contado), they raised the cry of "liberty" on 26 July, 1343. Gauthier's soldiers were slain, and he was forced to leave the city. But the newly recovered liberty of Florence was dearly bought. Its subject towns (Arezzo, Colle di Val d'Elsa, and San Geminiano) declared themselves independent; Pistoia joined with Pisa; Ottaviano de' Belforti was lord of Volterra. There was now an interval of peace, during which the greater guilds (known as the popolo grasso) strove gradually to restrict the rights of the lesser guilds, which in the end found themselves shut out from all public offices. Aided by the populace they threat ened rebellion, and secured thus the abolition of the more onerous laws. It was now the turn of the humblest classes, hitherto without political rights. Clearly they had reaped no advantage from their support of the small bourgeoisie, and so they resolved to resort to arms in their own behalf. Thus came about the revolution of the Ciompi (1378), so called from the wool carders (ciompi), who under Michele di Lando seized the palace of the Signoria, and proclaimed their leader gonfaloniere di gonfalon. They instituted three new guilds in which all artisans were to be in scribed, and which had equal civil rights with the other guilds. Michele, fearing that the popular tumult would end in a restoration of the Signoria, went over to the burgesses; after a sanguinary conflict the Ciompi were put to flight. The rich burgesses were now more firmly established than before, which did not remove the discontent of the lesser guilds and the populace. This deep discontent was the source of the brilliant fortune of Giovanni de' Medici, son of Bicci, the richest of the Florentine bankers. Apropos of this world-famous name it may be said here that the scope of this article permits only a brief reference to the great influence of medieval Florence as an industrial, commercial, and financial centre. In the woollen industry it was easily foremost, particularly in the dyeing and final preparation of the manufactured goods. Its banking houses were famous through all Europe, and had for clients not only a multitude of private individuals, but also kings and popes. As financial agents of the latter, the mercatores papae, the Florentines were to be found in all the chief national centres, and exercised no little influence. (See H. de B. Gibbins, "History of Commerce in Europe", London, 1892; Peruzzi, "Storia del corn mercio e dei banchieri di Firenze in tutto il mondo da 1200 fino a 1345", Florence, 1868; Toniolo, "Dei rimoti fattori della potenza economica di Firenze nel medioevo", Milan, 1882; G. Buonazia, "L'arte della lana" in "Nuova Antologia", 1870, XIII, 327-425.) To take up the thread of our narrative, several events of interest had meanwhile occurred. In 1355 Emperor Charles III appeared before Florence. The city had become more cautious as it grew in wealth and did not, therefore, venture to resist him; it seemed wiser to purchase, with gold and a nominal submission, entailing as few obligations as possible, present security and actual independence. The citizens swore allegiance on the understanding that the emperor would ratify the laws made or to be made in Florence; that the members of the Signoria (elected by the citizens) should be, ipso facto, vicars imperial; that neither the emperor himself nor any envoy of his should enter the town; that he should be content with the payment of 100,000 forms, in lieu of all past claims (regalia), and a promise of 4000 forms annually during his life. The Florentines could hardly as more complete autonomy. The populace, it is true, opposed even this nominal submission, but it was explained to them that their liberties were untouched. In 1360 Volterra returned again to Florence, and war with Pisa followed. Pisa sought the help of Bernabo Visconti; after a prolonged conflict the Florentines won the decisive battle of San Savino (1364), and peace was declared. In 1375 the inquisitor, Fra Pietro d'Aquila, having exceeded his powers, the Signoria restricted his authority and conferred on the ordinary civil courts jurisdiction in all criminal cases of ecclesiastics. This displeased the pope; and in consequence Guillaume de Noellet, papal legate at Bologna, directed against Tuscany the band of mercenaries known as the "White Company" (Compagnia Bianca). Florence had hitherto been undeviatingly faithful to the Holy See; it now began to rouse against the pope, not only the cities of Romagna and the Marches, but even Rome itself. Eighty cities joined in the movement. Gregory XI thereupon placed Florence under interdict (1376), and allowed anyone to lay hands on the goods and persons of the Florentines. Nor was this a mere threat; the Florentine merchants in England were obliged to return to Florence, leaving their property behind them. Not even the intercession of St. Catharine of Siena, who went to Avignon for the purpose, could win pardon for the city. It was only in 1378, after the Western Schism had begun, that Urban VI absolved the Florentines. Even then the people compelled the offending magistrates to give ample satisfaction to the pope (Gherardi, La guerra de' Fiorentini con papa Gregorio XI, detta guerra degli otto santi, Florence, 1869). Florence now beheld with no little concern the political progress of Gian Galeazzo Visconti, Lord of Milan. By the acquisition of Pisa he had gained a coveted foothold in Tuscany. The Florentines sided with his numerous enemies, all of whom were anxious to prevent the formation of an Italian sole monarchy. Visconti was victorious, but he died in 1402, whereupon Florence at once laid siege to Pisa. In 1405 Giovanni Maria Visconti sold the town to the Florentines for 200,000 forms; but the Pisans continued to defend their city, and it was not till 1406 that Gino Capponi captured it. A revolt that broke out soon after the surrender was repressed with great severity. The purchase (1421) of the port of Leghorn from Genoa for 100,000 gold florins gave Florence at last a free passage to the sea, nor did the citizens long delay to compete with Venice and Genoa for the trade of the African and Levantine coasts (1421). In 1415 the new constitutions of the republic were promulgated. They were drawn up by the famous jurists Paolo di Castro and Bartolommeo Volpi of the University of Florence. THE MEDICI Naturally enough, these numerous wars were very costly. Consequently early in the fifteenth century the taxes increased greatly and with them the popular discontent, despite the strongly democratic character of the city government. Certain families now began to assume a certain prominence. Maso degli Albizzi was captain of the people for thirty years; after his death other families sought the leadership. Giovanni di Bicci de' Medici, to bring about a more equal distribution of taxation, propose the catasto, i. e. an income-tax. This made him very popular and he was proclaimed Gonfaloniere for life (1421), His son Cosimo (d. 1464) inherited his immense riches and popularity, but his generosity brought him under suspicion. The chief men of the greater guilds, and especially the Albizzi family, charged him with a desire to overthrow the government and he was exiled to Padua (1433). In 1434 the new Signoria, favourable to Cosimo, recalled him and gave him the proud title of Pater Patriae, i. e. father of his country. In 1440 the Albizzi were outlawed, and Cosimo found his path clear. He scrupulously retained the old form of government, and refrained from all arbitrary measures. He was open-handed, built palaces and villas, also churches (San Marco, San Lorenzo); his costly and rare library was open to all; he patronized scholars and encouraged the arts. With him began the golden age of the Medici. The republic now annexed the district of Casentino, taken from the Visconti at the Peace of Gavriana (1441), Cosimo's son Piero was by no means equal to his father; nevertheless the happy ending of the war against Venice, the former ally of Florence, shed glory on the Medici name. Piero died in 1469, whereupon his sons Lorenzo and Giuliano were created "princes of the State" (principi dello Stato). In 1478 occurred the conspiracy of the Pazzi, to whose ambitious plans Lorenzo was an obstacle. A plot was formed to kill the two Medici brothers in the cathedral on Easter Sunday; Giuliano fell, but Lorenzo escaped. The authors of the plot, among them Francesco Salviati, Archbishop of Pisa, perished at the hands of the angry populace. Sixtus IV, whose nephew Girolamo Riario was also an accomplice, laid the town under an interdict because of the murder of Salviati and the Pazzi, and supported by the King of Naples threatened to go to war, Hostilities had actually begun, when Lorenzo set out for Naples and by his diplomatic tact induced King Alfonso to make peace (1480); this obliged the pope also to come to terms. Meanwhile, despite his almost unlimited influence, Lorenzo refused to be anything else than the foremost citizen of Florence. With the exception of Siena, all Tuscany now acknowledged the rule of Florence and offered the spectacle of an extensive principality governed by a republic of free and equal citizens. Lorenzo died in 1492. (See the life of Lorenzo by Roscoe, Liverpool, 1795, and often re printed; also the German life by A. von Reumont, Leipzig, 1874, and Eng. tr. by R. Harrison, London, 1876.) Lorenzo was succeeded by his son, Piero, but he did not long retain popularity, especially after he had ceded the fortresses of Pietra Santa and Pontremoli to Charles VIII of France, who entered Italy with the avowed purpose of overthrowing the Aragonese do minion in Naples. The popular displeasure reached its acme when Piero pawned the towns of Pisa and Leghorn to the French king. He was driven out and the former republican government restored, Charles VIII entered Florence and endeavoured to have Piero's promises honoured; but the firmness of Piero Capponi and a threatened uprising of the people forced the French king to quit Tuscany (1494). There were at that time three parties in Florence: the Medicean party, known as the Palleschi (from the palle or little balls in the Medici coat of arms), the oligarchic republicans, called the Arrabiati (enraged), and the democrats or Piagnoni (weepers). The last had for chief the Dominican friar, Girolamo Savonarola of Ferrara, who hoped by their aid to restore in Florence piety and a Christian discipline of life, i.e. to establish in the city the Kingdom of Christ. In fact, Christ was publicly proclaimed Lord or Signore of Florence (Rex populi Florentini). (For the irreligious and rationalistic elements in the city at this period see GUICCIARDINI and MACHIAVELLI). Savonarola's intemperate speeches were the occasion of his excommunication, and in 1498 he was publicly burned. The Arrabiati were then in power. In 1512 Cardinal Giovanni de' Medici purchased at a great price the support of the Spanish captain Cardona and sent him to Florence to demand the return of the Medici. Fearing worse evils the people consented, and Lorenzo II, son of Piero, was recalled as prince. Cardinal Giovanni, however, kept the reins of power in his own hands. As Leo X he sent thither Cardinal Giulio de' Medici (the natural son of Giuliano), afterwards Clement VII. The family had now reached the acme of its power and prestige. The sack of Rome (1527) and the misfortunes of Clement VII caused a third exile of the Medici. Ippolito and Alessandro, cousins of the pope, were driven out. In the peace concluded between Emperor Charles V and Clement VII it was agreed that the Medici rule should be restored in Florence. The citizens, how ever, would not listen to this, and prepared for resistance. Their army was defeated at Gavinana (1530) through the treachery of their general, Malatesta Baglioni. A treaty was then made with the emperor Florence paid a heavy war-indemnity and recalled the exiles, and the pope granted a free amnesty. On 5 July, 1531, Alessandro de' Medici returned and took the title of Duke, promising allegiance to the emperor. Clement VII dictated a new constitution, in which among other things the distinction between the greater and the lesser guilds was removed. Alessandro was a man of dissolute habits, and was stabbed to death by a distant relative, Lorenzino (1538), no better, but more clever, than Alessandro. The murderer fled at once from Florence. The party of Alessandro now offered the ducal office to Cosimo de' Medici, son of Giovanni delle Bande Nere. He avenged the death of Alessandro and finally transformed the government into an absolute principality. This he did by gradualiy equalizing the political status of the inhabitants of Florence and of the subject cities and districts. This is the last stage in the political history of Florence as a distinct state; henceforth the political history of the city is that of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany. When the new Kingdom of Italy was proclaimed in 1861 Florence was chosen as the seat of government and remained such till 1871. Few cities have affected more profoundly the course of civilization. In many ways mankind has drawn from Florence its highest inspiration. Among the great poets Dante was a Florentine, while Petrarch and Boccaccio were sons of Florentines. Among the great painters Giotto found in Florence patronage and a proper field for his genius. Fra Angelico (Giovanni da Fiesole) was a Florentine, likewise Masaccio and Donatello. Unrivalled sculptors, like Lorenzo Ghiberti and Michelangelo, architects like Brunelleschi, universal savants like Leone Battista Alberti, shine like brilliant gems in the city's diadem of fame, and mark in some respects the highest attainments of humanity. Florence was long the chief centre of the Renaissance, the leaders of which were either citizens or welcome guests of that city, e. g. Michael Chrysoloras, Giovanni Argi ropulo, Leonardo Bruni, Cristoforo Landolfo, Niccolo Niccoli, Pico della Mirandola, and others scarcely less distinguished for their devotion to Greek and Latin literature, philosophy, art, and antiquities. It was capable at the same time of an incredible enthusiasm for Plato, whom men like Marsilio Ficino wished to see canonized (Sieveking, Gesch. der platon. Akademie zu Florenz, Gottingen, 1812), and of an equally passionate zeal for the restoration of all things in Christ (see SAVONAROLA). For its role in the restoration and development of classical literary taste, both Greek and Latin, see HUMANISM, and for its share in the growth of the fine arts see RENAISSANCE. INSTITUTIONS AND BUILDINGS Florence is the seat of a university, and possesses also an institute of social science, conservatory of music, a botanical garden, and an observatory (astronomical, meteorological, and seismological). Various scientific societies have their centres there, e. g. the Accademia della Crusca, whose famous Italian dictionary is one of the glories of the city. The city has four libraries containing many rare manuscripts. The Biblioteca Nazionale, one of the largest and most important in Europe, founded in 1861 by merger of the famous Magliabecchiana and the former (Pitti) Bibliotheca Palatina; the Laurentiana, founded in 1444 by Cosimo de' Medici; the Marucelliana, containing a collection of brasses; the Riccardiana. The State archives are the most important in Italy. Various art collections are: the Uffizi Gallery; the Pitti, in the old palace of the grand dukes; the archaeological museum with its fine collection of coins and tapestries; the Museum of the Duomo or cathedral; the Accademia delle belle arti (Academy of the Fine Arts); and the Casa Buonarroti (house of Michelangelo). The charitable institutions include: the Great Hospital (Arcispedale) of Santa Maria Nuova (1800 beds), founded in 1285 by Falco Portinari, the father of Dante's Beatrice; the Hospital of the Innocents, or Foundling Hospital (1421); a home for the blind; an insane asylum, and many private charities. Among the numerous charitable works of Florence the most popularly known is that of the "Confraternit`a della Misericordia", founded in 1244, and attached to the oratory of that name close by the cathedral. Its members belong to all classes of Florentine society, the highest as well as the lowest, and are bound to quit all work or occupation at the sound of the oratory bell, and hasten to any scene of accident, violent illness, sudden death, and the like. The costume of the brotherhood is a rough black robe and girdle, with a hood that completely covers the head except two loopholes for the eyes. Thus attired, a little group may frequently be seen hastening through the streets of Florence, bearing on their shoulders the sick or the dead to the specific institution that is to care for them (Bakounine, "La misericorde `a Florence" in "Le Correspondant", 1884, 805-26). The chief industries are the manufacture of majolica ware, the copying of art works and their sale, also the manufacture of felt and straw hats. The more noted of the public squares of Florence are the Piazza della Signoria (Palazzo Vecchio, Loggia de' Lanzi, and the historic fountain by Ammannati); the Piazza del Duomo; the Piazza di Santa Croce with its monument to Dante; the Piazza di Santa Maria Novella, adorned by two obelisks. Among the famous churches of Florence are the following: Santa Maria del Fiore, otherwise the Duomo or cathedral, begun in 1296 by Arnolfo del Cambio, consecrated in 1436 by Eugene IV, and called del Fiore (of the flower), either in reference to the name of the city or to the municipal arms, a red lily on a white ground. It is about 140 yards long, and badly proportioned. The admirable Campanile was begun by Giotto, but finished by Taddeo Gaddi (1334-36). The majestic dome is by Brunelleschi (1420) and furnished inspiration to Michelangelo for the dome of St. Peter's. The fac,ade was not completed until 1887; the bronze doors are also a work of recent date. The Baptistery of San Giovanni dates from the seventh century; it was remodelled in 1190, again in the fifteenth century, and is octagonal in form. San Giovanni was the old cathedral of Florence, around which in Lombard times (seventh and eighth centuries) the city grew up. Some have maintained that it rises on the site of an ancient temple of Mars. Dante mentions it twice with veneration in the Paradiso (xv, 136-37; xvi, 25-27). The three massive bronze doors of the Baptistery are unparalleled in the world; one of them is the work of Andrea Pisano (1330), the remaining two are the masterpieces of Lorenzo Ghiberti (1403-47), and were declared by Michelangelo fit to serve as the gates of paradise. Santa Croce (Franciscans) is a Gothic church (1294-1442), with frescoes by Giotto and his school. It is a kind of national Pantheon, and contains monuments to many illustrious Italians. In the cloister stands the chapel of the Pazzi family, the work of Brunelleschi, with many rich friezes by the della Robbia. (Ozanam, "Sainte Croix de Florence" in "Poetes franciscains ital.", Paris, 1852, 273-80). Santa Maria Novella, the Dominican counterpart of Santa Croce, begun in 1278 by Fra Jacopo Talenti da Nipozzano, is also a Gothic edifice. The fac,ade is by Leone Battista Alberti. The church contains frescoes by Orcagna, Ghirlandaio, and Fra Lippo Lippi. In its Ruccellai chapel is the famous Madonna of Cimabue. Or San Michele, a unique artistic monument, was meant originally, it is said, for a corn-market, but was remodelled in 1336. On the exterior walls are to be seen admirable statues of the patron saints of the various Florentine guilds, the work of Verrocchio, Donatello, Ghiberti, and others. San Lorenzo, dedi cated in 393 under the holy bishop Zanobius by St. Ambrose, with a sermon yet preserved (P. L., XIV, 107), was altered to its present shape (1421-61) by Brunelleschi and Manetti at the instance of Cosimo de' Medici. It contains in its sacristies (Nuova, Vecchia) tombs of the Medici by Verrocchio, and more famous ones by Michelangelo. San Marco (1290), with its adjacent convent decorated in fresco by Fra Angelico was the home also of Fra Bartolommeo della Porta, and of Savonarola. Santissima Trinit`a contains frescoes by Ghirlandaio. Santa Maria del Carmine, con tains the Brancacci Chapel, with frescoes by Masaccio, Masolino, and Filippino Lippi. Other monumental or historic churches are the. Santissima Annunziata (mother-house of the Servites) and the Renaissance church of Ognissanti (Franciscan). Several Benedictine abbeys have had much to do with the ecclesiastical history of Florence. Among them are San Miniato, on the Arno, about twenty-one miles from Florence, restored in the eleventh century, since the seventeenth century an episcopal see (Cappelletti, "Chiese d' Italia", Venice, 1862, XVII 305-47; Rondoni, "Memorie storiche di San Miniato", Venice, 1877, p. 1148); La Badia di Santa Maria, founded in 977 (Galletti, Ragionamenti dell' origine e de' primi tempi della Badia Fiorentina, Rome, 1773); San Salvatore a Settimo, founded in 988; Vallombrosa founded in 1039 by St. John Gualbert. All of these being within easy reach of the city, exercised strong religious influence, particularly in the long conflict between the Church and the Empire. Besides the public buildings already mentioned, we may note the Loggia del Bigallo, the Palazzo del Podest`a (1255) now used as a museum, the Palazzo Strozzi, Palazzo Riccardi, Palazzo Rucellai, and several other private edifices of architectural and historic interest. EPISCOPAL SUCCESSION St. Frontinus is said by local tradition to have been the first bishop and a disciple of St. Peter. In the Decian persecution St. Miniatus (San Miniato) is said to have suffered martyrdom. It is to him that is dedicated the famous church of the same name on the hill overlooking the city. It has been suggested that Miniatus is but a form of Minias (Mena), the name of a saint who suffered at Alexandria. In 313 we find Bishop Felix mentioned as present that year at a Roman synod. About 400 we meet with the above-mentioned St. Zanobius. In the following centuries Florence sank into obscurity, and little is known of its civil or ecclesiastical life. With St. Reparatus (fi. 679), the patron of the Duomo, begins the unbroken line of episcopal succession. Among the best known of its medieval bishops are Gerardo, later Pope Nicholas II and author (1059) of the famous decree on papal elections; Pietro of Pavia, whom another Florentine, San Pietro Aldobrandini (Petrus Igneus), convicted of simony (1062); Ranieri (1101), who preached that Antichrist had already come (Mansi, Suppl. Conc., II, 217); Ardengho, under whom was fought (1245) a pitched battle with the Patarini or Catharist heretics; Antonio Orso (1309), who roused all Florence, and even his clergy, against the German Emperor Henry VII; Angelo Acciaiuoli (1383), a zealous worker for the extinction of the Western Schism; Francesco Zabarella (1410), cardinal, canonist, and philosopher, prominent at the Council of Constance. When in 1434 the see became vacant, Pope Eugene IV did it the honour to rule it in person. Other archbishops of Florence were Cardinal Giovanni Vitelleschi, captain of Eugene IV's army; the Domini can St. Antoninus Forcillioni, d. 1459; Cosimo de' Pazzi (1508), a learned humanist and philosopher; Antonio Martini, translator of the Bible into Italian (1781). In 1809 Napoleon, to the great dissatisfaction of the diocese, imposed on Florence as its archbishop Monsignor d'Osmond, Bishop of Nancy. To Eugenio Cecconi (1874-88) we owe an (unfinished) "Storia del concilio ecumenico Vaticano" (Rome, 1872-79). Archbishop Alfonso Maria Mistrangelo, of the Society of the Pious Schools (Scuole Pie), was born at Savona, in 1852, and transferred (19 June, 1899) from Pontremoli to Florence. Saints and Popes. Florence is the mother of many saints. Besides those already mentioned, there are Bl. Uberto degli Uberti, Bl. Luca Mongoli, Bl. Dome nico Bianchi, Bl. Antonio Baldinucci, St. Catherine de' Ricci, St. Mary Magdalen de' Pazzi, and St. Philip Neri. The Florentine popes are: Leo X (1513-21), Clement VII (1523-34), Clement VIII (1592-1605), Leo XI (1605), Urban VIII (1623-44), and Clement XII (1730-40). Since 1420 Florence has been an archdiocese; its suffragan sees are: Borgo San Sepolero, Colle di Val d'Elsa Fiesole, San Miniato, Modigliana, and the united Dioceses of Pistoia and Prato. The Archdiocese of Florence has 800 secular and 336 regular clergy; 479 parishes and 1900 churches, chapels, and oratories; 200 theological students; 44 monasteries (men) and 80 convents (women). In 1907 the population of the archdiocese, almost exclusively Catholic, was 500,000. The literature of this subject is so extensive that only a few titles can be here given. General bibliographies will be found in CHEVALIER, Topo-bibl. (Paris, 1894--) 8. v., and P. BIGAZZI, Firenze e contorni, manuale bibliographico-biografico (Florence, 1893), 360. ECCLESIASTICAL:--CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d'Italia (Venice, 1861), XVI, 407-12; CERRACHINI, Cronologia sacra dei vescovi ed arcivescovi di frirenze (Florence, 1718 LAMIO, Sacrce Ecc. Florentinae Monumenta (Florence, 1738; GORI, Hagiologium Ecc. Florent. (Florence, 1787); RICHA, Notizie istoriche delle chiese florentine (Florence 1754-62); COCCHI Le chiese di Firenze dal secolo IV jino al secolo XX (Florence, 1903). The reader may also consult the seventeenth-century documentary work of UGHELLI, Italia Sacra, III, 14 sqq., and F. M. FIORENTINI, Hetruscae pietatis origines (Lucca, 1701); also CIANFOGNI (ed. MORENI), Memorie istoriche delta Ambrosiana basilica di San Lorenzo (Florence, 1804, 1816, 17); LUMACHI, Mernorie storiche dell' antica basilica di San Giovanni di Firenze (Florence, 1782) and G. BEFANI, Memorie storiche dell' antica basilica di San Giovanni di Firenze (Florence, 1886); GODKIN, The Monastery of San Marco in Florence (London, 1887). For the hospitals and other charitable works of Florence, see PASSERINI, Storia degli stabilimenti di beneficenza della citt`a di Firenze (Florence, 1853).--For the ecclesiastical sciences in Florence see CERRACHINI, Catalogo generate de' teologi della eccelsa univ. Fiorentina (Florence, 1725); IDEM, Faati teologici (Florence, 1738); SCHIFF, L'Universit`a degli studi in Firenze (Bologna, 1887). CIVIL:--Florentine historiography is very rich, and may best be studied in special introductory works like BALZANI, Le Cronache d'Italia (Milan, 1884). also in Eng. tr. S. P. C. K.: cf. HEGEL, Ueber die Anjange der florentinischen Geschichtschreiburg in SYBEL, Hist. Zeitschrift (1876), XXXV, 32-63; also the pertinent writings of SCHEFFER-BOICHORST, e. g. Florentiner Studien (Leipzig i873). For the Historie Fiorentine, or Chronica of GIOVANNI VILLANI (d. 1348), see the Turin edition (1879) and for the still more celebrated Historic Fiorenline, libri VIII oi MACHIAVELLI see the PASSERINI edition (Florence, 1873), and the Eng. tr. in Bohn's Standard Library (1847). Among the modern comprehensive histories of Florence may be mentioned: CAPPONI, Storia delta repubblica florentina (3d ed., Florence, 1886); VILLARI, Storia di Firenze (Milan, 1890); IDEM, I due primi secoli delta storia di Firenze (Florence, 1893-98); PER HENS, Histoire de Florence depuis see origines jusqu'`a la domination des Medici (9 vols., Paris, 1877-90) HARTWIG, Quellen und Forschungen zur aelteren Geschichte der Stadt Florenz (Marburg, 1878), Much important material, both ecclesiastical and civil, for the medieval history of Florence, is found in MURATORI'S famous collection of medieval Italian annals and chronicles: Scriptores Rerum Itahcarum, 28 folio volumes (Milan, 1723-1751; new ed. small quarto, 1900 sqq.). MISCELLANEOUS:--YRIARTE, Florence, l'histoire les Medicis les humanistes lea lettres, tea arts (Paris, 1880), tr. (London, 1882); KLEINPAUL, Florenz in Wort und Bud (Leipzig, 1888); MORENI, Notizie istoriche dei contorni di Firenze (Florence, 1790-96); OLIPHANT The Makers of Florence, Dante, Giotto, Savonarota and their City (London, 1880) E. M. CLERKE, Florence in the Time of Dante in Dublin Review (1879), LXXXV, 279, The writings of Ruskin (1819-1900) on Italian art abound with studies and impressions of the Florentine artists. SYMONDS, The Age of the Renaissance (London, 1882--) deals at great length with the literary and political figures of Florentine history in the fifteenth century; in ecclesiastical matters he is not unfrequently prejudiced, insular, and unduly harsh. The German writings of VON REUMONT have also done much to make better known the medieval influence and prestige of the great city by the Arno. U. BENIGNI Council of Florence The Council of Florence The Seventeenth Ecumenical Council was, correctly speaking, the continuation of the Council of Ferrara, transferred to the Tuscan capital because of the pest; or, indeed, a continuation of the Council of Basle, which was convoked in 1431 by Martin V. In the end the last-named assembly became a revolutionary conciliabulum, and is to be judged variously, according as we consider the manner of its convocation, its membership, or its results. Generally, however, it is ranked as an ecumenical council until the decree of dissolution in 1437. After its transfer to Ferrara, the first session of the council was held 10 Jan., 1438. Eugene IV proclaimed it the regular continuation of the Council of Basle, and hence its ecumenical character is admitted by all. The Council of Constance (1414-18) had seen the growth of a fatal theory, based on the writings of William Durandus (Guillaume Durant), John of Paris, Marsiglio of Padua, and William of Occam, i.e. the conciliar theory that proclaimed the superiority of the council over the pope. It was the outcome of much previous conflict and embitterment; was hastily voted in a time of angry confusion by an incompetent body; and, besides leading eventually to the deplorable articles of the "Declaratio Cleri Gallicani" (see GALLICANISM), almost provoked at the time new schisms. Influenced by this theory, the members of the Council of Constance promulgated in the thirty-fifth general session (9 October, 1417) five decrees, the first being the famous decree known as "Frequens", according to which an ecumenical council should be held every ten years. In other words, the council was henceforth to be a permanent, indispensable institution, that is, a kind of religious parliament meeting at regular intervals, and including amongst its members the ambassadors of Catholic sovereigns; hence the ancient papal monarchy, elective but absolute, was to give way to a constitutional oligarchy. While Martin V, naturally enough, refused to recognize these decrees, he was unable to make headway openly against a movement which he considered fatal. In accordance, therefore, with the decree "Frequens" he convoked an ecumenical council at Pavia for 1423, and later, yielding to popular opinion, which even many cardinals countenanced, summoned a new council at Basle to settle the difficulties raised by the anti-Hussite wars. A Bull of 1 Feb., 1431, named as president of the council Giuliano Cesarini, Cardinal of Sant' Angelo, whom the pope had sent to Germany to preach a crusade against the Hussites. Martin V died suddenly (20 February, 1431), before the Bull of convocation and the legatine faculties reached Cesarini. However, the new pope, Eugene IV (Gabriele Condolmieri), confirmed the acts of his predecessor with the reservation that further events might cause him to revoke his decision. He referred probably to the reunion of the Greek Church with Rome, discussed between Martin V and the Byzantine emperor (John Palaeologus), but put off by reason of the pope's death. Eugene IV laboured most earnestly for reunion, which he was destined to see accomplished in the Council of Ferrara-Florence. The Council of Basle had begun in a rather burlesque way. Canon Beaupere of Besanc,on, who had been sent from Basle to Rome, gave the pope an unfavourable and exaggerated account of the temper of the people of Basle and its environs. Eugene IV thereupon dissolved the council before the close of 1431, and convoked it anew at Bologna for the summer of 1433, providing at the same time for the participation of the Greeks. Cesarini, however, had already opened the council of Basle, and now insisted vigorously that the aforesaid papal act should be withdrawn. Yielding to the aggressive attitude of the Basle assembly, whose members proclaimed anew the conciliar theory, Eugene IV gradually modified his attitude towards them, and exhibited in general, throughout these painful dissensions, a very conciliatory temper. Many reform-decrees were promulgated by the council, and, though never executed, contributed towards the final rupture. Ultimately, the unskilful negotiations of the council with the Greeks on the question of reunion moved Eugene IV to transfer it to Ferrara. The embassy sent from Basle to Constantinople (1435), Giovanni di Ragusa, Heinrich Henger, and Simon Freron, insisted obstinately on holding at Basle the council which was to promote the union of the two Churches, but in this matter the Byzantine Emperor refused to give way. With all the Greeks he wished the council to take place in some Italian city near the sea, preferably in Southern Italy. At Basle the majority insisted, despite the Greeks, that the council of reunion should be convoked at Avignon, but a minority sided with the Greeks and was by them recognized as the true council. Hereupon Eugene IV approved the action of the minority (29 May, 1437), and for this was summoned to appear before the council. He replied by dissolving it on 18 September. Wearied of the obstinacy of the majority at Basle, Cardinal Cesarini and his adherents then quitted the city and went to Ferrara, whither Eugene IV, as stated above, had transferred the council by decree of 30 December, 1437, or 1 January, 1438. The Ferrara Council opened on 8 January, 1438, under the presidency of Cardinal Niccolo Albergati, whom the pope had commissioned to represent him until he could appear in person. It had, of course, no other objects than those of Basle, i.e. reunion of the Churches, reforms, and the restoration of peace between Christian peoples. The first session of the council took place 10 January, 1438. It declared the Council of Basle transferred to Ferrara, and annulled in advance any and all future decrees of the Basle assembly. When Eugene IV heard that the Greeks were nearing the coast of Italy, he set off (24 January) for Ferrara and three days later made his solemn entry into the city. The manner of voting was first discussed by the members of the council. Should it be, as at Constance, by nations (nationes), or by committees (commissiones)? It was finally decided to divide the members into three estates: + the cardinals, archbishops, and bishops; + the abbots and prelates; + the doctors and other members. In order that the vote of any estate might count, it was resolved that a majority of two-thirds should be required, and it was hoped that this provision would remove all possibility of the recurrence of the regrettable dissensions at Constance. At the second public session (15 February) these decrees were promulgated, and the pope excommunicated the members of the Basle assembly, which still continued to sit. The Greeks soon appeared at Ferrara, headed by Emperor John Palaeologus and Joasaph, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and numbered about seven hundred. The solemn sessions of the council began on 9 April, 1438, and were held in the cathedral of Ferrara under the presidency of the pope. On the Gospel side of the altar rose the (unoccupied) throne of the Western Emperor (Sigismund of Luxemburg), who had died only a month previously; on the Epistle side was placed the throne of the Greek Emperor. Besides the emperor and his brother Demetrius, there were present, on the part of the Greeks, Joasaph, the Patriarch of Constantinople; Antonius, the Metropolitan of Heraclea; Gregory Hamma, the Protosyncellus of Constantinople (the last two representing the Patriarch of Alexandria); Marcus Eugenicus of Ephesus; Isidore of Kiev (representing the Patriarch of Antioch); Dionysius, Bishop of Sardes (representing the Patriarch of Jerusalem); Bessarion, Archbishop of Nicaea; Balsamon, the chief chartophylax; Syropulos, the chief ecclesiarch, and the Bishops of Monembasia, Lacedaemon, and Anchielo. In the discussions the Latins were represented principally by Cardinal Giuliano Cesarini and Cardinal Niccolo Albergati; Andrew, Archbishop of Rhodes; the Bishop of Forl`i; the Dominican John of Turrecremata; and Giovanni di Ragusa, provincial of Lombardy. Preliminary discussions brought out the main points of difference between the Greeks and the Latins, viz. the Procession of the Holy Spirit, the azymes, purgatory, and the primacy. During these preliminaries the zeal and good intentions of the Greek Emperor were evident. Serious discussion began apropos of the doctrine of purgatory. Cesarini and Turrecremata were the chief Latin speakers, the latter in particular engaging in a violent discussion with Marcus Eugenicus. Bessarion, speaking for the Greeks, made clear the divergency of opinion existing among the Greeks themselves on the question of purgatory. This stage of the discussion closed on 17 July, whereupon the council rested for a time, and the Greek Emperor took advantage of the respite to join eagerly in the pleasures of the chase with the Duke of Ferrara. When the council met again (8 Oct., 1438), the chief (indeed, thenceforth the only) subject of discussion was the Filioque. The Greeks were represented by Bessarion, Marcus Eugenicus, Isidore of Kiev, Gemistus Plethon, Balsamon, and Kantopulos; on the Latin side were Cardinals Cesarini and Niccolo Albergati, the Archbishop of Rhodes, the Bishop of Forl`i, and Giovanni di Ragusa. In this and the following fourteen sessions, the Filioque was the sole subject of discussion. In the fifteenth session it became clear that the Greeks were unwilling to consent to the insertion of this expression in the Creed, although it was imperative for the good of the church and as a safeguard against future heresies. Many Greeks began to despair of realizing the projected union and spoke of returning to Constantinople. To this the emperor would not listen; he still hoped for a reconciliation, and in the end succeeded in appeasing the heated spirits of his partisans. Eugene IV now announced his intention of transferring the council to Florence, in consequence of pecuniary straits and the outbreak of the pest at Ferrara. Many Latins had already died, and of the Greeks the Metropolitan of Sardis and the entire household of Isidore of Kiev were attacked by the disease. The Greeks finally consented to the transfer, and in the sixteenth and last session at Ferrara the papal Bull was read, in both Latin and Greek, by which the council was transferred to Florence (January, 1439). The seventeenth session of the council (the first at Florence) took place in the papal palace on 26 February. In nine consecutive sessions, the Filioque was the chief matter of discussion. In the last session but one (twenty-fourth of Ferrara, eighth of Florence) Giovanni di Ragusa set forth clearly the Latin doctrine in the following terms: "the Latin Church recognizes but one principle, one cause of the Holy Spirit, namely, the Father. It is from the Father that the Son holds his place in the 'Procession' of the Holy Ghost. It is in this sense that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, but He proceeds also from the Son." In the last session, the same theologian again expounded the doctrine, after which the public sessions were closed at the request of the Greeks, as it seemed useless to prolong further the theological discussions. At this juncture began the active efforts of Isidore of Kiev, and, as the result of further parleys, Eugene IV submitted four propositions summing up the result of the previous discussion and exposing the weakness of the attitude of the Greeks. As the latter were loath to admit defeat, Cardinal Bessarion, in a special meeting of the Greeks, on 13 and 14 April, 1439, delivered his famous discourse in favour of reunion, and was supported by Georgius Scholarius. Both parties now met again, after which, to put an end to all equivocation, the Latins drew up and read a declaration of their faith in which they stated that they did not admit two "principia" in the Trinity, but only one, the productive power of the Father and the Son, and that the Holy Ghost proceeds also from the Son. They admitted, therefore, two hypostases, one action, one productive power, and one product due to the substance and the hypostases of the Father and the Son. The Greeks met this statement with an equivocal counter-formula, whereupon Bessarion, Isidore of Kiev, and Dortheus of Mitylene, encouraged by the emperor, came out strongly in favour of the ex filio. The reunion of the Churches was at last really in sight. When, therefore, at the request of the emperor, Eugene IV promised the Greeks the military and financial help of the Holy See as a consequence of the projected reconciliation, the Greeks declared (3 June, 1439) that they recognized the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son as from one "principium" (arche) and from one cause (aitia). On 8 June, a final agreement was reached concerning this doctrine. The Latin teaching respecting the azymes and purgatory was also accepted by the Greeks. As to the primacy, they declared that they would grant the pope all the privileges he had before the schism. An amicable agreement was also reached regarding the form of consecration in the Mass (see EPIKLESIS). Almost simultaneously with these measures the Patriarch of Constantinople died, 10 June; not, however, before he had drawn up and signed a declaration in which he admitted the Filioque, purgatory, and the papal primacy. Nevertheless the reunion of the Churches was not yet an accomplished fact. The Greek representatives insisted that their aforesaid declarations were only their personal opinions; and as they stated that it was still necessary to obtain the assent of the Greek Church in synod assembled, seemingly insuperable difficulties threatened to annihilate all that had so far been achieved. On 6 July, however, the famous decree of union (Laetentur Coeli), the original which is still preserved in the Laurentian Library at Florence, was formally announced in the cathedral of that city. The council was over, as far as the Greeks were concerned, and they departed at once. The Latin members remained to promote the reunion with the other Eastern Churches--the Armenians (1439), the Jacobites of Syria (1442), the Mesopotamians, between the Tigris and the Euphrates (1444), the Chaldeans or Nestorians, and the Maronites of Cyprus (1445). This last was the concluding public act of the Council of Florence, the proceedings of which from 1443 onwards took place in the Lateran palace at Rome. The erudition of Bessarion and the energy of Isidore of Kiev were chiefly responsible for the reunion of the Churches as accomplished at Florence. The question now was to secure its adoption in the East. For this purpose Isidore of Kiev was sent to Russia as papal legate and cardinal, but the Muscovite princes, jealous of their religious interdependence, refused to abide by the decrees of the Council of Florence. Isidore was thrown into prison, but afterwards escaped and took refuge in Italy. Nor was any better headway made in the Greek Empire. The emperor remained faithful, but some of the Greek deputies, intimidated by the discontent prevailing amongst their own people, deserted their position and soon fell back into the surrounding mass of schism. The new emperor, Constantine, brother of John Palaeologus, vainly endeavoured to overcome the opposition of the Byzantine clergy and people. Isidore of Kiev was sent to Constantinople to bring about the desired acceptance of the Florentine "Decretum Unionis" (Laetentur Coeli), but, before he could succeed in his mission, the city fell (1453) before the advancing hordes of Mohammed II. One advantage, at least, resulted from the Council of Florence: it proclaimed before both Latins and Greeks that the Roman pontiff was the foremost ecclesiastical authority in Christendom; and Eugene IV was able to arrest the schism which had been threatening the Western Church anew (see BASLE, COUNCIL OF). This council was, therefore, witness to the prompt rehabilitation of papal supremacy, and facilitated, the return of men like Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini, who in his youth had taken part in the Council of Basle, but ended by recognizing its erroneous attitude, and finally became pope under the name Pius II. L. VAN DER ESSEN Florence of Worcester Florence of Worcester English chronicler; all that is known of his personal history is that he was a monk of Worcester and that he died in 1118. His "Chronicon ex Chronicis" is the first attempt made in England to write a universal chronicle from the creation onwards, but the universal part is based entirely on the work of Marianus Scotus an Irish monk who died at Mainz about 1082. To this Florence added a number of references to English history taken from Bede, the "Anglo-Saxon Chronicle", and various biographies. The portions borrowed from the "Chronicle" are of value because he used a version which has not been preserved. Florence begins to be an independent authority in 1030, and his "Chronicle" goes down to 1117; it is annalistic in form, but a very useful record of events. John, another monk of Worcester, continued the "Chronicon" to 1141, and other writers took it down to 1295. F.F. URQUHART St. Florentina St. Florentina Virgin; born towards the middle of the sixth century; died about 612. The family of St. Florentina furnishes us with a rare example of lives genuinely religious, and actively engaged in furthering the best interests of Christianity. Sister of three Spanish bishops in the time of the Visigothic dominion (Leander, Isidore, and Fulgentius), she consecrated her virginity to God, and all four have been canonized by the Church. Florentina was born about the middle of the sixth century, being younger than her brother Leander, later Archbishop of Seville, but older than Isidore, who succeeded Leander as archbishop of the same see. Before his elevation to the episcopal dignity, Leander had been a monk, and it was through his influence that Florentina embraced the ascetic life. She associated with herself a number of virgins, who also desired to forsake the world, and formed them into a religious community. Later sources declare their residence to have been the convent of S. Maria de Valle near Ecija (Astigis), of which city her brother Fulgentius was bishop. In any case, it is certain that she had consecrated herself to God before the year 600, as her brother Leander, who died either in the year 600 or 601, wrote for her guidance an extant work dealing with a nun's rule of life and with contempt for the world ("Regula sive Libellus de institutione virginum et de contemptu mundi ad Florentinam sororem", P.L. LXXII, 873 sqq.). In it the author lays down the rules according to which cloistered virgins consecrated to God should regulate their lives. He strongly advises them to avoid intercourse with women living in the world, and with men, especially youths; recommends strict temperance in eating and drinking, gives advice concerning the reading of and meditation on Holy Scripture, enjoins equal love and friendship for all those living together in community, and exhorts his sister earnestly to remain true to her holy state. Florentina regulated her life according to the advice of her brother, entered with fervour into the spirit of the religious life, and was honoured as a saint after her death. Her younger brother Isidore also dedicated to her his work "De fide catholica contra Jud=E6os", which he wrote at her request. Florentina died early in the seventh century and is venerated as the patroness of the diocese of Plasencia. Her feast falls on 20 June. The name is written Florentia in the Roman martyrology, but Florentina is without doubt the correct form. J. P. KIRSCH Enrique Florez Enrique Florez Spanish theologian, archeologist, and historian; born at Valladolid, 14 February, 1701; died at Madrid, 20 August, 1773. While still very young (1715) he joined the Order of St. Augustine, and thereafter he devoted his entire life to great works on history and antiquities, which are valuable contributions to the civil and ecclesiastical history of Spain. He was one of the most learned men produced by Spain, and on account of his learning enjoyed the respect and friendship of the most eminent men of his time. His best-known and most important work is "La Espana Sagrada, o teatro geografico-historico de la Iglesia de Espana" (51 vols., Madrid, 1747----), a work following the same plan as the "Gallia christiana" of Sainte-Marthe and the "Italia sacra" of Ughelli. It is a history of the Church in Spain, with biographies of bishops, and its value is enhanced by the insertion of ancient documents which are not to be found elsewhere. But the work was of such large scope that he did not live to finish his task, so that, of the fifty-one volumes of which the history consists, Florez wrote and published only a little more than half (twenty-nine volumes), the rest being written and published after his death by two other Augustinians, Fathers Risco and Fernandez. This and other works of Father Florez are enriched by carefully made illustrations which serve still further to increase their value. In 1743 he published his historical work, the curious "Llave historial", a work similar to the French "Art de vorifier les dates", but having the advantage of priority over the latter, which did not appear until 1750. This book passed through several later editions in 1774, 1786, and 1790. It did not, however, add much to the literary fame of its author. Father Florez had pursued studies in numismatics and published "Espana carpetana; medallas de las colonias, municipios, y pueblos antiguos de Espana" (3 vols., Madrid, 1757), dealing with the history of Spain when that country was occupied by the Romans. Other works of Florez were "Cursus Theologiae" (5 vols., Madrid, 1732-38), one of his earlier works, and "Memorias de las reynas Catolicas (2 vols., Madrid, 1761, 1770, and 1779), a genealogical history of the royal house of Leon and Castile. Mendez, Noticia de la Vida y Escritos de Enrique Florez (Madrid, 1780). VENTURA FUENTES Jeanne-Pierre Claris, Chevalier de Florian Jeanne-Pierre Claris, Chevalier de Florian Born at the chateau of Florian (Gard), 6 March, 1755; died at Sceaux, 13 September, 1794. An orphan at an early age, he was brought up by his grandfather and studied at St-Hippolyte. At ten years of age he was taken by one of his uncles who was related to Voltaire, to the chateau of Ferney. The influence of the philosopher was already beginning to be felt by the child when he was sent in 1768 to the Duke of Penthievre, to act as a page. His sojourn at the chateau of Anet was very beneficial to him. Not only did the duke interest himself in his studies, and direct his readings, but he gave him good advice and made him promise that he would never write except with reserve and decency. Upon leaving the service of the Duke of Penthievre, he entered the military school at Bapaume, obtained a commission in the dragoons of Penthievre, but soon abandoned the army for literature and began to write comedies. He was elected to the Academie Franc,aise in 1788. Arrested at Sceaux in 1793, he owed his life to the death of Robespierre, but he outlived the terrors of his imprisonment only a short time. To modern readers, Florian is chiefly known as the author of pretty fables well suited as reading for the young, but his contemporaries praised him also for his poetical and pastoral novels. He was the Boucher and the Watteau of the literature of the eighteenth century and it is remarkable that some of his graceful and delicate works were written in the midst of the Revolution. The list of his works is long. Worthy of mention are: two pastoral novels, "Galatee" and "Estelle"; two poetical novels, "Numa Pompilius" and "Gonzalve de Cordoue"; three volumes of comedies, the principal being "Les Deux Billets", "Le Bon Menage", "Le Bon Pere", "Jeannot et Colin"; two volumes of short stories, a few religious poems, like "Ruth" and "Tobie", etc. Florian was very fond of Spain and its literature, doubtless owing to the influence of his mother, Gilette de Salgue, who was a Castilian. He was loved by his contemporaries as well for his character as for his writings, and he was much praised for his charity. LOUIS N. DELAMARRE The Florians The Florians (Floriacenses), an altogether independent order, and not, as some consider, a branch of the Cistercians; it was founded in 1189 by the Abbot Joachim of Flora (q.v.), by whom its constitutions were drawn up. Besides preserving a number of Cistercian observances, the founder added to the austerities of Citeaux. The Florians went barefoot; their habits were white and very coarse. Their Breviary differed in the distribution of Offices from that of Citeaux. The constitutions were approved by Pope Celestine III in 1196. The order spread rapidly, soon numbering as many as thirty-five monasteries, but it seems not to have extended beyond Italy. In 1470 the regular abbots were replaced by commendatory abbots, but the abuses of this regime hastened the decline of the order. In 1505 the Abbey of Flora and its affiliated monasteries were united to the Order of Citeaux. In 1515 other Florian monasteries united themselves to the Grande Chartreuse or to the Dominicans, and in 1570, after a century under the regime of commendatory abbots, not a single independent monastery remained, and the Order of Flora had ceased to exist. Under the Abbot of Flora were also four monasteries of religious women, who followed the Florian rule. EDMOND M. OBRECHT Florida Florida The Peninsular or Everglade State, the most southern in the American Union and second largest east of the Mississippi, lies between parallels 24DEG 38' and 31DEG N. latitude and meridians 79DEG 48' and 87DEG 38' W. longitude. Its name, commemorative of its discovery by Ponce de Leon at Eastertide (Sp. Pascua florida), 1513, or less probably descriptive of the verdant aspect of the country, was originally applied to territory extending northward to Virginia and westward indefinitely from the Atlantic. Florida is bounded north by Alabama and Georgia, east by the Atlantic, south by the Straits of Florida and Gulf of Mexico, and west by the Gulf and the Perdido River. It contains 58,680 sq. miles, 4440 being lake and river area. Politically, the State is divided into forty-six counties, geographically into the peninsular section, stretching 450 miles north and south, average width 95 miles, and the continental or northern portion, measuring 400 miles from Alabama to the Atlantic, mean width 65 miles. Its eastern coast-line, comparatively regular, is 470 miles long; it is paralleled almost its entire length by sand reefs which enclose an inland waterway, and its outline is prolonged in the chain of coral and sandy islets known as the Florida Keys, which extend 200 miles in a south-westerly direction, terminating in the Tortugas. Over the Keys an extension of the Florida East Coast Railroad from the mainland to Key West is in course of construction. The deep-water ports are Fernandina, Jacksonville, and Key West. The Gulf coast-line, sinuous in conformation, measures 675 miles; the chief ports are Tampa, Apalachicola, and Pensacola. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS The Everglades, often erroneously described as swamp-lands, form the characteristic feature of Southern Florida. They consist mainly of submerged saw-grass plains extending 130 by 70 miles, studded with numerous islands which produce a semi-tropical jungle-growth. The surface water, ordinarily about knee-deep, pure, potable, and abounding in fish, has a perceptible southbound current. A limestone substratum occasionally appears through a bedbottom of vegetable mould. While subterranean sources of supply are contributory, the inundation chiefly results from the overflow of Lake Okeechobee (1200 sq. miles), whose rock-rimmed shores, 18 feet above sea-level, exceed by 10 feet the general elevation of the Everglades. North of the lake, extending through the counties of De Soto, Manatee, Osceola, and Brevard, lie vast tracts of prairie or savanna land with large swamp areas. This is the cattle region of Florida. Farther north, and embracing the counties of Polk, Lake, Orange, Sumter, Marion, and Alachua, is the fertile and picturesque rolling country of the central ridge with a general altitude of 200, and elevations approaching 300 feet above sea-level. This is the lake region; Lakes Kissimmee, Tohopekaliga, Apopka, Harris, and George are chief amongst thousands. The extensive coastal plains, comprising the entire area of the Gulf and Atlantic seaboard counties, are low-lying sandy tracts, monotonously level and frequently marshy. These constitute the pine region of Florida. The northern portion of middle Florida, between the Suwannee and Apalachicola Rivers, while corresponding in general altitude and topography to the central ridge, differs widely from all other parts of the State. Red clay and loam of surpassing fertility replace the elsewhere prevalent thin sandy soils, while the featureless aspect of boundless pine plains and the recurrent sameness of undulating landscape are replaced by a rare exuberance and diversity of highland, plain, lake, and woodland scenery. Florida is an exceedingly well-wooded and well-watered State. Pine, cypress, cedar, oak, magnolia, hickory, and sweet gum everywhere abound, while there are good supplies of rarer hardwoods and semi-tropical varieties. There are, including the East Coast Canal nearing completion, nearly 2000 miles of navigable waterways. The chief rivers flowing into the Atlantic are: St. Mary's, forming part of the northern boundary; St. John's, 300 miles long, navigable for 200 miles; Indian River, properly a salt-water lagoon or sound, forming part of the East Coast Canal. The Caloosahatchee, Peace, Manatee, Withlacoochee, Suwannee, Ocilla, Ocklockonee, Apalachicola, Choctawhatchee, Yellow River, Escambia, and Perdido empty into the Gulf. The Kissimmee enters Lake Okeechobee. Characteristic of the State are its immense mineral springs: Silver, Wakulla, Chipola, Green Cove, and White Springs are the principal. The remarkably mild and agreeable climate of Florida makes it a favourite winter resort. The average annual temperature ranges from 68DEG at Pensacola to 70DEG at Key West; extremes of heat or cold are rarely experienced; the annual rainfall is about 60 inches. RESOURCES Agriculture Diversity of product, rather than abundance of yield, is noticeable. Besides semi-tropical productions, all varieties common in higher latitudes, except a few cereals, may be profitably cultivated in Florida. The soil, exclusive of the impartially distributed fertile hammock lands, i. e. limited areas enriched by decomposed vegetable deposit, is excessively sandy and rather poor in quality, yet surprisingly responsive to cultivation. Even where the soil is not especially prolific the warm, humid climate stimulates a rapid and vigorous plant growth. In 1905, 31,233 farms were operated by whites, 14,231 by negroes, 20 by others; farm acreage, 4,758,874; 1,621,362 acres being improved. Value of farms, $51,464,124; operating expenses, $3,914,296; products, $40,131,814; field crops, $13,632,641; fruit crops, $5,423,390; live stock, $14,731,521. Crops in order of value: cotton, 282,078 acres, 80,485 bales, value $4,749,351; corn, 455,274 acres, 4,888,958 bushels, value $3,315,965; peanuts, sweet potatoes, tomatoes, beans, white potatoes, tobacco, celery, hay, watermelons, oats, lettuce, cabbage, cucumbers. The mort valuable fruit crop was the orange: 1,768,944 bearing trees, producing 2,961,195 boxes, value $3,353,609; followed in order of value by pineapples, grapefruit, strawberries, and peaches. Live stock included 36,131 horses, 19,331 mules, 69 asses, 1,010,454 cattle, 604,742 swine, 115324 sheep, 33,150 goats. Commerce and Industries The report for the last statistical year shows a remarkable increase in commercial and industrial activities; 1906 manufacturing establishments, capital $42,157,080, paid $18,048,599 to 52,345 wage-earners; value of manufactured products, $53,506,154. The leading industries and value of annual output are: cigarmaking, about $15,000,000 (returns incomplete); lumber, $15,210,916; naval stores, $10,196,327; phosphate, $6,601,000. The value of exports (overland being about as much more, not included) was $62,655,559 for 1906, cigars comprising one-third this amount, the remainder being almost equally divided between lumber, naval stores, and phosphate; the value of imports was $6,654,546. The fisheries of the west coast and sponge industry of the Keys are important, giving employment to 6000 men and yielding an annual product valued at $1,500,000. The total assessed valuation of taxable property in the State was (1904) $111,333,735; State debt, $601,567. On 1 March, 1908, eighteen railroads, with a total mileage of 4104, main track 2948, miles, were in operation. HISTORY The landing of Ponce de Leon on the shores of Florida probably on the Sunday after Easter, 3 April, 1513, is the first positively authenticated instance of the presence of Europeans on the mainland of the United States. This expedition, which popular narrative invests with romantic glamour, was undertaken according to the royal patent of authorization "to discover and people the island of Bimini". Ponce named the land Florida in honour of the Easter festival, set up a stone cross with an inscription, and impressed with the hostile character of the natives, returned after six months' exploration to Porto Rico. His attempt to establish a colony in 1521 was doomed to speedy failure. The voyages of Miruelo (1516), Cordova (1517), Pineda (1519), Ayllon (1520), and Gomez (1524) accomplished little beyond establishing the fact that Florida was not an island but part of a vast continent. The disastrous outcome of the expeditions of Panfilo Narvaez (1527-28), of Hernando de Soto (1538-43), and of Tristan de Luna (1559-61) are well-known episodes in the early history of America. On the failure of Ribault's French colony, founded at Port Royal (1562), Rene de Laudonniere planted the new settlement of Fort Caroline at the mouth of St. John's River (1564). Pedro Menendez de Aviles, the foremost naval commander of his day, learning that Ribault had left France with reinforcements and supplies for the new colony, set out to intercept him and banish for ever French Huguenots from the land that belonged by right of discovery to Catholic Spain. Menendez never undertook an enterprise and failed. He reached the harbour of St. Augustine 28 August, 1565, naming it for the saint of the day. The founding of the oldest city in the United States merits a brief description. After devoting a week to reconnoitring, Menendez entered the harbour on 6 September. Three companies of soldiers were sent ashore under two captains, to select a site and begin a fort. On 8 September Menendez landed, and amid the booming of artillery and the blast of trumpets the standard of Castile and Leon was unfurled. The chaplain, Father Lopez de Mendoza, carrying a cross and followed by the troops, proceeded to meet the general who advanced to the cross, which he kissed on bended knee as did those of his staff. The solemn Mass of Our Lady's Nativity was then offered on a spot which was ever afterward called Nombre de Dios. On 20 Sept. Fort Caroline was taken by surprise, only women and children being spared. The merciless slaughter of Ribault and his shipwrecked companions by Menendez a few days subsequently is an indelible stain on a singularly noble record. The story, so assiduously copied by successive historiographers, that Aviles hanged some of his prisoners on trees and attached the inscription No por franceses sino por Luteranos, is an apocryphal embellishment (see Spanish Settlements, II, 178). Two years later De Gourgues retaliated by slaughtering the Spanish garrison at Fort Caroline. The history of Florida during the first Spanish administration (1565-1763) centres round St. Augustine, and is rather of religious than political importance. English buccaneers under Drake in 1586 and again under Davis in 1665 plundered and sacked the town. Distrust and hostility usually prevailed between the Spanish colonies and their northern English neighbours. Governor Moore of South Carolina made an unsuccessful attempt in 1702 to capture St. Augustine, and in 1704 laid waste the country of the civilized Apalachee. Governor Oglethorpe of Georgia invaded Florida in 1740, besieging St. Augustine with a large force but was repulsed by the Spanish Governor Monteano and forced to retreat. Spain ceded Florida to England in 1763. During the English period great efforts were made to populate the country and develop its resources, but religion suffered irreparably. During the second Spanish occupation (1783-1821) some unimportant military operations took place in West Florida under General Andrew Jackson in 1814 and 1818. In consequence of the treaty of 1819, the Americans took possession of Florida in 1821. In 1822 Florida became a territory of the United States, William P. Duval being appointed first governor. The following year Tallahassee was selected as the new capital. The refusal of the warlike Seminoles to repair to reservations resulted in the long, costly, and discreditable Indian War (1835-42), which came to an end in the capture by treachery of Osceola. Florida was admitted to Statehood in 1845. The State seceded from the Union 10 January, 1861. In 1862 minor engagements between the Federal and Confederate forces took place; the Federal troops occupied Jacksonville, St. Augustine, and Fernandina, but the Confederates, under General Finegan, gained a decisive victory over the Union forces commanded by General Seymour at Olustee in 1864. In proportion to population Florida furnished more troops than any other Confederate State; they took an honourable part in the campaigns of Tennessee and Virginia, and bore a distinguished reputation for steadfast endurance on the march and conspicuous gallantry on the battlefield. Florida gave to the higher ranks of the Confederate service three major-generals, Loring, Anderson, and Smith, and the Brigadier-Generals Brevard, Bullock, Finegan, Miller, Davis, Finley, Perry, and Shoup. The State was represented in the Confederate Cabinet by Stephen H. Mallory, Secretary of the Navy. If the war proved disastrous to Florida, the subsequent reconstruction added despair to disaster when citizens witnessed the control of public affairs pass into the hands of unscrupulous adventurers. The ordinance of secession was repealed in October, 1865, and a State government organized in 1866. In 1868 a new constitution having been adopted and the Fourteenth Amendment ratified, Florida was readmitted into the Union, but it was not till 1877, when Floridians obtained political ascendancy, that a healthy industrial growth as well as social and educational progress began to appear. The present constitution was adopted in 1886. The discovery of rich phosphate deposits in 1889 greatly improved economic conditions, and the constantly growing popularity of Eastern Florida -- the American Riviera -- as a winter resort contributes to the general prosperity. POPULATION The colony of 600 Spaniards founded by Menendez at St. Augustine in 1565 was the earliest permanent white settlement within the present limits of the United States. Relinquishing fruitless attempts to establish extensive settlements, Florida's Spanish conquerors early subordinated purposes of colonization to motives of military expediency, so that during an occupation of two hundred years the white population remained limited to a few stations of strategic importance. In 1648 the civilian population of St. Augustine was represented by 300 families, and in 1740, nearly a hundred years later, it numbered 2143. The various Spanish garrisons usually aggregated about 2000 men. In 1763, when Florida passed under English rule, the entire Spanish population of 5700 moved away. During the twenty years of English occupancy there was a steady influx of settlers, including numbers of loyalists from the revolted colonies. At this period the so-called Minorcan colony was founded at New Smyrna. During the second Spanish regime (1783-1821) immigration continued and, when Florida came under the United States flag in 1821, increased rapidly. The first U. S. census of 1830 gives the population at 34,730. For the thirty years following a decennial increase of 60 per cent appears, the population in 1860 being 140,424. Since 1860 the increase per decade has averaged 40 per cent. In 1900 the population was 528,542, and in 1905, 614,845, nearly 18 times that of 1830, showing in five years an increase of 86,303, or 16 per cent. In 1900 whites numbered 297,812, coloured 230,730, average number of inhabitants per square mile 9.7. Following are detailed statistics of 1908 (State census): white, 348,923; coloured, 265,737; other races, 185; average per square mile, 11.3. Foreign born white, 22,409, comprising 5867 Cubans, 3120 Italians, 2589 West Indians, 2051 English, 1945 Spanish, 1699 Germans, 1059 Canadians, 610 Irish, and 3469 of other nationalities. The Cuban population is concentrated mainly at Tampa and Key West, Spanish and Italian at Tampa, West Indian of both races at Key West; the other nationalities are scattered broadly over the State. Nine counties exhibit a slightly decreased population attributed to a shifting of negroes from the farms. In twelve counties negroes outnumber whites. Leon county has the largest percentage of coloured people, 14,880 out of 18,883 total, or 78.8 per cent; Lee county the smallest, 399 out of 3961 total, or 10 per cent. Leon has 25.8 inhabitants per square mile, Lee only 0.8; these figures are typical of racial distribution of population throughout the State. Cities over 10,000: Jacksonville 35,301, Tampa (estimated) 28,000, Pensacola 21,505; and Key West 20,498. EDUCATION The organization of the Florida Educational Society in 1831 was apparently the first attempt made to inaugurate a public school system. It resulted in the establishment of a free school at St. Augustine in 1832. During the ante-bellum period, owing to general lack of interest, inefficiency of educational legislation, and the prejudice that regarded public schools as "pauper" schools, but little was accomplished for the cause of popular education. In 1860 a few counties had organized public school systems, but the advent of war, and particularly the subsequent dismal process of reconstruction proved a serious blow to educational progress. The constitutional convention of 1865 gave the subject scant recognition, but that of 1868 adopted in its constitution liberal provisions, which were greatly amplified by the constitution of 1885. This constitution established a permanent State school fund, consisting mainly of proceeds of public land sales, State appropriations, and a one-mill property tax, the interest of which was to be applied to support public schools. This fund (1908) exceeds one million dollars. Each county constitutes a school unit (but when advisable special school districts may be formed) and is authorized to levy a school tax of from 3 to 7 mills. Poll-tax proceeds also revert to the county school fund. The governor, secretary of state, attorney-general, State treasurer, and State superintendent of public instruction form the State Board of Education. County boards consist of a county superintendent and three commissioners. There are twelve grades or years of instruction, eight months constituting a school year. The school age is six to twenty-one years. The constitution prescribes that "white and coloured children shall not be taught in the same school, but impartial provision shall be made for both". Statistics from latest biennial report (1906) of state superintendent show: total public schools, 2387; white 1720; coloured 667; enrolment: white 81,473, or 66 per cent of school population, coloured 48,992, or 52 per cent of school population; total expenditure for school year ending June, 1906, $1,020,674.95 for white schools, $200,752.27 for coloured schools. There are 2495 white and 794 coloured teachers. The report observes that while rapid progress has been accomplished along educational lines, a comparison with more advanced States shows that in Florida popular education of the masses is yet in its initial stage. "One of the greatest hindrances to educational progress at the present time is the scarcity, not only of professionally trained teachers, but teachers of any kind." This scarcity is ascribed to the inadequate remuneration teachers receive. The system of higher education fostered by the State was reorganized by legislative act of 1905. Several existing institutions were abolished, and in their stead were established a State university for men, a State college for women, and a coloured normal and industrial school in which co-education prevails. These higher educational institutions receive generous support. State appropriations in 1907 amounted to $600,000, while annual subventions from the federal treasury aggregate about $60,000. The University of the State of Florida, Gainsville, includes a normal department, also a United States Agricultural Experiment Station, under a separate managerial staff. The university faculty numbers 15, Experiment Station staff 14, enrolment (1908) 103. The Florida Female College, Tallahassee, also includes a normal school, and has 22 professors and instructors and 240 students. The coloured normal school, Tallahassee, reports a faculty of 24 and an enrolment of 307. Institutions of higher education under denominational auspices: The John B. Stetson University (Baptist), Deland, incorporated 1889, affiliated with Chicago University, 1898. Its productive endowment funds amount to $225,000, while it has been the recipient of munificent gifts and legacies; enrolment (1908) 520, faculty 49. Rollins College (undenominational evangelical), Winter Park, incorporated 1885, possesses an endowment fund of $200,000, faculty 20, enrolment 148. The Southern College (Methodist), Southerland, founded 1902, faculty 19, enrolment 216. The Columbia College (Baptist), Lake City, was established in 1907; its faculty numbers 12, enrolment 143. St. Leo College (Catholic), St. Lee, incorporated 1889, is conducted by the Benedictine Fathers, faculty 9, enrolment 75. The Presbyterian College of Florida, Eustis, opened in 1905 and has at present 9 professors and 63 students. There is a business college located at Tampa and two -- Massey's and Draughon's -- at Jacksonville. Catholic institutions, beneath college grade but maintaining a high standard of instruction, are the Academies of St. Joseph at St. Augustine, Jacksonville, and Loretto -- the latter a boys' preparatory school -- of the Holy Names at Tampa and Key West, and of the Sisters of Mercy at Pensacola. The number of children under Catholic care is 3704. Denominational institutions of high grade for the education of negroes are the Cookman Institute (Methodist), enrolment 487; the Edward Waters College (Methodist); and the Florida Baptist College, all situated at Jacksonville. In all the non-Catholic institutions co-education obtains. RELIGION Early Missionary Efforts The permanent establishment of the Christian Religion in what is now the United States dates from the founding of St. Augustine in 1565. The previous fifty years exhibit a record of heroic though fruitless attempts to plant the cross on the soil of Florida. The solicitude manifested by the Spanish Crown for the conversion of the Indians was sincere and lasting, nor was there ever wanting a plentiful supply of zealous Spanish missionaries who brought to the spiritual subjugation of the Western World the same steadfastness of purpose and unflinching courage that achieved within so short a space the mighty conquests of Spanish arms. Priests and missionaries accompanied Ponce (1521), Allyon (1526), De Soto (1538), and De Luna (1559). In 1549 the Dominican Father Luis Cancer de Barbastro, honoured as Apostle of Central America and Protomartyr of Florida, in attempting to establish a mission, was slain by hostile Indians near Tampa Bay. Having secured Spanish supremacy by ruthlessly crushing out the French and planting a permanent colony at St. Augustine in 1565, Menendez with indomitable energy and zeal devoted himself to the evangelization of the Indians. Of the twenty-eight priests who embarked with him from Spain, four only seem to have reached Florida, of whom Martin Francisco Lopez de Mendoza Grajales became first parish priest of St. Augustine, the first established parish in the United States. Pending the arrival of regular missionaries, Menendez appointed soldiers possessing the necessary qualifications as religious instructors to the Indians. The Jesuits were the first to enter the missionary field; three were sent by St. Francis Borgia in 1566 and ten in 1568; the few who survived the martyrdom of their brethren were recalled in 1572. In 1577 the Franciscans arrived. The good progress made by 1597 was severely checked by a general massacre of the missionaries instigated by a young chief chafing under merited reprimand. In 1609 several Indian chiefs sought baptism at St. Augustine, and the Florida missions entered the palmy period of their existence, which lasted till well past the middle of the century. In 1634 the Franciscan province of St. Helena, with mother-house at St. Augustine, contained 44 Indian missions, 35 missionaries, and 30,000 Catholic Indians. By 1674 evidences of decline begin to appear. Bishop Calderon found his episcopal jurisdiction questioned by the friars, and although he confirmed many Indians, he complained of the universal ignorance of Christian doctrine. The arbitrary exactions of successive governors provoked resentment and rebellion amongst the Christian Indians, while the English foe on the northern border menaced their very existence. In 1704 the blow fell. Burning, plunder, carnage, and enslavement is the record of Moore's raid amongst the Apalachee missions. Efforts at re-establishment partially succeeded, there being in 1720 six towns of Catholic Indians and several missions, but owing to the ravages of persistent conflict between the Spanish and English colonies, these in 1763 had languished to four missions with 136 souls. The cession to England in 1763 resulted, not merely in the final extinction of the missions, but in the complete obliteration of Florida's ancient Catholicity. Formation of Dioceses St. Augustine began its existence as a regularly constituted parish of the Diocese of Santiago de Cuba. Its church records, dating from 1594, are preserved in the archives of the present cathedral. The first recorded episcopal visitation was made by Bishop Cabeza de Altamirano in 1606. In 1674 Bishop Gabriel Diaz Vara Calderon visited the Floridian portion of his diocese; he conferred minor orders on seven candidates, and during an itinerary of eight months, extending to the Carolinian confines, confirmed 13,152 persons, founded many mission churches, and liberally supplied others. The permanent residence of Bishops-Auxiliary Resino (1709-10), Tejada (1735-45), and Ponce y Carasco (1751-55) at St. Augustine, shows that despite the waning condition of the colony and missions at this period, the Church in Florida was not deprived of episcopal care and vigilance. Bishop Morell of Santiago, exiled from his see during the English occupation of Havana (1662-63), remained four months at St. Augustine, confirming 639 persons. When Florida in 1763 passed under English rule, freedom of worship was guaranteed, but the illiberal interpretation of officials resulted in the general exodus of Catholics, so that by 1765, the bi-centenary year of the Church in Florida, a few defaced church buildings presented the only evidence of its former Catholicity. Five hundred survivors of the New Smyrna colony of 1400 Catholics, natives of Mediterranean lands, settled at St. Augustine in 1776 and preserved the Faith alive through a trying epoch. In 1787 Florida became subject to the newly constituted See of St. Christopher of Havana, and the following year Bishop Cyril de Barcelona found the church at St. Augustine progressing satisfactorily under the care of Fathers Hassett and O'Reilly, who had arrived on the retrocession of Florida to Spain in 1783. In 1793 Pius VI established the Diocese of Louisiana and the Floridas, appointing the Right Rev. Luis Penalver y Cardenas, with residence at New Orleans, as first bishop. After Bishop Penalver's promotion to the Archbishopric of Guatemala in 1801, no successor having been appointed, Louisiana, which was annexed to the United States in 1803, came under the jurisdiction of Bishop Carroll of Baltimore in 1806, the bishops of Havana reassuming authority over Florida until the appointment of the Rev. Michael Portier in 1825 to the new Vicariate of Alabama and Florida. Bishop Portier undertook single-handed the work of his vast vicariate, not having a single priest, until at his request Bishop England of Charleston sent Father Edward Mayne to St. Augustine in 1828. In 1850 the See of Savannah was created and included that part of Florida which lies east of the Apalachicola River; this was constituted a separate vicariate in 1857 under the Right Rev. Augustin Verot as vicar apostolic and erected into the Diocese of St. Augustine in 1870, with Bishop Verot, who had occupied the See of Savannah since 1861, as first bishop. Bishop Verot's unwearied activity and zeal in promoting religion and education soon bore fruit; schools were opened by the Christian Brothers and the Sisters of Mercy in 1858, but the outbreak of the Civil War frustrated all hopes of success. In 1866 the Sisters of St. Joseph were introduced from France, and despite the most adverse conditions, they had several flourishing schools and academies in operation before many years. The era of progress inaugurated by Bishop Verot continued under the administration of Bishop John Moore (1877-1901), whose successor, the Right Rev. William John Kenny, was consecrated by Cardinal Gibbons 18 May, 1902, in the historic cathedral of St. Augustine. The Catholic population of the State, including 1750 coloured Catholics, is (1908) about 30,000. The Diocese of St. Augustine, wholly included within the State, contains about 25,000 Catholics; there are 49 priests with 40 churches and several missions, and 2897 young people under the care of religious teaching orders. That portion of the State situated west of the Apalachicola River forms part of the Diocese of Mobile since 1829; the Catholic population is about 5000, there are five churches with resident priests and 6 Catholic schools with 807 pupils; Pensacola, founded 1696, is the Catholic centre. Other Religious Denominations The Methodist Church South has the largest membership. The Florida Conference was set off from the Georgia Conference in 1844. The session of December, 1907, reported 341 churches and 155 ministers; estimated membership 40,000. The Baptists report 35,021 total membership, 548 churches, 370 ministers. The Episcopalian denomination, comprising the Diocese of Florida and the Missionary District of Southern Florida, organized 1892, has 7737 communicants, about 12,000 total baptized, and 66 ministers. These three denominations display considerable activity and efficiency in missionary and educational work. The Baptist State Mission board supports 40 missionaries; while the Episcopalians, with but 10 self-supporting parishes, maintain nearly 200 missions, including 14 churches for negroes and 10 parish schools with 540 pupils. In 1894 the Episcopal Church started mission work amongst the Seminole Indians of the Everglades, who number about 300, but as the chiefs who are arbiters of all individual rights have hitherto held aloof, the result has been very discouraging. Presbyterians North and South number 6500 with 95 ministers, Congregationalists 2500; other denominations represented in the State are: Adventists, Christians, Lutherans, Unitarians, Campbellites, Jews, Christian Scientists, and Mormons. Reliable religious statistics of the coloured people are difficult to obtain owing to multiplicity of organizations and mobility of religious temperament. Five distinct branches of Methodists report 635 preachers, 400 churches, and 7470 members. Baptist organizations approximate the Methodists in strength, while the coloured membership of other denominations is very small. Florida Indians The early explorers found the Indians distributed over the entire peninsula. To the north-west the populous tribes of the Apalachee inhabited the country watered by the Suwannee and Apalachicola Rivers; the Timuquanans occupied the centre of the peninsula, with numerous settlements along the St. John's; the Calusa in the south-west ranged from Cape Sable to Tampa Bay; on Biscayne Bay the small settlement of Tegestas seems to have come originally from the Bahamas and contracted kinship with the Calusa; along the Indian River south of Cape Canaveral lived the Ays, also comparatively few in numbers and mentioned only in connexion with early missionary labour, probably having become absorbed in the Timuquanans under the unifying influence of Christianity. Sufficient data for an approximate estimate of population are wanting; probably the entire population of the tribes mentioned exceeded 20,000 but not 40,000. These tribes pertained ethnologically and linguistically to the great Muskhogean or Creek family, though some philologists consider the Timuquanan language, which "represents the acme of polysynthesis", a distinct linguistic stock. The Timuquanans lived in great communal houses, fortified their villages, practised agriculture to some extent and a few rude industries. They are described as being of fine physique, intelligent, courageous, generally monogamous, very fond of ceremonial, and much addicted to human sacrifice and superstition. Their settlement near St. Augustine furnished the first Indian converts, in all probability prior to the advent of the Franciscan missionaries in 1577. In 1602 Governor Canc,o estimated the number of Christians amongst them at 1200. A catechism in the Timuquanan language by Father Francisco Pareja was printed in Mexico in 1612 and a grammar in 1614 (reprinted at Paris, 1886), besides other works. These were the first books printed in any of our Indian tongues. The baptism of twelve Timuquanan chiefs in 1609 at St. Augustine cleared the way for the conversion of the whole nation to Christianity. English and hostile Indian raids diminished their numbers (1685-1735), and by 1763 they had all but disappeared. The Apalachee Indians, closer related to the Creeks, resembled the neighbouring Timuquanans in general disposition and manner of life. It is not mentioned that they practised human sacrifice, and in other respects, especially after their conversion to Christianity, they exhibited a superiority of character over the other Floridian tribes, being docile and tractable to religious teaching and training. Towards Narvaez (1528) and De Soto (1539) they assumed a surprisingly hostile demeanour, in view of the ready response accorded subsequently to the efforts of the missionaries. In 1595 Father Pedro de Chozas penetrated to Ocute in the Apalachee country, and his mission proved so fruitful that the Indians appealed in 1607 for additional missionaries, and by 1640 the whole tribe was Catholic. The Apalachee country was invaded and devastated by hostile Indians and English under Moore in 1704. Of thirteen flourishing towns but one escaped destruction, missionaries were tortured and slain, 1000 Christians were carried off to be sold as slaves, and of 7000 Christian Apalachee only 400 escaped. One of the last items recorded of the tribe is the testimony of the French writer Penicaut to the edifying piety with which a fugitive band that had settled near Mobile adhered to the practices of religion. The Calusa or Carlos Indians, with whom Menendez in 1566 endeavoured to establish friendship and alliance, in order to pave the way to their conversion, showed a persistent spirit of hostility to Christian teaching. They were cruel, crafty, though recklessly brave, polygamous, and inveterately addicted to human sacrifice. The Jesuit Father Rogel laboured fruitlessly amongst them (1567-8). The Franciscans in 1697 were even less successful. In 1743 the Jesuit Fathers Monaco and Alana, who obtained some little success, described them as cruel, lewd, and rapacious. The remnant of the tribe moved to the western reservations about 1835. The Seminoles, also allied to the Creek stock, came into Florida about 1750; very few of them became Christians, as missionary activity ceased on the English occupation in 1763. Their refusal to withdraw to reservations resulted in the Indian War of 1835-42. On the conclusion of the war 2000 were conveyed to Indian Territory. About 300, defying every effort of the United States, retired to the almost inaccessible recesses of the Everglades which their descendants occupy to this day. Legislation Directly Affecting Religion Freedom of worship and liberty of conscience are by constitutional provision guaranteed in perpetuity to the citizens of Florida. The Declaration of Rights ordains (Sec. 5): "The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship shall forever be allowed in this State, and no person shall be considered incompetent as a witness on account of his religious opinions; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to justify licentiousness or practices subversive of, or inconsistent with, the peace or moral safety of the state or society." The constitution further provides (Sec. 6) that no preference be given by law to any church or religious sect, and forbids the subvention of public funds in aid of any religious denomination or sectarian institution. Wilful interruption or disturbance of "any assembly of people met for the worship of God" is, through legislative enactment (Gen. Stat. 3547), a penal offence. The religious observance of Sunday is, by various prohibitory statutes, indirectly enjoined. All business pursuits "either by manual labor or with animal or mechanical power, except the same be work of necessity" are forbidden on Sunday. Selling goods in open store, the employment of servants, except in ordinary household duty and necessary or charitable work, and the discharge of fire-arms on Sunday are punishable offences. The printing and sale of newspapers is specially exempted. Service and execution of writs on Sunday (suitable provisions obviating possible abuse of the statute being annexed) are declared null and void. By legislative act of 1905, certain games and sports, expressly baseball, football, bowling, and horse-racing, are prohibited on Sunday. All electors upon registering must testify under oath in form prescribed, that they are legally qualified to vote, All State officials, on assuming office, are required to take an oath of loyalty to the Federal and State constitutions and governments, of legal qualification for office, and of fidelity to duty. Testimony in the various courts is to be given under oath. The officials authorized to administer oaths are designated by statute. The issuance of search-warrants is forbidden, except for probable cause, with specification of names and places and supported by oath (Dec. of Rights, 22); also all offences cognizable in Criminal Courts of Record are to be prosecuted upon information under oath (Constit., V, 28). By statutory provision (1731) a declaration in judicial form may in all cases be substituted for an oath. The days defined as legal holidays include Sunday, New Year's Day, Christmas Day, and Good Friday. The use of prayer in the Legislature is not sanctioned by legal provision, although it is customary to appoint a chaplain and begin each session with prayer. Against open profanity and blasphemy it is enacted (Gen. Stat. 3542) that "whoever having arrived at the age of discretion profanely curses or swears in any public street shall be punished by fine not exceeding five dollars". Heavier penalties are decreed against the use of indecent or obscene language, and liberal statutory provision exists for the safeguarding of public morality. Churches, religious communities, charitable institutions, and cemetery associations may become incorporated by complying with the provisions of the general statutes regulating non-profitable corporations. Churches, church lots, parsonages, and all burying-grounds not held for speculative purposes are declared exempt from taxation; property of literary, educational, and charitable institutions actually occupied and used solely for the specific purposes indicated is likewise exempt. Ministers of the Gospel are by statute exempt from jury duty and military service. All regularly ordained ministers in communion with some church are authorized to solemnize the rites of the matrimonial contract under the regulations prescribed by law. Marriages of whites with negroes or persons of negro descent to the fourth generation (one-eighth negro blood) are forbidden. The prohibited degrees, besides the direct line of consanguinity, include only brother and sister, uncle and niece, nephew and aunt. Continuous absence of either spouse over sea or continual absence for three years following voluntary desertion, with presumption of demise, gives the other spouse legal right to remarry. The statutory grounds for divorce are: consanguinity within the degrees prohibited by law, natural impotence, adultery not connived at or condoned, extreme cruelty, habitual indulgence in violent and ungovernable temper, habitual intemperance, wilful, obstinate, and continued desertion for one year, divorce procured by defendant in another state or country, and bigamy. To file a bill of divorce two years' residence (the cause of adultery excepted) is conditional. Separation a mensa et toro is not legally recognized; every divorce is a vinculo. Special personal and local divorce legislation is unconstitutional. State aid is prohibited denominational schools. The law directs every teacher "to labor faithfully and earnestly for the advancement of the pupils in their studies, deportment and morals, and to embrace every opportunity to inculcate, by precept and by example, the principles of truth, honesty and patriotism, and the practice of every Christian virtue". The benevolent institutions maintained by the State include an insane asylum situated at Chattahoochee, a school for the blind, deaf, and dumb at St. Augustine, and a reform school for youthful delinquents at Marianna. A Confederate Veterans' Home at Jacksonville receives an annual appropriation. Each county cares for its indigent and needy infirm. While financial support is denied, ample provision for incorporation is afforded religious charitable institutions. The constitution orders the establishment and maintenance of a State prison, which is not at present permanently located. Convicts are leased through contractors to turpentine and phosphate operators. Over these convicts the State retains surveillance through supervisors appointed by the governor. The law provides also for the appointment and remuneration of a chaplain for state convicts. On 1 January, 1906, there were 1234 state prisoners, 90 per cent of whom were coloured, distributed through 33 convict camps. The constitution gives to each county the privilege of local option to permit or prohibit the sale of liquor. In a majority of the counties prohibition prevails. Where permitted, the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquor are regulated by State, county, and municipal licence laws. Conveyance of real and personal property by will is restricted only by conditions of soundness of mind and age requirement of twenty-one years on part of the testator. There appear to be no Supreme Court decisions referring to bequests for Masses and charitable purposes or to the seal of confession, but the attitude of both bench and bar in the State has in these matters been ever above suspicion of anti-Catholic bias or partiality. FAIRBANKS, History of Florida (Jacksonville, 1901); IDEM, History of St. Augustine (New York, 1858); SHEA, Catholic Missions (New York, 1857); IDEM, History of the Catholic Church in the United States (New York, 1886-92); GATSCHET, A Migration of the Creek Indians (Philadelphia, 1884); IDEM, The Timuqua Language in Proceedings of Am. Phil. Soc. (Philadelphia), XVI (1877), 627; XVII (1878), 490; XVIII (1880), 465; LOWERY, The Spanish Settlements (New York, 1901-05); IRVING, The Conquest of Florida (Philadelphia, 1835); BRINTON, Notes on the Floridian Peninsula (Philadelphia, 1859); ROMANS, A Concise Natural History of East and West Florida (New York, 1775); BREVARD, History and Government of Florida (New York, 1904); DEWHURST, The History of St. Augustine (New York, 1881); CARROLL, Historical Collections of South Carolina (New York, 1836); STEPHENS, History of Georgia (New York, 1847); WALLACE, Carpet Bag Rule in Florida (Jacksonville, 1888); YOCUM, Civil Government in Florida (Deland, 1905); WILLIAMS, Florida (New York, 1837); FISKE, The Discovery of America (Boston, 1892); General Statutes of the State of Florida (St. Augustine, 1906); WILLOUGHBY, Across the Everglades (Philadelphia, 1906); RUIDIAZ, La Florida (Madrid, 1893); GARCIA, Dos antiguas relaciones de la Florida (Mexico, 1902); TERNAUX-COMPANS, Recueil de pieces sur la Floride (Paris, 1841); SPRAGUE, The Origin, Progress and Conclusion of the Florida War (New York, 1848); Extant Records of the Parish of St. Augustine from the year 1594, preserved in the Cathedral Archives at St. Augustine. JAMES VEALE. Florilegia Florilegia Florilegia (Lat., florilegium, an anthology) are systematic collections of excerpts (more or less copious) from the works of the Fathers and other ecclesiastical writers of the early period, compiled with a view to serve dogmatic or ethical purposes. These encyclopedic compilations -- Patristic anthologies as they may be fitly styled -- are a characteristic product of the later Byzantine theological school, and form a very considerable branch of the extensive literature of the Greek Catenae Two classes of Christian florilegia may here be distinguished: the dogmatic and the ascetical, or ethical. The dogmatic florilegia are collections of Patristic citations designed to exhibit the continuous and connected teaching of the Fathers on some specific doctrine. The first impulse to compilations of this nature was given by the Christological controversies that convulsed the Eastern Church during the fifth century, when, both at the gatherings of the great church councils and in private circles, the practical need had made itself definitely felt, of having at hand, for ready reference, a convenient summary of what the Fathers and most approved theologians had held and taught concerning certain controversial doctrines. Such a summary, setting forth the views of Nestorius and the mind of the orthodox Fathers, was first laid before the Council of Ephesus, in 431, by St. Cyril of Alexandria. Summaries of dogmatic utterances were used also at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, and at the Fifth General Council in 533. But it was not until the seventh century that the dogmatic florilegia assumed a fully developed and definite form. At the Sixth General Council, in 680, two of these collections played a very prominent role, one, constructed by Macarius, the Patriarch of Antioch, in favour of the Monothelites, and the other, a counter collection presented by the legates of Pope Agatho. During the Iconoclastic controversy similar collections were produced. Mention is made of one on the cult of relics and images which the Synod of Jerusalem sent to John, Bishop of Gothia, about 760. The oldest extant, and at the same time most extensive and valuable, of these dogmatic compilations, is the "Antiquorum Patrum doctrino de Verbi incarnatione" (first completely edited from a manuscript in the Vatican Library by F. Diekamp, "Doctrina Patrum de incarnatione verbi. Ein griechisches Florilegium aus der Wende des 7. und 8. Jahrhunderts", Muenster, 1907). It is extraordinarily rich in fragments from writings of the Patristic period which are now lost. Of the 977 citations (mainly of a Christological character) which it contains, 751 alone are from the works of the Fathers, representing 93 ecclesiastical writers. Diekamp ascribes the work to the period between the years 685 and 726, and, though nothing can be said with certainty concerning the author, a slight probability points to Anastasius of Sinai as its compiler. A florilegium somewhat similar to the "Doctrina" is mentioned by Photius in his Bibliotheca (Migne, P.G., CLIII, 1089-92), but not a trace of it survives to-day. Another compilation of this kind, covering the whole province of theology in five books, is ascribed to the monk Doxopatres, identical perhaps with the eleventh-century John Doxopatres; the first two books, treating of Adam and Christ, are all that remain. A number of other dogmatic florilegia are still extant in manuscript form, but they have never been edited, nor even critically examined. The authors of most of them are unknown. The ascetical florilegia are collections of moral sentences and excerpts drawn partly from the Scriptures and partly from the Fathers, on such topics as virtues and vices, duties and exercises of a religious life, faith, discipline, etc. They are not so numerous as the dogmatic florilegia, and apparently were all compiled before the tenth century. Their material, as a rule, is gathered indiscriminately from various authorities, though in some instances it is furnished by only a single writer, a distinct preference being then shown for the works of the more illustrious Fathers, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, and St. John Chrysostom. An extensive Christian florilegium of the sixth century, entitled t`a iera (Sacred Things), is probably the earliest of these anthologies. The work consisted originally of three books, the first of which treated of God, the second of man, and the third of the virtues and vices. In the course of time it underwent contraction into one book, its material was recast and arranged in alphabetical order under titloi, or sections, its name changed to t`a ier`a parallela, "Sacra Parallela" (from the fact that in the third book a virtue and a vice were regularly contrasted or paralleled), and its authorship widely ascribed to St. John Damascene. That the Damascene was really the compiler of the "Sacra Parallela", and that he used as his principal source the "Capita theologica", a florilegium of Maximus Confessor, has been maintained recently with much learning and skill (against Loofs, Wendland, and Cohn) by K. Holl ("Fragmenta Vornicaenischer Kirchenvaeter aus den Sacra Parallela", Leipzig, 1899). Though t`a iera is no longer extant in its original form, considerable portions of the first two books have come down to us in manuscript, and parts of the third are preserved in "The Bee" (Melissa) of Antonius, a Greek monk of the eleventh century (Migne, P. G., CXXXVI, 765-1124). Of the "Sacra Parallela" there are several recensions, one of which is given in Migne (P. G., XCV, 1040-1586; XCVI, 9-544). Other extant ascetical florilegia still remain unedited. As in the case of the dogmatic florilegia, most of them are anonymous. The character and value of the Christian florilegia cannot be definitely or finally estimated until the various manuscripts that now lie scattered through the libraries of Europe and the East have received a more thorough and critical investigation than has hitherto been accorded to them. Questions as to date, authorship, sources, structure, relative dependence, etc., have as yet been treated only in a general way. As the characteristic production of an age of theological decadence, these collections of ancient Christian fragments have no high literary value; they are, however, of great importance to us, because they frequently embody the only remains of important Patristic writings. The difficulties connected with their uses arise chiefly from the unsatisfactory condition of the text, the uncertainty concerning the names to which the fragments have been ascribed, and the want of sufficient data to determine the dates. Only a small part of the extant material has been printed. The best general account of the florilegia will be found in Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Literatur (2nd ed., Munich, 1897), 206-210, 216-218, where there is also bibliography and a full list of manuscripts. -- Wachsmuth, Studien zu des griechischen Florilegien (Berlin, 1882). For the dogmatic florilegia: Sherman, Die Geschichte der dogmatischen Florilegien vom 5. bis 8. Jahrh. (Leipzig, 1904). For the Sacra Parallela, Loofs, Leontius von Byzanz (Leipzig, 1887); Idem, Studien ueber die Johannes von Damasko zugeschriebenen Parallelen (Halle, 1882); and the above-mentioned works by Diekamp and Holl. Cf. Shahan in Catholic Univ. Bulletin (Washington), V, 94 sq. Thomas Oestreich Florus Florus A deacon of Lyons, ecclesiastical writer in the first half of the ninth century. We have no information regarding the place of birth, the parents, or the youth of this distinguished theologian; but it is probable that he came from the neighbourhood of Lyons, not however from Spain, as some scholars have asserted. A letter to Bishop Bartholomew of Narbonne, written between 827 and 830 and signed by Florus as well as by Archbishop Agobard and the priest Hildigisus, furnishes us with the first positive information we possess of his history ("Mon. Germ. Hist.: Epp. V, 206 sqq.). He was then a deacon of the church of Lyons, which office he continued to hold throughout his life. From the fact that at this time he already enjoyed a reputation as a theologian, we may conclude that he was born certainly before the end of the eighth century. That he was then known (827) even outside the boundaries of the church of Lyons is testified by the poetic epistle written about the same time by the youthful Walahfrid Strabo to Archbishop Agobard, in which he speaks of Florus, with an allusion to his name, as a flower the fragrance of which had spread even to the banks of the Rhine ("Versus Strabi Walahfridi", viii, v, 17-24, ed. Dummler "Poetae Carol. aevi", II, 357, in "Mon. Germ. Hist."). Until about the middle of the ninth century, the deacon of Lyons followed an active literary career he was theologian, canonist, liturgist, and poet. He was considered one of the foremost authorities on theologioal questions among the clergy of the Frankish kingdom; and, in consequence, his opinion was often sought in important ecclesiastical rnatters. When, after the deposition of Archbishop Agobard of Lyons by the Synod of Diedenhofen (835), Bishop Modoin of Autun summoned before the civil power certain ecclesiastics of the church of Lyons, Florus, in his work "De iniusta vexatione ecclesiae Lugdunensis", took issue with Modoin and defended ecclesiastical freedom. Other canonical writings of Florus are his "Capitula ex lege et canone collecta" and his treatise on the election of bishops, "De electionibus episcoporum". Another of his works, "Querela de divisione Imperii" a lament over the dissensions of the realm, was written by Florus when the kingdom was undergoing severe political disturbance occasioned by the strife between Louis the Pious and Lothair. His liturgical writing are: "De expositione Missae", and three treatises against Amalarius ("Opuscula contra Amalarium"). In these latter works the anthor inveighs against the famous Amalarius of Metz, who came to Lyons, in 835, and wished to introduce changes in the liturgy which were disapproved of by Florus. Later, Florus took part in the conflict concerning predestination, which had been stirred up by the monk Gottschalk. Shortly after the Synod of Quiersy, in the year 849, he wrote on this subject, "De praedestinatione" and laid down the doctrine of a twofold predestination, to salvation and to damnation, maintaining at the same time the doctrine of the free will of man. When John Scotus Eriugena attacked this opinion, Florus, commissioned by the church of Lyons, wrote in 852 his work "Liber adversus Johannem Scotum" . He is also the author of commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul. His next work was the completion of the Martyrology of Bede, to which he made additions for the various days.The chief sources on which he relied in enlarging the work are a manuscript from St-Pierre in Macon, and two manuscripts of Echternach and Toul, which may all be found in the National Library at Paris (MSS. lat. 5254, 10018 and 10158). On later revisions of the martyrology, these additions have been made use of. Finally, the deacon of Lyons has left a number of poems. After the year 852, no further information definite as to time has come down to us regarding Florus; so that his death may be said, with probable exactitude, to have occurred about the year 860. J.P. KIRSCH John Floyd John Floyd English missionary, wrote under the names Flud, Daniel `a Jesu, Hermannus Loemelius, George White, Annosus Fidelis Verimentanus, and under the initials J. R. Some of his works have been erroneously attributed to Robert Jennison, S. J. He was b. in Cambridgeshire in 1572; d. at St.-Omer, 16 Sept. 1649. he was educated at the Jesuit College at Eu, then at the English College at Reims (17 March, 1588) and finally the English College in Rome (1590), where he entered the Society of Jesus, 1 Nov., 1592. Nothing is known about his ordination, but in 1606 he was a missionary priest in England. On 6 April in that year he was arrested at Worcester while attempting to visit Ven. Edward Oldcorne who was to suffer martyrdom next day. Having been imprisoned for twelve months he, with forty-six other priests, was banished for life. He then spent four years teaching at St.-Omer, though Foley (Records, IV, 238), is mistaken in supposing he published any controversial works at that time. On 31 July, 1609, he was professed of the four vows, and soon after returned to England, where he laboured on the mission for many years, being often captured, but effecting his escape by buying off the pursuivants. In 1612 he published his first work, "The Overthrow of the Protestant Pulpit Babels", in which he replied to Crawshaw's "Jesuit Gospel". He was in return answered by Sir Edward Hoby in his "A Counter-Snarl for Ishmael Rabshakeh a Cycropedian Lycaonite, being an answer to a Roman Catholic who writes himself J. R." Father Floyd countered in 1614 with "Purgatorie's Triumph over Hell, maugre the barking of Cerberus in Syr Edward Hobyes Counter Snarle". This controversy closed with Hoby's rejoinder, "A Curry-comb for a Cox-combe", published in 1615. Father Floyd next turned his attention to Marc' Antonio de Dominis, formerly Archbishop of Spilatro, who had apostacized and become Protestant dean of Windsor. Against him Father Floyd wrote four works: "Synopsis Apostasiae Marci Antonii de Dominis, olim Archepiscopi Spalatensis, nunc Apostatae, ex ipsiusmet libro delineata" (Antwerp 1617). It was translated into English by Father Henry Hawkins, S.J., in 1617, and again by Dr. John Fletcher in 1828. "Hypocrisis Marci Antonii de Dominis detecta sui censura in ejus libros de Republica Ecclesiastica" (Antwerp, 1620); "Censura ex Librorum X de Republica Ecclesiastica Marci Antonii de Dominis" (Antwerp 1620, Cologne, 1621); "Monarchiae Ecclesiasticae ex scriptus M. Antonii de Dominis Archepiscopi Spalatensis Demonstratio, duobus libri comprehensa" (Cologne, 1622). All four works appeared under the signature Fidelis Annosus Verimentanus. In 1620, Floyd published "God and the King", a translation of a work on loyalty, and in the following year a translation of Augustine's "Meditations". In 1623 he was living in Fleet Street (Gee's "Foot out of the Snare") and in the same year he wrote "A word of comfort or a discourse concerning the late lamentable accident of a fall of a room at a Catholic Sermon in the Blackfriars of London, wherewith about four-score persons were oppressed"; also a translation of Molina "On the Sacrifice of the Mass". In 1625 he published "An Answer to Francis White's reply to Mr. Fischer's answer to the Nine Articles offered by King James to Father John Fischer". In 1629 Fr. Floyd played a leading part in the controversy between Jesuits and seculars on the desirability of having a bishop resident in England. Bishop Richard Smith, whose presence was regarded by some as a source of persecution, had in fact left England for Paris and was never able to return, but the situation gave rise to acrimonious discussion. Father Floyd's works were "An Apology for the Holy See Apostolick's Proceedings for the Government of the Catholicks of England during the time of persecution" (Rouen, 1630; enlarged Lat. ed., Cologne, 1631): and "Hermanni Loemelii Antverpiensis Spongia qua diluuntur Calumniae nomine Facultatis Parisiensis impositae libro qui inscribitur Apologia" etc. (St-Omer, 1631). Both of these works were condemned by the Sorbonne, and in 1633 Urban VIII stopped the controversy and suppressed all writings on the subject. His other works are "A Paire of Spectacles for Sir Humphrey Linde to see his way withal" (1631); "The Church Conquerant over Human Wit" (1638); "The Totall Sum" (1638); "The Imposture of Puritan Piety" (1638). He left two unpublished works: "Vita Brunehildis Francorum Reginae" and a "Treatise on Holy Pictures". Father Floyd spent the last years of his life teaching philosophy and theology at St-Omer's. Dodd, Church History (Brussels, 1739-1742), III, 105; de Backer, Bibl des escrevains de la c. de J. (1869), I, 1888; Knox, Douay Diaries (London, 1878); Foley, Records Eng. Prov. S.J. (London, 1878, 1880, 1882), IV, 238; where he mistakes a date in Douary Diaries and states that Floyd was sent to Rome in 1593 instead of 1590; VI, 185; VII, 268; Gillow, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s. v.; Cooper in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v., who repeats Foley's mistake. EDWIN BURTON Fogaras Fogaras ARCHDIOCESE OF FOGARAS (FOGARASIENSIS). Archdiocese in Hungary, of the Greek-Rumanian Rite. It has three suffragan sees, Grosswardein (Nagy Varad), Lugos, and Szamos Ujvar (Armenopolis). Since 1733 the residence has been at Balaszfalva (Blaj, Blasendorf). The Diocese of Fogaras was erected in 1721, suffragan to the Primate of Hungary (the Latin Archbishop of Gran). In 1853 Pius IX re-established the archbishopric of Alba Julia (Weissenburg, Karlsburg), an ancient metropolitan title, and united it with the See of Fogaras. Since that time the head of the Greek-Rumanian Church bears the title of Archbishop of Fogaras and Alba Julia. Since 1697 (Synod of Karlsburg), when these Rumanians returned to Catholic unity, there have been eleven Catholic titulars of Alba Julia or Fogaras. The city of Fogaras (6000 inhabitants) (in German Fagreschmarkt) is built on the Aluta. Its fortress played an important part in all the wars with the Turks. In 1849 the Hungarians were defeated here by the Russians. Balaszfalva, the residence of the archbishop, has also about 6000 inhabitants. Here, in 1848, the Rumanians protested against political union with Hungary. The archdiocese numbers 440,000 Rumanian Catholics. There are 720 priests, nearly all married, 705 parishes, as many churches, and several chapels. The preparatory and theological seminaries are at Blaj, also a college and a printing establishment, where the weekly journal "Unirea" has been published since 1890. The diocesan schools for boys and girls are attended by 60,000 pupils. There are 3 gymnasia for boys or girls, and several convents. S. VAILHE Foggia Foggia DIOCESE OF FOGGIA (FODIANA). Diocese in the province of the same name in Apulia (Southern Italy). The city is in the heart of a rich agricultural centre, in a vast plain between the rivers Cervaro and Celone. It grew up about the church of the Madonna dei Sette Veli, today the cathedral, built in 1072 by Robert Guiscard. Foggia is so named from the swampy character of the territory, foya or fogia signifying "marsh". It later became the capital of the district known as the Capitanata. Frederick II built an imperial fortress there. In 1254 Manfred defeated there Pope Innocent IV, though in the same place, in 1266, he himself submitted to Charles of Anjou, who in 1268 destroyed the city for taking part with the unfortunate Conradino. In 1781 a severe earthquake greatly damaged the city. Foggia formed part of the Diocese of Troia until 1855, when it was made a diocese by Pius IX, comprising territory of the Dioceses of Siponto and Manfredonia. The first bishop was Bernardino M. Frascolla. Situated so near the ancient city of Arpi, which had a bishop, Pardus, as early as 314, the Bishops of Troia may be considered as successors of the Bishops of Arpi. In 1907 Foggia was united aeque principaliter with Troia. It is immediately subject to the Holy See. The cathedral, a remarkable architectural monument, has been often restored and enlarged; it contains the mausoleum of the Princes of Durazzo. Worthy of mention is the church of the Crosses, which is approached through a series of chapels. Foggia has 9 parishes, 81,000 inhabitants, 2 male and 8 female educational institutions, 3 religious houses of men, and 9 of women. U. BENIGNI St. Foillan St. Foillan (Irish FAELAN, FAOLAN, FOELAN, FOALAN.) Represented in iconography with a crown at his feet to show that he despised the honours of the world. He was born in Ireland early in the seventh century and was the brother of Saints Ultan and Fursey, the latter a famous missionary who preached the Faith to the Irish, the Anglo-saxons, and the Franks. Foillan, probably in company with Ultan, went with his brother Fursey when the latter, fleeing from his country then devastated by foreign invaders, retired to a lonely islands. Fursey soon went among the Anglo Saxons and built a monastery at Burgh Castle (Cnoberesburg) in Suffolk, between 634 and 650. Seized again with the desire for solitude, Fursey left the monastery in the care of Foillan, who remained at the head of the community, and had the happiness of once more seeing his brother Fursey, who, having since gone to the kingdom of the Franks, came to visit him about 650. Soon a diastrous war broke out between Penda, the Mercian chief, and Ana, King of the Eastern Anglo-Saxons. Ana having been put to flight, the monastery of Cnoberesburg fell into the hand of the enemies. It was pillaged, and its superior, Foillan, barely escaped death. He hastened to ransom the captive monks, recovered the relics, put the holy books and objects of veneration on board ship, and departed for the country of the Franks, where his brother Fursey was buried. He and his companions were well received at Peronne by Erconwald, Mayor of the Palace. But soon, for some unknown reason, Foillan and his companions left Peronne and went to Nivelles, a monastery founded by St. Ita and St. Gertrude, wife and daughter of Duke Pepin I. Foillan, like so many other Irishmen who went to the Continent in the seventh century, was invested with episcopal dignity, having doubtless been a monastic bishop at Cnoberesburg. He was therefore of great assistance in the organization of worship, and the holy books and relics which he brought were great; treasures for St. Ita and St. Gertrude. As the monastery of Nivelles was under Irish discipline, the companions of Foillan were well received and lived side by side with the holy women, occupying themselves with the details of worship under the general direction of the abbess. Through the liberality of Ita, Foillan was enabled to build a monastery at Fosses, not far from Nivelles, in the province of Namur. After the death of Ita in 652, Foillan came one day to Nivelles and sang Mass, on the eve of the feast of St-Quentin. The ceremony being finished, he resumed his journey, doubtless undertaken in the interests of his monastery. In the forest of Senege the saint and his companions fell into a trap set by bandits who inhabited that solitude. They were slain, stripped, and their bodies concealed. But they were recovered by St. Gertrude, and when she had taken some relics of the saint his body was borne to the monastery of Fosses, where it was buried about 655. Foillan was one of the numerous Irish travellers who in the course of the seventh century evangalized Belgium, bringing thither the liturgy and sacred vessels, founding prosperous monasteries, and sharing considerably in the propagation of the Faith in these countries. Owing to the friendship which united him with Erconwald, Mayor of the Palace, and with the members of Pepin's famity, Foillan played a preponderant part in Frankish ecclesiastical history, as shown by his share in the direction of Nivelles and by the foundation of the monastery of Fosses. It is not surprising, therefore, that he should be honoured and venerated both at Nivelles and Fosses and to find at Le Roeulx (Belgium) a monastery bearing his name. As late as the twelfth century the veneration in which he was held inspired Philippe Le Harvengt, Abbot of Bonne-Esperance, to compose a lengthy biography of the saint. He is the patron of Fosses, near Charieroi. In the Diocese of Namur his feast is celebrated on 31 October, in the Dioceses of Mechlin and Tournai on 5 November. L. VAN DER ESSEN Teofilo Folengo Teofilo Folengo An Italian poet, better known by his pseudonyrn MERLIN COCCALO or COCAI; b. at Mantua in 1496; d. at the monastery of Santa Croce in Campese in 1544. He received some training at the University of Bologna and then entered Benedictine Order. In 1524 or 1525, either through enmity for his abbot, Ignazio Squarcialupi, or became of a temporary impatience of monastic life, he divested himself of the habit and acted for a while as a private tutor. Then repenting of the step taken, he made overtures to his order for his readmission, which was granted in 1534, only after he had done penance and had cleared himself of certain suspicions of heterodoxy. Three years later he became prior of the monastery of Santa Maria delle Ciambre in Sicily. He returned to the mainland in 1543. Folengo's fame rests chiefly on his "Baldus" which was first printed in 1517 on seventeen books or Macaronicae, and was reprinted in 1521 with eight additional books. The work, epic in its tendencies, belongs to the category of burlesque compositions in macaronic verse (that is in a jargon, made up of Latin words mingled with Italian words, given a Latin aspect), which had already been inaugurated by Tifi Odasi in his "Macaronea", and which, in a measure, marks a continuance of the goliardic traditions of the Middle Ages. For the first edition of the "Baldus", Folengo had derived burlesque traits and types of personages from the chivalrous romances of Boiardo and Pulci. His second edition reveals, in the greater amplitude of its action, in the improved manner of setting forth comic types, and in its generally better developed feeling for art, the author's reading of the "Orlando Furioso" of Ariosto. However, the poem is a parody not only of the Italian chivalrous romance but also of the Virgilian epic, and, in its latter part, of Dante's "Divine Comedy" as well. Furthermore, it is grossly satirical in its treatment of the clergy and at times borders on the sacrilegious. In view of the general nature of the work, it is easily intelligible that it should have appealed to Rabelais, who found in it the prototype of his "Panurge" and his "Gargantua". Among the lesser works of Folengo are the "Zanitonella", which parodies both the Virgilian pastoral and the Petrarchian love-lyric; the "Orlandino" (1526), which gives in Italian octaves a burlesque account of the birth and youth of Roland; the curious "Caos Mel Triperuno" (1527), which in verse and prose and in mingled Latin, Italian, and Macaronic speech, sets forth allegorically the anthor's own previous heretical leanings and finally states his confession of faith and the "Moschaea", which in three books of Macaronic distichs relates, somewhat after the fashion of the "Batrachiomachia" as well as of the chivalrous romances, the victory of the ants over the flies, and preludes the Italian mock-heroic poem of the seventeenth century. After his return to his order, Folengo wrote only religious works, such as the Latin poem "Janus", wherein he expresses his repentance for having written his earlier venturesome compositions, the "Palermitana", in Italian terza rima; and the "Hagiomachia", which, in Latin hexameters, describes especially the lives of eighteen saints. J.D.M. FORD Foligno Foligno DIOCESE OF FOLIGNO (FULGINATENSIS). Diocese in the province of Perugia, Italy, immediately subject to the Holy See. The city, situated on the river Topino, was founded on the site of the ancient Christian cemetery surrounding the basilica of San Feliciano, outside the ancient city of Fulginium, which, after the battle on the Esinus (295 B.C.), was annexed to Rome. The splendour of the ancient city is attested by numerous ruins of temples, aqueducts, circuses, etc. In the municipal museum of Foligno is a large collection of household utensils of the Roman and Umbrian periods. Mention must also be made of the Foligno "Hercules", a famous statue now in the Louvre at Paris. After the Lombard invasion (565) the city formed part of the Duchy of Spoleto, with which, in the eighth century, it came into the possession of the Holy See. During the thirteenth century it was Ghibelline, but in 1305 the Guelphs under Nello Trinci expelled the Ghibellines with their leader Corrado Anastasi; thenceforth until 1439 the Trinci governed the city as the pope's vicars. In 1420 their rule was extended to Assisi, Spello, Bevagna, Nocera, Trevi, Giano, and Montefalco. Art and literature flourished vigorously at Foligno. Evidence of this may still be seen in the Trinci palace, with its magnificent halls decorated by Ottaviano Nelli, Gentile da Fabriano, and others. Better preserved is the chapel, on the ceiling of which is pictured the life of the Blessed Virgin; in the adjoining room the story of Romulus and Remus is depicted. Another room is called "The Hall of Astronomy"; the largest is "The Hall of the Giants", so called from its immense portraits of personages of Biblical and Roman history. This splendid edifice has unfortunately been disgracefully neglected and now serves as a court of justice, prison, etc. At the court of the Trinci, especially Nicolo, were many distinguished poets, e.g. Mastro Paolo da Foligno. Fra Tommasuccio da Nocera, Candido Bontempi, and others; the most illustrious was the Dominican Federigo Frezzi, Bishop of Foligno (1403), whose "Quadriregio" is a kind of commentary on the "Hall of the Giants". After the murder of Nicolo Trinci in 1437, his brother Corrado began to rule in a tyrannical way; Eugene IV, therefore, in 1439 sent Cardinal Vitelleschi to demand his submission. Henceforth Foligno enjoyed a large communal liberty under a papal governor. There is reason to believe that Christianity was introduced at Foligno in the first half of the second century. St. Felicianus, the patron of the city, though certainly not the first bishop, was consecrated by Pope Victor and martyred under Decius (24 January); the exact dates of his history are uncertain (Acta SS., Jan., II, 582-88; Analecta Boll., 1890, 381). Until 471 no other bishop is known. St. Vincentius of Laodicea in Syria was made bishop by Pope Hormisdas in 523. Of subsequent bishops the following may be mentioned: Eusebius, who persuaded King Luitprand to spare the city (740); Azzo degli Azzi, who distinguished himself at the Council of Rome in 1059 against Berengarius; Bonfiglio de' Bonfigli, who took part in the First Crusade; Blessed Antonio Bettini (1461), a Jesuit; Isidoro Clario (1547), a theologian at the Council of Trent. In 1146 a council was held at Foligno. The cathedral, of very early date, and possessing a beautiful crypt, was rebuilt in 1133; in 1201 a wing, with a fac,ade, was added, famous for its sculptures by Binello and Rodolfo (statues of Frederick Barbarossa and of Bishop Anseim), restored in 1903. Other churches are: Santa Maria infra Portas, of the Lombard period, with Byzantine frescoes; San Claudio (1232); San Domenico (1251); San Giovanni Profiamma (1231), whose name recalls the ancient city of Forum Flaminii. The monastery of Sassovio (1229), with a remarkable cloister of 120 columns, and the Palazzo Communale are also noteworthy. The diocese has 55 parishes, 31,000 inhabitants, 3 male and 3 female educational institutions, 4 religious houses of men, and 12 of women; it has also a weekly Catholic paper. CAPPELLETTI, Le Chiese d'Italia (Venice, 1844), IV; FALOCI-PULIGNANI, Foligno in L'Italia artistica (Bergamo, 1907). U. BENIGNI Folkestone Abbey Folkestone Abbey Folkestone Abbey -- more correctly FOLKESTONE PRIORY -- is situated in the east division of Kent about thirty-seven miles from Maidstone. It was originally a monastery of Benedictine nuns founded in 630 by St. Eanswith or Eanswide, daughter of Eadbald, King of Kent, who was the son of St. Ethelbert, the first Christian king among the English. It was dedicated to St. Peter. Like many other similar foundations it was destroyed by the Danes. In 1095 another monastery for Benedictine monks was erected on the same site by Nigel de Mundeville, Lord of Folkestone. This was an alien priory, a cell belong to the Abbey of Lonley or Lolley in Normandy, dedicated to St. Mary and St. Eanswith, whose relics were deposited in the church. The cliff on which the monastery was built was gradually undermined by the sea, and William de Abrincis in 1137 gave the monks a new site, that of the present church of Folkestone. The conventional buildings were erected between the church and the sea coast. Being an alien priory it was occasionally seized by the king, when England was at war with France, but after a time it was made denizen and independent of the mother-house in Normandy and thus escaped the fate which befell most of the alien priories in the reign of Henry V. It continued to the time of the dissolution and was surrendered to the king on 15 Nov., 1535. The names of twelve priors are known, the last being Thomas Barrett or Bassett. The net income at the dissolution was about -L-50. It was bestowed by Henry VIII on Edmund, Lord Clinton and Saye; the present owner is Lord Radnor. The only part of the monastic buildings remaining is a Norman doorway, but the foundations may be traced for a considerable distance. DUGDALE, Monasticon, Stevens' Supplement (London, 1722), I, 399; TANNER, Notitia Monastica (London, 1787), s. v. Kent; DUGDALE, Monast. Anglic. (London, 1846), IV, 672. G.E. HIND Jose Ribeiro da Fonseca Jose Ribeiro da Fonseca Friar Minor; b. at Evora, 3 Dec., 1690; d. at Porto, 16 June, 1752. He was received into the Franciscan Order in the convent of Ara Coeli at Rome, 8 Dec., 1712. As minister general of the order, he was untiring in his efforts to restore discipline in places where it had become lax; and displayed in this regard singular prudence, tact, and executive ability. In 1740 he founded the large library in the old convent of Ara Coeli, and under his direction and patronage, the "Annales Minorum" of Wadding were published at Rome in seventeen volumes, between the years 1731 and 1741. Fonseca several times declined the episcopal dignity, but finally accepted (1741) the See of Oporto, to which he was nominated by John V of Portugal. STEPHEN M. DONOVAN Pedro da Fonseca Pedro Da Fonseca A philosopher and theologian, born at Cortizada, Portugal, 1528; died at Lisbon, 4 Nov., 1599. He entered the Society of Jesus in Coimbra in 1548, and in 1551 passed to the University of Evora, where, after completing his studies, he lectured upon philosophy with such subtlety and brilliancy as to win for himself the title of the "Portuguese Aristotle". His works, which for over a century after his death were widely used in philosophical schools throughout Europe, are: "Institutionum Dialecticarum Libri Octo" (Lisbon, 1564); "Commentariorum in Libros Metaphysicorum Aristotelis Stagiritae" (Rome, 1577); "Isagoge Philosophica" (Lisbon, 1591). These works appeared in an immense number of editions from the Catholic press all over Europe. Fonseca also shares the fame of the "Conimbricenses", as it was during his term of office as provincial and largely owing to his initiative that this celebrated work was undertaken by the Jesuit professors of Coimbra. As a man of affairs, Fonseca was not less gifted than as a philosopher. He filled many important posts in his order, being assistant, for Portugal, to the general, visitor of Portugal, and superior of the professed house at Lisbon; while Gregory XIII and Philip II (from 1580 King of Portugal) employed him in affairs of the greatest delicacy and consequence. Fonseca used his influence wisely in promoting the interests of charity and learning. Many great institutions in Lisbon, notably the Irish college, owe their existence, at least in great part, to his zeal and piety. He is also credited with a considerable share in the drawing up of the Jesuit Ratio Studiorum. But his greatest claim to lasting reputation lies in the fact that he first devised the solution, by his scientia media in God, of the perplexing problem of the reconciliation of grace and free will. Nevertheless his fame in this matter has been somewhat obscured by that of his disciple, Luis de Molina, who, having more fully developed and perfected the ideas of his master in his work "Concordia Liberi Arbitrii cum Gratiae Donis", etc., came gradually to be regarded as the originator of the doctrine. SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. de la C. de J., III, 837; DE BACKER, Bibl, des Ecrivains de la C. de J., I, 313, VII, 239; HURTER, Nomenclator, SCHNEEMANN, Zur Geschichte der Theorie von der Scientia Media in Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, XVIII, 237; IDEM, Die Entstehung der thomistisch-molinistischen Controverse, Supplement ix to Stimmen aus Maria-Laach (Freiburg, 1880); IDEM, Controversiarum de devinoe gratioe liberique arbitrii concordia initia et progressus (Freiburg, 1881). JOHN F.X. MURPHY. Antonio Da Fonseca Soares Antonio da Fonseca Soares (ANTONIO DAS CHAGAS). Friar Minor and ascetical writer; b. at Vidigueira, 25 June, 1631; d. at Torres Vedras, 20 Oct., 1682. Having entered the Portuguese army as a common soldier, he was forced to flee to Bahia in Brazil, as the result of a duel. There he abandoned himself to a careless and dissolute life, but was converted through the writings of Louis of Granada and resolved to embrace the religious life. The execution of his resolution was deferred indefinitely, and having returned to Portugal, he continued to lead his former life of dissipation, until in 1662 he was taken with a grievous illness. On his recovery he hastened to fulfil his promise, and was admitted into the Franciscan Order in May of the same year, receiving in religion the name of Antonio das Chagas. He soon became famous throughout Portugal on account of his poetical and ascetical writings, in which he combined remarkable erudition with such singular elegance of style as to give him a merited place among the classics of Portugal. He died universally esteemed for his virtuous life, leaving a great part of his writings still unpublished. The following were published since his death: "Faiscas de amor divino e lagrimas da alma" (Lisbon, 1683); "Obras espirituaes" (Lisbon, 1684-1687); "O Padre nosso commentado" (Lisbon, 1688); "Espelho do Espirito em que deve verse e comporse a Olma" etc. (Lisbon, 1683); "Escola da penitencia e flagello dos peccadores" (Lisbon, 1687); "Sermoes Genuinos" etc. (Lisbon, 1690); "Cartas espirituaes" (Lisbon, 1684); "Ramilhete espiritual" etc. (Lisbon, 1722). GODINHO, VIda do F. Antonio da Fonseca Soares (Lisbon, 1687 and 1728); DE SOLEDAD, Historia serafica da provincia de Portugal, III, 3, 17. STEPHEN M. DONOVAN Carlo Fontana Carlo Fontana An architect and writer; b. at Bruciato, near Como, 1634; d. at Rome, 1714. There seems to be no proof that he belonged to the family of famous architects of the same name. Fontana went to Rome and studied architecture under Bernini. His principal works in Rome are the Ginetti chapel at Sant' Andrea della Valle; the Cibo chapel in Madonna del Popolo; the cupola, great altar, and ornaments of the Madonna de' Miracoli, the church of the monks of Santa Marta; the facades of the church of Beata Rita and of San Marcolo in the Corso, the sepulchre of Queen Christina of Sweden in St. Peter's; the palaces Grimani and Bolognetti; the fountain of Santa Maria in Trastevere, and that in the piazza of St. Peter's which is towards Porta Cavallegieri; reparation of the church of Spirito Santo de' Napolitani, and the theatre of Tordinona. By desire of Innocent XI, his patron, he erected the inmmense building of San Michele at Ripa; the chapel of Baptism at St. Peter's; and finished Monte Citorio. By request of Clement XI he built the granaries at Termini, the portico of Santa Maria in Trastevere, and the basin of the fountain of San Pietro Montorio. He restored the Library of Minerva, the cupola of Montefiascone and the casino in the Vatican, and collected all the models of the building. He sent a model for the cathedral of Fulda, and others to Vienna for the royal stables. By order of Innocent XI he wrote a diffuse description of the Templum Vaticanum (1694). In this work Fontana advised the demolition of that nest of houses which formed a sort of island from Ponte Sant' Angelo to the piazza of St. Peter's. Fontana made a calculation of the whole expense of St. Peter's from the beginning to 1694, which amounted to 46,800,052 crowns, without including models. He published also works on the Flavian Amphitheatre; the Aqueducts; the inundation of the Tiber, etc. He was assisted by his nephews Girolamo and Francesco Fontana. Fontana seems to have been considered an able artist and a good designer and more successful as an architect than as a writer. THOMAS H. POOLE Domenico Fontana Domenico Fontana A Roman architect of the Late Renaissance, b. at Merli on the Lake of Lugano, 1543; d. at Naples, 1607. He went to Rome before the death of Michelangelo and made a deep study of the works of ancient and modern masters. He won in particular the confidence of Cardinal Montalto, later Pope Sixtus V, who in 1584 charged him with the erection of the Cappella del Presepio (Chapel of the Manger) in S. Maria Maggiore, a powerful domical building over a Greek cross, a marvellously well-balanced structure, notwithstanding the profusion of detail and overloading of rich ornamentation, which in no way interferes with the main architecural scheme. lt is crowned by a dome in the early style of S. Mario at Montepulciano. For the same patron he constructed the Palazzo Montalto near S. Maria Maggiore, with its skilful distribution of masses and tied decorative scheme of reliefs and festoons, impressive because of the dexterity with which the artist adapted the plan to the site at his disposal. After his accession as Sixtus V, Montalto appointed Fontana architect of St. Peter's, bestowing upon him among other distinction the title of Knight of the Golden Spur. He added the lantern to the dome of St. Peter's and it was he who proposed the prolongation of the interior in a well-defined nave. Of more importance were the alterations he made in St. John Lateran (c.1586) where he introduced into the loggia of the north facade an imposing double arcade of wide span and ample sweep, and probably added the two-story portico the Scala Santa. This predilection for arcades as essential features of an architectural scheme, was brought out in the different fountains designed by Domenico and his brother Giovanni, e.g. the Fontana dell' Acqua Paola, or the Fontana di Termini planned along the same lines. Among profane buildings his strong restrained style, with its suggestion of the School of Vignola, is best exemplified in the Lateran Palace (begun 1586), in which the vigorous application of sound structural principles and a power of co-ordination are undeniable, but also the utter lack of imagination and barren monotony of style. It was characteristic of him to remain satisfied with a single solution of an architectural problem, as shown in the fact that he reapplied the motif of the Lateran Palace in the later part of the Vatican containing the present papal residence, and in the additions to the Quirinal Palace. Fontana also designed the transverse arms separating the courts of the Vatican. In 1586 he set up the obelisk in the Square of St. Peter's, of which he gives an account in "Della transportatione dell' obelisco Vaticano e delle fabriche di Sisto V" (Rome, 1590). The knowledge of statics here displayed, which aroused universal astonishment at the time, he availed himself of in the erection of three other ancient obelisks on the Piazza del Popolo, Piazza di S. Maria Maggiore, and Piazza di S. Giovanni in Laterano. After his patron's death he continued for some time in the service of his successor, Clement VIII. Soon, however, dissatisfaction with his style, envy, and the charge that he had misappropriated public moneys, drove him to Naples where, an addition to canals, he erected the Palazzo Reale on a design totally devoid of imagination. His aim was to execute a sharply defined plan in vigorous sequence without concern for detail, employing the means available but without much originality. The chief lack in his work is a want of the distinctive character of an individual creation. Undue spaciousness, tremendous expanse, with an appalling barrenness and coldness and without the inspiration of inner motif, are his ideals. Domenico's brother Giovanni (b. 1546; d at Rome, 1614) is of less importance. His chief creations are gigantic fountains, spiritless in detail, at Frascati and Rome, where the Palazzo Giustiniani as also ascribed to him. JOSEPH SAUER Felice Fontana Felice Fontana Italian naturalist and physiologist, b. at Pomarolo in the Tyrol, 15 April, 1730; d. at Florence, 11 January, 1805. He received his early education at Roveredo and spent several years at the Universities of Padua and Bologna. After filling the chair of philosophy at Pisa, to which he was appointed by the Emperor Francis I, he was summoned to Florence by the Grand-Duke Peter Leopold and made court Physician. He was at the same time commissioned to organize and equip the museum, which is well known for its geological and zoological collections and its physical and astronomical instruments, some of which are of much historical value. A special feature of the collections is the unique set of anatomical models which were made of coloured wax under Fontana's personal direction. They were of excellent workmanship and excited much attention at the time emperor Joseph II engaged him to make a simiiar set for the Academy of Surgeons in Vienna. Fontana spent the latter part of his life in Florence where his position as curator of the museum gained for him the acquaintance of most of the scientific men of the time. Though never in Holy orders, he is said to have worn the ecclesiastical dress. His death was due to a fall received on the public street, and he was buried in the church of Santa Croce near Galileo and Viviani. Fontana was a follower of Haller and wrote a series of letters in confirmation of the latter's views on irritability. He made a special study of the eye and in 1765 carried on a series of experiments on the contractile power of the iris. He investigated the physiological action of poisons, particularly of serpents and of the laurel berry. He discovered that the staggers, a disease of sheep, is due to hydatids in the brain. He also gave much attention to the study of the physical and chemical properties of gases. He published a number of memoirs and though a laborius writer was not always exact. His chief works are "De' moti dell' iride" (Lucca, 1765); "Ricerche filosofiche sopra la fiscia animalea" (Florence, 1775); "Ricerche fisiche sopra 'l veneno della vipera" (Lucca, 1767), of which a larger and much extended edition was published in two volumes in 1781; "Descrizioni ed usi di alcuni stromenti per misurer la salubrita dell' aria" (Florence, 1774); "Recherches physiques sur la nature de l'air dephlogistique et de l'air nitreux" (Paris, 1776). HENRY M. BROCK Jeanne Fontbonne Jeanne Fontbonne In religion Mother St. John, second foundress and superior-general of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Lyons, born 3 March, 1759, at Bassen-Basset, Valey, France; died 22 November, 1843 Lyons. In 1778 she entered a house of the Sisters of St. Joseph which had just been established at Monistrol (Haute-Loire) by Bishop de Gallard of Le Puy. The following year she received the habit and soon gave evidence of unusual administrative powers, particularly through her work in the schools. On her election, six years later, as superior of the community, Mother St. John, as she was now called, co-operated with the saintly founder in all his pious undertakings, aided in the establishment of a hospital, and accomplished much good among the young girls of the town. At the outbreak of the Revolution she and her community followed Bishop de Gallard in refusing to sign the Oath of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, notwithstanding the example of the Cure of Monistrol, who went so far as to abet the government officials in their persecution of the sisters. Forced to disperse her community, the superior remained at her post till she was dragged forth by the mob and the convent taken possession of in the name of the Commune, after which she returned to her father's home. Not long afterwards she was torn from this refuge, to be thrown into the prison of Saint-Didier, and only the fall of Robespierre on the day before that appointed for the execution saved her from the guillotine. Unable to regain possession of her convent at Monistrol, she and her sister, who had been her companion in prison, returned to their father's house. Twelve years later (1807), Mother St. John was called to Saint-Etienne as head of a small community of young girls and members of dispersed congregations, who at the suggestion of Cardinal Fesch, Archbishop of Lyons, were now established as a house of the Sisters of St. Joseph. She restored the asylum at Monistrol, repurchased and reopened the former convent, and on 10 April, 1812, the congregation received Government authorization. In 1816 Mother St. John was appointed superior general of the Sisters of St. Joseph, and summoned to Lyons to found a general mother-house and novitiate, which she accomplished after many difficult years of labour. During the remainder of her life she was busied in perfecting the affiliation of the scattered houses of the congregation, which had been formally decreed in 1828. She also established over two hundred new communities. An object of her special solicitude was the little band which she sent to the United States in 1836 and with which she kept in constant correspondence, making every sacrifice to provide them with the necessities of life. Towards this end of her life, Mother St. John was relieved of the arduous duties of superior, and spent the last few years in preparation for the end. RIVAXY, Life of Rev. Mother St. John Fontbonne, tr. (New York, 1887). F.M. RUDGE Fonte-Avellana Fonte-Avellana A suppressed order of hermits, which takes its name from their first hermitage in the Apennines. Its founder, Ludolph, the son of Giso, came of a German family that had settled in Gubbio. He was born about the year 956; in 977 he left his home and, with a companion called Julian, began to live the life of a hermit in a valley between Monte Catria and Monte Corvo, in the Apennines. This valley was known as Fonte-Avellana, from a spring among the pine-trees. Disciples soon gathered round the two hermits, by 989 they were sufficiently numerous to receive a rule from St. Romuald, who was then in that district. This rule seems to have been of great severity. The hermits lived in separate cells and were always occupied with prayer, study, or manual labour. Four days a week they ate nothing but bread and water in strictly limited quantities. On Tuesdays and Thursdays they added a little fruit and vegetables. Wine was used only for Mass and for the sick, meat not at all. They observed three "Lents" during the year, that of the Resurrection, that of the Nativity, and that of St. John the Baptist. During these they fasted on bread and water every day except Sundays and Thursdays, when they were allowed a few vegetables. They wore a white habit and their feet were bare. Every day in addition to the office, they recited the whole Psalter before dawn. Many wore chains and girdles or other instruments of mortification, and each, according to his devotion and strength, was accustomed to scourge himself, to make many genuflexions and to pray with arms extended in the form of a cross. At first the body of hermits was known as the Congregation of the Dove, from the pure and gentle character of its founder, but then, about the year 1000, he built them their first regular hermitage, which was dedicated to St. Andrew, they soon became known as the Hermits of Fonte-Avellana. Ludolph is said by Ughelli to have resigned the office of prior in 1009 and to have become Bishop of Gubbio, but by leave of Benedict VIII he resigned this office in 1012 and retired again to his hermitage. It is not improbable that he was succeeded in the priorate by Julian about 1009, but there seems to be no satisfactory evidence that he was ever Bishop of Gubbio. He died in 1047. In 1034, St. Peter Damian became a hermit at Fonte-Avellana, at a time when, it is supposed, the famous Guido d'Arezzo was prior. St. Peter Damian succeeded to the office of prior about 1043 and held it until his death in 1072. He made some modifications of the rule; permitting the use of a little wine, except during the three Lents; restraining the immoderate use of the discipline, which had outgrown all prudence; and introducing the solemn observance of Fridays as a commemoration of the Holy Cross for which reason the hermitage, since the year 1050, was been known as Holy Cross of Fonte-Avellana. During the priorate of St. Peter Damian several hermits of great sanctity were members of Fonte-Avellana. The earliest of these was St. Dominic Loricatus, so-called from the breastplate (lorica) which he always wore next to his skin. This extraordinary ascetic was born about the year 990 and was destined for the priesthood by his parents, who bribed a bishop to ordain him before the canonical age. After living for a few years as a secular priest, he was struck with contrition for the sin of simony to which he had teen a party and became a monk. This was probably at the hermitage of Luceoli, as we are told that he placed himself under the direction of John of Monte Feltro. Here he remained till about 1044, when, desiring to increase the severity of his penances, he came to Fonte-Avellana to be the disciple of St. Peter Damian. The record of his cuirass, he wore habitually iron rings and chains round his limbs, and loaded with this weight he daily prostrated himself a thousand times or recited whole psalters with arms extended in the form of a cross. Day and night he lacerated his body with a pair of scourges. It had become the custom to regard the recital of thirty psalms while taking the discipline (i.e. about three thousand strokes) as equivalent to one year's canonical penance. So that to scourge oneself while reciting the whole psalter was to execute five years of penance. St. Dominic Loricatus is related to have accomplished in this manner one hundred years of penance (i.e. twenty psalters), spreading the penance over one week. And during one or two Lents he is said to have fulfilled in this way one thousand years of penance, scourging himself night and day for forty days while he recited no less than two hundred psalters. Daily he used to recite two or three psalters, and daily in Lent eight or nine. Meanwhile he ate only the stricter diet of his fellow-hermits and he never slept save when, from sheer fatigue, he fell asleep in the midst of his prostrations. In 1059 St. Peter Damian appointed him prior of the hermitage of Sanvicino, near San Severino. Here he continued his terrible penances up to his death about 1060. His body still lies under the altar in the church at Sanvicino. Another saintly companion of St. Peter Damian was his biographer, St. John II of Lodi (Bishop of Gubbio), when entered Fonte-Avellana about the year 1065 and became prior of the hermitage soon after the death of his friend in 1072, which office he retained till he was made Bishop of Gubbio, one year before his death in 1106. In addition, there were the blessed brothers Rudolph and Peter, who in 1054 gave their castle at Campo Regio to St. Peter Damian and retired to Fonte-Avellana. Rudolph became bishop of Gubbio in 1059 and in that year attended a council at Rome. He died in 1061. Of his brother Peter little is known save that he lived a life of great mortification. Four years after the death of St. Peter Damian, Gregory VII in 1076 took the hermitage of Fonte-Avellana under the special protection of the Holy See, and for 250 years popes and emperors and nobles showered privileges upon it. In 1301 Boniface VIII subjected the hermitage immediately to the Holy See, and in 1325 John XXII raised it to the status of an abbey, and ordained that its abbots should always receive their blessing at the hands of the pope or of his legate a latere. In the early fourteenth century it had grown to be a great congregation with many subject houses. But the glory of Fonte-Avellana was soon to pass. In 1393 it was given in commendam to Cardinal Bartolomeo Mediavacca, and the evils that follow this practice soon appeared. Slowly the fervour of observance departed, and the religious lived rather like secular clergy than like hermits. By the sixteenth century the habit had changed, and they wore a short white cassock, a blue mantle, shoes, and a white biretta. In 1624 the great Camaldolese reformer, S. Paolo Giustiniani, suggested that the congregation of Fonte-Avellana should be united to his own order. The project then came to nothing, but in 1568 Cardinal Giulio della Rovere, the commendatory abbot of Fonte-Avellana, joined with his brother the Duke of Urbino in urging on Pius V the canonical visitation of the hermitage. This was performed early in 1569 by Giambattista Barba, general of the Camaldolese, and in November of the same year the pope by the Bull "Quantum animus noster", suppressed the order of Fonte-Avellana, transferred its members to Camaldoli or any other house they might choose, and united all its possessions under the jurisdiction of the Camaldolese Order. On 6 January, 1570, the Camaldolese solemnly entered into possession, and the order of Santa Croce of Fonte-Avellana ceased to exist. LESLIE A. ST. L. TOKE Abbey of Fontenelle Abbey of Fontenelle (Or ABBEY OF SAINT WANDRILLE). A Benedictine monastery in Normandy (Seine-Inferieure), near Caudebec-en-Caux. It was founded by Saint-Wandrille (Wandregesilus, d. 22 July, 667), the land being obtained through the influence of his friend St-Ouen (Audoenus) Archbishop of Rouen. St-Wandrille was of the royal family of Austrasia and held a high position at the court of his kinsman, Dagobert I, but being desirous of devoting his life to God, he retired to the Abbey of Montfaucon, in Champagne, in 629. Later on he went to Bobbio and then to Romain-Moutiers, where he remained ten years. In 648 he returned to Normandy and founded the monastery which afterwards bore his name. He commenced by building a great basilica dedicated to St. Peter, nearly three hundred feet long, which was consecrated by St-Ouen in 657. This church was destroyed by fire in 756 and rebuilt by Abbot Ansegisus (823-33), who added a narthex and tower. About 862 it was wrecked by Danish pirates and the monks were obliged to flee for safety. After sojourning at Chartres, Boulogne, St. Omer, and other places for over a century, the community was at length brought back to Fontenelle by Abbot Maynard in 966 and a restoration of the buildings was again undertaken. A new church was built by abbot Gerard, but was hardly finished when it was destroyed by lighting in 1012. Undaunted by this disaster the monks once more set to work and another church was consecrated in 1033. Two centuries later, in 1250, this was burnt to the ground, but Abbot Pierre Mauviel at once commenced a new one. The work was hampered by want of funds and it was not until 1331 that the building was finished. Meanwhile the monastery attained a position of great importance and celebrity. It was renowned for the fervour, no less than for the learning of monks, who during its periods of greatest prosperity numbered over three hundred. Many saints and scholars proceeded from its cloisters. It was especially noted for its library and school, where letters, the fine arts, the sciences, and above all calligraphy, were assiduously cultivated. One of the most notable of its early copyists was Hardouin, a celebrated mathematician (d. 811) who wrote with his own hand four copies of the Gospels, one of St. Paul's Epistles, a Psalter, three Sacramentaries, and many other volumes of homilies and lives of the saints, besides numerous mathematical works. The Fontenelle "Capitularies" were compiled under Abbot Ansegisus in the eighth century. The monks of St-Wandrille enjoyed many rights and privileges, amongst which were exemption from all river-tolls on the Seine, and the right to exact taxes in the town of Caudebec. The charter, dated 1319, in which were enumerated their chief privileges, was confirmed by Henry V of England and Normandy, in 1420, and by the Council of Basle, in 1436. Commendatory abbots were introduced at Fontenelle on the sixteenth century and as a result the prosperity of the abbey began to decline. In 1631 the central tower of the church suddenly fell, ruining all the adjacent parts, but fortunately without injuring the beautiful cloisters or the conventual buildings. It was just at this time that the newly formed Congregation of St-Maur was revivifying the monasticism of France, and the commendatory abbot Ferdinand de Neufville invited the Maurists to take over the abbey and do for it what he himself was unable to accomplish. They accepted the offer, and in 1636 set about rebuilding not only the damaged portion of the church, They added new wings and gateways and also built a great chapter-hall for the meetings of the general chapter of the Maurist congregation. They infused new life into the abbey, which for the next hundred and fifty years again enjoyed some of its former celebrity. Then came the Revolution, and with it the extinction of monasticism in France. St-Wandrille was suppressed in 1791 and sold by auction the following year. The church was allowed to fall into ruins, but the rest of the buildings served for some time as a factory. Later on they passed into the possession of the de Stacpoole family, and were turned to domestic uses. The Duke de Stacpoole, who had become a priest and a domestic prelate of the pope, and who lived at Fontenelle until his death, in 1896, restored the entire property to the French Benedictines (Solesmes congregation), and a colony of monks from Liguge settled there in 1893, under Dom Pothier as superior. This community was expelled by the French government in 1901, and is at present located in Belgium. Besides the chief basilica St-Wandrille built several other churches or oratories both within and without the monastic enclosure. All of these have either perished in course of time, or been replaced by others of later date, except one, the chapel of St-Saturnin, which stands on the hillside overlooking the abbey. It is one of the most ancient ecclesiastical buildings now existing and, though restored from time to time, is still substantially the original erection of St-Wandrille. It is cruciform, with a central tower and eastern apse, and is a unique example of a seventh-century chapel. The parish church of the village of St-Wandrille also dates from the Saint's time, but it has been so altered and restored that little of the original structure now remains. G. CYPRIAN ALSTON Order and Abbey of Fontevrault Order and Abbey of Fontevrault I. CHARACTER OF THE ORDER The monastery of Fontevrault was founded by Blessed Robert d'Arbrissel about the end of 1100 and is situated in a wooded valley on the confines of Anjou, Tours, and Poitou, about two and a half miles south of the Loire, at a short distance west of its union with the Vienne. It was a "double" monastery, containing separate convents for both monks and nuns. The government was in the hands of the abbess. This arrangement was said to be based upon the text of St. John (xix, 27), "Behold thy Mother", but want of capacity among the brethren who surrounded the founder would seem to be the most natural explanation. To have placed the fortunes of the rising institute in feeble hands might have compromised its existence, while amongst the nuns he found women endowed with high qualities and in every way fitted for government. Certainly the long series of able abbesses of Fontevrault is in some measure a justification of the founder's provision. Fontevrault was the earliest of the three orders which adopted the double form and it may be useful to point out the chief differences in rule and government which mark it off from the similar institutions of the English St. Gilbert of Sempringham, founded in 1135 (see Gilbertines), and that of the Swedish princess, St. Bridgett, founded in 1344 (see Brigittines). At Fontevrault both nuns and monks followed the Benedictine Rule (see below, II), as did the Gilbertine nuns, but the male religious of that order were canons regular and followed the Rule of St. Augustine. The Brigittines of both sexes were under the Regular Salvatoris, an adaptation and completion of the Augustinian Rule. The Abbess of Fontevrault was supreme over all the religious of the order, and the heads of the dependent houses were prioresses. Each Brigittine house was independent, and was ruled by an abbess who was supreme in all temporalities, but in matters spiritual was forbidden to interfere with the priests, who were under the confessor general. The head of the Gilbertines was a canon, the "Master" or "Prior of All", who was not attached to any one house; his power was absolute over the whole order. All three orders were primarily founded for nuns, the priests being added for their direction or spiritual service, and in all three the nuns had control of the property of the order. The habit of the Fontevrist nuns was a white tunic and surplice with a black girdle, a white guimp and black veil; the cowl was black. The monks wore a black tunic with a surplice and above it a hood and capuce; from the centre of the last, in front and behind, hung a small square of stuff known as the "Robert". In winter the monks wore an ample cloak without sleeves. The original habit was in both cases more simple. II. THE RULE It appears certain from the biography of Blessed Robert, which is known as the "Vita Andreae", that the Rule was written down during the founder's lifetime, probably in 1116 or 1117. This original Rule dealt with four points: silence, good works, food, and clothing, and contained the injunction that the abbess should never be chosen from among those who had been brought up at Fontevrault, but that she should be one who had had experience of the world (de conversis sororibus). This latter injunction was observed only in the case of the first two abbesses and was abrogated by Innocent III in 1201. We have three versions of the Fontevrist Rule (P. L., CLXII, 1079 sqq.), but it is clear that none of these is the original, though it is probable that the second version is a fragment or possibly a selection with additions by the first abbess, Petronilla (for the argument see Walter, op. cit. infra, pp. 65-74). This Rule was merely a supplement to the Rule of St. Benedict and there were no important variations from the latter in the ordinary conventual routine, though some additions were necessitated by the conditions of the "double" life. The rules for the nuns enjoin the utmost simplicity in the materials of the habit, a strict observance of silence, abstinence from flesh meat even for the sick, and rigorous enclosure. The separation of the nuns from the monks is carried to such a point that a sick nun must be brought into the church to receive the last sacraments. The subjection of the monks is very marked. They are men "who of their own free will have promised to serve the nuns till death in the bonds of obedience, and that too with the reverence of due subjection.... They shall lead a common conventual life with no property of their own, content with what the nuns shall confer upon them." The very scraps from their table are to be "carried to the nuns' door and there given to the poor". A fugitive but penitent monk "shall ask pardon of the Abbess and through her regain the fellowship of the brethren." The monks cannot even receive a postulant without the permission of the abbess. III. HISTORY OF THE ORDER At the death of Robert d'Arbrissel, in 1117, there are said to have been at Fontevrault alone 3000 nuns, and in 1150 even 5000: the order was approved by Paschal II in 1112. The first abbess, Petronilla of Chemille (1115-1149), was succeeded by Matilda of Anjou, who ruled for five years. She was the daughter of Fulk, King of Jerusalem, and widow of William, the eldest son of Henry I, of England. The prosperity of the abbey continued under the next two abbesses, but by the end of the twelfth century, owing to the state of the country and the English wars, the nuns were reduced to gaining their livelihood by manual work. The situation was aggravated by internal dissensions which lasted a hundred years, and prosperity did not return till the beginning of the fourteenth century, under the rule of Eleanor of Brittany, grand-daughter of Henry III of England, who had taken the veil at the Fontevrist priory of Amesbury, in Wiltshire. The next abbess was Isabel of Valois, great-grandchild of St. Louis, but on her death there succeeded another period of trouble and decadence largely due to the disaffection of the monks who where discontented with their subordinate position. During the fifteenth century there were several attempts at reform, but these met with no success till the advent to power, in 1457, of Mary, sister of Francis II, Duke of Brittany. The order had suffered severely from the decay of religion, which was general about this time, as well as from the Hundred Years War. In the three priories of St-Aignan, Breuil, and Ste-Croix there were in all but five nuns and one monk, where there had been 187 nuns and 17 monks at the beginning of the thirteenth century, and other houses were no better off. In 1459, a papal commission decided upon a mitigation of rules which could no longer be enforced, and nuns were even allowed to leave the order on the simple permission of their priories. Dissatisfied with the mitigated life of Fontevrault, Mary of Brittany removed to the priory of La Madeleine-les-Orleans in 1471. Here she deputed a commission consisting of religious of various orders to draw up a definite Rule based on the Rules of Blessed Robert, St. Benedict, and St. Augustine, together with the Acts of Visitations. The resulting code was finally approved by Sixtus IV in 1475, and four years later it was made obligatory upon the whole order. Mary of Brittany died in 1477, but her work was continued by her successors, Anne of Orleans, sister of Louis XII, and Renee de Bourbon. The latter may well be styled the greatest of the abbesses, both on account of the numbers of priories (28) in which she re-established discipline, and the victory which she gained over the rebellious religious at Fontevrault by the reform, enforced with royal assistance in 1502. The result was a great influx of novices of the highest rank, including several princesses of Valois and Bourbon. At Renee's death there were 160 nuns and 150 monks at Fontevrault. Under Louis de Bourbon (1534-1575), a woman of sincere but gloomy piety, the order suffered many losses at the hands of the Protestants, who even besieged the great abbey itself, though without success; many nuns apostatized, but twelve more houses were reformed. Eleanor of Bourbon (1575-1611) saw the last of these troubles. She had great influence with Henry IV, and her affection for him was so great that, towards the end of her life, when he was assassinated, her nuns dared not tell her lest the shock should be too great. The Abbess Louise de Bourbon de Lavedan, aided by the famous Capuchins, Ange de Joyeuse and Joseph du Tremblay, sought to improve the status of the monks of St-Jean de l'Habit and made various attempts to establish theological seminaries for them. Her successor Jeanne-Baptiste de Bourbon, an illegitimate child of Henry IV by the beautiful Charlotte des Essarts, has the credit of finally giving peace to the order. In 1641 she obtained royal letters confirming the reform and finally quashing the claims of the monks, who sought to organize themselves independently of the authority of the abbess. The following year the Rule approved by Sixtus IV was printed at Paris. The "Queen of Abbesses", Gabrielle de Rochechouart (1670-1704), sister of Mme. de Montespan and friend of Mme. de Maintenon, is said to have translated all the works of Plato from the Latin version of Ficino. The abbey school was frequented by the children of the highest nobility, and her successors were entrusted with the education of the daughters of Louis XV. The last abbess, Julie Sophie Charlotte de Pardaillan d'Antin, was driven from her monastery by the Revolution; her fate is unknown. Towards the end of the eighteenth century there were 230 nuns and 60 monks at Fontevrault, and at the Revolution there were still 200 nuns, but the monks were few in number and only formed a community at the mother-house. In the course of his preaching journeys through France, Robert d'Arbrissel had founded a great number of houses, and during the succeeding centuries others were given to the order. In the seventeenth century the Fontevrist priories numbered about sixty in all and were divided into the four provinces of France, Brittany, Gascony, and Auvergne. The order never attained to any great importance outside France though there were a few houses in Spain and England. The history of the order is, as will already have been seen, that of the mother-house. The Angevin kings were much attached to Fontevrault: Henry II and his queen, Eleanor of Guienne, Richard Coeur de Lion, and Isabel of Angouleme, the wife of King John, were buried in the Cimetiere des Rois in the abbey church, where their effigies may still be seen. The remains were scattered at the Revolution. IV. THE ABBEY BUILDINGS The Abbey of Fontevrault was in four parts: the Grand Moustier, or convent of the nuns, the hospital and lazaretto of Saint-Lazare, the Madeleine for penitent women, and, some distance apart, the monastery of St-Jean de l'Habit for the monks, destroyed at the Revolution. The most notable buildings were naturally those belonging to the nuns with the great minster dedicated to Our Lady. This was consecrated by Pope Callistus II, in 1119, but the church was probably rebuilt in the second half of the same century. It is a magnificent specimen of late Romanesque and consists of an aisleless nave vaulted with six shallow cupolas, transepts, and an apsidal chancel with side chapels. In 1804 the abbey became a central house of detention for 15,000 prisoners, and the nave of the church was cut up into four stories forming dormitories and refectories for the convicts, while the choir and transepts were walled up and used as their chapel. Five of the six cupolas were destroyed, but the nave has recently been cleared, and a complete restoration begun. The length of the church is 84 metres (about 276 ft.), the width of the nave 14m. 60 (about 48 ft.), and the height 21m. 45 (about 70 ft.). The interesting cloisters and chapter-house may be visited, but the magnificent refectory, dating from the twelfth and fifteenth centuries, is not shown. V. ENGLISH HOUSES These were the Priories of Amesbury, in Wiltshire, and Nuneaton, in Warwickshire, and the Cell of Westwood, in Worcestershire, with six nuns. Amesbury had been an abbey, but on account of their evil lives the nuns were dispersed by royal orders and the monastery given to Fontevrault in 1177. The community was recruited from the highest ranks of society and in the thirteenth century numbered among its members several princesses of the royal house, among them Queen Eleanor of Provence, widow of Henry III. A survey of the English houses was taken in 1256, when there were 77 choir nuns, 7 chaplains and 16 conversi at Amesbury, and 86 nuns at Nuneaton. In the fourteenth century the officials were appointed by the Abbess of Fontevrault, but the bonds uniting the English nunneries to the mother-house were gradually loosened until from alien they became denizen, that is to say, practically independent. In the last days some of the Prioresses of Amesbury seem to have resumed the ancient abbatial title; at the dissolution, in 1540, the house was surrendered by Joan Darrell and thirty-three nuns. A Prior of Amesbury is mentioned in 1399, but it does not seem certain that there were at any time regular establishments of the Fontevrist monks in England. VI. MODERN DEVELOPMENT In 1803 Madame Rose, a Fontevrist nun, opened a school at Chemille, the home of the first abbess, and three years later was enabled to buy a house and start community life; only temporary vows were taken, and the constitutions were approved by the Bishop of Angers. A few years later the habit of Fontevrault was resumed. Twelve more Fontrevists joined the community, and the ancient Rule was kept as far as possible. In 1847 permission was granted by the government to remove the relics of Blessed Robert from Fontevrault to Chemille, and by 1849 there were three houses of the revived congregation: Chemille in the Diocese of Angers; Boulor in the Diocese of Auch; and Brioude in the Diocese of Puy. In this year a general chapter was held, in which certain modifications of the Rule were agreed upon: the many fasts were found ill adapted to the work of teaching; the houses were made subject to the ordinary; and the superioress elected only for three years. There are no Fontevrist monks. For full bibliography see Beaunier, Heimbucher, and Walter as below.-The standard work is Nicquet, Hist. de l'Ordre de Fontevrault (Paris, 1642); Lardier, Saincte Famille de Fontevraud (1650), unfortunately still in MS. For the Rule see Walter Ersten Wanderprediger Frankreichs (Leipzig, 1903), I; Regula Ordinis Fontis-Ebraldi (Fr. and Lat., Paris, 1642). See also Heimbucher, Ord. u. Kong. der Kath. Kirche (Paderborn, 1907), I; Cosnier, Fontisbraldi Exordium (Masserano, 1641); Helyot, Hist. des Ordres Religieux, VI; Beaunier, Recueil hist. des archeveches, etc., Introductory vol. (Paris, 1906), 215-226; Besse, Fontevraud and the English Benedictines at the Beginning of the Seventeenth Century in The Ampleforth Journal, II; Bishop, Bishop Giffard and the Reform of Fontevraud in The Downside Review (Jan., 1886); Jubien, L'Abbesse Marie de Bretagne et la reforme de l'ordre de Fontevrault (Angers, 1872); Clement, Abbesse de Fontevrault au XVIIe Siecle (Paris, 1869); Uzureau, Derniere Abbesse de Fontevrault in Revue Mabillon, II. The only adequate account of the buildings, though now a little out of date, is given by Bosseboeuf, Fontevrault, son histoire et ses monuments (Tours, 1890.) RAYMUND WEBSTER Feast of Fools Feast of Fools A celebration marked by much license and buffoonery, which in many parts of Europe, and particularly in France, during the later middle ages took place every year on or about the feast of the Circumcision (1 Jan.). It was known by many names -- festum fatuorum, festum stultorum, festum hypodiaconorum, to notice only some Latin variants -- and it is difficult, if not quite impossible, to distinguish it from certain other similar celebrations, such, for example, as the Feast of Asses, and the Feast of the Boy Bishop. So far as the Feast of Fools had an independent existence, it seems to have grown out of a special "festival of the subdeacons", which John Beleth, a liturgical writer of the twelfth century and an Englishman by birth, assigns to the day of the Circumcision. He is among the earliest to draw attention to the fact that, as the deacons had a special celebration on St. Stephen's day (26 Dec.), the priests on St. John the Evangelist's day (27. Dec.), and again the choristers and mass-servers on that of Holy Innocents (28 Dec.), so the subdeacons were accustomed to hold their feast about the same time of year, but more particularly on the festival of the Circumcision. This feast of the subdeacons afterwards developed into the feast of the lower clergy (esclaffardi), and was later taken up by certain brotherhoods or guilds of "fools" with a definite organization of their own (Chambers, I, 373 sqq.). There can be little doubt -- and medieval censors themselves freely recognized the fact -- that the license and buffoonery which marked this occasion had their origin in pagan customs of very ancient date. John Beleth, when he discusses these matters, entitles his chapter "De quadam libertate Decembrica", and goes on to explain: "now the license which is then permitted is called Decembrian, because it was customary of old among the pagans that during this month slaves and serving-maids should have a sort of liberty given them, and should be put upon an equality with their masters, in celebrating a common festivity." (P.L. CCII, 123). The Feast of Fools and the almost blasphemous extravagances in some instances associated with it have constantly been made the occasion of a sweeping condemnation of the medieval Church. On the other hand some Catholic writers have thought it necessary to try to deny the existence of such abuses. The truth, as Father Dreves has pointed out (Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, XLVII, 572), lies midway between these extremes. There can be no question that ecclesiastical authority repeatedly condemned the license of the Feast of Fools in the strongest terms, no one being more determined in his efforts to suppress it than the great Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln. But these customs were so firmly rooted that centuries passed away before they were entirely eradicated. Secondly, it is equally certain that the institution did lend itself to abuses of a very serious character, even though the nature and gravity of these varied considerably at different epochs. In defense of the medieval Church one point must not be lost sight of. We possess hundreds, not to say thousands, of liturgical manuscripts of all countries and all descriptions. Amongst them the occurrence of anything which has to do with the Feast of Fools is extraordinarily rare. In missals and breviaries we may say that it never occurs. At best a prose or a trope composed for such an occasion is here and there to be found in a gradual or an antiphonary (Dreves, p. 575). It is reasonable to infer from this circumstance that though these extravagances took place in church and were attached to the ordinary services, the official sanction was of the slenderest. The same conclusion follows from two well-known cases which Father Dreves has carefully studied. In 1199, Bishop Eudes de Sully imposed regulations to check the abuses committed in the celebration of the Feast of Fools on New Year's Day at Notre-Dame in Paris. The celebration was not entirely banned, but the part of the "Lord of Misrule" or "Precentor Stultorum" was restrained within decorous limits. He was to be allowed to intone the prose "Laetemur gaudiis" in the cathedral, and to wield the precentor's staff, but this was to take place before the first Vespers of the feast were sung. Apart from this, the Church offices proper were to be performed as usual, with, however, some concessions in the way of extra solemnity. During the second Vespers, it had been the custom that the precentor of the fools should be deprived of his staff when the verse "Deposuit potentes de sede" (He hath put down the mighty from their seat) was sung at the Magnificat. Seemingly this was the dramatic moment, and the feast was hence often known as the "Festum `Deposuit'". Eudes de Sully permitted that the staff might here be taken from the mock precentor, but enacted that the verse "Deposuit" was not be repeated more than five times. A similar case of a legitimized Feast of Fools at Sens c. 1220 is also examined by Father Dreves in detail. The whole text of the office is in this case preserved to us. There are many proses and interpolations (farsurae) added to the ordinary liturgy of the Church, but nothing which could give offense as unseemly, except the prose "Orientis partibus", etc., partly quoted in the article ASSES, FEAST OF. This prose or "conductus", however, was not a part of the office, but only a preliminary to Vespers sung while the procession of subdeacons moved from the church door to the choir. Still, as already stated, there can be no question of the reality of the abuses which followed in the wake of celebrations of this kind. The central idea seems always to have been that of the old Saturnalia, i.e. a brief social revolution, in which power, dignity or impunity is conferred for a few hours upon those ordinarily in a subordinate position. Whether it took the form of the boy bishop or the subdeacon conducting the cathedral office, the parody must always have trembled on the brink of burlesque, if not of the profane. We can trace the same idea at St. Gall in the tenth century, where a student, on the thirteenth of December each year, enacted the part of the abbot. It will be sufficient here to notice that the continuance of the celebration of the Feast of Fools was finally forbidden under the very severest penalties by the Council of Basle in 1435, and that this condemnation was supported by a strongly-worded document issued by the theological faculty of the University of Paris in 1444, as well as by numerous decrees of various provincial councils. In this way it seems that the abuse had practically disappeared before the time of the Council of Trent. A very large number of monographs and papers in the proceedings of learned societies have been devoted to this subject. Many of these are quoted by CHAMBERS The Medieval Stage, I., 274-419 (London, 1903), who himself deals with the matter more exhaustively than any other writer. The best short article on the whole question, as Chambers attests, is that of DREVES, Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, XLVII, 571-587 (Freiburg, 1894). See also LEBER, Collection des meilleures dissertations, vols. IX an X (Paris, 1832); CLEMENT, Histoire Generale de la Musique Religeuse (Paris, 1890), pp. 122 sqq.; WALTER, Das Eselsfest (Vienna, 1885). There is also an excellent article by HEUSER in the Kirchenlex., s.v. Feste. For further bibliographical references consult CHEVALIER, Topo-bibliographie, s.v. Fous. Many articles written on the subject are more lampoons directed against the medieval Church, and betray a complete ignorance of the facts. An article entitled Festum Stultorum in the Nineteenth Century (June, 1905) is a typical specimen. HERBERT THURSTON Ambrogio Foppa Ambrogio Foppa Generally known as CARADOSS0. Italian goldsmith, sculptor, and die sinker, b. at Mondonico in the province of Como, 1445, according to some authorities, and according to others in Pavia, the same year; d. about 1527. It is possible that this artist is not correctly known as Ambrogio, but that his Christian name was Cristoforo. He was in the service of Lodovico Il Moro, Duke of Milan, for some years, and executed for him an exceedingly fine medal and several pieces of goldsmith's work. Later on he is heard of in Rome, working for Popes Julius II and Leo X. His will was executed in 1526 and he is believed to have died in the following year. Cellini refers at some length to a medal struck by him in Rome, having upon it a representation of Bramante and his design for St. Peter's, and he speaks of him as "the most excellent goldsmith of that time, who has no equal in the execution of dies". He is believed to have been responsible for the terra-cotta reliefs in the sacristy of San Satiro, works which in their remarkable beauty are almost equal to the productions of Donatello. In addition to the Bramante and Moro medals three others are attributed to him, one representing Julius II, another the fourth Duke of Milan, Francesco Sforza, and the third Gian Giacomo Trivulzio (1448-1518). A large number of examples of fine goldsmith's work in the sacristies of the various churches of Italy are attributed to Foppa with more or less uncertainty. They especially include reliquaries, morses, and crosiers. He was responsible for a papal mitre. A drawing of this tiara, made for Julius II, is in the print room at the British Museum and was executed at the instance of an English collector named John Talman. An inaccurate engraving of it by George Vertue is also in existence, and this was reproduced by Muntz in his article on the papal tiara. He declares that the pope told his master of ceremonies that it cost two hundred thousand ducats. This wonderful work of art survived the sack of Rome through the accident of its being in pawn at the time, but was deliberately broken up and refashioned by Pope Pius VI. (See Thurston in the "Burlington Magazine" for October, 1895.) Foppa is believed to have designed several perdent jewels, but there is a good deal of uncertainty at present respecting his goldsmith's work, and but little can be attributed to him with anything like authority. GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON John Forbes John Forbes Capuchin, b. 1570; d. 1606. His father, John, eighth Lord Forbes, being a Protestant, and his mother, Lady Margaret Gordon, daughter of the fourth Earl of Huntly, a Catholic, John followed the religion of his father, while his elder brother was educated a Catholic. To preserve his Faith the latter went to Brussels and there entered the Capuchin order. His letters and the influence of a maternal uncle, James Gordon S.J. led John into the Catholic Church, 1587. To recover his son to Protestantism Lord Forbes affianced him to a noble Protestant lady. On the eve of the marriage John, disguised as a shepherd, fled and, having eluded his father's spies, landed in Lille. Pressed into the English army, he escaped, was arrested by Spanish militia, imprisoned at Antwerp, but finally released. After some delay he was admitted to the Capuchin Order, August, 1593, at Tournai and took the name of his deceased brother, Archangel. Persevering in spite of persuasion, force, and the strategems of friends to the contrary, he completed his studies, was ordained a priest and after refusing an appointment as guardian, was sent as chaplain to the Spanish garrison at Dendermond. Mindful of his own countrymen he wrote to his kinsman and companion in youth, James VI of Scotland, setting forth the claims of the Catholic religion. Learning of his whereabouts, many countrymen visited him, eighteen of whom he converted to Catholicity, also three hundred soldiers. To his great delight he was appointed missionary Apostolic to Scotland, but succumbed to an epidemic at Dendermond. He is said to have written an account of his conversion, though it was never published. His mother spent her declining years near her son; his betrothed became a nun in Rome. JOHN M. LENHART Comte de Forbin-Janson Comte de Charles-Auguste-Marie-Joseph Forbin-Janson A Bishop of Nancy and Toul, founder of the Association of the Holy Childhood, born in Paris, France, 3 Nov., 1785; died near Marseilles, 12 July, 1844. He was the second son of Count Michel Palamede de Forbin-Janson and of his wife Cornelie Henriette, princess of Galean. He was a Knight of Malta from childhood, and a soldier at sixteen. Napoleon I made him Auditor of the Council of State in 1805. His family and the aristocracy looked forward to a most brilliant career as a statesman for him, but he surprised all by entering the seminary of St-Sulpice in the spring of 1808. He was ordained priest in Savoy in 1811, and was made Vicar-General of the Diocese of Chambery, but eventually determined to become a missionary. Pius VII advised him to remain in France where missionary work was needed. He heeded the advice, and with his friend the Abbe de Rauzan, founded the Missionaires de France and preached with great success in all parts of his native land. In 1817 he was sent to Syria on a mission, returned to France in 1819, and again took up the work of a missionary until 1823 when he was appointed Bishop of Nancy and Toul, and was consecrated in Paris, 6 June, 1824, by the Archbishop of Rouen; Bishop Cheverus of Boston, U.S.A., was a consecrator and Bishop Fenwick of Cincinnati a witness. The French Government did not cease persecuting him for his refusal to sign the Gallican Declaration of 1682; finally, he was obliged to leave France in 1830, but succeeded in getting his own choice of a coadjutor bishop by threatening to return to Nancy. Every good cause appealed to his priestly heart, every good work to his purse. He aided Pauline Jaricot in the establishment of the Society for the Propagation of the Faith. At the request of Bishop Flaget and Bishop Purcell, Gregory XVI sent him on a missionary tour through the United States of America in 1839. During his two years stay in that country, he travelled far and wide giving missions to the people and retreats to the clergy. Louisiana was the first conspicuous field of his zeal, and he brought its Catholic people to the sacraments in numbers which have hardly been equalled since. On his way thither, he contributed one-third of the money with which the Fathers of Mercy bought Spring Hill College (now a Jesuit College, near Mobile, Alabama). All the large cities of the country, from New York to Dubuque; from New Orleans to Quebec, were witnesses of his zeal. More at home in Canada where his mother-tongue was spoken, he did wonderful missionary work, and some events regarded as supernatural keep his memory alive to this day among the French-Canadian people. He attended the Fourth Provincial Council of Baltimore. His last visit in the United States was to Philadelphia, in November, 1841, when he assisted at the consecration of Dr. Kenrick as coadjutor Bishop of St. Louis. He left New York for France in December, 1841, and the next year visited Rome to give an account of his mission in America. Gregory XVI named him a Roman Count and Assistant at the Pontifical Throne, "because of his wonderful zeal for the propagation and defence of the Catholic Faith in the United States of America". On his return to France he founded (1843) the Society of the Holy Childhood, and spent that, and a part of the following year in spreading this good work through France, Belgium, and England. Death came to him unexpectedly at his family castle of Aygalades near Marselles. DE RIVIERE, Vie de Mgr de Forbin-Janson, Missionnaire, eveque de Nancy et de Toul, primat de Lorraine, fondateur de la Ste Enfance (Paris, 1892); MAES, Life of Bishop de Forbin-Janson in America, Manuscripts; SHEA, Hist. of Cath. Ch. in U. S. (New York, 1904). CAMILLUS P. MAES. Egidio Forcellini Egidio Forcellini Latin lexicographer, b. at Fener, near Treviso, Italy, 26 Aug., 1688; d. at Padua, 4 April, 1768. His parents were poor, so that he was deprived of the opportunities of an early education, and he was of mature age when in 1704 he entered the seminary at Padua. There his ability and industry soon attracted the attention of his teacher, Facciolati, who secured his assistance in his lexicographical work. Forcellini collaborated with his master in revising the so-called "Calepinus", the Latin dictionary, in seven languages, of the monk Ambrosius Calepinus. While engaged in this work, Forcellini is said to have conceived the idea of an entirely new Latin lexicon, the most comprehensive ever compiled. Towards the end of 1718, under the direction of Facciolati, he began the laborious task of reading through the entire body of Latin literature as well as the whole collection of inscriptions. His labours were interrupted in 1724, when he was called to Ceneda, where he became professor of rhetoric and director of the seminary. He resumed his work on the lexicon on his recall to Padua in 1731. It was not until three years after Forcellini's death that this great lexicon, on which he had spent nearly forty years of untiring industry, and which is the basis of all the Latin lexicons now in use, was published at Padua in four folio volumes under the title, "Totius Latinitatis Lexicon". In it are given both the Italian and the Greek equivalents of every word, together with copious citations from the literature. There is an English edition by Bailey in two volumes (London, 1828). The latest complete edition is that of De Vit (Prato, 1858-87). (See LATIN LITERATURE.) EDMUND BURKE Andrew Foreman Andrew Foreman A Scottish prelate, of good border family; b. at Hatton, near Berwick-on-Tweed; d. 1522. His talents marked him out for early promotion in his ecclesiastical career; through the influence of King James IV, he soon became a prothonotary Apostolic and was employed on various important missions. The king sent him in 1497 with two other envoys to conclude the truce of Aytoun with Henry VII of England, and four years later he was empowered to negotiate for the marriage of King James with King Henry's daughter Margaret. By 1502 Foreman was Bishop of Moray (for which see, notwithstanding the protest of the primate, he procured exemption from the metropolitan jurisdiction of St. Andrews); he was also "commendatory" abbot of important monasteries both in Scotland and England. Appointed ambassador to Henry VIII in 1509, he was commissioned by his sovereign to try to bring about universal peace with a view to a new crusade. King Louis of France, after concluding an alliance with the King of Scots against England, made Foreman Archbishop of Bourges, and it was Pope Julius II's intention to raise him to the cardinalate. The successor of Julius, Leo X, did not carry out this intention, but nominated Foreman in 1514 Archbishop of St. Andrews and legate a latere. He received at the same time the Abbey of Dunfermline in commendam, and seems to have held also at one time or another the rich Abbeys of Kilwinning, Dryburgh, and Arbroath. The new primate's eight years' tenure of his see was marked by vigorous administration; and he did much to consolidate the episcopal authority, procuring the restoration to his province of the Dioceses of Dunkeld and Dunblane, and holding an important synod, the enactments of which, still extant, throw an important light on the condition of the Scottish Church immediately before the Reformation. These statutes testify to the primate's zeal for the amelioration of the state of the clergy, for the reform of abuses, the advancement of learning, and the augmentation of the solemnity of the services of the Church. Archbishop Foreman was buried in Dunfermline Abbey. D.O. HUNTER-BLAIR Laurenz Forer Laurenz Forer Controversialist, b. at Lucerne, 1580; d. at Ratisbon, 7 January, 1659. He entered the Society of Jesus at the age of twenty, in Landshut, and made part of his studies under Fathers Laymann and Tanner. He taught philosophy at Ingolstadt (1615-1619), and theology, moral and controversial, for six years at Dillingen. In the latter institution he held also the office of chancellor for several years. He spent the years 1632-1643 in the Tyrol, whither he had withdrawn with his illustrious penitent Heinrich von Knoringen, Bishop of Augsburg, on account of the inroads of the Swedes. Forer visited Rome (1645-1646) as the representative of the province of Upper Germany in the eighth congregation. He became rector of the college of Lucerne in 1650. Father Sommervogel enumerates sixty-two titles of publications from the pen of Forer; though not all of them are very voluminous, they show at least the writer's versatility and erudition, as well as his zeal for the integrity and the honour of the Catholic Faith. He wrote one or more treatises each against the apostates Reihing and de Dominis, against Melchior Nicolai, Hottinger, Kallisen, Schopp, Molinos, Haberkorn, Voet, Hoe, the Ubiquists, and others. Such works as "Lutherus thaumaturgus" (Dillingen, 1624), "Septem characteres Lutheri" (Dillingen, 1626), "Quaestio ubinam ante Lutherum protestantium ecclesia fuerit" (Pt. I, Amberg, 1653; P. II, Ingolstadt, 1654), "Bellum ubiquisticum vetus et novum inter ipsos Lutheranos bellatum et needum debellatum" (Dillingen, 1627) are directed against all Protestants. Others, as "Anatomia anatomiae Societatis Jesu" (Innsbruck, 1634), "Mantissa Ant-anatomiae Jesuiticae" (Innsbruck, 1635; Cologne, 1635), "Grammaticus Proteus, arcanorum Societatis Jesu Daedalus" (Ingolstadt, 1636), "Appendix ad grammaticum Proteum" (Ingolstadt, 1636), attack the enemies of the Society of Jesus; finally, two of his works, written for Catholics, "Disputirkunst fur die einfaltigen Catholischen" (Ingolstadt, 1656) and "Leben Jesu Christi" (Dillingen, 1650-1658), have been re-edited and republished at Wurzburg (1861) and Ratisbon (1856). A.J. MAAS Catholic Orders of Foresters Catholic Orders of Foresters I. On 30 July, 1879, some members of the St. Vincent de Paul Society of Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A., desiring to have a Catholic fraternal insurance society, organized one on the plan of the Foresters' courts and called it the Massachusetts Catholic Order of Foresters. It was so chartered, and its membership was confined to the State of Massachusetts, except in one instance, where a court was formed at Providence, Rhode Island. On 1 January, 1909, the official report stated that there were 235 courts organized, with a membership of 27,757. Of the members 9679 were women. The insurance in force on 31 Dec., 1908, was $27,757,000. II. On 24 May, 1883, a number of Catholics of Chicago, Illinois, taking up the plan of this Massachusetts society, organized on the same lines the Catholic Order of Foresters of Illinois. A flat all-around death assessment of one dollar was adopted, and men of all ages were admitted to membership at the same rate. Later, when courts were established in a number of other States and in Canada, an international convention in 1895 adopted a graded system of assessment insurance. Catholics between eighteen and forty-five years of age are eligible for membership. From the date of organization to 1 June, 1908, it paid out $10,639,936 for death claims, and $2,500,000 in funeral and sick benefits. It had in April, 1909, 1600 courts and a membership of 136,212 distributed over twenty-six States and the Dominion of Canada. The main offices are at Chicago, Illinois. The official organ, "The Catholic Forester", is published at Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The word Illinois in the original title of the organization was dropped in 1888, as the membership had then extended beyond the limits of that State. This society is not affiliated with the Massachusetts Catholic Order of Foresters. III. A Women's Catholic Order of Foresters was organized in 1892 at Chicago, having for its object benevolent co-operation among Catholic women with assessment life-insurance at low rates. It has a membership of 54,350, with courts scattered over many of the States. The main offices are at Chicago. THOMAS F. MEEHAN. Forgery, Forger Forgery, Forger If we accept the definition usually given by canonists, forgery (Lat. falsum) differs very slightly from fraud. "Forgery", says Ferraris, who claims that his definition is the usually accepted one, "is a fraudulent interference with, or alteration of, truth, to the prejudice of a third person". It consists in the deliberate untruthfulness of an assertion, or in the deceitful presentation of an object, and is based on an intention to deceive and to injure while using the externals of honesty. Forgery is truly a falsehood and a fraud, but it is something more. It includes fraudulent misdemeanours in matters regulated by the law, and endangering the public peace. These misdemeanours are divided by canon law writers into three classes -- according as the crime is committed by word, by writing, or by deed. The principal crime in each of these classes being false witness, falsification of public documents, and counterfeiting money. A fourth category consists in making use of such forgery, and is equivalent to forgery proper. This classification, while slightly superficial, is exact, and presupposes the fundamental malice of the crime in question, viz., that it is prejudicial to public security and injurious to the interests of society at large, rather than to those of the individual. Social order is seriously affected by false witness, which cripples the operation of justice; by the change or alteration of public documents, which hinders a right and proper administration of public affairs, and lastly, by the coining of base money, which hampers trade and commerce. If forgery is committed by public officials in violation of their professional duties, the crime becomes more serious, and more prejudicial to public order. The interests of private individuals, therefore, while not excluded, are secondary when this offence is in question, and it is for this reason that the penalties incurred by forgery, or complicity therein, are independent of the amount of damage it inflicts on individuals. Oral forgeries, e. g. false oaths, false witness (canonists add the crime of the judge who knowingly pronounces an unjust sentence), are treated under TRIAL; OATH; WITNESS; JUDGE. On the other hand false coinage does not immediately concern ecclesiastical law, though some attention is paid it in the "Corpus Juris Canonici" and in various canon law treatises. John XXII punished false coinage by excommunication (Extrav. "Gradiens", Joan. XXII, de crimine falsi) and compared forgers to alchemists (Extrav. "Spondent", inter comm.). In many dioceses this crime was long a reserved sin (e.g. in Naples; "Prompta Bibliotheca", s. v.; see Neapolitan edition of Ferraris, s. v. Falsum, n. 35). By such penal measures the ecclesiastical authority merely assisted in suppressing a crime gravely prejudicial to civil welfare; it did not come before it as a crime against ecclesiastical law. We are here concerned only with forgery properly so-called, i. e. the falsification of public documents and writings, especially Apostolic letters. What is here said of latter, is also applicable, in due measure, to all public documents emanating from the Roman Curia or episcopal courts. The canonical legislation on this matter is better understood when we recall that the more usual form of this crime, and the source of judicial inquiries and consequent penalties, was the production of absolutely false documents and the alteration of authentic decisions, for the sake of certain advantages, e.g. a benefice, or a favourable verdict. The forging of documents for purely historical purposes, with no intention of influencing administrative or legislative authority, does not fall within our scope. (For an account of several such forgeries see A. Giry, "Manuel de diplomatique", Paris, 1894, II, 861-87, and Wattenbach, "Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen", 9th ed. appendix.) We are concerned only with the falsification of Apostolic Letters, the only form of forgery that incurs excommunication ipso facto specially reserved to the pope. The most serious form of forgery is that committed by a public functionary charged to draw up or authenticate official documents, who violates his professional duties, by the fabrication of false documents, by forging a signature, by fraudulent use of an official seal, a stamp, or the like. There is no precise text in canon law punishing these crimes, and canonists always refer to Roman law, especially to the Lex Cornelia "de crimine falsi" (ff. XLVIII). Nevertheless in ecclesiastical law they are serious crimes; and instances might be given of officials of the Roman Curia who suffered death for such forgeries. Domenico of Viterbo and Francesco Maldente were tried and executed for this crime in 1489. They had forged, among other documents, a Bull authorizing the priests of Norway to celebrate Mass without wine (Benedict XIV, "De Beatif.", II, c. XXXII, n. 2; Pastor, "History of the Popes", tr. V, 351). Again the subdatarius, Francesco Canonici, called Mascabruno, was condemned to death on 5 April, 1652, for many forgeries discovered only on the eve of his elevation to the cardinalate. Canon law deals mainly with the attempt to put forgeries to a specific use. It connects forgery and the use of forged documents, on the presumption that he who would make use of such documents must be either the author or instigator of the forgery. In canon law, forgery consists not only in the fabrication or substitution of an entirely false document, "as when a false bulla, or seal, is affixed to a false letter" (Licet v, "De crimine falsi"), but even by partial substitution, or by any alteration affecting the sense and bearing of an authentic document or any substantial point, such as names, dates, signature, seal, favour granted, by erasure, by scratching out or by writing one word over another, and the like. The classical and oft-commented text on this matter is the chapter Licet v, "De crimine falsi" in which Innocent III (1198) points out to the bishop and chapter of Milan nine species of forgery which had come under his notice. This famous instruction was given in order to enable his correspondents to guard against future fraud. Following his teaching the gloss on this chapter enumerates among the six points a judge should examine into in order to discover a forgery: Forma, stylus, filum, membrana, litura, sigillum. Haec sex falsata dant scripturam valere pusillum. In other words a document is suspect, + If its outward appearance differs greatly from the usual appearance of such documents. + If the style varies from the usual manner of the Curia. Chapter iv, "De crimine falsi" gives us an example of this: Innocent III declares a Bull false wherein the pope addresses a bishop as "Dear Son" and not as "Venerable Brother", or in which any other person than a bishop is styled "Venerable Brother" instead of "Dear Son", or in which the plural vos is used to address a single individual. + If the thread which ties the leaden seal to the Bull is broken. + If the parchment bears traces of a doubtful origin (just as we distinguish the water-marks and letter-heads of modern documents). + If there are any erasures, or words scratched out. + If the seal is not intact, or is not clearly defined. If a judge discovers an evident forgery he ought to repudiate the document and punish the guilty party; but in case he considers it merely doubtful he ought to make inquiries at the office of the Roman Curia which is supposed to have issued it. Substitution of false documents and tampering with genuine ones was quite a trade in the Middle Ages. In the chapter Dura vi, "De crimine falsi", written in 1198, (pars decisa), Innocent III relates that he had discovered and imprisoned forgers who had prepared a number of false Bulls, bearing forged signatures either of his predecessor or of himself. To obviate abuses, he orders under pain of excommunication or suspension that pontifical Bulls be received only from the hands of the pope or of the officials charged to deliver them. He orders bishops to investigate suspicious letters, and to make known, to all those having forged letters, that they are bound to destroy them, or to hand them over within twenty days, under pain of excommunication. The same pope legislated severely against forgery and the use of forged documents. In the chapter Ad falsariorum, vii, "De crimine falsi", written in 1201, forgers of Apostolic Letters, whether the actual criminals or their aiders and abetters, are alike excommunicated, and if clerics, are ordered to be degraded and given over to the secular arm. Whoever makes use of Apostolic Letters is invited to assure himself of their authenticity, since to use forged letters is punished in the case of clerics by privation of benefice and rank, and in the case of laymen by excommunication. The excommunication threatened by Innocent III, and extended to the forgery of supplicas or pontifical dispensations, was incorporated in the Bull "In Coena Domini" (no. 6), and passed thence with some modifications into the constitution "Apostolicae Sedis," where it is number 9 among the excommunications latoe sententioe specially reserved to the pope. It affects "all falsification of Apostolic Letters, even in the form of Briefs, and supplicas concerning favours sought or dispensations asked for, which have been signed by the Sovereign Pontiff, or the vice-chancellors of the Roman Church or their deputies, or by order of the pope", also all those who falsely publish Apostolic Letters, even those in the form of Brief; lastly, all those who falsely sign these documents with the name of the Sovereign Pontiff, the vice-chancellor or their deputies. The documents in question here are of two sorts: + Apostolic Letters, in which the pope himself speaks, whether they are in the form of Bulls or Briefs (q. v.); + Supplicas or requests addressed to the pope to obtain a favour, and to which, in proof that the request is granted, the pope or the vice-chancellor or some other official attaches his signature. It is from these supplicas thus signed that the official document conveying the concession is drawn up. Consequently rescripts of the Roman Congregations and of other offices, which are not signed by the pope or by his order, do not come under this heading. The acts of falsification herein punished by excommunication are fewer than formerly. In the first place, the principal crime is the only one dealt with; the aiders and abettors of the forgery are not mentioned. In the next place, by a strict interpretation, allowable in penal matters but; certainly opposed to the spirit of the Decretals of Innocent III, recent canonists exempt from the ipso facto censure forgers of entire Apostolic Letters, and bring under it only those who seriously alter authentic documents. It is certain, in any case, that the word fabricantes of the Bull "In Coena Domini" becomes publicantes in the Constitution "Apostolicae Sedis". There are therefore three acts contemplated by the latter text; the falsification, in the strict sense of the word, of Apostolic Letters and supplicas; the publication of false Apostolic Letters; the forging of signatures to supplicas. The "publication" which incurs this censure is not the material divulgation of a document, but presupposes that such document is offered as, and affirmed to be, authentic. Supplicas with forged signatures it would be useless to publish since they cannot take the place of the official document conveying the concession; but the officials issuing Apostolic Letters on the strength of such signed supplicas would have been misled by the false signature. It must be remembered that all other forms of forgery which escape the ipso facto excommunication are subject to penalties and censures " ferendoe sententioe" according to the gravity of the case. To have their full official weight before a tribunal, public documents must be presented either in the original, or in copies certified by some public officer. Hence the note of falsification does not attach to reproductions devoid of all guarantee of authenticity; nevertheless such reproductions are sometimes seriously criminal because of the perverse intention of their authors. Leitner ("Prael. Jur. Can." lib. V, tit. xx, in a note) gives two examples of fraudulent reproductions of this nature. Frederick II of Prussia forged a Brief of Clement XIII, and dated it 30 January, 1759, by which the pope was made to send his congratulations and a blessed sword to the Austrian Marshal Daun, after the battle of Hochkirch. A Bull purporting to be by Pius IX, dated 28 May, 1873, modifying the law in vigour for the election of a pope was forged, with the connivance at least, of the Prussian Government. Another false document, published by many newspapers in 1905, authorized the marriage of priests in South America, but no one placed any credence in it. (See BULLS AND BRIEFS.) All canonical commentaries on the title De crimine falsi; Decret., lib. V. tit. XX; Extravag. of John XXII and commentary; FERRARIS, Prompta Bibliotheca, s. v. Falsum; all commentaries on the Constitution Apostolicoe Sedis, especially PENNACHI, t. I, appendix VIII, p. 293. A. BOUDINHON Diocese of Forli Forli (FOROLIVIENSIS) Diocese in the province of Romagna (Central Italy); suffragan of Ravenna. The city of Forli, the ancient Forum Livii, is situated between the rivers Ronco and Montone, and was founded in 206 b.c. by the consul M. Livius Salinator; destroyed 88 b.c. during the civil war of Marius and Sulla; and rebuilt by the praetor Livius Clodius. During the seventh and eighth centuries it was often seized by the Lombards (665, 728, 742), until its incorporation with the Papal States in 757. In the medieval struggle between the papacy and the empire it was Ghibelline. On the downfall of the Hohenstaufen, Simone Mestaguerra had himself proclaimed Lord of Forli (1257). He was succeeded by Maghinardo Pagano, Uguccione della Faggiuola (1297), and others, until in 1302 the Ordelaffi came into power. More than once this family sought to escape from the overlordship of the Holy See, and was therefore several times expelled, e. g. in 1327-29 and again in 1359-1375 (Gil d'Albornoz). Forli was seized in 1488 by Visconti and in 1499 by Caesar Borgia, after whose death it was again directly subject to the pope. In 1708 it was sacked by the Austrians. St. Mercurialis is venerated as the first bishop, and is said to belong to the Apostolic Age; it is certain, however, that he is identical with the Mercurialis present at the Council of Rimini in 359. The Christian religion, however, must have been introduced, and a see established, much earlier. Among the illustrious bishops the following may be enumerated: Alessandro (1160), who built the episcopal palace; Fra Bartolomeo da Sanzetto (1351), compelled to flee by Francesco degli Ordelaffi; Giovanni Capparelli (1427), banished by Antonio degli Ordelaffi; Luigi Pirano (1437), who took an active part in the Council of Ferrara. The following were natives of Forli: Blessed Jacopo Salomonio (died 1314), a Dominican; Blessed Pellegrino Laziosi (died 1345), a Servite; Blessed Marcolino Amanni (died 1397), a Dominican. The Cathedral of Santa Croce existed as early as 562; in 1419 Martin V ordered restorations that were completed in 1475; and it was again enlarged in 1841. A noteworthy part of the cathedral is the chapel of the Madonna del Fuoco; the sacred image contained there was formerly in a private house, where it remained unharmed during a fire. Also worthy of mention are: the church of San Mercuriale, with its celebrated belltower, the work of Francesco Deddi (1428); San Biagio, with frescoes by Melozzo da Poril and Palmegiani, and an "Immaculate Conception" by Guido Reni; Santa Maria dei servi (built by Blessed Pellegrino, buried there), with frescoes of the school of Giotto. The seminary has a rich collection of 500 Aldine first editions and of pictures. Near Forli is the shrine of Santa Maria delle Grazie of Forno. The diocese has 61 parishes, 60,000 inhabitants, 3 male and 6 female educational institutions, 4 religious houses of men, and 7 of women, and a weekly Catholic paper. CAPPELLETTI, Le Chiese d' Italia (Venice, 1844), II, 307-67; MARCHESI, Compendium histor. celeberrimoe civitalis Forliviensis (Forli, 1678); ROSETTI, Vite degli uomini illustri Forlivesi (Forli, 1858-61). U. BENIGNI. Form Form (Lat. forma; Gr. eidos, morphe, he kata ton logon ousia, to ti en einai: Aristotle) The original meaning of the term form, both in Greek and Latin, was and is that in common use -- eidos (derived from eido, root rid, an obsolete form from which comes the second aorist eidon, I see, akin to Latin video), being translated, that which is seen, shape, etc., with secondary meanings derived from this, as form, sort, particular, kind, nature. It is also used by Plato to express kind, both as genus and species. From the primary and common signification given above, an easy transition is made to that in which it comes to signify the intrinsic determinant of quantity, from which figure or shape results, and thence to the further peripatetic and scholastic usage as the intrinsic determinant of anything that is determinable. Thus the term is employed even in such expressions as "form of contract", "form of worship", and as theological form, "form of words" (the theological statement of dogmatic truth); sacramental form (see below). In its more strict philosophical usage, however, it is limited to its signification of the intrinsic principle of existence in any determinate essence. This covers form, whether accidental or substantial. But there is a further extended use of the term form, derived from the fact that in all its previous significations it stands for the intrinsic constitutive element of the species, accidental or substantial, in sensible entities. Hence, all species or nature, whether in itself material or existent as immaterial, is called a form, though not, in the strict meaning of the term, a formal principle. In this manner, it is not unusual to speak of the angelic form, or even of the form of God, as signifying the nature, or essence, of the angel or of God. Hence, form is sometimes also used as a synonym of essence and nature. Thus also the form, or formal cause of Aristotle's theory of causality, is identified with the essence (to ti en einai), as the form is that in virtue of which the essence, even of material and composite entities, is precisely what it is. This point will be further considered in the paragraph treating of the development of the idea of form. The various kinds of form recognized in philosophy include the following, of which brief definitions are given. Substantial form, in material entities, is that which determines or actuates materia prima (see MATTER) to a specific substantial nature or essence, as the form of hydrogen, a rose, horse, or man. It is defined by Aristotle as the first entelechy of a physical body (De Anima, II, i), and may be of such a nature that it is merely the determinant of matter (corporeal substantial form), or it may exceed, as it were, the potentiality of the determined matter (spiritual or subsistent form). Accidental form is that which determines a substance to one or other of the accidental modes as quantified, qualified, relationed, etc. (see CATEGORY). As the existence of an "accident" is a secondary one, consisting in an inexistence of inherence, an existent substance, as subject of inherence, is always connoted. A separated form is one which exists apart from the matter it actuates. No accidental form can thus exist, nor can corporeal substantial forms. The separated form is that of man -- the human soul. Inherent form is an accidental form modifying or determining substance. The term is employed to emphasize the distinction of accidental from substantial forms. These latter do not inhere in matter, but are co-principles with it in the constitution of material substances. Forms of knowledge, according to Kant, are forms of; + (1) intuition (space and time), and + (2) thought (the twelve categories in which all judgments are conditioned: unity, plurality, totality; reality, negation, limitation; substantiality, causality, relation; possibility, existence, necessity). They are all a priori and under them, as content, fall all our intuitions and judgments. The logical system of Kant is generally known as "formal" logic, from this connexion. So also that of Herbart, whose logical treatment of thought consists in the isolation of the content from its psychological and metaphysical implications. The point is related to the whole subject of epistemology (q. v.). The attempt to ascertain the nature, extent, and validity of knowledge was made by Kant through a criticism, not of the content of thought, but of its essence. It is an endeavour to examine not the "facta of reason, but reason itself. . . .". The development of the philosophical doctrine of form may be said to have begun with Aristotle. It provided a something fixed and immutable amidst what appears to be involved in a series of perpetual changes, thus obviating the difficulty of the Heraclitean position as to the validity of knowledge. The panta chorei destroys the possibility of a true knowledge of things as they are. Thus Aristotle may be looked upon as the one above all others who laid a solid base for any true system of epistemology. Like Plato, he saw the radical scepticism implied in an assertion of unending change. But unlike the doctrine of the former, providing unalterable but separated ideas as the ideal counterpart of sensible things, that of Aristotle, by its distinction of matter and form, makes it possible to abstract the unalterable and eternal from its concrete and mutable manifestation in individuals. Aristotle, however, identifies the form with the essence; and this because the substance is what it is (essentially) by reason of the substantial form. It would be a mistake, none the less, to suppose that his doctrine leaves no room for a distinction between the two. Indeed Grote clearly shows that "the Aristotelean analysis thus brings out, in regard to each individual substance (or hoc aliquid, to use his phrase), a triple point of view: + the form; + the matter; + the compound or aggregate of the two; In other words the inseparable Ens which carries us out of the domain of logic or abstraction into that of the concrete or reality" (Grote, "Aristotle", ed Bain and Robertson, II, 182). The theory is a fundamental one in Aristotle's "Phiosophia Prima", presenting, as it does, a phase, and that perhaps the most important, of the distinction between the potential and the actual. It is no less fundamental to the philosophical and theological system of St. Thomas Aquinas which is representative of the Christian School. Substantial form is an act, the principle of activity, and by it things actually exist (Summa I, Q. lxvi) as they are. Moreover it is one. Thus man exists as man in virtue of his substantial form, the soul. That the rational soul is the unique form of the body is of faith (Council of Vienne; V Lateran; Brief of Pius IX, 15 June, 1857). Man is learned or healthy in virtue of the accidental (qualifying) forms of learning or health that "inhere" in him. These, without detriment to his humanity, may be present or absent. Both kinds of form, it may be noted, though they specify their resultant essences, or quasi-essences, are individuated by the quantified matter in the one case, and the subject of inhesion in the other. Thus, while the accidental or substantial corporeal form falls back into mere potentiality when it does not actuate its subject, the incorporeal subsistent form of man, though continuing to exist when separated from the body, retains its habitude, or relationship, to the matter by which it was individuated. This doctrine is usual in the School, but it is interesting to observe that Scotus taught, in distinction to St. Thomas's doctrine of one substantial form, a plurality of form in individuals. Thus, e. g while according to Aquinas man is all that he is substantially (corporeal, animal, rational, Socrates) in virtue of his one soul, according to Scotus each determination (generic or specific) superadds a form. In this way, man would be corporeal in virtue of a corporeal form, animal in virtue of a superadded animal form, etc., until he became Socrates, in virtue of the ultimate personal form (socrateitas). Occam also distinguished between a rational and a sensitive soul in man, and taught that the latter was corruptible. The terminology of the Scholastic doctrine of form is employed by the Church in dogmatic definitions, such as that of the Council of Vienne cited above, and in her teaching with regard to the sacraments. Thus, while the matter of the sacrament of baptism, for example, is water; the sacramental form consists of the words ego te baptizo, etc., pronounced by the minister as he baptizes. The same terminology is adopted in the exposition of moral theology, as in the distinction of formal and material sin. The principal alternative systems professing to give an account of corporeal substances are those of Descartes, Locke, Mill and Bain, the scientists (Atomists, etc.). Descartes places the essence of bodies in extension three dimensions, thus identifying quantified substance with quantity and in no way accounting for substantial differences. Each substance possesses a "pre-eminent attribute, which constitutes its nature and essence and to which all others relate; thus extension", etc. To this Locke adds the qualities of the substance, making its essence consist of its primary qualities, or properties (extension, figure and mobility, divisibility and activity). Locke's doctrine, which seems to be the opinion of many contemporary men of science, labours under the same grave inconvenience as that of Descartes, as, by a hysteron-proteron, it accounts for the nature of a given substance by its accidents. Mill and Bain, considering substance from a psychological rather than an ontological viewpoint, define it by its relation to sense perception as an external and permanent possibility of our sensations. This view is not unlike that just alluded to, inasmuch as it expresses not the essence of bodies but at most their activity as permanently capable of evoking sensations in us. Akin to this is the doctrine of positivism, explaining the nature of "matter" as a series of sensations. The topic of form is, as has been seen, closely connected with epistemology. As was said, a weapon for the defeat of scepticism and Heracliteanism was provided by Aristotle in his doctrine of forms and essences; Aquinas, also, would have our knowledge to be of the eternal essences, though derived by way of contemplation of contingent individuals. Kant, on the other hand, denies the possibility of such knowledge of the Thing-in-itself, and, establishing a set of mental forms (see above) into which our experience of concrete beings may be fitted, inaugurates an epistemology of the phenomenal. Hegel begins with the idea of pure being, identical, because of its entire lack of content, with nothing; and thence evolves, on idealistic lines, his theory of knowledge. The "realism" of Herbart is an attempt to reconcile the contradictions that arise in the formal conceptions presented in experience. His epistemological principle is, therefore, a critical and methodical transformation of such conceptions, issuing in the position that a multiplicity of simple, real essences exists, each possessing a single simple quality. Several of the modern systems (Pragmatism, Modernism, etc.), based directly and indirectly upon the teaching of Kant, assert a life-value or work-value to truth, inculcating an extreme relativity of knowledge and tending to pure subjectivism and solipsism. The scholastic theory of form is not that generally adopted by modern scientists, though it may noticed that it is not directly impugned by any scientific system. From Bacon on, empirical science has been progressive; and there is reason to believe that the theoretic science of to-day is in a state of transition in its attitude with regard to the constitution of "matter" (substance). The atomic and molecular theories, principally on account of the discovery of the radio-active substances and their properties, are being modified or abandoned (at any rate in so far as they were held to represent the real constitution of matter) in favour of the electronic, a theory not unlike that of the Jesuit Boscovich. In any case the former did not go farther than to provide a theoretic account of the construction of "matter", leaving the ultimate constitution of substance unexplained. At this point the theory of hylomorphism and the doctrine of substantial form would apply. For a critical examination of the Mechanicist position in this connexion the reader is referred to Nys's "Cosmologie". Furthermore, there is a noticeable reaction towards the scholastic position in recent biology, in which a growing school of neovitalism is making itself felt. ARISTOTLE, Opera (Paris, 1629); ST. THOMAS, Opera (Parma, 1852-72); DUNS SCOTUS, Opera (Lyons, 1639); LORENZELLI, Institutiones Philosophioe Theoreticoe (Rome, 1896); HARPER, Metaphysics of the School (London, 1879); MERCIER, Ontologie (Louvain, 1902); NYS, Cosmologie (Louvain, 1906); DE VORGES, La Perception et la Psychologie Thomiste (Paris, 1892); DE WULF, Scholastic Philosophy, tr. COFFEY (London, 1907); DALGAIRNS, The Holy Communion (Dublin, 1861); SHARPE AND AVELING, The Spectrum of Truth (London, 1908); WINDLE, What is Life? (London, 1908); GURY, Theologia Moralis (Prato, 1894); KANT, Kritik der reinen Vernunft (Riga, 1781); HEGEL, Werke (Berlin, 1832); HERBART, Werke (Leipzig, 1850-2); HOBBES, Leviathan (London, 1651); IDEM, Elementorum Philosophioe sectio prima. De Corpore (London, 1655); LOCKE, An Essay concerning Humane Understanding (London, 1714); CUDWORTH, A Treatise concerning Eternal and Immutable Morality (London, 1731); HUME, Works, ed. GREEN AND GROSE (London, 1878); HAMILTON, Lectures on Metophysic and Logic, ed. MANSEL AND VEITCH (Edinburgh, 1859-60); MANSEL, Prolegomena Logica, "An Inquiry into the Psychological Character of Logical Processes" (Oxford, 1851); MILL, An Examination of Sir William Hamilton's Philosophy (London, 1865); GROTE, Aristotle, ed. BAIN AND ROBERTSON (London, 1872); UEBERWEG, System der Logik (Bonn, 1857); IDEM, Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie (Berlin, 1863-8). FRANCIS AVELING Henry Formby Henry Formby Born 1816; died at Normanton Hall, Leicester, 12 March, 1884. His father, Henry Grenehalgh Formby, was the second son of Richard Formby of Formby Hall, Lancashire. The family had been Catholic until the eighteenth century, when, with the exception of a younger branch, they lost the Faith and closed the chapel of their fifteenth-century mansion. Henry Formby was educated at Clitheroe grammar-school, the Charterhouse School, London, and Brasenose College, Oxford, where he took his M. A. Having taken orders, he became vicar of Ruardean in Gloucestershire, where in 1843 he completed his first book, "A Visit to the East", and he showed the interest in ecclesiastical music that always characterized him in a pamphlet reprinted from "The English Churchman" called "Parochial Psalmody Considered" (1845). At this time he was profoundly influenced by the Oxford Movement, and soon after his friend Newman became a Catholic, he decided to resign his living and join the Church. His reception took place on 24 Jan., 1846, at Oscott, where he continued studying theology till he was ordained priest, 18 Sept., 1847. He was attached to St. Chad's Cathedral where the careful performance of plain chant has ever been a noted feature of the services, and while there he published three works on the subject: "The Catholic Christian's Guide to the Right Use of Christian Psalmody of the Psalter" (1847);" The Plain Chant the Image and Symbol of the Humanity of the Divine Redeemer and the Blessed Virgin Mary" (1848); and "The Roman Ritual and Its Canto Fermo, Compared with the Works of Modem Music, in Point of Efficiency and General Fitness for the Purpose of the Catholic Church" (1849). He also published "The Young Singer's Book of Songs" (1852), "School Songs and Poetry to Which Music Is Adapted" (1852), and he was one of the editors of the "First Series of Hymns and Songs for the Use of Catholic Schools and Families" (1853). Other works belonging to this period were: "The Duties and Happiness of Domestic Service" (1851), "The March of Intellect; or, The Alleged Hostility of the Catholic Church to the Diffusion of Knowledge Examined" (1852), and "State Rationalism in Education; An Examination into the Actual Working and Results of the System of the Board of Commissioners of National Education in Ireland" (1854). Besides his interest in ecclesiastical music, Father Formby had much at heart the use of pictures as a means of spreading knowledge of the Scriptures and Catholic doctrine. In furtherance of this purpose he published a series of carefully illustrated books. Chief among these was his very successful "Pictorial Bible and Church History Stories", which began with "Pictorial Bible Stories for the Young" (1856). An edition of the complete work was published in 1857, followed by another in three volumes with new illustrations in 1862, and an abridged one-volume edition in 1871. From 1857 to 1864 he took charge of the mission at Wednesbury; during which time he published "The Fifteen Mysteries of the Rosary" (1857), "The Life of St. Benedict" (1858), "The Parables of Our Lord Jesus Christ" (1858), "The Life of St. Patrick" (1862), all of which were illustrated. A sermon on "Our Lady of Salette" (1857) and "The Inquiry of a Retired Citizen into the Truth of the Catholic Religion" (1863) were also published while he was at Wednesbury. In 1864 he retired from active missionary work and withdrew to the Dominican priory at Hinckley in Leicestershire, where he spent the remaining twenty years of his life in issuing books and pamphlets and in helping to train the novices; For some years he edited "The Monthly Magazine of the Holy Rosary". His later publications included "The Cause of Poor Catholic Emigrants Pleaded" (1867); "Fleury's Historical Catechism continued to the Vatican Council" (1871); "The Book of the Holy Rosary" (1872); "De Annis Christi Tractatus" (1872); "Sacrum Septenarium" (1874); "The Children's Forget-me-not" (1877); "Compendium of the Philosophy of Ancient History"; "Little Book of the Martyrs of the City of Rome" (1877); "Five Lectures on the City of Rome" (1877); "Monotheism . . . the primitive Religion of the City of Rome" (1877); "Ancient Rome and Its Connection with Christian Religion" (Part I, 1880; Part II, unfinished at his death); "The Growing Unbelief of the Educated Classes" (1880); "Safeguards of Divine Faith in the Presence of Sceptics, Atheists, and Free-thinkers" (1882); "A Familiar Study of the Sacred Scripture", his last work. He also wrote a great number of minor devotional and educational books. The Tablet (22 March, 1884); The Oscotian (June, 1885), IV, No. 14; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s. v.; PURCELL, Life of Cardinal Manning (London, 1896), II, 494. EDWIN BURTON. Pope Formosus Pope Formosus (891-896) The pontificate of this pope belongs to that era of strife for political supremacy in Italy, which succeeded the disruption of the Carlovingian empire. Formosus was probably a native of Rome, and must have been born about 816, since, at his death, he is characterized by Vulgarius as an old man of eighty. The earliest historical information we possess concerning him is his nomination by Nicholas I as Cardinal-Bishop of Porto in 864. Nicholas must have reposed great confidence in the zeal and ability of the cardinal, since, when the Bulgarian prince Bogoris dispatched an embassy to Rome in 866 to submit a series of questions for papal decision, the pope appointed Formosus and Bishop Paulus of Populonia as his legates to Bulgaria. Formosus found such favour at the Bulgarian court that Bogoris petitioned Nicholas in 867 to appoint none other than him Archbishop of Bulgaria. To this proposal, however, Nicholas did not accede, since the canons forbade a bishop to leave his own see to undertake the government of another diocese, and Formosus returned to Rome. Bogoris afterwards renewed his petition to Hadrian II (867-872), the successor of Nicholas, but with no more favourable result. In 869, Hadrian sent Formosus with another bishop to France to assist the local bishops in allaying the domestic strife between King Lothair and his wife Theutberga. Although the death of Lothair on his return from Italy (8 Aug., 869) left the mission without an object, it gave rise to fresh complications among the Carlovingian rulers, and Formosus was sent with Bishop Gauderich of Velletri to Trent in 872, where Empress Engelberga and Louis the German were discussing the question of succession, Louis II having no male heir. At first Pope John VIII (872-882) reposed trust in Formosus, and, on the death of Louis II (875), employed him with two other bishops to convey his invitation to Charles the Bald, King of France, to come to Rome and receive the imperial crown from the hands of the pope. Charles obeyed the call, was crowned emperor on Christmas Day, 875, and before returning home, appointed Dukes Lambert and Guido of Spoleto to assist the pope against the Saracens. In 871, these nobles had been deprived of their dignities for conspiring against Louis II; but they were restored by Charles. In the pope's entourage there were many who viewed with disapproval the coronation of Charles, and favoured the widowed Empress Engelberga and Louis the German. Fearing severe chastisement, these political opponents of the pope left Rome secretly to seek safety elsewhere. Cardinal Formosus was among the fugitives, as he dreaded the anger of the pope without knowing exactly whereby he had incurred the papal resentment. From the fact that Formosus had been sent by the pope as ambassador to Charles and now directed his flight to Abbot Hugo at Tours in Western France, it must be inferred that he was not fundamentally opposed to the coronation of Charles. He cannot, however, have been in sympathy with the pope's political views, and consequently feared lest he might share the fate of John's opponents at the papal court. As early as 872 he had been a candidate for the papal see, so that John possibly viewed him in the light of an opponent. On the flight of Formosus and the other papal officials, John convened a synod, 19 April, which ordered the fugitives to return to Rome. As they refused to obey this injunction, they were condemned by a second synod on 30 June. Against Formosus, should he fail to return, sentence of excommunication and deposition were pronounced by the first synod, the charges being that, impelled by ambition, he had aspired to the Archbishopric of Bulgaria and the Chair of Peter, had opposed the emperor and had deserted his diocese without papal permission. It follows from this that John saw in Formosus a rival whom he gravely suspected. The second synod of 30 June, after several new accusations had been brought against Formosus (e. g. that he had despoiled the cloisters in Rome, had performed the divine service in spite of the interdict, had conspired with certain iniquitous men and women for the destruction of the papal see), excluded him from the ranks of the clergy. Such charges, made against a man who was religious, moral, ascetic, and intellectual can only be referred to party spirit. The condemnation of Formosus and the others was announced to the emperor and the Synod of Ponthion in July. In 878 John himself came to France, and the deposition of Formosus, who appeared in person, was confirmed at the synod of Troyes. According to the acts of the synod, which are however of doubtful authenticity, the sentence of excommunication against Formosus was withdrawn, after he had promised on oath never to return to Rome or exercise his priestly functions. The succeeding years were spent by Formosus at Sens. John's successor Marinus (882-884) released Formosus from his oath, recalled him to Rome, and in 883 restored him to his Diocese of Porto. During the short pontificates of Marinus and his successor Hadrian III (884-885), and under Stephen V (885-891), we learn nothing important concerning Formosus. In September, 891, he was elected to succeed Stephen. Under Stephen V the political horizon had become very threatening. Charles the Fat had reunited the Frankish kingdom in 885, but after his deposition and death in 887, Arnulf of Carinthia, the natural son of Karlmann and the nominee of the Germans, was unable to preserve its unity. In the western kingdom, Count Eudes of Paris Came forward as king; in Provence (Arelate), Louis, son of Boso; in North Burgundy (Jura), Rudolf, son of the Count of Auxerre and grandson of Louis the Pious; in Italy, Berengar of Friaul. The last-mentioned was opposed and defeated by Duke Guido (Wido) of Spoleto, who thereupon took possession of Lombardy, and assumed the title of king. Ruling now over the greater portion of Italy, Guido was a very dangerous neighbour for the papal states, especially as the Archdukes of Spoleto had been on many occasions engaged in conflict with the popes. Stephen V (q. v.) had unwillingly crowned Guido emperor, as King Arnulf had been unable to accept the pope's invitation to come to Rome. Consequently Formosus, after he had been unanimously elected pope by clergy and people, found himself compelled to recognize Guido's dignity and to crown him and his son Lambert Roman Emperor on April, 892. Important ecclesiastical questions claimed the pope's attention immediately after his elevation. In Constantinople, the patriarch Photius had been ejected and Stephen, the son of Emperor Basilius, elevated to the patriarchate. Archbishop Stylian of Neo-Caesarea and the clerical opponents of Photius had written to Stephen V, requesting dispensation and confirmation for those clerics who had recognized Photius only under compulsion and had received orders at his hands. In his reply to this petition (892) Formosus insisted on a distinction of persons; indulgence might be readily shown in the case of the laity, but in the case of clerics such a course was attended with difficulties; the rule must be the sentence of the Eighth General Council (Can. iv), viz, that Photius neither had been nor was a bishop, and all clerics ordained or appointed by him must resign their office; the papal legates, Landulf and Romanus, were to consult with Stylian and Theophylactus of Ancyra on the matter. In this instance, Formosus only corroborated the decisions of his predecessors, Nicholas I and Hadrian II. A matter of a pressing character, affecting the Church in Germany, next called for the papal decision. A quarrel had broken out between Archbishop Hermann of Cologne and Archbishop Adalgar of Hamburg concerning the Bishopric of Bremen, which Hermann claimed as suffragan. Formosus decided, in accordance with the decrees of the Synod of Frankfort (892), that Bremen should remain under the Archbishop of Hamburg until new dioceses were erected; Adalgar was to repair to the provincial synod of the Archbishop of Cologne. Formosus viewed with sorrow the political troubles that disturbed the old Frankish kingdom of the Carlovingian dynasty. In the contest between Udes (Odo) of Paris and Charles the Simple for the French crown, the pope, influenced by the Archbishop of Reims, sided with Charles and called on Arnold, the German king, to support him. The political position in Italy directly affected the pope as head of the ecclesiastical estates, and consequently his independence as head of the Church. Emperor Guido of Spoleto, the oppressor of the Holy See and the papal territories, was too near Rome; and the position of the papacy seemed very similar to its condition in the time of the Lombard kingdom, when Stephen II summoned Pepin to his assistance. Formosus secretly persuaded Arnulf to advance to Rome and liberate Italy; and, in 894, Arnulf made his first expedition, subjugating all the country north of the Po. Guido died in December of the same year, leaving his son Lambert, whom Formosus had crowned emperor, in the Care of his mother Agiltrude, the implacable opponent of the Carlovingians. In the autumn of 895 Arnulf undertook his second Italian campaign, and in February, 896, stood before the walls of Rome. Agiltrude had fortified herself in the city, but Arnulf succeeded in entering and was solemnly crowned by the pope. The new emperor thence marched against Spoleto to besiege Lambert and his mother, but was struck with paralysis on the way and was unable to continue the campaign.. Shortly afterwards (4 April, 896) Formosus died. He was succeeded by Boniface VI, who reigned only fifteen days. Under Stephen VI, the successor of Boniface, Emperor Lambert and Agiltrude recovered their authority in Rome at the beginning of 897, having renounced their claims to the greater part of Upper and Central Italy. Agiltrude being determined to wreak vengeance on her opponent even after his death, Stephen VI lent himself to the revolting scene of sitting in judgment on his predecessor, Formosus. At the synod convened for that purpose, he occupied the chair; the corpse, clad in papal vestments, was withdrawn from the sarcophagus and seated on a throne; close by stood a deacon to answer in its name, all the old charges formulated against Formosus under John VIII being revived. The decision was that the deceased had been unworthy of the pontificate, which he could not have validly received since he was bishop of another see. All his measures and acts were annulled, and all the orders conferred by him were declared invalid. The papal vestments were torn from his body; the three fingers which the dead pope had used in consecrations were severed from his right hand; the corpse was cast into a grave in the cemetery for strangers, to be removed after a few days and consigned to the Tiber. In 897 the second successor of Stephen had the body, which a monk had drawn from the Tiber, reinterred with full honours in St. Peter's. He furthermore annulled at a synod the decisions of the court of Stephen VI, and declared all orders conferred by Formosus valid. John IX confirmed these acts at two synods, of which the first was held at Rome and the other at Ravenna (898). On the other hand Sergius III (904-911) approved in a Roman synod the decisions of Stephen's synod against Formosus; all who had received orders from the latter were to be treated as lay persons, unless they sought reordination. Sergius and his party meted out severe treatment to the bishops consecrated by Formosus, who in turn had meanwhile conferred orders on many other clerics, a policy which gave rise to the greatest confusion. Against these decisions many books were written, which demonstrated the validity of the consecration of Formosus and of the orders conferred by him (see AUXILIUS). JAFFE, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, 2nd ed., I (Leipzig, 1885), 435-39; DUeMMLER, Gesta Berengarii (Halle, 1871); IDEM, Auxilius und Vulgarius (Leipzig, 1866); IDEM, Geschichte des ostfraenkischen Reiches (3 vols., 2nd ad., Leipzig, 1887-88); LAPOTRE, L'Europe et le Saint Siege a l'epoque carolingienne, I: Le pape Jean VIII (Paris, 1895); DUCHESNE, Les premiers temps de l'Etat pontifical (Paris, 1898), 153 sqq.; SALTET, Les reordinations, etude sur le sacrement de l'Ordre (Paris, 1907), 152 sqq.; HEFELE, Conciliengesch. (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1879), IV, 561 sqq.; LANGEN, Geschichte der roemischen Kirche, III (Bonn, 1892), 295 sqq.; REUMONT, Geschichte der Stadt Rom, II (Berlin, 1867), 222 sqq. J. P. KIRSCH. Formularies Formularies (LIBRI FORMULARUM) Formularies are medieval collections of models for the execution of documents (acta), public or private; a space being left for the insertion of names, dates, and circumstances peculiar to each case. As is well known, it is practically inevitable that documents of the same nature, issued from the same office, or even from distinct offices, will bear a close resemblance to one another. Those charged with the execution and expedition of such documents come naturally to employ the same formulae in Similar Cases; moreover, the use of such formulae permits the drafting of important documents to be entrusted to minor officials, since all they have to do is to insert in the allotted space the particular information previously supplied them. Finally, in this way every document is Clothed with all possible efficiency, since each of its clauses, and almost every word, has a meaning clearly and definitely intended. Uncertainties and difficulties of interpretation are thus avoided, and not unfrequently lawsuits. This legal formalism is usually known as the "style" or habitual diction of chanceries and the documents that issue therefrom. It represents long efforts to bring into the document all necessary and useful elements in their most appropriate order, and to use technical expressions suited to the case, some of them more or less essential, others merely as a matter of tradition. In this way arose a true art of drafting public documents or private acta, which became the monopoly of chanceries and notaries, which the mere layman could only imperfectly imitate, and which in time developed to such a point that the mere "style" of a supposititious deed has often been sufficient to enable a skilful critic to detect the forgery. The earlier Roman notaries (tabelliones) had their own traditional formulae, and the drafting of their acta was subject to an infinity of detail (see "Novels" of Justinian, xliv, lxvi); the imperial chanceries of Rome and Byzantium were more remarkable still for their formulae. The chanceries of the barbarian kingdoms and that of the papacy followed in their footsteps. Nevertheless it is not directly from the chanceries that the formularies drawn up in the Middle Ages have come down to us, but rather from the monastic and ecclesiastical schools. Therein was taught, as pertaining to the study of law, the art of drafting public and private documents (see Du Cange, "Glossarium med. et infimae Latinitatis", s. v. "Dictare"). It was called dictare as opposed to scribere, i. e. the mere material execution of such documents. To train the dictatores, as they were known, Specimens of public and private acta were placed before them, and they had to listen to commentaries thereon. Thus arose the yet extant formularies, between the fifth and the ninth centuries. These models were sometimes of a purely academic nature, but the number of such is small; in almost every case they are taken from real documents, in the transcription of which the individualizing references were suppressed so as to make them take on the appearance of general formulae; in many instances, too, nothing was suppressed. The formulae deal with public documents: royal decrees on civil matters, ordinances, etc.; with documents relative to legal processes and the administration of justice; or with private deeds drawn up by a notary: sales, exchanges, gifts to churches and monasteries, transference of ecclesiastical property, the manumission of slaves, the settlement of matrimonial dowries, the execution of wills, etc. Finally, there are deeds which refer solely to ecclesiastical concerns: consecrations of churches, blessings of various kinds, excommunications, etc. The study of the medieval formularies is of importance for students of the history of legislation, the rise of institutions, the development of manners and customs, of civil history, above all for the criticism of charters and diplomas, and for researches in medieval philology. In those times the ecclesiastical and civil orders were closely related. Many civil functions and some of the highest state offices were held by ecclesiastics and monks. The ars dictandi was taught in the schools connected with the monasteries and those under ecclesiastical control. For quite a long time all acta were drawn up only in Latin, and as the vernacular languages, in Romance lands, gradually fell away from classical Latin, recourse to ecclesiastics and monks became a matter of necessity. The formularies are, of course, anything but models of good Latinity; with the exception of the Letters (Variae) of Cassiodorus, and the St. Gall collection "Sub Salomone", they are written in careless or even barbarous Latin, though it is possible that their wretched "style" is intentional, so as to render them intelligible to the multitude. The formularies of the Middle Ages date from the sixth to the ninth or tenth century, and we still possess many once used in one or other of the barbarian kingdoms. Many were edited in the seventeenth century by Jerome Bignon, Baluze, Mabillon, and others; and many more m the nineteenth century, especially by two savants who compiled collections of them: 1. Eugene de Roziere, "Recueil general des formules usitees dans l'empire des Francs du cinquieme au dixieme siecle" (3 vols., Paris, 1859-71). He groups these early medieval formulae under five principal heads: "Formulae ad jus publicum, ad jus privatum, ad judiciorum ordinem, ad jus canonicum, et ad ritus ecclesiasticos spectantes". And he follows up this arrangement by a very complete set of tables of concordance. 2. Karl Zeumer, "Formulae Merovingici et Karolini aevi" (Hanover, 1886) in "Mon. Germ. Hist.: Leg.", V; he reproduces the formulae in the work and gives a more complete study than de Roziere. In his pages will be found a complete bibliography of all written on the subject before that time; or Chevalier, "Topo-Bibl.", may be consulted under the word "Formules". Some brief observations will here suffice on the formulae used between the sixth and the ninth centuries in the various barbarian kingdoms. (1) The Ostrogoths Cassiodorus, secretary and afterwards prime minister of King Theodoric, included in his "Variarum (epistolarum) libri XII", particularly in books six and seven, and, as he says, for the guidance of his successors, a great number of acta and letters drawn up by him for his royal master. It is a genuine formulary, though standing apart by itself. This collection dates from before 538 (P. L., LXIX). The Servite Canciani took ninety-two of these formulae of Cassiodorus and included them in his "Barbarorum leges antiquae" (Venice, 1781, I, 19-56). (2) The Visigoths " Formulae Visigothicae", a collection of the forty-Six formulae made under King Sisebut (612-621). The king's name occurs twice in the curious formula xx, a dowry settlement in hexameter verse. Roman and Gothic law are followed either separately or together, according to the nationality of the covenanters. This collection was published in 1854 by de Roziere from a Madrid Manuscript, which was copied in turn from an Oviedo Manuscript of the twelfth century, now lost. (3) The Franks Their formularies are numerous: + (a) "Formulae Andecavenses", a collection made at Angers, consisting of sixty formulae for private acta, some of them dating from the sixth century, but the greater number from the early part of the seventh; the last three of the collection belong to the end of the seventh century. They were first edited in 1685 by Mabillon from an eighth-century manuscript preserved at Fulda. + (b) "Formulae Arvernenses" (also known as "Baluzianae", from Baluze, their first editor, who issued the works in 1713), a collection of eight formulae of private acta made at Clermont in Auvergne during the eighth century. The first of them is dated from the consulate of Honorius and Theodosius (407- 422). + (c) "Marculfi monachi formularum libri duo", the most important of these collections, and dedicated by its author to a Bishop Landri, doubtless identical with the Bishop of Paris (650-656). The first book contains thirty-seven formulae of royal documents; the second, cartoe pagenses, or private acta, to the number of fifty-two. The work, which was well done, was very favourably received, and became popular as an official textbook, if not in the time of the mayors of the palace, at least under the early Carlovingians. During the reign of Charlemagne it received a few additions, and was re-arranged under the title" Formulae Marculfinae aevi Karolini". Zeumer edited six formulae closely related to this collection. + (d) "Formulae Turonenses", also known as "Sirmondicae" (Baluze edited them under this title because they had been discovered by Pere Sirmond in a Langres manuscript). This collection, made at Tours, contains forty-five formulae, two of which are royal documents, many being judicial decisions, and the remainder private acta. It seems to belong to the middle of the eighth century. Zeumer added to the list twelve other formulae taken from various manuscripts. + (e) "Formulae Bituricenses", a name given to nineteen formulae taken from different collections, but all drafted at Bourges; they date from 720 to the close of the eighth century. Zeumer added to them twelve formulae taken from the Abbey of Saint-Pierre de Vierzon. + (f) "Formulae Senonenses", two distinct collections, both of which were made at Sens, and preserved in the same ninth-century manuscript. The first, "Cartae Senonicae", dates from before 775, and contains fifty-one formulae, of which seven are for royal documents, two are letters to the king, and forty-two are private charters. Zeumer added six Merovingian formulae. The second collection, "Formulae Senonenses recentiores", dates from the reign of Louis the Pious, and contains eighteen formulae, of which seven deal with judicial acts. Zeumer added five metrical formulae, and two Merovingian formulae written in Tironian notes. + (g) "Formulae Pithoei" In a manuscript loaned by Pithou to Du Cange for his "Glossarium" of medieval Latin there was a rich collection of at least one hundred and eight formulae, drawn up originally in territory governed by Salic law. This manuscript has disappeared. Under the above heading Zeumer has collected the various quotations made by Du Cange from this formulary. + (h) "Formulae Salicae Bignonianae", so called from the name of their first editor, Bignon. It contains twenty-seven formulae, one of which is for a royal decree; they were collected in a country subject to Salic law, about the year 770. + (i, j) "Formulae Salicae Merkelianae", so called from the name of their editor, Merkel (about 1850), a collection of sixty-six formulae taken from a Vatican manuscript; they were not brought to completion until after 817. The first part (1-30) consists of formulae for private acta, modelled on "Marculf" and the "Formulae Turonenses"; the second part (31-42) follows the "Formulae Bignonianae", the third (43-45) contains three formulae drawn up in some abbey; the fourth (46-66) has formulae dating from the close of the eighth century and probably compiled in some episcopal town. Two formulae of decrees of the bishops of Paris were discovered by Zeumer in the same manuscript. + (k) "Formulae Salicae Lindenbrogianae", so called from the name of their first editor, Friedrich Lindenbrog, a Frankfort lawyer (1613) who edited them together with other documents. The collection contains twenty-one formulae of private acta, drawn up in Salic law territory. Four others were added by Zeumer. + (l) "Formulae Imperiales e curia Ludovici Pii", also known as "Carpenterianae" from Carpentier who first edited them in his "Alphabetum Tironianum" (Paris, 1747). This is an important collection of fifty-five formulae, drawn up after the fashion of the charters of Louis the Pious at the Abbey of St. Martin of Tours, between 828 and 832, The manuscript is written mainly in Tironian notes. This collection was used by the Carlovingian chancery of the ninth Century. Zeumer has added to the list two formulae. + (m) "Collectio Flaviniensis", one hundred and seventeen formulae compiled at the Abbey of Flavigny in the ninth century; of these, ten only are not to be met with elsewhere. + (n) "Formulae collectionis Sancti Dionysii", a collection of twenty-five formulae made at the Abbey of St-Denys under Charlemagne; for the most part it is taken from the archives of the abbey. + (o) "Formulae codicis Laudunensis", a Laon manuscript containing seventeen formulae, of which the first five were drawn up at the Abbey of St-Bavon in Ghent, and the remainder at Laon. (4) The Alamanni The most important of their formulae are: + (a) "Formulae Alsaticae", under which name we have two collections, one made at the Abbey of Murbach (Formulae Morbacenses) at the end of the eighth century and preserved in a manuscript of St.Gall, containing twenty-seven formulae, one of which is for a royal decree; the other embodies three formulae made at Strasburg (Formulae Argentinenses) and preserved in a Berne manuscript. + (b) "Formulae Augienses", from the Abbey of Reichenau. This consists of three distinct collections: one from the end of the eighth century containing twenty-three formulae of private acta; another belonging to the eighth and ninth centuries contains forty-three formulae of private documents; the third, "Formulae epistolares Augienses", is a "correct letter-writer" with twenty-six formulae. + (C) "Formulae Sangallenses" (from the Abbey of St. Gall), in two collections of this name. The "Formulae Sangallenses miscellaneae" consists of twenty-five formulae, many of which are accompanied by directions for their use. They date from the middle of the eighth to the end of the ninth century. The important "Collectio Sangallensis Salomonis III tempore conscripta" is so called because it seems to have been compiled by the monk Notker at St. Gall, under Abbot Salomon III (890-920), who was also Bishop of Constance. Notker died in 912. It contains, in forty-seven formulae, models of royal decrees, of private documents, of litteroe formatoe and other episcopal documents. Zeumer added six formulae taken from the same manuscript. (5) The Bavarians Among their formulae are: + (a) "Formulae Salisburgenses", a very fine collection of one hundred and twenty-six models of documents and letters, published in 1858, by Rockinger, and drawn up at Salzburg in the early part of the ninth century. + (b) "Collectio Pataviensis" (of Passau), containing seven formulae, five of which are of royal decrees, executed at Passau under Louis the German. + (c) "Formulae codicis S. Emmerami", fragments of a large collection made at St. Emmeram's, Ratisbon. (6) Rome The most important of all ancient formularies is certainly the "Liber diurnus romanorum pontificum", a collection of one hundred and seven formularies long used by the Apostolic chancery. If it was not drawn up for the papal chancery, it copies its documents, and is largely compiled from the "Registrum" or letter-book of St. Gregory the Great (590-604). It was certainly in official use by the Roman chancery from the ninth to the end of the eleventh century. This collection was known to the medieval canonists, and is often quoted by Cardinal Deusdedit and Yves of Chartres; four of its documents were incorporated into the "Decretum" of Gratian. The best manuscript of the "Liber diurnus", written at the beginning of the ninth century, comes from the Roman monastery of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme and was discovered in the Vatican Library. About the middle of the seventeenth century, the learned Lucas Holstenius used it when preparing an edition of the work which was officially stopped and suppressed on the eve of its appearance, because it contained an ancient profession of faith in which the popes anathematized their predecessor Honorius. In 1680 the Jesuit Garnier, using another manuscript of the College of Clermont (Paris), brought out an edition of the "Liber diurnus" not approved by Rome (P. L., CV). In the nineteenth century the Vatican manuscript was utilized for two editions, one by de Roziere (Paris, 1869), the other by von Sickel (Vienna, 1889). In 1891 the Abbate Ceriani discovered at the Ambrosiana (Milan) a third manuscript as yet unused. For a full bibliography of recent researches concerning the "Liber diurnus" see the "Topo-Bibl." of Chevalier, s. v. While, in its complete form, the "Liberdiurnus" cannot date back further than 786, the earliest forms of it go back to the end of the seventh century. Von Sickel holds that its opening formulae (1-63) are even fifty years earlier than that date. It is badly arranged as a collection, but wonderfully complete. After a series of addresses and conclusions for papal letters, that vary according to the addressees, there are formulae concerning the installation of bishops, the consecration of churches, the administration of church property, the grant of the pallium, and various other privileges. Then follow models for the official correspondence on the occasion of a vacancy of the Holy See and the election of a pope, also directions for the consecration and the profession of faith of the pope-elect; finally a group of formulae affecting various matters of ecclesiastical administration. In the tenth century these formularies cease to be in universal use; in the eleventh, recourse is had to them still more rarely; other methods of training notaries are introduced. Copies of letters are no longer placed before them. In their stead, special treatises of instruction are prepared for these officials, and manuals of epistolary rhetoric appear, with examples scattered here and there throughout the text, or collected in separate books. Such treatises on composition, artes dictaminis, have hitherto been only partially studied and classified, chiefly by Rockinger in "Briefsteller und Formelbuecher des XI. bis XIV. Jahrhunderts" (Munich, 1863). The most ancient of these manuals known to us is the "Breviarium de dictamine" of Alberic of Monte Cassino, about 1075; in the twelfth century treatises of this kind become more frequent, first in Italy, then in France, especially along the banks of the Loire at Orleans and at Tours. Side by side with these works of epistolary rhetoric we meet special treatises for the use of clerks in different chanceries, and formularies to guide notaries public. Such are the "Formularium tabellionum" of Irnerius of Bologna in the twelfth century, and the "Summa artis notariae" of Ranieri of Perugia in the thirteenth; that of Salathiel of Bologna printed at Strasburg, in 1516, and the very popular one of Rolandino that went through many editions, beginning with the Turin edition of 1479. As to the papal chancery, in general very faithful to its customs and its "style", after the reform of Innocent III many formularies and practical treatises appeared, none of them possessing an official value. The writings of Dietrich of Nieheim (an employe of the chancery in 1380), "De Stilo" and "Liber Cancellariae", have been the subject of critical studies. At a more recent date we meet many treatises on the Roman chancery and on pontifical letters, but they are not formularies, though their text often contains many models. Quite recently, however, there has appeared an official publication of certain formulae of the Roman Curia, i. e. the collection of formulae for matrimonial dispensations granted by the Dataria Apostolica (see ROMAN CONGREGATIONS), published in 1901 as "Formulae Apostolicae Datariae pro matrimonialibus dispensationibus, jussu Emi. Card. Pro Datarii Cajetani Aloisi-Masella reformatae". Lastly, in a different order of ideas, it may be well to mention a collection of formulae for use in episcopal courts, the "Formularium legalepracticum" of Francesco Monacelli (Venice, 1737), re-edited by the Camera Apostolica (3 vols. fol., Rome, 1834). From the twelfth century onward the formularies of the papal Curia become more numerous but less interesting, since it is no longer necessary to have recourse to them to supplement the documents. The formularies of the Cancellaria Apostolica are collections drawn up by its clerks, almost exclusively for their own guidance; they interest us only through their relation to the "Rules of the Chancery" (see ROMAN CURIA). The formularies of the Poenitentiaria have a higher interest for us; they appear during the twelfth century when that department of Roman administration was not restricted, as it now is, to questions of conscience and the forum internum, but served as a sort of clearing-house for lesser favours granted by the Holy See, especially for dispensations. These interesting documents, including the formularies, have been collected and edited by Goeller in "Die papstliche Poenitentiarie bis Eugen IV." (Rome, 1907). Previously, Lea had published "A Formulary of the Papal Penitentiary in the Thirteenth Century" (Philadelphia, 1892), probably the work of Cardinal Thomasius of Capua (died 1243). We must mention the "Summa de absolutionibus et dispensationibus" of Nicholas IV; of particular value also is the formulary of Benedict XII (1336 at the latest), made by order of that pope and long in use. It contains five hundred and seventy letters of which more than two hundred are taken from the collection of Thomasius. Attention is also directed to the list of "faculties" conferred, in 1357, on Cardinal Albornoz, first edited by Lecacheux in "Melanges d'Archeologie et d'Histoire des ecoles franc,aises de Rome et d'Athenes", in 1898; and to later texts in Goeller. It will suffice if we make a bare mention of the taxoe or "taxes" in use at the Poenitentiaria, to which were occasionally joined those imposed by the Cancellaria; in the opinion of the writer, they are not in any way related to the formularies. Besides the Works mentioned above see GIRY, Manuel de diplomatique (Paris, 1894), Bk. IV, ch. i, Formulaires et manuels; Bk. V, Les Chancelleries; from this Work We have largely drawn; KOBER in Kirchenlex., s. vv. Formelbuecher, and Liber diurnus. A. BOUDINHON. William Forrest William Forrest Priest and poet; dates of birth and death uncertain. Few personal details are known of him. He is thought to have been related to John Forest, the Franciscan martyr, and was connected with Christ Church, Oxford, though in what capacity is not clear; probably he was a student there. It is certain that he was present when the university, in 1530, discussed the question of Henry VIII's divorce; he also gives a long account in his poem on Catherine of Aragon of the rebuilding of the college when it was remodelled, and we find him in receipt of a pension from it in 1555. Soon after the accession of Mary he was made a royal chaplain, but nothing is known of what became of him after her death. An interesting entry occurs in the State papers (domestic) of Elizabeth, under the date 23 Dec., 1592, to the effect that a certain Robert Faux being examined, confessed that "3 or 4 years since he had given a gray nag with a saddle and bridle to Forrest, a priest, at an ale house in Stoke, Northampton". This may have been William Forrest, and points perhaps to his being a fugitive at the time. He was a skilful musician and collected the manuscripts of some of the best contemporary English composers. This collection is now preserved in Oxford. The greater part of his poems are still in manuscript. None of them are of great poetical merit, but some are extremely interesting from the light they throw upon certain political, religious, and social events of his time. There are some enlightened suggestions in his work concerning points of social reform. Warton, in his "History of English Poetry", remarks that Forrest seems to have been able to "accommodate his faith to the reigning powers", and the statement rests upon the fact that he dedicated two of his works to the protector Somerset. Otherwise he seems to have been a loyal Catholic. Forrest's works are: "History of Joseph the Chaste" (in manuscript, Oxford and British Museum)--a long extract from his poem is given in "Starkey's Life and Letters" (see below); A metrical version of certain Psalms and Canticles (in manuscript); "A New Ballad of the Marigold", in praise of Queen Mary, printed in the "Harleian Miscellany", vol. X; "The History of Grisild the Second", a long poem upon Catherine of Aragon and her divorce, published entire by the Roxburghe Club (London, 1875), with memoir by the Rev. W. H. Macray; "The Life of the Virgin Mary", and other poems (Harleian Manuscript, 1703). COOPER in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v.; Starkey's Life and Letters (Early Eng. Text Soc., London, 1878); WARTON, Hist. Eng. Poetry, ed. HAZLITT (London, 1871:, IV; WOOD, Athenae Ozon., ed. BLISS (London, 1812), I; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s. v. K.M. WARREN Arnold Forster Arnold Foerster German entomologist; b. at Aachen, 20 Jan., 1810; d. in the same city, 12 Aug., 1884. His father died while he was quite young, and it was only by strict economy and by tutoring that he was able to complete his gymnasium course, which he began in 1824. He was an apt student, and showed a decided preference for natural history. The entomologist Meigen, who resided in the neighborhood, fostered and directed this preference and his influence may be traced throughout Foerster's subsequent work in entomology. Foerster began the study of medicine at Bonn in 1832, but soon abandoned it to devote himself entirely to natural science. He made rapid progress, and, while still a student, became assistant to Goldfuss and tutor in his family. In 1836 he was appointed instructor in the high school -- known today as the Realgymnasium -- of his native city, with which he was connected until his death. Foerster was a conscientious teacher, and endeavoured to awaken in his pupils a love of and interest in the wonders of nature. His wealth of knowledge and his untiring spirit of research would, however, have found a wider and more suitable field in the university than in the gymnasium. Most of his leisure was devoted to his studies in entomology, though botany also claimed part of his attention. He was regarded in particular as an authority in the "microhymenoptera". He was an indefatigable collector and a keen observer, but was inclined to magnify minute differences, and so multiply species and divisions. Foerster belonged to a number of societies of natural history, and carried on an extensive correspondence with entomologists both at home and abroad. In 1853, he received the degree of Doctor of Philosophy honoris causa at Bonn, and in 1855 the title of professor from the Minister of Instruction. He was abstemious in his habits, and a devout and practical Catholic, conspicuous for his charity towards the poor. Among his papers on entomology are "Beitraege zur Monographie der Pteromalinen"; "Einige neuen Arten aus der Familie der Blattwespen"; "Hymenopterologische Studien"; "Monographie der Gattungen Campoplex u. Hylaeus"; "Flora Excursoria des Regierungsbezirks Aachen". WACKERZAPP, Verhandl, d. Naturhistorischen Vereins d. preussischen Rheinlande, Westfalens und d. Regierungsbezirks Osnabruck (Bonn, 1880), Correspondenzblatt, p. 38. HENRY M. BROCK Frobenius Forster Frobenius Forster Prince-Abbot of St. Emmeram at Ratisbon, b. 30 Aug., 1709, at Koenigsfeld in Upper Bavaria; d. 11 Oct., 1791, at Ratisbon. After studying the humanities and philosophy at Freising and Ingolstadt, he entered the Benedictine monastery of St. Emmeram at Ratisbon where he took vows on 8 Dec., 1728. He made his theological studies partly at his monastery and partly at Rott, where the Bavarian Benedictines had their common study house. Shortly after his elevation to the priesthood, in 1733, he became professor of philosophy and theology at St. Emmeram and for some time held the office of master of novices. In 1745 he was sent to the Benedictine university at Salzburg to teach philosophy and physics. Two years later he returned to his monastery where he taught philosophy and Holy Scriptures until he became librarian and prior in 1750. He had gained an enviable reputation as a philosopher and scientist, and was one of the first religious who endeavoured to reconcile Scholastic philosophy with the Cartesian and the Leibniz-Wolffian school. Though leaning towards the Leibniz-Wolffian philosophy, he rejected many of its teachings, such as the cosmological optimism of Leibniz and the mechanism of Wolff, and was rather an eclectic than a slavish follower of any one system. In 1759 Forster was chosen one of the first members of the newly founded Bavarian academy of sciences. A year later he laid down the office of prior and was appointed provost at Hohengebraching, a dependency of St. Emmeram, situated about five miles south of Ratisbon. On 24 July, 1762, he was elected as successor to the deceased Prince-Abbott Johann Baptist Kraus of St. Emmeram. Forster's election was the inauguration of the golden era of St. Emmeram. The learned new prince-abbott endeavoured to impart his own love for learning to each of his subjects and offered them every facility to advance in knowledge. During his reign the course given in the natural sciences at St. Emmeram became famous throughout Germany and drew scholars not only from the Benedictine monasteries of Bavaria, but also from the houses of other religious orders. In order to promote the study of Holy Scripture, Forster called the learned Maurist philologist, Charles Lancelot of St-Germain-des-Pres, who instructed the monks of St. Emmeram in Oriental languages from 1 Oct., 1771, to 27 May, 1775. To encourage his young monks still more in their respective studies, he founded a physical, a mineralogical, and a numismatic cabinet and procured the best available literature in the various branches. Forster's chief literary production in his carefully prepared edition of the works of Alcuin which appeared in two folio volumes (4 parts) at Ratisbon in 1777. It is reprinted in the Latin Patrology of Migne (vols. C and C1). He also wrote in Latin five short philosophical treatises and a dissertation on the Vulgate. From a codex preserved in the library of the cathedral chapter at Freising he edited the decrees of the Synod of Aschheim and made a German translation of it for "Abhandlungen der Bayr. Akad. der Wissenschaften" (I,30-60); and from a codex in the library of St. Emmeram he published in Mansi's "Collectio Ampl. Conciliorum" (XIII, 1025-28), the decrees of a Bavarian synod held during the times of the Agilolfings. ENDRES, Frobenius Forster in Strassburger theol. Studien (Freiburg im Br., 1900), IV, fasc. 1; LINDNER, Die Schriftateller des Benediktiner-Ordens in Bayern (Ratisbon, 1880), I, 56-62; SCHNEIDER in Hist.-Polit. Blotter (Munich, 1901), CXXVII, 902-913. MICHAEL OTT Thomas Ignatius Maria Forster Thomas Ignatius Maria Forster Astronomer and naturalist, b. at London, 9 Nov., 1789; d. at Brussels, 2 Feb., 1860. His literary education was neglected, as his father, a distinguished botanist, was a follower of Rousseau. He made up this deficiency, and during his lifetime became master of a number of modern languages. His early studies were, however, desultory, and he seems to have put off the choice of a profession until some years after attaining to man's estate. As early as 1805 he had compiled a "Journal of the Weather" and had published his "Liber Rerum Naturalium". A year later, inspired by Gall's works, he took up the study of phrenology. The comet of 1811 aroused his interest in astronomy, a science which he continued to pursue, and eight years later, on 3 July, 1819, he himself discovered a new comet. He finally matriculated at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, in order to study law, but soon abandoned it to study medicine, taking his degree in 1819. Two years before, he had married the daughter of Colonel Beaufoy and taken up his residence at Spa Lodge, Tunbridge Wells. After the birth of his only daughter he moved to Hartwell in Sussex, and then went abroad, where he spent three years. His observations and studies on the Continent led to the publication, in 1824, of his "Perennial Calendar". It was also during this period that he was attracted by the claims of the Catholic Church, to which he became a convert. After his return to England he became a fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society and helped to found a meteorological society, which, however, had but a brief existence. His father died in 1825, and he soon after took up his residence in Chelmsford in order to be near his daughter, who was a pupil at Newhall Convent. Here he undertook a series of researches on the influence of atmospheric conditions on diseases, and particularly on cholera. In 1830 he collected and published the letters of Locke, Shaftesbury, and Algernon Sydney. In 1833 he again went abroad, where he spent most of his remaining years, settling finally in Bruges. He continued his literary activity during the latter part of his life, some of his writings being poetical. He also composed selections for the violin. Forster was remarkable for his versatility and industry. He numbered among his friends many of the prominent authors and scholars of his time, such as Gray, Porson, Shelley, Peacock, Herschel, and Whewell. Besides the works mentioned, he also wrote, "Researches About Atmospheric Phenomena" (London, 1812; 2nd ed., 1823); "Reflections on the Destructive Operation of Spirituous Liquors" (London, 1812); "Pocket Encyclopedia of Natural Phenomena" (from his father's MSS., 1826); "Beobachtungen uber den Einfluss des Luftdruckes auf das Gehor" (Frankfort, 1835); "Observations sur l'influence des Cometes" (1836); "Pan, a Pastoral" (Brussels, 1840); "Essay on Abnormal Affections of the Organs of Sense" (Tunbridge Wells, 1841); "Annales d'un Physicien Voyageur" (Bruges, 1848); and numerous articles in "The Gentleman's Magazine". FORSTER, Recueil de ma Vie (Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1835; Epistolarium Forsterianum (Bruges, 1845-50); BOULGER in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v.; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s.v. HENRY M. BROCK Diocese of Fortaleza Diocese of Fortaleza (FORTALEXIENSIS) The Diocese of Fortaleza is co-extensive with the State of Ceara in the Republic of Brazil, having an area of 46,912 square miles, and a population of 850,000 souls, of whom fewer than 1000 are non-Catholics. Fortaleza, or Ceara, the episcopal city, has a population of 60,000 Formerly a part of the Diocese of Pernambuco, the district was erected into a separate diocese, suffragan to Bahia, by Pius IX, 8 June, 1854. Joao Guerino Gomes was named as first bishop but did not accept the appointment. Father Gomes, who was famous in his day both as an orator and as a philosopher, died in 1859; a biographical notice of him was presented to the Historical Institute of Bahia by his cousin, Jose Antonio Teixeira. The first bishop, Luis Antonio dos Santos, founded the diocesan seminaries at Fortaleza and Crato, and, for the education of girls, the College of the Immaculate Conception, besides building the church of the Sacred Heart at Fortaleza. Dom Luis Antonio dos Santos having been elevated to the metropolitan See of Bahia, Joaquim Jose Vieira--b. 1836, consecrated at Campinas in the State of S. Paulo, 9 December, 1883--took possession of the See of Fortaleza on 24 February, 1884. His incumbency has been fruitful in the increase of means for the education of the poor, the college of Caninde and the Jesus-Mary-Joseph School at Fortaleza owing their existence to his pastoral zeal. In 1908 this diocese contained 77 parishes with 120 priests. The diocesan seminary is conducted by the Lazarist Fathers; there is a Benetictine abbey, with a college at Quixada; the Italian Capuchins have charge of the Sacred Heart church at Fortaleza and the church of St. Francis of the Wounds at Caninde, to which latter is attached a college for poor boys. The Sisters of Charity have under their care the Misericordia Hospital at Fortaleza, the College of the Immaculate Conception, the Jesus-Mary-Joseph School, and the lunatic asylum at Parangaba. The principal lay association in the diocese is the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, consisting of a superior council, 32 particular councils, and 156 conferences, and maintains 10 primary schools and 9 libraries, besides publishing, as its official organ, the "Revista do Consellio Central". GUILHERME STUDART Bl. Adrian Fortescue Bl. Adrian Fortescue Knight of St. John, martyr, b. about 1476, executed 10 July, 1539. He belonged to the Salden branch of the great Devonshire family of Fortescue, and was a true country gentleman of the period, occasionally following the King in the wars with France (1513 and 1522), not unfrequently attending the court, and at other times acting as justice of the peace or commissioner for subsidies. He was knighted in 1503 (Clermont; but D.N.B. gives 1528), attended the Field of the Cloth of Gold (1520), and late in life (1532) became a Knight of St. John. When Anne Boleyn became queen, Sir Adrian (whose mother, Alice Boleyn, was Anne's grand-aunt) naturally profited to some extent, but, as we see from his papers, not very much. The foundations of his worldly fortunes had been laid honourably at an eartier date. He was a serious thrifty man pains-taking in business, careful in accounts, and a lover of the homely wit of that day. He collected and signed several lists of proverbs and wise saws, which, though not very brilliant, are never offensive or coarse, always sane, and sometimes rise to a high moral or religious level. All of a sudden this quiet, worthy gentleman was overwhelmed by some unexplained whim of the Tudor tyrant. On 29 August, 1534, he was put under arrest, no one knows why, but released after some months. On 3 February, 1539, he was arrested a second time and sent to the Tower. In April he was condemned untried by an act of attainder; in July he was beheaded. No specific act of treason was alleged against him, but only in general "sedition and refusing allegiance". The attainder, however, went on to decree death against Cardinal Pole and several others because they "adhered themselves to the Bishop of Rome". Catholic tradition was always held that Sir Adrian died for the same cause, and modern Protestant critics have come to the same conclusion. His cultus has always flourished among the Knights of St. John, and he was beatified by Leo XIII in 1895. J.H. POLLEN Fortitude Fortitude (1) Manliness is etymologically what is meant by the Latin word virtus and by the Greek andreia, with which we may compare arete (virtue), aristos (best), and aner (man). Mas (male) stands to Mars, the god of war, as arsen (male) to the corresponding Greek deity Ares. While andreia (manliness) has been specialized to signify valour, virtus has been left in its wider generality, and only in certain contexts is it limited, as by Caesar when he says: "Helvetii reliquos Gallos virtute praecedunt". Here the writer was certainly not taking the pious outlook upon virtue, except in so far as for primitive peoples the leading virtue is bravery and the skillful strength to defend their lives and those of their fellow-tribesmen. At this stage of culture we may apply Spinoza's notion that virtue is the conservatory force of life. "In proportion as a man aims at and is successful in pursuing his utile, that is his esse, so much the more is he endowed with virtue; on the other hand, in proportion as he neglects to cultivate his utile or his esse, so much the greater is his impotence" (Eth., IV, prop. 20). "Virtue is that human faculty, which is defined only by the essence of man, that is, which is limited only by the efforts of man to persevere in his esse" (prop. 22). The idea is continued in Propositiones 23, 24, 25, 27. The will to live -- der Wille zu leben -- is the root virtue. Of course Spinoza carries his doctrine higher than does the savage warrior, for he adds that the power preservative and promotive of life is adequacy of ideas, reasonable conduct, conformity to intelligent nature: finally that "the highest virtue of the intellect is the knowledge of God" (lib. V, prop. xlii). Spinoza usually mixes the noble with the ignoble in his views: for a rude people his philosophy stops short at virtue, the character of the strong man defending his existence against many assaults. Aristotle does not say that fortitude is the highest virtue; but he selects it first for treatment when he describes the moral virtues: eipomen proton peri andreias (Eth. Nic., III, 6); whereas St. Thomas is at pains to say explicitly that fortitude ranks third after prudence and justice among the cardinal virtues. The braves in a warrior tribe and the glamour of braverie in knight-errantry, the display of pomp by modern armies on parade, were not objects to disturb the sense of proportion in the mind of the Friar Preacher. Still less could etymology deceive his judgment into thinking that the prime virtue was the soldier's valour commended on the Victoria Cross. Neither would he despise the tribute "For Valour" in its own degree. (2) To come now to definitions. If we consult Plato and Aristotle we find the former comparing man to the god Glaucus who from dwelling in the sea had his divine limbs encrusted beyond recognition with weeds and shells: and that represents the human spirit disguised by the alien body which it drags about as a penalty. The soul in its own rational nature (for our present purpose we fuse together the two terms psyche and nous, distinguished by Aristotle, into one -- the soul) is simple: man is compound, and, being conflictingly compounded, he has to drive a pair of steeds in his body, one ignoble -- the concupiscences -- the other relatively noble -- the spiritual element, in which is "go", "dash", "onslaught", "pluck", "endurance". Upon the latter element is based fortitude, but the animal spirit needs to be taken up and guided by the rational soul in order to become the virtue. It is in the breast that ho thymos, to thymoeides (courage, passion) dwells, midway between reason in the head and concupiscence in the abdomen. Plato's high spirituality kept him from speaking too exaltedly of fortitude which rested on bodily excellence: consequently he would have wise legislators educate their citizens rather in temperance than in courage, which is separable from wisdom and may be found in children or in mere animals (Laws, I, 630, C, D, E; 631, C; 667, A). Although Aristotle makes animal courage only the basis of fortitude -- the will is courageous, but the animal spirit co-operates (ho de thymos synergei) -- he has not a similar contempt for the body, and speaks more honourably of courage when it has for its prime object the conquest of bodily fear before the face of death in battle. Aristotle likes to narrow the scope of his virtues as Plato likes to enlarge his scope. He will not with his predecessor (Lackes, 191, D, E) extend fortitude to cover all the firmness or stability which is needful for every virtue, consequently Kant was able to say: "Virtue is the moral strength of the will in obeying the dictates of duty" (Anthropol., sect. 10, a). The Platonic Socrates took another limited view when he said that courage was the episteme ton deinon kai me (Laches, 199); hence he inferred that it could be taught. Given that in themselves a man prefers virtue to vice, then we may say that for him every act of vice is a failure of fortitude. Aristotle would have admitted this too; nevertheless he chose his definition: "Fortitude is the virtue of the man who, being confronted with a nobel occasion of encountering the danger of death, meets it fearlessly" (Eth. Nic., III, 6). Such a spirit has to be formed as a habit upon data more or less favourable; and therein it resembles other virtues of the moral kind. Aristotle would have controverted Kant's description of moral stability in all virtue as not being a quality cultivatable into a habit: "Virtue is the moral strength of the will in obeying the dictates of duty, never developing into a custom but always springing freshly and directly from the mind" (Anthropol., I, 10, a). Not every sort of danger to life satisfies Aristotle's condition for true fortitude: there must be present some noble display of prowess -- alke kai kalon. He may not quite positively exclude the passive endurance of martyrdom, but St. Thomas seems to be silently protesting against such an exclusion when he maintains that courage is rather in endurance than in onset. As a commentator on Aristotle, Professor J.A. Stewart challenges the friends of the martyrs to make a stand for their cause when he says: "It is only when a man can take up arms and defend himself, or where death is glorious, that he can show courage" (p. 283). Here the disjunctive "or" may save the situation: but there is no such reserve on p. 286, where he adds: "Men show courage when they can take up arms and defend themselves, or (e) where death is glorious. The former condition may be realized without the latter, in which case the andreia would be of a spurious kind: the latter condition, however, cannot be realized without the former. Death in a good cause which a man endured fearlessly, but could not actively resist could not be kalos thanatos (glorious death)." Does Aristotle positively make this exclusion? If so, St. Thomas corrects him very needfully, as Britons would admit on behalf of their soldiers who, off the coast of S. Africa in 1852, nobly stood in their ranks and went unresistingly down in the sinking ship, Birkenhead, that they might give the civilians a better chance of being saved. As specimens of courage not in the higher order Aristotle gives the cases of soldiers whose skill enables them to meet without much apprehension what others would dread, and who are ready to flee as soon as grave danger is seen: of animally courageous men whose action is hardly moral: of courage where hope is largely in excess over dread: of ignorance which does not apprehend the risk: and of civic virtue which is moved by the sanction of reward and penalty. In the above instances the test of oi andreioi dia to kalon prattousi -- "the exercise of fortitude is virtue", a principle which is opposed to the mere pragmatism that would measure courage by efficiency in soldiership -- fails. Aristotle says that mercenaries, who have not a high appreciation of the value of their own lives, may very well expose their lives with more readiness than could be found in the virtuous man who understands the worth of his own life, and who regards death as the peras -- the end of his own individual existence (phoberotaton d' ho thanatos peras gar). Some have admired Russian nihilists going to certain death with no hope for themselves, here or hereafter, but with a hope for future generations of Russians. It is in the hope for the end that Aristotle places the stimulus for the brave act which of itself brings pain. Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori ("It is sweet and noble to die for one's native land" -- Horace, Odes, III, ii, 13): the nobility is in the act, the sweetness chiefly in the anticipated consequences, excepting so far as there is a strongly felt nobility (Aristotle, Eth. Nic., III, 5-9) in the self-sacrifice. (3) St. Thomas keeps as close to Aristotle as he may, departing from him as to the dignity, perhaps, which is to be found in the passive martyr's death, as to the hope of future life, and as to the character of virtue as a matter mainly of fine conduct aesthetically. He calls the specific virtue of fortitude that which braves the greatest dangers and therefore that which meets the risk of life in battle. Fortitude is concerned not so much with audacia as with timor: not so much with aggredi (attack) as with sustinere (endurance): which means that the courageous man has to attend rather to bearing up against terrifying circumstances than to mastering his impetuosity or else to arousing it to the requisite degree: principalior actus fortitudinis est sustinere, immobiliter sistere in periculis, quam aggredi. Seneca as a Stoic also attacks Aristotle's use of anger as an instrument in the hand of virtue; he treats the passion as bad and to suppressed. In the onslaught is displayed the animal excitement, the battle rage, which St. Thomas calls the irascible passion: and of this St. Thomas says, what Aristotle says of thymos, that it is an agency to be used by the rational will within due limits. Anything like a malignant desire to slaughter a hated enemy out of vengeance or out of savage delight in blood-shedding should be excluded. For the endurance (sustinere), says St. Thomas, the irascible part is not demanded, since the reasonable will suffice, "as the act of endurance rests only with the reason per se". As a cardinal virtue, which is a consideration not taken up by Aristotle, fortitude is treated by St. Thomas from the aspect of its need for ensuring the stability of the virtues in general: Cardinales principales dicuntur virtutes, quoe proecipue sibi vindicant id quod pertinet communiter ad virtutes. Virtues in general must act with that firmness which fortitude bestows (II-II, Q, cxxiii). (4) Fortitude as one of the gifts from the Holy Ghost is a supernatural virtue, and passes beyond the Aristotelian range. It is what, as Christians, we must always have in mind in order to make our actions acceptable for eternal life. But we still keep hold upon the natural principles of fortitude as those whereon grace has to build. In the spiritual life of the ordinary Christian much that Aristotle has said remains in its own degree true, though we have to depart especially from the master's insistence upon the field of battle. Our exercise is mainly not in war strictly so-called, but in moral courage against the evil spirit of the times, against improper fashions, against human respect, against the common tendency to seek at least the comfortable, if not the voluptuous. We need courage also to be patient under poverty or privation, and to make laudable struggles to rise in the social scale. I requires fortitude to mount above the dead level of average Christianity into the region of magnanimity, and if opportunity allow it, of magnificence, which are the allied virtues of fortitude, while another is perseverance, which tolerates no occasional remissness, still less occasional bouts of dissipation to relieve the strain of high-toned morality and religion. (5) The physical conditions of fortitude are treated for instance by Bain in "The Emotions and the Will", and they are such as these: "goodness of nervous tone which keeps all the currents in their proper courses with a certain robust persistence; health and freshness; tonic coolness; light and buoyant spirit; elate and sanguine temperament; acquired mastery over terror, as when the soldier gets over the cannon fever of his first engagement, and the public speaker over the nervousness of his first speech" (Chap V, no. 17). These physical matters, though not directly moral, are worthy of attention; there is much interaction between moral and physical qualities, and our duty is to cultivate the two departments of Fortitude conjointly. See authors quoted in this article and in the article CARDINAL VIRTUES. J. RICKABY Fortunato of Brescia Fortunato of Brescia Morphologist and Minorite of the Reform of Lombardy; b. at Brescia, 1701; d. at Madrid, 1754. He received the religious habit in 1718. A distinguished philosopher and theologian, Fortunato was also renowned for his studies in the natural sciences. He was secretary general of his order, and stood in high favour at the Bourbon court of Spain. A special importance attaches to his philosophical works, as he was among the first to bring together the teachings of Scholastic philosophy and the discoveries of the physical sciences. His scientific work is rendered important by his extensive use of the microscope, in which he followed the lead of Malpighi. Avoiding the then prevalent discussions on vitalism, he devoted himself to a positive study of the problems of natural science. Convinced that a knowledge of microscopic anatomy is the key to the secrets of nature, he deemed two things to be of prime importance: first, an experimental study of the histological constitution of the various organs, to learn their functions; and second, the separation of these organs into their elements, to determine their embryological origin. In spite of all opposition, this view, so clearly set forth in the works of Fortunato, has prevailed in pathological and physiological schools, and has indicated a method of examining what was formerly considered the most complex and delicate part of the human body, namely the central nervous system. The same view has also led to some of the most remarkable discoveries in biology. In this sense Fortunato is a pioneer. In fact it was century after that Bichat, following Bourdeu's lead, and, later on, Cuvier, advanced in the same direction. True to his purpose, Fortunato gave no heed to the anti-vitalistic controversies of his day, and spent no time investigating plastic force and the nisus formativus; he confined himself to the microscopic study of the parts of the organism, and in this way succeeded in classifying tissues and organs many years before Bichat (1800), who received all the credit for the classification. Fortunato was the first to distinguish between tissues and organs. He established the idea of tissues, or, as he wrote, "of those organic parts which possess a definite structure visible with the microscope and characterized by their component elements". With sufficient accuracy he described connective and bony tissue. The morphological complexus of the various tissues he calls the "system of tissues"; and the physiological complexus of the various organs he calls the "system of organs". These exact notions must have been the reward of wide and difficult investigation, as at the time there was no systematic technic in microscopy. From his many accurate descriptions, it is evident that his researches extended to many animals, and particularly to insects. In view of all this, it seems warranted to assert that Fortunato was the first morphologist, especially as not the slightest hint of this most important branch of comparative anatomy is found in Malpighi, Morgagni, Leeuwenhoek, or Haller, the path-finders in microscopic anatomy. GEMELLI, Un precursore della moderna morfologia comparata in Atti del Congresso dei Naturalisti Italiani (Milan, 1907); IDEM, P. Fortunato da Brescia in Rivista di fisica, matematica e scienze naturali (Pavia, 1908), with portrait and complete bibliography. A. GEMELLI Fortunatus Fortunatus Venantius Honorius Clementianus Fortunatus A Christian poet of the sixth century, b. between 530 and 540 in Upper Italy, between Ceneda and Treviso. He received his literary education at Ravenna. Here he first manifested his poetical ability by a poem celebrating the dedication of a church to St. Andrew by the bishop, Vitalis. He appears to have left Ravenna in 565, crossing the Alps and a part of Southern Germany and reaching in the autumn the banks of the Moselle. The stages of his journey may be traced in his poems. They were: Mainz, where he celebrated the construction of the baptistery and church of St. George (II, 11 and 12), and in which he compliments the bishop, Sidonius (IX, 9); Cologne, where he accepted the hospitality of Bishop Carentinus (III, 14); Trier, where he praises Bishop Nicetius (III, 11) who had built a castle on the Moselle (III, 12); Metz, which he describes (III, 13). He then made a journey on the Moselle, of which he gives a humorous account (IV, 8). But the principal event of his sojourn at Metz was his presentation at the court of King Sigebert, where he arrived at the time of the king's marriage with Brunehild (566), for which occasion he wrote and epithalamium (VI, 1). Shortly afterwards Brunehild renounced Arianism for Catholicism and Fortunatus extolled this conversion (VI, 1a). He won the favour of the courtiers by his eulogies, notably that of Gogo and Duke Lupus, the latter one of the most remarkable men of the time, a real survival, amid barbarian surroundings, of Roman culture and traditions. Fortunatus soon resumed his journey. New poems repaid the hospitality of the Bishops of Verdun (II, 23) and Reims (III, 15); at Soissons he venerated the tomb of St. Medardus (II, 16), and finally arrived at Paris, where he praised the clergy for their zeal in reciting the Divine Office (II, 9). His description of the chanting of the Office on the eve of a feast accompanied by an orchestra is a curious document. He made the acquaintance of King Caribert, whom he compares to Solomon, Trajan, and Fabius, and whose Latin eloquence he praises highly (VI, 2). From Paris he went to Tours, which was probably his original destination, for while at Ravenna he had been miraculously cured of a disease of the eyes through the intercession of St. Martin. He worshipped at the tomb of the saint and gave thanks to the bishop, Euphronius (III, 3), whom he afterwards came to know more intimately. From Tours Fortunatus went to Poitiers, attracted, no doubt, by the renown of St. Radegunde and her monastery. This circumstance had a decisive influence on the remainder of his life. Radegunde, daughter of the King of Thuringia, had been taken prisoner by Clotaire I, the son of Clovis, after the defeat of her uncle, Hermanfried, and the conquest of her country (531). Hermanfried had slain her father. She became, against her will the wife of Clotaire. Her brother having been put to death by the Franks, she sought refuge with St. Medardus, Bishop of Vermandois (St-Quentin and Soissons), who caused her to take the veil, and she remained at Poitiers. The monastery of Poitiers was very large and contained about 200 religious. At first they lived without a definite rule, but about 567 Radegunde accepted that of St. Caesarius of Arles. At this time, which was previous to the death of Caribert (568), she caused the consecration as abbess of her beloved adoptive daughter Agnes. It was at the same period that Fortunatus became the friend of the two women and took up his residence at Poitiers, where he remained till the death of Radegunde, 13 Aug., 587, Agnes, doubtless, having died shortly before. The closest friendship sprang up between them, Fortunatus calling Radegunde his mother and Agnes his sister. It was one of those tender and chaste friendships between ecclesiastics and pious women; similar, for example, to the relations between St. Jerome and the Roman ladies, delicate friendships enhanced by solid piety, confirmed in peace by a mutual love of God, and which do not exclude the charming child's play usually making feminine friendship. In this instance it brought about a constant interchange of letter in which the art and grace of Fortunatus found their natural vent. He was an epicure, and there were sent to him from the convent, milk, eggs, dainty dishes, and savoury meats in the artistic arrangement of which the cooks of antiquity exercised their ingenuity. He did not allow himself to be outdone and sent to his friends at one time flowers, at another chestnuts in a basket woven by his own hands. The little poems which accompanied them are not included in the works published by Fortunatus himself; it is probable that many of them are lost, no great importance being attached to them. Circumstances provided him with the graver subjects which necessitated the production of more serious works. About 568 Radegunde received from Emperor Justin a particle of the True Cross, to which the monastery had been dedicated, and Fortunatus was commissioned to thank the emperor and empress for their gift. This religious event led him to write a series of poems (II, 1-6); two, the "Vexilla Regis Prodeunt" and the "Pange Lingua" (II, 6, 2), have been adopted by the Church. The vigorous movement of these poems shows that Fortunatus was not lacking in strength and seriousness. Two of this series are "figurate" poems, i.e. the letters of each verse, being arranged with due regularity, form artistic designs. It was one of the least happy inventions of this period of literary decadence. Radegunde was in constant communication with Constantinople, for Amalafried, a cousin whom she dearly loved, had found refuge in the East where he was in the service of the Empire. Through Fortunatus Radegunde bewailed the sad lot of her country and her family; this long elegy, full of life and movement, and addressed to Amalafried, is one of the poets best and most celebrated works (Appendix, I). Another elegy deplores the premature death of Amalafried (Appendix, 3). The death of Galeswintha was also the occasion of one of those elegies in which Fortunatus shows himself at once so profound and so natural. This princess, the sister of Brunehild, was married to Chilperic, and had just been put to death by the order of her husband (569 or 570). Shortly before this Fortunatus had seen her arrive from Spain and pass through Poitiers in a silver chariot, and it was on this occasion she had won the heart of Radegunde. In recalling these things and in his portrayal of the mother of the unhappy young woman and their heart-breaking farewell, he succeeded, despite many rhetorical artifices, in depicting true grief. Other poems written at Poitiers deal with religious subjects. Fortunatus explained to his "sister" Agnes that his love was wholly fraternal (XI, 6), and devoted 400 lines to the praise of virginity (VIII, 3). While abounding in Christian sentiments he develops in a singularly realistic style the inconveniences of marriage, especially the physiological sufferings it imposes upon woman. It is probably an academic theme. Fortunatus also took part in ecclesiastical life, assisting at synods, being invited to the consecration of churches, all of which occasions were made the pretext for verses. He was especially associated with Gregory of Tours, who influenced him to make and publish a collection of his verses, with Leontius of Bordeaux, who sent him many invitations, and with Felix of Nantes, whom he praised, especially for the rectifying of a watercourse (III, 10). Fortunatus was now a celebrated man and a much-sought-for guest. Rendered more free by the death of his friends, he visited the Court of Austrasia, where he was received with greater evidence of regard than on a former occasion when he had arrived from Italy poor and unknown. To this period belongs his account of a journey on the Moselle which is full of graceful details (X, 10). He celebrates the completion of the basilica of Tours in 590 (X, 6), and in 591 the consecration of Plato, the new Bishop of Poitiers, an archdeacon of Gregory (X, 14). His predecessor Maroveus, whose barbarous name indicates that he was a person lacking in culture, had been entirely neglected by the Roman Fortunatus and his refined friends. This date is the last known to us, but some time before the end of the sixth century he succeeded to the See of Poitiers. In the episcopal list of that city he follows Plato and may have become bishop about 600. He was already dead when, shortly after this time, Baudonivia, a nun of the monastery of the Holy Cross, added a second book to Venantius' life of Radegunde. The poems of Fortunatus comprise eleven book. The researches of Wilhelm Meyer have established the fact that Fortunatus himself published successively Books I-VIII, about 576; Book IX in 584 0r 585; Book X after 591. Book XI seems to be a posthumous collection. A Paris manuscript has happily preserved some poems not found in the eleven-book manuscripts. These poems form an appendix in Leo's edition. Apart from these occasional poems Fortunatus wrote between 573 and 577 a poem in four books on St. Martin. He follows exactly the account of Sulpicius Severus, but has abridged it to such an extent as to render his won work obscure unless with the aid of Sulpicius Severus. He wrote in rhythmic prose the lives of several saints, St. Albin, Bishop of Angers, St. Hilary and Pascentius, Bishops of Poitiers, St. Marcellus of Paris, St. Germanus of Paris (d. 576), his friend Radegunde, St. Paternus, Bishop of Avranches, and St. Medardus. The poetical merit of Fortunatus should not be overestimated. Like most poets of this period of extreme decadence, he delights in description, but is incapable of sustaining it; if the piece is lengthy his style runs into mannerisms. His vocabulary is varied but affected, and while his language is sufficiently exact, it is marred by a deliberate obscurity. These defects would render him intolerable had he not written in verse; poetic tradition, Boissier well says, imposed a certain sobriety. The prose prefaces which Fortunatus adds to each of his works exhibit a command of bombastic Latin scarcely inferior to the "Hisperica famina". His versification is monotonous, and faults of prosody are not rare. By his predilection for the distich he furnished the model for most Carlovingian poetry. Fortunatus, like a true Roman, expresses with delicate sincerity the sentiments of intimacy and tenderness, especially when mournful and anxious. He interprets with success the emotions aroused by the tragic occurrences of surrounding barbarian life, particularly in the hearts of women, too often in those times the victims of brutal passions. In this way, and by his allusions to contemporary events and persons, and his descriptions of churches and works of art, he is the painter of Merovingian society. His entire work is an historical document. Fortunatus has been praised for abstaining from the use of mythological allegory, despite the fact that his epithalamium for Sigebert is a dialogue between Venus and Love. Occasionally on encounters in his works the traditional academic themes, but in general he refrains from these literary ornaments less through disdain than through necessity. Every writer of occasional verse is perforce a realist, e.g. Statius in the "Silvae", Martial in his epigrams. In his portrayal of the barbarian society of Gaul Fortunatus exhibits the manner in which contemporary Christian thought and life permeated its gross and uncultured environment. Leaving aside the bishops, all of them Gallo-Romans, it is the women of the period, owing to native intuition and mental refinement, who are most sensitive to this Christian culture. They are the first to appreciate delicacy of sentiment and charm of language, even refined novelties of cookery, that art of advanced civilizations and peoples on whose hands time hangs heavily. From this point of view it may be said that the friendship of Fortunatus with Radegunde and Agnes mirrors with great exactness the life of sixth-century Gaul. The best edition of Fortunatus is that of F. Leo and B. Krusch; the former edited the poems, the latter the prose writings in "Mon. Germ. Hist.: Acut." (Berlin, 1881-85), IV. Hamelin, De vita et operibus V. Fortunati (Rennes, 1873); Meyer, Der Gelegenheitdichter V. Fortunatus (Berlin, 1901); Leo, Venantius Fortunatus in Deutsche Rundschau (1882);, XXXII, 414-26; Bardenhewer, Patrology, tr. Shahan (Freiburg im B., St. Louis, 1908), 647-50. PAUL LEJAY Fort Wayne Fort Wayne DIOCESE OF (WAYNE CASTRENSIS). The Diocese of Vincennes, Indiana, U.S.A., established in 1834, comprised the whole State of Indiana till the Holy See, on 22 September, 1857, created the Diocese of Fort Wayne, assigning to it that part of Indiana north of the southern boundary of Warren, Fountain, Montgomery, Boone, Hamilton, Madison, Delaware, and Randolph Counties, a territory of 17,431 square miles, numbering 20,000 Catholics, with 14 priests, 20 churches, and two religious institutions, with educational establishments of the Fathers, Brothers, and Sisters of the Congregation of the Holy Cross. The Right Rev John Henry Luers was nominated first Bishop of Fort Wayne and consecrated in Cincinnati, Ohio, 10 January, 1858. He was born 29 September, 1819, in Germany, and emigrated to America in 1831. He was ordained priest in Cincinnati, 11 November, 1846. Entering upon the administration of the new diocese, he devoted himself zealously to the founding of new parishes and missions, provided a home for the orphans, and built a cathedral. In June, 1871, during a vacancy of the See of Cleveland, Ohio, he was called to that city to confer ordination on a number of seminarians. After the function, on his way to the train, he suffered an apoplectic stroke and fell dead (29 June, 1871). At the time of Bishop Luer's death there were in the Diocese of Fort Wayne 69 priests, 75 churches, 10 chapels, 1 hospital, 1 orphan asylum, 1 college, 11 academies for girls, 40 parochial schools, and a catholic population estimated at 50,000. The Rev. Joseph Dwenger was then appointed to the see. He was born near Minster, Ohio, in 1837. Orphaned at an early age, he was educated by the Fathers of the Precious Blo od, entered their community, and was ordained priest 4 September, 1859. Appointed professor in the seminary of his community, he filled that position until 1862, and was then assigned to parochial work. From 1867 to 1872 he was occupied in preaching missions. He was consecrated 14 April, 1872. In 1874 Bishop Dwenger was the head of the first American pilgrimage to Rome. In 1875 he erected an Orphan asylum and manual labour school for boys at Lafayette. He was a zealous promoter of the parochial school system. In 1884 he attended the Third Plenary Council at Baltimore, and in the following March was deputed, with Bishops Moore and Gilmour, to present the decrees of the council to the Holy Father. In 1886 he erected an asylum for orphan girls at Fort Wayne. In 1888 and in 1891 he again went to Rome, the last time in the interest of the North American College. Soon after his return he was attacked by a lingering illness, to which he succumbed 22 January, 1893. The Right Rev. Joseph Rademacher, Bishop of Nashville, Tennessee, was transferred to Fort Wayne, 13 July, 1893. He was born 3 December, 1840, in Westphalia, Michigan, and ordained priest 2 August, 1863, by Bishop Luers, to whose diocese he had been affiliated. In April, 1883, he was appointed Bishop of Nashville, Tennessee, and was consecrated 24 June. At Fort Wayne Bishop Rademacher applied himself assiduously to increase the number of churches, schools, and missions. In 1896 he remodelled the cathedral at an expense of $75,000. In 1898 his health gave way. Symptoms of mental collapse appeared and he had to relinquish the government of the diocese. He expired peacefully 12 January, 1900. During his illness, and until the appointment of a successor, Very Rev. J. H. Guendling, vicar-general and pastor of the cathedral, was administrator of the diocese. The Rev. H. J. Alerding, pastor of St. Joseph's Church, Indianapolis, was appointed successor of Bishop Rademacher 30 Aug., 1900. He was born 13 April, 1845, in Germany. During his infancy his parents emigrated to the United States and settled in Newport, Kentucky. He was ordained priest by Bishop Maurice de St. Palais of Vincennes 22 September, 1868, and appointed assistant at St. Joseph's church, Terre Haute, where he remained till 1871, attending, besides, a number of missions. From October,1871, to August, 1874, he was pastor of Cambridge City, whence he was transferred to Indianapolis and entrusted with the organization of St. Joseph's parish, where he built the church, the school, and a parochial residence. In 1885 he published "A History of the Catholic Church in the Diocese of Vincennes", a work of deep historical research and accuracy. Bishop Alerding was consecrated in the cathedral of Fort Wayne 30 November, 1900. Since then he has founded new parishes, aided struggling ones, reorganised the parochial school system, provided for the orphans and promoted all good works. He held a diocesan synod in the cathedral 11 November 1903. The statute's enacted were promulgated 19 March, 1904. Among other salutary regulations the establishment of six deaneries was decreed -- Fort Wayne, South Bend, Hammond, Logansport, Lafayette, and Muncie. In 1907, for the fiftieth anniversary of the creation of the diocese, Bishop Alerding, published "A History of the Diocese of Fort Wayne, an elaborate historical work, covering the period from 1669 to 1907. Diocesan statistics for 1908 give priests, secular, 128; religious, 71; churches with resident priest, 110; missions with churches, 43; stations, 6; chapels, 49; parochial schools, 82, with 14,252 pupils; orphan asylums, 2; orphans, 239; hospitals, 13; old people's homes, 2; Catholic population, 93,844. Educational Institutions: the University of Notre Dame, in charge of the Fathers of the Holy Cross; St. Joseph's College (Collegeville), conducted by the Fathers of the Precious Blood. For girls: academies, 11. The number of pupils in colleges and academies is 1262. Religious Communities. -- Men: Fathers and Brothers of the Holy Cross: Franciscans; Fathers and Brothers of the Precious Blood. Women: Sisters of the Holy Cross; Poor Handmaids of Christ; Franciscan Sisters (various branches); Dominican Sisters; Sisters of the Precious Blood; of Notre Dame; of St. Joseph; Of Providence; of the Holy Family; of St. Agnes. The following communities have novitiates in the diocese; The Fathers and Brothers of the Holy Cross at Notre Dame; the Franciscan Sisters of Perpetual Adoration, at Lafayette; the Sisters of the Holy Cross, at Notre Dame; the Poor Handmaids of Christ, at Fort Wayne; the Sisters of St. Joseph, at Tipton. ALERDING, The diocese of Fort Wayne (Fort Wayne, 1907); The Catholic Directory (Milwaukee, Wisconsin). BONAVENTURE HAMMER Forty Hours' Devotion Forty Hours' Devotion Also called Quarant' Ore or written in one word Quarantore, is a devotion in which continuous prayer is made for forty hours before the Blessed Sacrament exposed. It is commonly regarded as of the essence of the devotion that it should be kept up in a succession of churches, terminating in one at about the same hour at which it commences in the next, but this question will be discussed in the historical summary. A solemn high Mass, "Mass of Exposition", is sung at the beginning, and another, the "Mass of Deposition", at the end of the period of forty hours; and both these Masses are accompanied by a procession of the Blessed Sacrament and by the chanting of the litanies of the saints. The exact period of forty hours' exposition is not in practice very strictly adhered to; for the Mass of Deposition is generally sung, at about the same hour of the morning, two days after the Mass of Exposition. On the intervening day a solemn Mass pro pace is offered -- if possible, at a different altar from the high altar upon which the Blessed Sacrament is exposed. It is assumed that the exposition and prayer should be kept up by night as well as by day, but permission is given to dispense with this requirement when an adequate number of watchers cannot be obtained. In such a case the interruption of the devotion by night does not forfeit the indulgences conceded by the Holy See to those who take part in it. HISTORY OF THE DEVOTION Although the precise origin of the Forty Hours' Devotion is wrapped in a good deal of obscurity, there are certain facts which must be accepted without dispute. The Milanese chronicler Burigozzo (see "Archiv. Stor, Ital.", III, 537), who was a contemporary, clearly describes the custom of exposing the Blessed Sacrament in one church after another as a novelty which began at Milan, in May, 1537. He does not ascribe the introduction of this practice to any one person; but he gives details as to the church with which it started, etc., and his notice seems to have been actually written in that year. Less than two years afterwards, we have the reply of Pope Paul III to a petition soliciting indulgences for the practice. This is so important, as embodying an official statement of the original purpose of the devotion, that we copy it here: "Since [says the pontiff] . . . Our beloved son the Vicar General of the Archbishop of Milan at the prayer of the inhabitants of the said city, in order to appease the anger of God provoked by the offences of Christians, and in order to bring to nought the efforts and machinations of the Turks who are pressing forward to the destruction of Christendom, amongst other pious practices, has established a round of prayers and supplications to be offered both by day and night by all the faithful of Christ, before our Lord's Most Sacred Body, in all the churches of the said city, in such a manner that these prayers and supplications are made by the faithful themselves relieving each other in relays for forty hours continuously in each church in succession, according to the order determined by the Vicar . . . We, approving in our Lord so pious an institution, and confirming the same by Our authority, grant and remit", etc. (Sala, "Documenti", IV, 9; cf. Ratti in "La Scuola Cattolica" [1895], 204). The parchment is endorsed on the back in a contemporary hand, "The first concession of Indulgence" etc., and we may feel sure that this is the earliest pronouncement of the Holy See upon the subject. But the practice without doubt spread rapidly, though the details cannot be traced exactly. Already before the year 1550 this, or some analogous exposition, had been established by St. Philip Neri for the Confraternity of the Trinita dei Pellegrini in Rome; while St. Ignatius Loyola, at about the same period, seems to have lent much encouragement to the practice, of exposing the Blessed Sacrament during the carnival, as an act of expiation for the sins committed at that season. As this devotion also commonly lasted for a period of about two days or forty hours, it seems likewise to have shared the name "Quarant' Ore"; and under this name it is still maintained in many places abroad, more especially in France and Italy. This form of the practice was especially promoted by the Oratorian Father, Blessed Juvenal Ancina, Bishop of Saluzzo, who has left elaborate instructions for the carrying out of the devotion with greater solemnity and decorum. It seems that it is especially in connection with these exercises, as they flourished under the direction of the Oratorian Fathers, that we trace the beginning of those sacred concerts of which the memory is perpetuated in the musical "Oratorios" of our greatest composers. Elaborate instructions for the regulation of the Quarant' Ore and for an analogous devotion called "Oratio sine intermissione" (uninterrupted prayer) were also issued by St. Charles Borromeo and will be found among the Acta Mediolanensis Ecelesiae". However, the most important document belonging to this matter is the Constitution "Graves et diuturnae" of Pope Clement VIII, 25 Nov., 1592. In the presence of numberless dangers threatening the peace of Christendom and especially of the distracted state of France, the pontiff strongly commends the practice of unwearied prayer. "We have determined", he says, "to establish publicly in this Mother City of Rome (in hac alma Urbe) an uninterrupted course of prayer in such wise that in the different churches (he specifies the various categories), on appointed days, there be observed the pious and salutary devotion of the Forty Hours, with such an arrangement of churches and times that, at every hour of the day and night, the whole year round, the incense of prayer shall ascend without intermission before the face of the Lord". It will be noticed that, as in the case of the previously cited Brief of Paul III, the keynote of this document is anxiety for the peace of Christendom. "Pray," he says, "for the concord of Christian princes, pray for France, pray that the enemies of our faith the dreaded Turks, who in the heat of their presumptuous fury threaten slavery and devastation to all Christendom, may be overthrown by the right hand of the Almighty God". Curiously enough the document contains no explicit mention of the exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, but inasmuch as this feature had been familiar on such occasions of public prayer both in Milan and at Rome itself for more than half a century, we may infer that when the pope speaks of "the pious and salutary devotion of the Forty Hours" he assumes that the prayer is made before the Blessed Sacrament exposed. More than a century later Pope Clement XII, in 1731, issued a very minute code of instructions for the proper carrying out of the Quarant' Ore devotion. Upon this, which is known as the "Instructio Clementina", a word must be said later. With regard to the actual originator of the Forty Hours' Devotion there has been much difference of opinion. The dispute is too intricate to be discussed here in detail. On the whole the evidence seems to favour the conclusion that a Capuchin Father, Joseph Piantanida da Fermo, was the first to organise the arrangement by which the Forty Hours' Exposition was transferred from church to church in Milan and was there kept up without interruption throughout all the year (see Norbert in the" Katholik", Aug., 1898). On the other hand, the practice of exposing the Blessed Sacrament with solemnity for forty hours was certainly older; and in Milan itself there is good evidence that one Antonio Bellotto organized this in connexion with a certain confraternity at the church of the Holy Sepulchre as early as 1527. Moreover, a Dominican, Father Thomas Nieto, the Barnabite, St. Antonio Maria Zaccharia, and his friend, Brother Buono of Cremona, known as the Hermit, have all been suggested as the founders of the Forty Hours' Devotion. The claims of the last named, Brother Buono, have recently been urged by Bergamaschi ("La Scuola Cattolica", Milan, Sept., 1908, 327-333), who contends that the Quarant' Ore had been started by Brother Buono at Cremona in 1529. But the evidence in all these cases only goes to show that the practice was then being introduced of exposing the Blessed Sacrament with solemnity on occasions of great public calamity or peril, and that for such expositions the period of forty hours was generally selected. That this period of forty hours was so selected seems in all probability due to the fact that this was about the length of time that the Body of Christ remained in the tomb, and that the Blessed Sacrament in the Middle Ages was left in the Easter Sepulchre. St. Charles Borromeo speaks as if this practice of praying for forty hours was of very ancient date; and he distinctly refers it to the forty hours our Lord's Body remained in the tomb, seeing that this was a period of watching, suspense, and ardent prayer on the part of all His disciples. In all probability this was the exact truth. The practice of reserving the Blessed Sacrament with some solemnity in the Easter Sepulchre began in the thirteenth or fourteenth century; and seems in some places, e.g. at Zara in Dalmatia, to have been popularly known as the "Prayer [or Supplication] of the Forty Hours". From this the idea grew up of transferring this figurative vigil of forty hours to other days and other seasons. The transference to the carnival tide was very obvious, and is likely enough to have occurred independently to many different people. This seems to have been the case with Father Manare, S.J., at Macerata, c. 1548, but probably the idea suggested itself to others earlier than this. RUBRICAL REQUIREMENTS The "Instructio Clementina" for the Quarant' Ore which has been already mentioned stands almost alone among rubrical documents in the minuteness of detail into which it enters. It has also been made the subject of an elaborate commentary by Gardellini. Only a few details can be given here. The Blessed Sacrament is always, except in the patriarchal basilicas, to be exposed upon the high altar. Statues, pictures, and relics in the immediate neighbourhood are to be removed or covered. At least twenty candles are to be kept burning day and night. The altar of exposition is only to be tended by clerics wearing surplices. Everything is to be done, e.g. by hanging curtains at the doorways, by prohibiting the solicitation of alms, etc., to promote recollection and silence. There must be continuous relays of watchers before the Blessed Sacrament; and these, if possible, should include a priest or cleric in higher orders who alone is permitted to kneel within the sanctuary. At night the great doors of the church must be closed and women excluded. No Masses must be said at the altar at which the Blessed Sacrament is exposed. Precise regulations are made as to the Masses to be said at the time of Exposition and Deposition. Except on greater feasts, this Mass must he a solemn votive Mass de Sanctissimo Sacramento. No bells are to be rung in the church at any private Masses which may be said there while the Blessed Sacrament is exposed. When a votive Mass de Sanctissimo Sacramento cannot be said, according to the rubrics, the collect of the Blessed Sacrament is at least to be added to the collects of the Mass. No Requiem Masses are permitted. As already intimated, the Mass pro pace is to be sung on the second day of the Exposition; and the litanies of the saints are to be chanted under conditions minutely specified, at the conclusion of the procession both at the opening and close of the Quarant' Ore. Finally it may be said that this "Instructio Clementina" is the foundation upon which is based the ritual for all ordinary Benedictions and Expositions. For example, the incensing of the Blessed Sacrament at the words "Genitori Genitoque" of the "Tantum Ergo", the use of the humeral veil, and the giving of the Blessing with the monstrance, etc., are all exactly prescribed in section thirty-one of the same document. WILDT in Kirchenlex., V, 151-155; THURSTON, Lent and Holy Week (London, 1904), III, 110-148; RAIBLE, Der Tabernakel einst und jetzt (Freiburg, 1908), 273-292; NORBERT, Zur Geschichte des vierzigstundigen Gebetes in Katholik, Aug., 1898, 15 sqq.; RATTI, in La Scuola Cattolica of Milan, Aug., 1985; and also BERGAMASHI, Dell' Origine delle SS. Quarantore (Cremona, 1897); GARDELLINI, in MUHLBAUER, Decreta Authenitica Cong. SS. Rituum, I. Further authorities are cited in the notes to the chapter of Lent and Holy Week just mentioned. HERBERT THURSTON Forty Martyrs Forty Martyrs A party of soldiers who suffered a cruel death for their faith, near Sebaste, in Lesser Armenia, victims of the persecutions of Licinius, who, after the year 316, persecuted the Christians of the East. The earliest account of their martyrdom is given by St. Basil, Bishop of Caesarea (370-379), in a homily delivered on the feast of the Forty Martyrs (Hom. xix in P.G., XXXI, 507 sqq.). The feast is consequently more ancient than the episcopate of Basil, whose eulogy on them was pronounced only fifty or sixty years after martyrdom, which is thus historic beyond a doubt. According to St. Basil, forty soldiers who had openly confessed themselves Christians were condemned by the prefect to be exposed naked upon a frozen pond near Sebaste on a bitterly cold night, that they might feeze to death. Among the confessors, one yielded and, leaving his companions, sought the warm baths near the lake which had been prepared for any who might prove inconstant. One of the guards set to keep watch over the martyrs beheld at this moment a supernatural brilliancy overshadowing them and at once proclaimed himself a Christian, threw off his garments, and placed himself beside the thirty-nine soldiers of Christ. Thus the number of forty remained complete. At daybreak, the stiffened bodies of the confessors, which still showed signs of life, were burned and the ashes cast into a river. The Christians, however, collected the precious remains, and the relics were distributed throught many cities; in this way the veneration paid to the Forty Martyrs became widespread, and numerous churches were erected in their honour. One of them was built at Caesarea, in Cappadocia, and it was in this church that St. Basil publicly delivered his homily. St. Gregory of Nyssa was a special client of these holy martyrs. Two discourses in praise of them, preached by him in the church dedicated to them, are still preserved (P. G., XLVI, 749 sqq., 773 sqq.) and upon the death of his parents, he laid them to rest beside the relics of the confessors. St. Ephraem, the Syrian, has also eulogized the forty Martyrs (Hymni in SS. 40 martyres). Sozomen, who was an eye-witness, has left us (Hist. Eccl., IX, 2) an interesting account of the finding of the relics in Constantinople through the instrumentality of the Empress Pulcheria. Special devotion to the forty martyrs of Sebaste was introduced at an early date into the West. St. gaudentius, Bishop of Brescia in the beginning of the fifth century (d. about 410 or 427), received paticles of the ashes of martyrs during a voyage in the East, and placed them with other relics in the altar of the basilica which he had erected, at the consecration of which he delivered a discourse, still extant (P. L., XX, 959 sqq.) Near the Church of Santa Maria Antiqua, in the Roman Forum, built in the fifth century, a chapel was found, built, like the church itself, on an ancient site, and consecrated to the Forty Martyrs. A picture, still preserved there, dating from the sixth or seventh century, depicts the scene of the martydom. The names of the confessors, as we find them also in later sources, were formerly inscribed on this fresco. Acts of these martyrs, written subsequently, in Greek, Syriac and Latin, are yet extant, also a "Testament" of the Forty Martyrs. Their feast is celebrated in the Greek, as well as in the Latin Church, on 9 March. J.P. KIRSCH Ecclesiastical Forum Ecclesiastical Forum That the Church of Christ has judicial and coercive power is plain from the constitution given to it by its Divine Founder. (See COURTS, ECCLESIASTICAL.) This judicial jurisdiction is expressed by the word Forum, the Latin designation for a place containing a tribunal of justice. As the Church is a perfect society, she possesses within herself all the powers necessary to direct her members to the end for which she was instituted and she has a correlative right to be obeyed by those subject to her. This right is called jurisdiction, and it is the source of all the Church's action that is not derived from the power of Sacred orders. It is this jurisdiction which is the foundation of ecclesiastical law, both externally and internally binding, and from Apostolic times it has been put into practice by the Church's rulers. The public judicial power of the Church is explicitly mentioned in Holy Scripture (Matt. xviii, 17), and the exercise of it is also recorded (Acts, xv, 29). In other words, just as the civil state has the legitimate jurisdiction over its subjects to guide them to the end for which it is instituted, because it is a perfect society, so likewise the Church, being constituted by Christ as a perfect society, possesses within itself all the powers necessary for lawfully and effectively attaining the end for which it was established. As the power of the Church extends not only to its individual members but also to the whole corporate body, not only to questions concerning the conscience but also to the public actions of its subjects, ecclesiastical jurisdiction is distinguished into that of the internal and external forum. The jurisdiction of the internal forum deals with questions concening the welfare of individual Christians and with their relation to God. Hence it is called the forum of conscience (Forum conscientiae). It is also denominated the forum of Heaven (forum poli) because it guides the soul on the path to God. The internal forum is subdivided into the sacramental or penitential, which is exercised in the tribunal of penance or at least is connected with it, and the extra penitential forum. Causes concerning the private and secret needs of the faithful can often be expedited outside the sacramental confession. Thus, vows may be dispensed, secret censures may be absolved, occult impediments of matrimony may be dispensed outside of the tribunal of penance. The internal forum deals therefore directly with the spiritual welfare of the individual faithful. It has refererence to the corporate body only secondarily, in as much as the good of the whole organization is promoted by that of the individual members. Owing to the nature of the civil state and the end for which it was instituted, it has no jurisdiction corresponding to the ecclesiastical forum of conscience. Finally, it may so chance that circumstances may bring about a conflct between the internal and external forum. Thus, for example, a marriage may be null and void in the forum of conscience, but binding in the external forum for want of judicial proofs to the contrary, and vice versa. The Church's jurisdiction in the external forum has reference to matters touching the public and social good of the corporate body. It corresponds, consequently, very closely to the powers exercised by civil magistrates in affairs belonglng to their competence. While the external forum may busy itself with the concerns of individuals, it does so only in as far as these affect the public good. Thus the absolution of sins belongs to the internal forum, but the concession of the faculty for performing such absolution is an act of the external forum. The jurisdiction of the external forum is subdivided into voluntary and necessary. Voluntary, or extra-judicial, is that which a superior can exercise towards those who invoke his power, or even against those who are unwilling, but without his using the formalities prescribed in law. Necessary or contentious jurisdiction is that which the judge employs in punishing crimes or deciding disputes according to prescribed forms. In general, the acts of jurisdiction of the external forum are the decision of disputes concerning faith, morals or discipline, the making and enforcing the of laws, the punishment of transgressors of ecclesiastical statutes, and the like. The competence of the ecclesiastical forum arises either from the persons or the cause to be judged. As to persons, all clerics are subject to its judgments both in civil and criminal causes (see IMMUNITIES, CLERICAL). As to causes: they may be purely civil, or ecclesiastical, or they may be mixed. Purely civil causes would not of themselves properly belong to the Church's forum, as she recognizes the full competence of the state in such matters. Accidentally, however, such causes might be brought before the ecclesiastical judge. This supposes, however, the practical recognition of the Church's forum by the civil power. Ecclesiastical causes themselves are called civil when they concern either spiritual things, as the sacraments, or matters connected with them, as church property, the right of patronage, etc. They are called criminal when they involve the dealing with delinquents guilty of simony, apostasy, schism and the like. They are called mixed causes when they are subjects proper for decision by either the ecclesiastical or civil forum, as usurious contracts, concubinage, violations of the Church's peace, etc. Causes are likewise called mixed when they have both a spiritual and temporal end. Thus matrimony, in its sacramental nature as to validity or nullity, belongs to the Church; in its temporal aspect, as to the property of married persons and similar things, it may be dealt with by the civil tribunals. To this class of mixed causes can also be reduced the suppression of heresy, where Church and State cooperate with each other for the maintenance of the integrity or the faith and the preservation of the civil peace. Finally, many causes, of their nature civil, are accounted mixed by canonists, either because the State relinquished them to the Church's tribunals or custom gradually caused them to be relegated to the ecclesiastical forum, such as the recognition of last wills and testaments, the care of the poor, etc The punishments which may be inflicted by the external ecclesiastical forum are not only spiritual as excommunication, but also temporal or corporal. As regards the infliction of the death penalty, canonists generally hold that ecclesiastical law forbids inferior church tribunals to decree this punishment directly, but that the pope or a general council has the power, at least indirectly, in as much as they can demand that a Catholic state inflict this punishment when the good of the Church requires it. Finally, they hold that there is no valid argument to prove that the direct exercise of this power does not fall within the competence of the ecclesiastical forum, although it was the custom of the latter to hand over the criminal to the secular arm for the infliction of the death penalty. The encroachments of the civil power on the Church's jurisdiction have in our days, practically though unwarrantly, restricted the ecclesiatical forum to spiritual causes only. WILLIAM H.W. FANNING Fossano Fossano DIOCESE OF FOSSANO (FOSSANENSIS). Fossano is a town in the province of Cuneo, in Piedmont, Northern Italy, a suffragan of Turin, situated in a fertile plain on the banks of the Stura; it is an important centre for agriculture and farm-stock; other industries are silk-weaving, paper-making, and basket-making; there are also some mineral springs in the neighbourhood. In the early middle ages it was an independent commune, but it soon passed under the sway of the Marquesses of Saluzzo, who in turn with the House of Asti held it from 1251 to 1305. From 1305 to 1314 it belonged to King Robert of Naples, when it passed into the hands of the House of Savoy, whose head dwelt there for some time in the "castello" or stronghold still shown. In 1396 the town was destroyed by Facino Cane, the visconti condottiere, then planning a "stato" of his own, inclusive of Alessandria, Novara and Tortona. In 1535 it was taken by the French during their invasion of Lombardy; in the following year they were driven out by Charles V, after a long siege. The French again captured it in 1796, and in 1799 the Austrians, under General Melas, drove out the French under Championnet. The painter and architect, Ambrogio da Fossano, better known as "Il Borgognone", designer of the Certosa at Pavia, was a native of Fossano. The episcopal see dates from 1592; from 1801 to 1817 it was suppressed, after which it was again re-established. It contains 25 parishes and 36,000 souls, has 3 religious houses for men and 13 for women, 2 educational establishments for boys and 2 for girls, 5 charitable institutions, and one weekly Catholic paper. U. BENIGNI Fossombrone (Forum Sempronii) Fossombrone (Forum Sempronii) DIOCESE OF FOSSOMBRONE (FOROSEMPRONIENSIS). Diocese in the province of Pesaro, Italy, a suffragan of Urbino. The ancient Forum Sempronii took its name from Caius Sempronius Gracchus. The city and its environs abound in antiquities, especially inscriptions. Noteworthy remains are the statue of the god Vertumnus; the Furlo Pass, constructed by the Emperor Vespasian (70-76) to shorten the passage of that mountain; and the bridge of Trajan (115) near Calmazzo, and that of Diocletian (292), both over the Metaurus. Near the Furlo Pass, during the Gothic War, was fought (552) the battle of Petra Pertusa (the pierced rock), in which Totila was overcome by the Byzantine general, Narses. Fossombrone was included in the Donation of Pepin, but remained subject to the Duchy of Spoleto until 1198, when it passed under papal rule. It was then held in fief of the Holy See by different families: by the house of Este (1210-28), the Malatesta (1340-1445), the Montefeltro (of Urbino, 1445-1631); from 1500 to 1503 it acknowledged the rule of Caesar Borgia. Christianity was introduced there, according to Ughelli, by St. Felicianus of Foligno. The martyrologies mention several martyrs: Aquilinus, Geminus, Gelasius, Magnus and Donata, also a bishop, Timothy, and his daughter (4 February). The first bishop of certain date is Innocent, present at the synods of Pope Symmachus (504). Other noteworthy bishops were: Fulcuinus (1086), present at the Council of Salona as legate of Gregory VII to receive the oath of fidelity to the Holy See from Demetrius, King of Dalmatia; St. Aldebrando Faberi (1119), who died at the age of 118 years; Blessed Riccardo (date uncertain); Addo Ravieri (1379), poet and litterateur; Paul of Middelburg (1494), of German origin, a skilful mathematician, and author of a work on the computation of Easter; Giacomo Guidiccioni (1524), a famous poet and writer; Cardinal Nicolo Ardinghelli (1541), who left an important correspondence; Giulio Aloisini (1808), internuncio in Russia. The diocese has 20,050 inhabitants, 40 parishes, 1 educational institution, a Capuchin convent, and three religious houses of women. U. BENIGNI Fossors Fossors (Lat. fossores, fossarii from fodere, to dig). Grave diggers in the Roman catacombs in the first three or four centuries of the Christian Era. The determination, from the first days of the Church, of the ecclesiastical authorities to inter the mortal remains of the faithful in cemeteries reserved exclusively to Christians, brought into existence the class of workmen known as fossors. The duties of the Christian fossor corresponded in a general way with those of the pagan vespillones, but whereas the latter were held in anything but esteem in pagan society, the fossors from an early date were ranked among the inferior clergy of the Church (Wieland, Ordines Minores, 1897), an excellent example of the elevating influence of Christianity on the lowest orders of society. An interesting literary reference to fossors, in their character of one of the orders of the inferior clergy, is found in the "Gesta apud Zenophilum", an appendix to the work of St. Optatus of Mileve against the Donatists. Speaking of the "house in which Christians assembled" at Cirta in the year 303, during the persecution of Diocletian, this writer enumerates first the higher orders of the clergy present, from the bishop to the subdeacons, and then mentions by name the fossors Januarius, Heraclus, Fructuosus, et ceteris fossoribus ("Opp. S. Optati", ed. C. Ziwsa, in "Corpus Script. Eccl. Lat.", Vienna, 1893, XXVI, 187). St. Jerome also (Ep. xlix) alludes to fossors as clerici, and a sixth-century chronicle edited by Cardinal Mai (Spicil. Rom., IX, 133) enumerates the orders of the clergy as ostiarius, fossorius, lector, etc. At first the fossors seem to have received no regular salary, but were paid by individuals for the work accomplished; with the organization of the Church, however, they appear to have been paid from the common treasury. In the fourth century the corporation of fossors were empowered to sell burial spaces, as we learn from inscriptions. For example, in the cemetery of St. Cyriacus two women bought from the fossor Quintus a bisomus, or double grave, retro sanctos (near a martyr's tomb), and there are several other references to this practice. The corporation of fossors, there is good reason to believe, did not consist merely of the labourers who excavated the galleries of the catacombs; it included also the artists who decorated the tombs, as appears from another allusion in the "Gesta apud Zenophilum" already cited. According to this authority two fossors were brought before the judge (inductis et adplicitis Victore Samsurici et Saturnino fossoribus); when interrogated as to their calling, one replied that he was a fossor, the other that he was an antifex. The latter term at that period included the professions of painter and sculptor. Thus it would seem that this person who is generically referred to as a fossor is also an artist. Among the representations of fossors in the catacombs the one best known, through Wiseman's "Fabiola", is that of the fossor Diogenes, discovered by Boldetti. The picture, which was seriously injured in an attempt to remove it from the wall, represents Diogenes with his pick over his right shoulder and a sack, probably containing his midday meal, on his left shoulder, while in his left hand he carries a staff with a light attached. The inscription reads: DIOGENES FOSSOR, IN PACE DEPOSITVS, OCTABV KALENDAS OCTOBRIS (the fossor Diogenes, interred in peace, the eighth day before the calends of October). The oldest fresco of a fossor, or rather of two fossors, dating from the latter half of the second century, is in one of the so-called Sacrament Chapel in the catacomb of St. Callistus. The figures are represented pointing toward three Eucharistic scenes, probably to indicate another of their duties, which was to exclude unauthorized persons from taking part in the liturgical celebrations held occasionally in the cemeteries in commemoration of martyrs. Representations of fossors are usually near the entrance of the subterranean cemeteries. KRAUS in Real-Encyk. der christlichen Alterth=FCmer (Freiburg, 1882), s. v.; NORTHCOTE AND BROWNLOW, Roma Sotterranea (London, 1878); VENABLES in Dict. Christ. Antiq., s. v.; KAUFMANN, Manuale di archeol. cristiana (Rome, 1907). MAURICE M. HASSETT John Gray Foster John Gray Foster Soldier, convert, b. at Whitfield, New Hampshire, U.S.A., 27 May, 1823; d. at Nashua, New Hampshire, 2 September, 1874. After graduating at the West Point Military Academy in 1846, he served as a lieutenant in the Engineer Corps during the Mexican War, where he was wounded at the battle of Molino del Rey. A service on the Coast Survey, 1852-54, brought him promotion to a first lieutenancy and assignment as assistant professor of engineering at West Point, where he was stationed from 1855 to 1857. When the Civil War broke out Foster was in command at Fort Moultrie, Charleston harbour, and during the night of 26 December, 1860, succeeded in transferring the garrison under his command to Fort Sumter, in the subsequent defence of which he took so conspicuous a part as to earn the brevet rank of major. He was commissioned a brigadier-general of volunteers, 23 October, 1861, and assisted in Burnside's North Carolina expedition. It was at this time that his conversion occurred, his baptism taking place in New York, 4 November, 1861. He was commander of the Department of North Carolina, during 1862-3, with the rank of major-general. The combined Departments of Virginia and North Carolina were assigned to him from July to November, 1863, and then that of Ohio, which he had to relinquish, owing to injuries received by a fall from his horse. He next aided Sherman in the reduction of Charleston, and for gallant services in the capture of Savannah was breveted brigadier-general in the regular army. During 1865-6 he was in command of the Department of Florida, and then superintended various river and harbour improvements. In the harbours of Boston and Portsmouth he conducted, with great ability and success, important submarine operations, an experience which added the value of direct experience to his work on "Submarine Blasting in Boston Harbor" (New York, 1869) and his articles in various periodicals on engineering subjects, which received high professional approval. THOMAS F. MEEHAN St. Fothad St. Fothad Surnamed NA CANOINE ("of the Canon"). A monk of Fahan-Mura, County Doneval, Ireland, at the close of the eighth century. He became bard, a counsellor, and tutor to Aedh Oirnidh (the dignified), Ard Righ (Head King) of Ireland who ruled from 794 to 818. He is specially venerated in the Irish Church from the fact that, in 804, when he accompanied King Aedh in his expedition against the Leinstermen, he obtained from that monarch exemption of the clergy forever from military service. His literary gifts were so highly thought of that St. Aengus submitted his "Felire" to him for his approval, and in return, St. Fothad presented St. Aengus with a copy of his "Remonstrance", addressed to King Aedh, protesting against the conscription of ecclesiastics. This "Remonstrance", which was really a rhymed judicial opinion, was known as a canon or decree, and hence St. Fothad was ever after called "Fothad na Canoine". It commences thus "The Church of the living God let her alone, waste her not." W.H. GRATTON-FLOOD Constant Fouard Constant Fouard An ecclesiastical writer b. at Elbeuf, near Rouen, 6 Aug. 1837; his early life was a preparation for the work on which his fame rests. He studied the classics at Boisguillaume, philosophy at Issy (1855-1857), and made his theological studies at St-Sulpice, Paris (1857-61). Along his professors at Paris were Abbe John Logan, who remained throughout life the inspirer and mentor of his studies and Abbe Le Hir, who initiated him and his fellow disciple Vigouroux into Biblical science, to which they devoted their lives. He was ordained priest in 1861 and entered the "Solitude", the novitiate of the Sulpicians, but left on account of illness after several months without joining the society. He taught for some time at Boisguillaume, then pursued the study of classics at the college of Saint Barbara, Paris, obtained the degree of Licentiate in Letters, 1867, and resumed; the teaching of classics at Boisguillaume, taking the class of rhetoric, 1867-1876. His piety drawing him to sacred sciences, he was appointed by the State (1876) to the chair of Holy Scripture in the faculty of theology at Rouen; he continued however to reside at Boisguillaume and to share in the duty of governing the student-body. Honours came to him: he was made doctor of theology (1877), canon of the cathedral of Rouen (1884) and member of the Biblical Commission (1903). His ecclesiastical science, his piety, his spiritual wisdom were continually at the service of religion in his native diocese. For the benefit of his studies he travelled in Palestine, Syria, Greece, and Italy. The Faculty of Theology being suppressed about 1884, his teaching ceased. His writings are: "La Vie de N-S Jesus-Christ" (1880); "Saint Pierre et les premieres annees du Christianisme" (1886); "Saint Paul, ses Missions" (1892); "Saint Paul, ses dernieres annees" (1897); "Saint Jean et la fin de age apostolique" (posthumous, 1904). The dates witness, incidentally, to the extremely painstaking character of his labours. All these books form part of one grand work, "Les Origines de l'Eglise", which Fouard wrote as an answer to the presentation of the same subject by Renan, who like himself had seen a pupil of le Hir. Each suceessive book of the Abbe Fouard immediately gained a wide popularity and was translated into nearly all the language of Europe. His work is esteemed for the interest of its narratives, the purity of its diction, its correctness in doctrine, its conservative but not reactionary critical viewpoint, its breadth and accuracy of erudition, and for its evidently sincere piety, the manifestation of a good and gentle spirit, loving God, delighting in nature, and earnestly desiring to do good to men. With one touch of genius or greater depth of feeling (gifts which were denied him), he might have fused the various elements of his writings into a truly great work. His works are not remarkable in originality of view or acuteness of critical insight, but present, as a whole, a faithful picture of early Christianity, satisfying to the Christian heart. Perhaps his most esteemed books are the two on Saint Paul. The English translation of his writings is exceptionally well done. Bulletin des Anciens Eleves de St-Sulpice (Paris, 1904). JOHN F. FENLON Jean-Bertrand-Leon Foucault Jean-Bertrand-Leon Foucault A physicist and mechanician, b. at Paris, 19 Sept., 1819; d. there 11 Feb., 1868. He received his early schooling at home and showed his mechanical skill by constructing a boat, a mechanical telegraph, and a working steam-engine. He passed the examinations for the B.A. and began to study medicine. Later, unable to bear the sight of blood, he abandoned medicine and worked for Donne as preparator in his course on medical microscopy. His elementary mathematical and scientific training had been very deficient and he supplemented it as he became interested in invention and experiment. In 1845 he succeeded Donne as scientific editor of the "Journal des Debats". In 1850 he was awarded the Copley medal, the highest honour of the Royal Society of London, for his work showing the relation between mechanical energy, heat, and magnetism. The position of physicist of the Paris Observatory was created for him in 1855. A member of the Bureau of Longitudes (1862), he was finally elected to Academy in 1865. Those of Berlin and St. Petersburg, and the Royal Society of London also honoured him. Foucault worked along several lines. With Finch he experimented upon the interference of red rays and their influence on daguerrotype plates, while with Regnault he studied binocular vision. We are indebted to him for the crucial experiment overtuning the corpuscular or emission theory of light, defended by Kepler, Newton, and Laplace. Following Arago's suggestion he used the rotating mirror of Wheatstone to determine the difference between the velocities of light in various transparent media. Contrary to the emission theory he found that light travels faster in air than in the denser medium water (17 May, 1860). Light was reflected from a mirror through a tube, containing the medium to be studied, to a concave reflector and back again to the mirror. If the mirror was rotated the image was observed to shift by an amount depending on the speed of light through the particular medium in the tube. Exceedingly accurate meaurements were made of this enormous velocity (about 186,000 miles per second) with an apparatus occupying only twelve feet of space. Foucault invented an automatic regulator for the feed of the Davy electric arc lamp and thus made electric lighting practicable. The Foucault pendulum was invented to demonstrate visibly the rotation of the earth; the one exhibited at the Pantheon in Paris in 1851, was 220 feet long. The gyroscope with its intricate and puzzling movements was another device invented by him to show also the earth's motion around its axis. This gained for him the cross of the Legion of Honour. Foucault currents are heating currents of electricity developed in a disc of metal rotating between the poles of a strong magnet. He had observed and reported this effect in 1855. As physicist at the observatory he applied himself also to the improvement of large telescopic lenses and reflectors, devising a method for silvering the surface of a glass reflector. The mercury interrupter used the induction coil and an excellent form of engine governor are also due to him. Foucault at first appeared careless in the performance of his religious duties but in later years he was a practical Catholic. A stroke of paralysis put an untimely end to his useful work, just as he was about to enjoy the comforts of a well-equipped laboratory. His contributions to science are found in the "Comptes rendus", "Proces verbaux de la Societe Philomathique", and "Bibliotheque d'Instruction populaire". His collected works have been put in order by C.M. Gabriel and published by his mother, "Recueil des Travaux Scientifiques de Leon Foucault" (Paris, 1878). WILLIAM FOX Foulque de Neuilly Foulque de Neuilly A popular Crusade preacher, d. March, 1202. At the end of the twelfth century he was cure at the church of Neuilly-sur-Marne, in the Diocese of Paris (now the department of seine-et-Oise). According to Jacques de Vitry he once led an irregular life, but experienced a sudden conversion. Ashamed of his ignorance, he went to Paris to study under Pierre, a chanter of Notre Dame. It was not long before his master noticed his earnestness and had him preach in the church of Saint-Severin before a number of students. His eloquence was so great that he was thought to be inspired by the Holy Ghost. Large crowds assembled to hear him in the Place Champeaux where he was wont to preach. He was especially severe in his denunciation of usurers and dissolute womwn. In 1195, according to Rigord with the assent of the Bishop of Paris, he began to preach in neighourhood of Paris, and soon afterwards met with successively in Normandy, at Lisieux and Caen, later at Burgundy, Picardy, Flanders. He was credited with power to work miracles, and from every quarter the sick were brought to him, whom he cured by the laying on of hands and by the sign of the cross. After 1198 he preached the Fourth Crusade amid much popular enthusiasm. He declared later that in three years he had given the cross to 200,000 persons. According to Jean de Flixecourt, it was Pierre le Chantre who pointed out his ability as a preacher to Innocent III. In November, 1198, the pope conferred upon him the necessary powers, with the right of choosing his assistants among the secular clergy (Historiens de France, XIX, 369). The chief of these were Pierre de Proussi, Rustache, Abbot of Flai, and Herloin, a monk of Saint-Denis. Herloin even led a band of Breton Crusaders as far as Saint-Jean d'Acre. In 1200 many nobles of Northern France had taken the cross. On the nineteenth of March of that year Foulque preached at Liege (Hist. de France, XVIII, 616). After Boniface of Montserrat had been chosen leader of the crusade Foulque gave him the cross at Soissons. In 1201 he assisted at the chapter of Citeaux with Boniface, and entrusted to the Cistercians a portion of the alms he had collected for the Holy Land. There used to repair the ramparts of Acre and Tyre, but he had aroused distrust, and his later success was slight. He returned to Neuilly, where he restored the parish church, which is still in existence. When Foulque died, he was regarded as a saint. He had taken a decisive part in the preparation for the Crusade of 1204. LOUIS BREHIER Foundation Foundation (Lat. fundatio; Ger. Stiftung) An ecclesiastical foundation is the making over of temporal goods to an ecclesiastical corporation or individual, either by gift during life or by will after death, on the condition of some spiritual work being done either in perpetuity or for a long time. It would be difficult to say exactly when foundations, as distinct from oblations or offerings, began to be considered as a normal means of ecclesiastical support. Offerings which were given on the occasion of some ecclesiastical ministration are a distinctive feature of the Apostolic Church. In early Christian times (the first three centuries) these offerings were spontaneous, but in the course of time the Church had to exercise her right to demand support from the faithful. The custom of giving and consecrating the first-fruits (primitioe) to God and the maintenance of His ministers appears to have lasted until about the fifth century. Quite ancient also are the decimoe, or tithes (not necessarily a tenth): a portion of the harvest, or goods, or wealth, offered for the same purpose of maintenance of the clergy and for the due preservation of the services of the Church; this also has now almost entirely disappeared (see TITHES). Such popular contributions are often mentioned in early Christian writers, e.g. St. John Chrysostom, Hom. xliii, in Ep. I. ad Cor., ch. xvi; St. Jerome, vol. VI, in c. iii Malachiae; St. Augustine, "Enarratio in Ps.", cxlvi. Under Emperor Constantine the mutual relations of the Church and State were readjusted; the prerogatives of the Church and the sphere of her action were enlarged. Having obtained political recognition, she acquired also the right of accepting donations and legacies, which, as a rule, were set apart by the bishops for the erection and maintenance of hospitals for the sick, orphan asylums, and homes for the aged and those destitute of all other means of support. At a Synod of Orleans (541) it was enacted that if an overlord wished to have an ecclesiastical district established on his property he must previously make a competent provision in land for the maintenance of the church and of the ecclesiastics who were to serve it. To the voluntary offerings made to the clergy must be added the numerous legacies which the Church began to receive from the converted barbarian peoples from the sixth and seventh centuries on; also, at an earlier date, the contributions of corn and wheat granted annually out of the public granaries by order of Constantine. In the West these revenues were usually divided into four parts, and allotted respectively to the bishop, the clergy, the poor, and the care of the ecclesiastical buildings. At the end of the twelfth and the beginning of the thirteenth century the energy displayed by the clergy in political affairs gave rise to a spirit of public enterprise which manifested itself in the formation of industrial guilds and the creation of charitable institutions, such as orphan asylums, foundling homes, hospitals, houses for the aged and infirm, hospices, and leper-hospitals, the majority of which were liberally endowed. For an account of this wonderful era of popular generosity, see Thomassin, "Vetus ac nova eccles. disciplina", III, 1-30; and Lallemand, "Hist. de la Charite" (Paris, 1906). In general, the Church now derives its support mainly from voluntary offerings, civil aid or subsidy, and pious foundations. Foundations for pious uses may come under any one of the following heads: legacies for Masses; legacies to a particular diocese, church, school, etc.; to a charitable institution, e. g. an orphanage or a hospital; to any society established for an educational or charitable purpose, or in general for a religious end. Foundations are contracts; therefore there must be mutual consent between the founder and the administrator of the institute receiving the gift. Moreover, there is the obligation of performing some work specified in the deed of foundation. The consent of the bishop, or, in the case of a regular community, the consent of the regular prelate, must be obtained, since it would not be just that ecclesiastical institutions should be placed under obligations which they are unable to fulfil (Sacred Congregation of the Council, 23 Nov., 1697). Benedict XIV considers supervision of the execution of pious legacies one of the most solemn and important duties of a bishop (De Synodo, Bk. XIII). The Council of Trent says (Sess. XXII, ch. ix): "The administrators, whether ecclesiastical or lay, of the fabric of any church whatsoever, even though it be a cathedral, as also of any hospital, confraternity, charitable institutions called 'montes pietatis', and of any place whatsoever, shall be bound to give in once a year an account of their administration to the ordinary, all customs and privileges to the contrary being set aside; unless it should happen that, in the institution and regulations of any church or fabric, it has been otherwise expressly provided. But if from custom, or privilege, or some regulation of the place, their account has to be rendered to others deputed thereunto, in that case also the ordinary shall be employed jointly with them, and all acquittances given otherwise shall be of no avail to the said administrators." In the list of questions to be answered by bishops on their Roman visits ad limina the Congregation of Propaganda asks the following (nos. 49, 50): Are there any pious foundations in the diocese or legacies bequeathed for pious purposes? Are the proceeds of such bequests properly administered and the canons relating to such matters attended to? (See also the Constitution of Leo XIII affecting congregations of simple vows and known as "Conditae a Christo", 8 Dec., 1900.) The bishop by a general statute may stipulate that foundations are only to be accepted under certain conditions. It is to be noted that acceptation without the consent of the bishop does not invalidate the legacy, but it is in the power of the bishop to rescind the contract if he judge it proper, although in the case of Masses in perpetuity Urban VIII approved a decree which postulates the consent of the bishop as necessary before such obligation can be incurred. The founder can, on the occasion of his gift, make any reservations that please him, provided the conditions are possible and fitting, are in no way adverse to the Divine and natural law, and are admitted by the bishop. The specific works which have to be fulfilled must be set forth in the deed of foundation. On the other hand, the founder, or his heirs, and the bishop cannot change the terms of a foundation once canonically erected, especially if the change would be to the detriment of a third person. In the decrees of Urban VIII, "Cum Saepe" (21 Jan., 1625), and Innocent XII, "Nuper a congregatione" (23 Dec., 1697), it is ordered that the stipulated Masses or other works must be fulfilled as a matter of justice; and, if not fulfilled, those responsible for the omission sin gravely and are bound to restitution. Money left as a foundation must be invested as soon as possible. A list of founded Masses is to be kept in a conspicuous place in the church; and when the Masses have been celebrated the fulfilment of the obligation is to be noted in a book kept for that purpose. The obligation of a foundation ceases absolutely when the income or principal is lost without fault on the part of anyone; but non-fulfilment, even for a lengthy period, does not prescribe against a foundation in perpetuity. The reduction of a foundation obligation is a matter for the judgment and decision of the Holy See, although it is not uncommon for bishops to receive faculties to make such reduction. Condonation and absolution for past omissions in the fulfilment of foundation obligations belong also to the Holy See, though here again bishops usually receive triennial faculties to act in such circumstances. Commutation of the wishes of the founder similarly belongs to the Holy See; but if it is merely a matter of interpretation of the wishes of the founder, bishops are competent to act, since they are the executors of all pious dispositions whether the endowment is given in the form of legacy, or the grant should take effect during the lifetime of the donor (Council of Trent, Sess. XII, ch. viii). It may be noted that, with regard to foundations for Masses, if the founder has given no definite instruction as to intention, the Congregation of the Council has often decided that the Masses must be applied for the founder, the interpretation being that he intended them for himself. The synods of Westminster (Eng. tr., Stratford-on-Avon, 1886) have the following decrees: "It is fitting that the bishop select from the body of the chapter or from the body of the clergy prudent men to help him in the temporal administration of the diocese. He should often use their advice." "New obligations should not be accepted without the consent of the bishop. If those which he has already to fulfil appear to be too burdensome, or there does not exist a congruous endowment, let the priest apply to the bishop or lay the matter before him at the visitation." "If any of the faithful wish to found a daily or anniversary Mass the matter must be treated with the bishop, and the sum contributed for this object must be profitably invested so as to produce an annual interest for a perpetual endowment, as far as circumstances of time and places will allow, the canonical sanctions being observed." For similar legislation concerning Ireland see the "Acta et Decreta" of the plenary Synod of Maynooth, 1900 (Dublin, 1906), pp. 67-78. In the United States secular priests cannot accept foundations of Masses without the written permission of the bishop. Regulars must have the consent of their superiors general or provincials. No general rule has been laid down as to the requisite amount of the fund, each ordinary being free to fix the sum for his diocese. The councils of Baltimore urge that great circumspection should be used in accepting foundations, especially of perpetual Masses. It would seem advisable to accept foundations only on the following conditions: That the obligation to celebrate shall cease, if the fund, no matter from what cause, be either entirely lost or yield no income; that the ordinary shall have power to reduce the number of Masses if the interest on the capital, no matter for what reasons, becomes insufficient to make up the stipend fixed by the founder; that if, for whatever cause, the church in which the Masses are to be said is destroyed or deprived of a priest, the Masses can be said in any church to be designated by the ordinary. In order to prevent the annulment or failure of a foundation particular attention should be given to the civil law of the place in question. In England (but not in Ireland) bequests to what the civil law regards as superstitious uses are void, as, for example, to maintain a priest, or an anniversary or obit, or a lamp in a church, or to say Masses for the testator's soul, or to circulate pamphlets inculcating the pope's supremacy. Legacies of money for charitable purposes, as for the use of schools, churches, etc., are valid; but if the money is to be laid out in the purchase of land for such purposes, the direction to purchase land shall be disregarded and the money shall be held for the charity. Land may be given by will for charitable purposes; but, by the Act 54 and 55 Vic., c. 73, the land must (with certain exceptions) be sold within a year from the testator's death; gifts of land for charitable purposes, otherwise than by will, are valid if the requirements of the Act 51 and 52 Vic., c. 42, are observed. Of these the principal ones are: + the conveyance must be by deed; + the gift must take effect twelve months before the death of the donor; and + the gift must be without any reservation or condition for the benefit of the donor. For the English legislation and Court practice concerning trusts and bequests for Catholic religious uses see, in general, Lilly and Wallis, "A Manual of the Law specially affecting Catholics" (London, 1893), 135-167. In the United States property cannot legally be devised to a corporation (e. g. to a church when incorporated) unless such corporation is authorized by its charter to receive bequests by will. Many theologians believe that bequests for religious and charitable purposes are valid and binding in conscience, even though null according to law; however, D'Annibale does not agree (Summula Theol. Mor., II, 339). For the ecclesiastical legislation of the Diocese of Quebec see "La discipline du diocese de Quebec" (Quebec, 1895), 131; for the ecclesiastico-civil law of the Province of Quebec, Mignault, "Le droit paroissial" (Montreal, 1893), 138, 260-62. (See PROPERTY, ECCLESIASTICAL; MASS; ENDOWMENT.) For the law of ecclesiastical foundations in Germany see Saegmueller, "Kirchenrecht" (Freiburg, 1904), III, 800-3; and for the German civil law, Goertz in "Staatslexikon" (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1904), V, 574-78. For France see Bargilliat, "Praelectiones Jur. can." (Paris, 1907), nos. 1363-81; also Andre-Wagner, "Dict. de droit canonique" (2nd ed., Paris, 1901), II, 225-28. For the administration of the important ecclesiastical foundations in Hungary see Vering, "Kirchenrecht" (3rd ed., Freiburg, 1893), 149; in Baden: op. cit., 249-50. TAUNTON, Law of the Church (London, 1906); SMITH, Elements of Eccles. Law (New York, 1886); BOUIX, De Episcopis (Paris, 1859); BARGILLIAT, Proelect. Jur. can. (27th ed., Paris, 1907); LUCIDI, De visit. sac. liminum (3rd ed., Rome. 1883); VON OBERCAMP in Kirchenlexikon, s. v. Causoe Pioe; FERRARIS, Bibliotheca prompta (ed. Rome, 1883). DAVID DUNFORD Foundling Asylums Foundling Asylums Under this title are comprised all institutions which take charge of infants whose parents or guardians are unable or unwilling to care for them. At the present time many foundling asylums give shelter to orphans, but originally their activity was confined almost entirely to the rescue and care of foundlings in the strict sense, that is, infants who had been deliberately abandoned by their natural protectors. The practice of exposing to the risk of death by the elements or by starvation those infants whom they were unwilling to rear was very common among parents in the ancient pagan nations. Very general, too, was the more direct method of infanticide. Both methods had the sanction of law and public opinion. Lycurgus and the Decemviri decreed that deformed children should be killed in the interests of healthy citizenship. Aristotle advocated the enactment of laws which would prescribe the exposure of deformed infants and also of all infants in excess of a socially useful number, and which would make the practice of abortion compulsory whenever it was required by the public welfare. In his opinion these measures should find a place in the ideal state, and in every existing community where they were not already approved by the laws and customs (Politics, vii, 16). Even Pliny and Seneca thought it wise sometimes to allow deformed and superfluous infants to perish. In the city of Rome two places were formally set aside for the exposure of infants who were unwelcome to their parents. The proportion of abandoned children that was rescued was very small, and the purposes for which they were rescued were cruelly selfish. Under Roman law they were slaves. The prevalence of these inhuman practices in Greek and Roman society is undoubtedly explained to a great extent by the pagan theory that neither the foetus nor the newly born child was in the full sense a human being, as well as by the view that the individual existed for the sake of the State. Against both these beliefs Christianity laid down the doctrine that the human offspring is intrinsically sacred, and not a mere means to any end whatever. Hence we find that the first noteworthy condemnation of the practice of infant exposure, and the first systematic measures of rescue, came from Christian writers, priests, and bishops. Among the earliest of these were Lactantius, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, and Cyprian. Influenced by the Christian teaching and practice, the Emperors Gratian and Valentinian decreed that infanticide should be punished by death, while Justinian relieved foundlings of the disability of slavery and placed them under the patronage of the bishops and prefects. The work of rescue was at first performed by individuals -- as, in France, by the deaconesses -- and the rescued infants were adopted into Christian families. A marble basin was placed at the church door in which unfortunate or inhuman parents could place their infants, with the assurance that the latter would be cared for by the Church. Although mention is made of a foundling asylum at Trier in the seventh century, the first one of which there is any authentic record was established in Milan by the archpriest Datheus in 787. In 1070 one was founded at Montpellier. Innocent III caused one to be erected in 1198 at Rome in connexion with the hospital of the Holy Ghost. The thirteenth and fourteenth centuries witnessed a great increase of foundling asylums, especially in Italy. Prominent among these were the institutions at Einbeck (1200), Florence (1316), Nuremberg (1331), Paris (1362), and Vienna (1380). During the Middle Ages most of the foundling asylums were provided with a revolving crib (tour, ruota, Drehladen) which was fitted into the wall in such a way that one half of it was always on the outside of the building. In this the infant could be placed, and then brought into the building by turning the crib. This device completely shielded the person who abandoned the child, but it also multiplied unnecessarily the number of children abandoned. Hence it has been almost universally abolished, even in Italy. Foundling asylums did not, however, become general throughout Europe. In many places infants were still deposited at the doors of the churches, and thence taken in charge by the church authorities with a view to their adoption by families. In France the means of caring for foundlings had become quite inadequate during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The original foundling asylum of Paris seems to have been no longer in existence at this period; for the only institution of this nature that we hear of is the "Maison de la Couche", in charge of a widow and two servants. So badly was it managed that it had won the nickname of "Maison de la Mort". Through the all-embracing pity of Saint Vincent de Paul the place came under the direction of the Ladies of Charity, and through his influence the king and the nobles subscribed an annual sum of 40,000 francs to carry on the work of child saving. As a result there was a great increase in the number of foundling asylums in France during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. At present the care of foundlings varies considerably in different countries. Methods in France have undergone many changes since the middle of the eighteenth century. Under the government of the Revolution all foundlings were treated as wards of the nation, and for a time subsidies were paid to the mothers of illegitimate children. In 1811 this legislation was repealed, and the care of foundlings was transferred from the central authorities to the departments. At the same time it was decreed that every foundling asylum should be provided with a revolving crib. The consequence was that the number of abandoned children greatly increased, and the crib had to be abolished. By the law of 1874 every child under two years of age which is taken care of for hire outside the home of its parents becomes an object of public guardianship. Nevertheless, the actual work and expense of caring for foundlings are to a large extent undertaken by religious communities and private associations, both in asylums and in families. In Germany the asylum method seems never to have been as common as in Italy and in France. To-day that country has no foundling asylum in the strict sense of the term. The prevailing practice is to place the infant temporarily in an institution, usually an orphan asylum, and then to give it into the charge of a family. Both the public authorities and the religious communities follow this system. Since the days of Joseph II, foundling asylums have been rather general in Austria. When the mother engages herself to serve in the hospital for four months as a nurse, the child will be taken in and kept permanently, that is, until it reaches the age of ten or, in some asylums, of six years. In case the mother does not reclaim it at the end of this period, it is turned over to the magistracy of her legal residence. When the child is not taken subject to this condition, it is pLaced in a family as soon as a suitable one can be found. The asylum in Vienna is the largest in the world, having under its care either within or without its doors more than 30,000 children every year. Of the seventy odd thousand infants received during ten years only 902 were legitimate. In proportion to its population, Italy exceeds all other countries in the number of institutions which are exclusively devoted to the care of foundlings. The number in 1898 was 113, and the number of children cared for 100,418. Most of these, however, were placed out in families, although the famous asylum of Florence (founded 1316) sheltered more than six thousand five hundred in the year 1899. The revolving crib has all but disappeared, owing to the conviction of competent authorities that it increased both illegitimacy and child-abandonment. In 1888 the province of Rovigo introduced a system according to which all mothers who acknowledge their infants are supported for one and one-half years. Experience has shown that this method is more favourable to the child and less expensive to the community. It has been extended to other provinces, was approved by the charity congress of Turin in 1899, and has been embodied in a bill introduced in the Italian Parliament. Russia has two very large foundling asylums, which were established by Catherine II. In 1899 the one at St. Petersburg cared for 33,366 children, while the Moscow institution had charge of 39,033. The policy of the latter is to induce the mother, if possible, to nurse her child, and to pay her for this service. If she does not appear, the infant is kept only a few weeks; it is then placed in the family of some peasant. In England the care of foundlings is in the hands of the Poor Law Guardians, religious and private associations, and the managers of the London Foundling Hospital. Those who are under the care of the guardians are sometimes kept in the general workhouse, and sometimes boarded out in families. The Catholic authorities place foundlings both in the private family and in the orphan asylum. The London Foundling Hospital (established 1739) seems to be the only institution of any considerable size which is devoted exclusively to this class of unfortunates. Scotland has never had a foundling asylum, but utilizes the workhouse and the system of boarding-out. These methods and the care of foundlings in orphan asylums by religious communities are the prevailing ones in Ireland. About the only public institutions available for the care of foundlings m the United States are the county almshouses, or poorhouses. In most of the large cities there are foundling asylums under the management of individuals, private associations, or religious bodies and communities. In 1907 the Catholic infant asylum of Chicago had 676 inmates; that of Boston, 858; that of Milwaukee, 408; that of San Francisco, 480. In most places, however, foundlings are received in the Catholic orphan asylums, and are not separately classified in any official publication. The same practice obtains in many orphan asylums under the control of private persons and non-Catholic societies. The volume of the United States census (1904) on benevolent institutions gives the number of orphanages and children's homes, public, private, and religious, as 1075, and the number of inmates as 92,887. The majority of these children are of course not foundlings but orphans. On the other hand, the foundlings in these institutions undoubtedly form only a minority of the whole number in the country; for there is a considerable number in poorhouses, and a still larger number in families. Thus, the State of Massachusetts places all the foundlings committed to it in families under public supervision. Hence it is impossible to give even approximately the total number of foundlings in the country. The ideal method of caring for foundlings is still as much a disputed question as most of the other problems of practical charity. One phase of the general question has, however, received a fairly definite answer. Experience and a due regard for the respective interests of the infant, the parent, the community, and good morals have led to the conclusion that in every case a reasonable amount of effort should be made to discover the parents and to compel them to assist as far as possible in caring for the child. The other method, which had its most thorough exemplification in the revolving crib, tends, indeed, to diminish infanticide, but it also increases illegitimacy, and by depriving the infant of its natural protector produces at least as high a rate of mortality as the inquisition system. Moreover, it throws upon public and private charity a burden that in many cases could be borne by the parents. Hence the present tendency is everywhere towards the method which aims to give the child the benefit of a mother's care and to keep alive in parents a proper sense of their responsibility. A question more variously answered is, whether the maintenance of foundling asylums is wise. Those who take a stand for the negative point to the very high death-rate in these places (sometimes more than 90 per cent), to the smaller expense of the family system, and to the obvious fact that the family is the natural home for young children. Most of the Protestant countries and communities prefer the method of placing the foundling in a family. The positive arguments in its favour are unanswerable, but against them must be set the fact that it is not always possible to find suitable families who are willing to care for foundlings. Experience shows that sufficient homes of the right kind cannot now be found for all orphan children who have arrived at an age which renders them more attractive as well as more useful than utterly helpless infants. It would seem, therefore, that institutions are necessary which will shelter foundlings for a number of years. Nevertheless, the foundling asylum should endeavour to ascertain the identity of the parents, to induce the mothers to act as nurses to their infants in the institution, and to keep alive the natural bond between child and parent. HENDERSON, Modern Methods of Charity (New York, 1904); DEVINE, Principles of Relief (New York, 1905); The St. Vincent de Paul Quarterly (New York); Proceedings of the National Conferences of Charities and Correction (Indianapolis, 1874-1908); BROGLIE, St. Vincent de Paul, tr. PARTRIDGE (London, 1899); RATZINGER, Armenpflege (Freiburg, 1884); EPSTEIN, Studien zur Frage, Findelanstalten (Prague, 1882); LALLEMAND, Histoire des enfants abandonnes et delaisses (Paris, 1885); RATZINGER in Kirchenlex., s. v. Findelhaeuser; BERNARD in La grande encyclopedie, s. v. Enfants Trouves. JOHN A. RYAN. Fountains Abbey Fountains Abbey A monastery of the Cistercian Order situated on the banks of the Skell about two and a half miles from Ripon in Yorkshire, was established by thirteen Benedictine monks of St. Mary's Abbey, York. Wishing to observe a more strict discipline, they obtained in 1132 from Thurston, Archbishop of York, a grant of land near Ripon. Richard, the prior of St. Mary's, was the leader of the party. Leaving St. Mary's on 9 October, they reached Fountains on 26 December, 1132, and immediately placed themselves under St. Bernard, who sent Geoffrey of Clairvaux to teach them the Cistercian Rule. After two years of privation and poverty they decided to leave England and seek a home among their brethren abroad. This step was rendered unnecessary when Hugh, Dean of York, joined them, bringing with him money and property. He was followed by two canons of York, Serlo and Tosti, who brought still more wealth by means of which the suffering community was relieved and enabled to carry on the new foundation. In 1135 all their possessions were confirmed to them by King Stephen. The earliest buildings erected there were destroyed in 1146 by the followers of William, Archbishop of York, who thus wreaked their vengeance on Abbot Murdac, whom they considered the chief opponent of their master. The archbishop in after years made amends for the excesses of his adherents and expressed his deep sorrow for what had occurred. This loss did not check a rapid development; new buildings were immediately begun and that immense pile, the ruins of which still stand, was finished before the year 1250. In 1146 a colony of monks was sent to Bergen in Norway, and the monasteries of Sawley, Roche, Woburn, Meaux, Kirkstall, and Vandy were founded from Fountains. This period of prosperity was followed by one of want, caused by the constant inroads of the Scots. On account of this Edward II exempted the monks from all taxation (1319). Among the worthies of Fountains should be numbered Henry Murdac, its abbot and afterwards Archbishop of York (1147-1153), John de Pherd (de Fontibus) another abbot, one of the greatest architects of his day, who became Bishop of Ely in 1220, and John de Cancia, another renowned builder, who ruled over the abbey from 1220 to 1247. The names of thirty-eight abbots are known; the last but one was William Thirsk, executed at Tyburn for refusing the Oath of Supremacy (1536); the last abbot was Marmaduke Bradley who surrendered the abbey to the king in 1540. At the Dissolution there were thirty-one monks with the abbot, and the revenue was estimated at about -L-1000. Richard Gresham purchased the site for -L-1163; in 1596 Sir Stephen Proctor acquired it for -L-4500; the family of Messenger next held it; in 1786 Sir W. Aislabie bought it for -L-18,000; it is now owned by the Marquess of Ripon. The abbey with its offices stood in an enclosure of twelve acres, and the present ruins occupy two acres. The walls of the church, with one tower, still stand, and there are very substantial remains of the chapter house, cloister, refectory, and calefactory. These ruins are most carefully preserved. Some idea of the abbey's greatness may be gained from the fact that the church was 351 feet in length with a nave of 65 feet wide; the refectory was 108 feet by 45, and the cloister 300 feet by 42. G.E. HIND Jehan Fouquet Jehan Fouquet (Or Jean Fouquet) French painter and miniaturist, b. at Tours, c. 1415; d. about 1480. He was perhaps the son of Huguet Fouquet, who about 1400 worked for the Dukes of Orleans at Paris. At the end of the fourteenth century French painting had reached a period of incomparable brilliancy. Everything heralded the Renaissance (see EYCK, HUBERT AND JAN VAN), and little was wanting to make it a distinctively French movement, which, however, the disasters of the monarchy prevented. Paris ceased to be the centre of the new intellectual life. Art, driven from its centre, retreated to the outlying provinces in the North, the East, and the South-East, to the Duchy of Burgundy. The principal centre was Bruges, while secondary centres were established at Dijon in Provence. Each of these had its masters and its school. The only remnant of truly French life found refuge in the valley of the Loire, in the neighborhood of Tours, since the time of St. Martin the true heart of the nation in every crisis of French history. Here grew up the first of our painters who possesses not only a definite personality but a French physiognomy. Fouquet was the contemporary of Joan of Arc, and his character is as national as that of the heroine herself. For the basis of his style we must look to the School of Burgundy, itself simply a variant of that of Bruges. Tours is not far from Bruges and Dijon, and in Fouquet's work there is always something reminiscent of Claux Sluter and of the Van Eycks. To this must be added some Italian mannerisms. It is not known on what occasion Fouquet went to Italy, but it was certainly about 1445, for while there he painted the portrait of Pope Eugene IV between two secretaries. This famous work, long preserved at the Minerva gallery, is now known only from a sixteenth century engraving. Filarete and Vasari speak admiringly of it, while Raphael paid it the honour of recalling it in his "Leo X" of the Pitti Palace. Fouquet remained under the charm of the early Italian Renaissance. The influence of the bas-reliefs of Ghiberti and Della Robbia, the paintings of Masaccio, Paolo Uccello, Filippo Lippi, and Gentile da Fabriano which he saw at Florence and at Rome may always be traced in his work. He appears to have been in France in 1450. Some critics are inclined to believe that he made a second journey, for they find it hard to believe that Fouquet never saw the "Lives of St. Lawrence and St. Stephen" by Fra Angelico in the chapel of Nicholas V. It is these Italian works which most closely resemble his own. The harmonizing of the two Renaissance movements (North and South), the intimate and natural fusion of the genius of both in the creative soul of one French artist, without any effort or shadow of pedantry, narrowness, or system, constitutes Fouquet's charm and originality. If French character consists in a certain effacement of all racial characteristics, in the power of assimilation (cf. Michelet, Introduction `a la philosophie del'histoire), no artist has ever been more "French" than Fouquet. Withal he does not lack the savour of his country. Without poetry or depth of thought, his style has at least two striking characteristics. In depicting the human countenance, he possessed to a rare degree the gift of taking life, as it were, by surprise, and not even Benozzo could tell a story as he could. We know through a contemporary that Fouquet painted pictures in the church of Notre-Dame la Riche at Tours, but it is not known whether they were mural or altar-pieces. He is known to have been charged with the preparations for Louis XI's entry into the city in 1461. Of all his works, however, there remain to-day a half dozen portraits and about a hundred miniatures. The oldest of these portraits appears to be the "Charles VII" in the Louvre, a portrait striking for its sadness, its fretful expression, and the force of its ugliness and veracity. At the Louvre also is the portrait of "Guillaume Juvenal des Ursins", magnificently obese and bloated, radiant with gold. Another portrait has a curious history. It is that of Etienne Chevalier, the great patron of the painter, and was formerly to be seen in the church of Melun. The work is charming in breadth of style. The figure of St. Stephen presenting his client recalls Giorgione by its vigour and delicacy. In 1896 this piece found its way to the Berlin Museum. It formed part of a diptych, the other wing of which shows the Virgin, surrounded by angels, nursing the Infant Jesus. The Virgin is also a portrait, that of the beautiful Agnes Sorel of whom Chevalier was a favourite. This second wing is at Antwerp. The two parts, having been separated, were never reunited except for a short time at Paris during the Exposition of the French "Primitives" in 1904. Still another of Fouquet's portraits must be mentioned: the bust of a young man (Lichtenstein collection), dated 1456, which is admirable in the intensity of touch displayed in the colour scheme, with its greyish tone and deliberate reserve. This would be the master's best portrait, were it not for the precious little enamel at the Louvre, in which he himself is depicted in golden lines on a black background. His work as a miniaturist at present comprises three series: (1) the fragments of the "Livre d'heures d'Etienne Chevalier" (1450-60), forty of which are at Chantilly, two at the Louvre, one at the Bibliotheque Nationale, and one at the British Museum; (2) twenty feuillets of the "Jewish Antiquities" of Josephus at the Bibliotheque Nationale. The second volume, discovered by Mr. Yates Thomson, was presented to the French Republic by King Edward VII in 1908 (Durrieu, op. cit. infra); (3) part of the illustrations of the "Chroniques de France" (Fr. 6465, Bibl. Nat.). To these must be added: (4) the frontispiece and miniatures for a French translation of the works of Boccaccio at the Royal Library of Munich (c. 1459), and the frontispiece of the statutes of the Order of St. Michael (c. 1462) at the Bibliotheque Nationale. The most important of these works, as well as the most famous and the most beautiful, is unquestionably Etienne Chevalier's "Book of Hours", the "Quarante Fouquet", which is one of the treasures of Chantilly. Of the forty-four pages of the "Book of Hours" hitherto recovered, twenty-five (following the order of the Breviary) tell the story of the Gospel and of the life of the Blessed Virgin, fourteen are scenes from the lives of the saints; one, dealing with the story of Job, is an Old-Testament scene; and one, "The Last Judgment", is from the Apocalypse. The frontispiece, two pages reproducing the diptych of Melun, and the page of the Office for the Dead, are consecrated to the memory of Etienne Chevalier. We are impressed immediately with the exquisite clearness, animation and life. Italian mannerisms abound in the details; the artist speaks with a more flowery tongue than in his portraits. This work is one of joy in which the imagination delights in lovely caprices. Here are chubby-faced little angels, flowing draperies and garments, Burgundian luxuriance with the large folds of its draperies; to one side are the playing children (putti), musicians of Prato and Pistoia, pilastered niches, classic cornices, the Corinthian acanthus, and architectural foliage like the Florentine cypress and yew. His style is extremely composite. Nowhere else are its elements so deftly combined. There is gold everywhere, golden skies and golden hatching, an enveloping tissue delicately gilt. Since his time, no one has been able to master the process, which is in fact only the radiant atmosphere of the artist's ideas and the colour of his spirit. The fundamental note is wonderfully sustained despite the appearance of playful improvisation. Although the artist delights in allowing free play to pleasant reminiscences, and has made use of his sketches of travel as adornments for his ideas, the basis of all is an ardent love of reality, and he glances at them only to refresh his memory. As a story-teller and dramatist he has the regard for the letter and the text which was to become the predominant trait of the great French historical painters, Poussin and Delacroix. But above all he feels the craving for truth, which underneath the embellishments of his style constitutes the real merit of his miniatures and his portraits. Fouquet is a "naturalist" from conviction. This he is after his own fashion, but as truly as Van Eyck or Filippo Lippi. He resembles them in being of their time, but he differs from them inasmuch as with him imitation never prevails over his passionate worship of nature. This naturalism was so strong that Fouquet lacked the power to conceive what he had not seen. He did not dispense with models and all his works were not only observed but posed. He fails completely in ideal scenes and those of intense expression (e.g. Calvary) for which he could have no model. If his "Last Judgment" is a thrilling picture, it is because the memory of the glass-worker came to the aid of the painter, for the artist beheld heaven as the rose window of a cathedral (Dante, Parad., xxxi). In "The Martyrdom of St. Apollonia" he depicts quite clearly a scene from a popular mystery; it is, indeed, the most exact document we possess as to the scenic effects in the mysteries of the Middle Ages (Emil Male, "Le renouvellement de l'art par les mysteres" in "Gazette des Beaux-Arts", 1904, I, 89). This influence of the theatre is seen throughout the "Book of Hours", in the costumes, the decoration, and local colour, the capricious and grotesque appearance of which proceeds directly from the store of dramatic accessories and the tinsel adornments of the actors. It was thus that the age of Fouquet conceived historical painting. Finally another custom of Fouquet was to give as background to the scenes taken from the Bible or the Gospel, instead of Palestine of which he knew nothing, France or Touraine which he knew so well. Thus the representation of "Job" has as a decorative background the castle keep of Vincennes. The "Paschal Supper" takes place in an inn, and through the open door is seen the roof of Notre-dame de Paris. "Calvary" is placed on the hill of Montrouge. The excess of naivete must not lead us to think that Fouquet knew not what he did. The anachronism of the "Primitives" is a conscious and voluntary system. Fouquet was not at all naif, as has been too frequently asserted, when in the scene of the Epiphany he substituted for one of the Magi of history the portrait of King Charles VII, in a mantle ornamented with fleurs-de-lis, surrounded by his guards and rendering homage to the Blessed Virgin. Perhaps this was a way of bringing home the teaching of the Gospel and of expressing its eternal truths and undying realities rather than the historical incident. Above all it was the parti pris of an age which, weary of abstractions and symbols, underwent a passionate reaction towards the youthful, and towards life. No contemporary expressed life better than Fouquet. He loved it in all its forms, in art, whether Italian, Flemish, Gothic, or Renaissance, in the theatre as well as in nature. He loved beautiful horses, beautiful arms, rich costumes, gay colours, beautiful music (his works are full of concerts). He loved the elegance of the new architecture, and he loved also the tapering spires, the cathedral windows, and the pointed towers on the pepper-box roofs. A thousand details of the life of his times would have been lost except for him, e.g., a row of quays on the banks of the Seine at the extremity of the city, a view of Paris from Montmartre or the Pre aux Clercs, the performance of a mystery, a funeral scene, the interior of the ancient basilica of St. Peter. He is the best witness of his time; he is in turn good-natured, bantering, tender, and emotional. Neither a dreamer nor a mystic, he is full of faith and purity. Nothing could be more chaste than his work, which appeals at once to the learned and to the masses. The mind of this humble miniaturist was one of the best informed and most well-ordered of his time. Above all he had also a creative side, for he is one of the great landscape painters of the world. No one has depicted as well as he the charming countrysides of France. Nothing could be more sweetly rustic than his "Sainte Marguerite". In this Fouquet immediately foreshadows Corot. His "Mount of Olives" and his "Nativity" are two of the most beautiful nocturnal scenes ever painted. The Alps in his "Grandes Chroniques" are perhaps the earliest example of mountain landscape. Fouquet's influence has been considerable. He had numerous pupils, the best-known of whom are his two sons (one of them has a "Calvary" in the church of Loches) and Jean Colombe, the brother of the sculptor, while the greatest was Jehan Bourdichon, who in 1507 painted the famous "Hours" of Anne of Brittany. But none of these artists comes near to the master in merit. Fouquet remains the sole type of a French Renaissance which died out with his pupils. After 1500 Italy took a decided lead over the rest of Europe, and France was unable to contest her prestige. For more than two centuries she lost even the memory of her first original master. It is only in modern times that he has been drawn from obscurity and restored to his rank among the most charming men of genius of the early Renaissance. CURMER, Oeuvres de Jean Fouquet (Paris, 1865) (chromos); BOUCHOT, Jean Fouquet in Gazette des Beaux-Arts (1890), II, 273; LEPRIEUR, Jean Fouquet in Revue de l'Art (1897), I, 25; LAFENESTRE, Jean Fouquet in Revue des Deux Mondes (15 Jan., 1902); FRIEDLAeNDER, Die Votiftafel des Etienne Chevalier von Fouquet in Jahrbuecher of the Museum of Berlin (1897), 206; GRUYER, Les Quarante Fouquet (of Chantilly), (Paris, 1900); MICHEL, Les Miniatures de Fouquet `a Chantilly in Gazette des Beaux-Arts (1897), I, 214; DURRIEU, L'Exposition des Primitifs franc,ais in Revue de l'Art (1904), I, 82; FRY in Burlington Magazine (1904), I, 279; BOUCHOT, DELISLE, etc., Exposition des Primitifs franc,ais au Louvre (Paris, 1904); DURRIEU, Le Livre des Antiquites Judaiques (Paris, 1908). LOUIS GILLET Four Crowned Martyrs Four Crowned Martyrs The old guidebooks to the tombs of the Roman martyrs make mention, in connection with the catacomb of Sts. Peter and Marcellinus on the Via Labicana, of the Four Crowned Martyrs (Quatuor Coronati), at whose grave the pilgrims were wont to worship (De Rossi, Roma sotterranea, I, 178-79). One of these itineraries, the "Epitome libri de locis sanctorum martyrum", adds the names of the four martyrs (in reality five): "IV Coronati, id est Claudius, Nicostratus, Simpronianus, Castorius, Simplicitus". These are the names of five martyrs, sculptors in the quarries of Pannonia (now a part of Austria-Hungary, south-west of the Danube), who gave up their lives for their Faith in the reign of Diocletian. The Acts of these martyrs, written by a revenue officer named Porphyrius probably in the fourth century, relates of the five sculptors that, although they raised no objections to executing such profane images as Victoria, Cupid, and the Chariot of the Sun, they refused to make a statue of AEsculapius for a heathen temple. For this they were condemned to death as Christians. They were put into leaden caskets and drowned in the River Save. This happened towards the end of 305. The foregoing account of the martyrdom of the five sculptors of Pannonia is substantially authentic; but later on a legend sprang up at Rome concerning the Quatuor Coronati, according to which four Christian soldiers (cornicularii) suffered martyrdom at Rome during the reign of Diocletian, two years after the death of the five sculptors. Their offence consisted in refusing to offer sacrifice to the image of AEsculapius. The bodies of the martyrs were interred at St. Sebastian and Pope Melchiades at the third milestone on the Via Labicana, in a sandpit where rested the remains of others who had perished for the Faith. Since the names of the four martyred soldiers could not be authentically established, Pope Melchiades commanded that, the date of their death (8 November) being the same as that of the Pannonian sculptors, their anniversary should be celebrated on that day, under the names of Sts. Claudius, Nicostratus, Symphorianus, Castor, and Simplicius. This report has no historic foundation. It is merely a tentative explanation of the name Quatuor Coronati, a name given to a group of really authenticated martyrs who were buried and venerated in the catatomb of Sts. Peter and Marcellinus, the real origin of which, however, is not known. They were classed with the five martyrs of Pannonia in a purely external relationship. Numerous manuscripts on the legend as well as the Roman Martyrology give the names of the Four Crowned Martyrs, supposed to have been revealed at a later date, as Secundus, Severianus, Carpoforus, and Victorius. But these four martyrs were not buried in Rome, but in the catacomb of Albano; their feast was celebrated on 7 August, under which date it is cited in the Roman Calender of Feasts of 354. These martyrs of Albano have no connection with the Roman martyrs described above. Of the four Crowned Martyrs we know only that they suffered death for the Faith and the place where they were buried. They evidently were held in great veneration at Rome, since in the fourth and fifth century a basilica was erected and dedicated in the Caelian Hill, probably in the neibourhood of spot where tradition located their execution. This became one of the titular churches of Rome, was restored several times and still stands. It is first mentioned among the signatures of a Roman council in 595. Pope Leo IV ordered the relics removed, about 850, from the Via Labicana to the church dedicated to their memory, together with the relics of the five Pannonian martyrs, which had been brought to Rome at some period now unknown. Both group of maryrs are commemorated on 8 November. J. P. KIRSCH Annals of the Four Masters Annals of the Four Masters The most extensive of all the compilations of the ancient annals of Ireland. They commence, nominally at least, at A.M. 2242 and are continued down to A.D. 1616. The entries which are bare and meagre during the earlier period grow less so as the "Annals" progress, and towards the end they become in parts almost like a history in their diffuseness. The principal compiler of these "Annals" was Michael O'Clery, a native of Donegal, who had been by profession a trained antiquary and poet, but who afterwards joined the Franciscan Order, and went to their Irish house in Louvain. Thence he was sent back to Ireland by his famous compatriot, Father John Colgan, to collect the lives of Irish saints. Many of these lives which he copied upon that visit, out of the old vellum books of Ireland, are now in the Burgundian Library at Brussels. Afterwards, under the patronage of Fergal O'Gara, Lord of Moy Gara and Coolavin, in the County Sligo, he conceived the pious idea of collecting and redacting all the ancient vellum books of annals which he could find throughout Ireland, and of combining them into one continuous whole. "I thought", says O'Clery, in his dedication to O'Gara, "that I could get the assistance of the chroniclers for whom I had most esteem, in writing a book of annals in which these matters might be put on record, for that should the writing of them be neglected at present, they would not again be found to be put on record even to the end of the world. All the best and most copious books of annals that I could find throughout all Ireland were collected by me--though it was difficult for me to collect them--into one place to write this book." It was to the secluded convent of Donegal that the learned friar retired while engaged upon this work which was commenced by himself and his fellow labourers on the 22nd of January, 1632, and concluded on the 10th of August, 1636. His forebodings as to the fate of the material that he worked from were prophetic. Scarcely one of the ancient books which he brought together with such pains has survived to the present day--they probably perished in the cataclysm of the Cromwellian and Williamite wars. It was Father Colgan, the celebrated author of the "Trias Thaumaturga" and the "Acta sanctorum Hiberniae", who, in the preface to this latter work, first conferred the title by which they are now always known, "The Annals of the Four Masters", upon these annals of O'Clery. "As in the three works before mentioned", writes Colgan, "so in this fourth one, three (helpers of O'Clery) are eminently to be praised, namely Farfassa O'Mulconry, Peregrine O'Clery, and Peregrine O'Duignan, men of consummate learning in the antiquities of their country, and to these were subsequently added the co-operation of other distinguished antiquarians, as Maurice O'Mulconry who for one month and Conary O'Clery who for many months laboured in its promotion. But since those 'Annals' which we shall very frequently have occasion to quote, have been collected and compiled by the assistance and separate study of so many authors, neither the desire of brevity would permit us always to quote them individually, nor would justice permit us to attribute the labour of many to one, hence it sometimes seemed best to call them the 'Annals of Donegal', for in our convent of Donegal they were commenced and concluded. But afterwards, for other reasons, chiefly for the sake of the compilers themselves, who were four most learned masters in antiquarian lore, we have been led to call them the 'Annals of the Four Masters'." These "Annals", written in a very archaic language, difficult to be understood, even then, except by the learned, give us the reigns, deaths, genealogies, etc., not only of the high-kings of Ireland, but also of the provincial kings, chiefs, and heads of distinguished families, men of science, historians, poets, etc., with their respective dates given as accurately as the Masters are able to give them. They record the demise and succession of saints, abbots, bishops, and ecclesiastical dignitaries. They tell of the foundation and occasionally the overthrow of countless churches, castles, abbeys, convents, and religious institutions. They give meagre details of battles, murders, tribal wars, wars with the foreigners, battles with Norsemen, Normans, and English, and political changes. Sometimes they quote ancient verses in corroboration of the facts they mention, but no such verses are quoted prior to the third century. We have here the condensed pith and substance of the old vellum books of Ireland which were then in existence, but most of which, as the Four Masters foresaw, have long since perished. Their facts and dates are not their own facts and dates. From confused masses of very ancient matter, they, with labour and much sifting, drew forth their dates, and as far as possible synchronized their facts. It is not too much to say that there is no event in the whole of Irish history from the birth of Christ down to the beginning of the seventeenth century that the first enquiry of the student about it must not be: "What do the Four Masters say of this?" These "Annals" have been published, at least in part, three times, but are now always read in the edition of the great Irish scholar, John O'Donovan. In this splendid work the Irish text is given with a translation into English and a mass of the most valuable notes, topographical, genealogical, and historical, the whole contained in seven great quarto volumes. So long as Irish history exists the "Annals of the Four Masters" will be read in O'Donovan's translation, and the name of O'Donovan be inseparably connected with that of the O'Clerys. O'DONOVAN, ed. Annala Rioghachta Eireann, Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland, by the Four Masters, from the earliest period to the year 1616 (Dublin, 1851); CONNELLAN, The Annals of Ireland translated from the original Irish of the Four Masters, with annotations by Philip MacDermott, Esq., M.D., and the translator (Dublin, 1846). Connellan's translation is only from the year 1171 to the end and he does not publish the Irish text. O'Conor ed., Rerum Hibernicarum Scriptores Tom. III, complectens Annales IV Magistrorum ex ipso O'Clerii autographo in Bibliotheca Stowense (Buckingham, 1826). The Rev. Charles O'Conor publishes the Annals only up to the year 1171. 0'CURRY, Lectures on the MS. materials of Ancient Irish history, 142-161, appendix 543-548; HYDE, Literary History of Ireland (London, 1899), 573-580; IDEM, Story of Early Irish Literature, 136-142; JOYCE, Social History of Ancient Ireland, I, 524-526; GILBERT, National MSS. of Ireland (London, 1884), 311-313; MOORE in Dict. Nat. Biog. s. v. O'Clery. DOUGLAS HYDE John Fowler John Fowler Scholar and printer, b. at Bristol, England, 1537; d. at Namur, Flanders, 13 Feb., 1578-9. He studied at Winchester School from 1551 to 1553, when he proceeded to New College, Oxford where he remained till 1559. He became B.A. 23 Feb., 1556-7 and M.A. in 1560, though Antony a Wood adds that he did not complete his degree by standing in comitia. On Elizaheth's accession he was one of the fifteen Fellows of New College who left of their own accord or were ejected rather than take the Oath of Supremacy (Rashdall, History of New college, 114). This disposes of the calumny circulated by Acworth in his answer to Sander, called "De visibili Romanarchia", to the effect that Fowler took the oath to enable him to retain the living of Wonston in Hampshire. There is, indeed, no trace of any desire on his part to receive Holy orders and he subsequently married Alice Harris, daughter of Sir Thomas More's secretary. On leaving Oxford he withdrew to Louvain, where like other scholars of his time he turned his attention to the craft of printing. His intellectual attainments were such as to enable him to take high rank among the scholar-printers of that age. Thus Antony a Wood says of him: "He was well skilled in the Greek and Latin tongues, a tolerable poet and orator, and a theologian not to be contemned. So learned he was also in criticisms and other polite learning, that he might have passed for another Robert or Henry Stephens. He did diligently peruse the Theological Summa of St. Thomas of Aquin, and with a most excellent method did reduce them into a Compendium." To have a printing press abroad in the hands of a competent English printer was a great gain to the Catholic cause, and Fowler devoted the rest of his life to this work, winning from Cardinal Allen the praise of being catholicissimus et doctissimus librorum impressor. The English Government kept an eye on his work, as we learn from the state papers (Domestic, Eliz. 1566-1579), where we read the evidence of one Henry Simpson at York in 1571, to the effect that Fowler printed all the English books at Louvain and that Dr. Harding's Welsh servant, William Smith, used to bring the works to the press. He seems to have had a press at Antwerp as well as at Louvain, for his Antwerp books range from 1565 to 1575, whereas his Louvain books are dated 1566, 1567 and 1568; while one of his publications, Gregory Martin's "Treatise of Schism" bears the impress, Douay, 1578. More thorough bibliographical research than has yet been made into the output of his presses will probably throw new light upon his activity as a printer. The original works or translations for which he was personally responsible are: "An Oration against the unlawful Insurrections of the Protestants of our time under pretence to reforme Religion" (Antwerp, 1566), translated from the Latin of Peter Frarinus, which provoked a reply from Fulke; "Ex universa summa Sacrae Theologiae Doctori os S. Thomae Aquinatis desumptae conclusiones" (Louvain, 1570); "M. Maruli dictorum factorumque memorabilium libri VI" (Antwerp, 1577); "Additiones in Chronica Genebrandi" (1578); "A Psalter for Catholics", a controversial work answered by Sampson; epigrams and verses. The translation of the "Epistle of Orosius" (Antwerp, 1565), ascribed to him by Wood and Pitts, was really made by Richard Shacklock. Pitts also states that he wrote in English a work "Ad Ducissam Feriae confessionis forma", Fowler also edited Sir Thomas More's "Dialogue of Comfort against Tribulation" (Antwerp, 1573). EDWIN BURTON Fractio Panis Fractio Panis (BREAKING OF BREAD.) The name given to a fresco in the so-called "Capella Greca" in the catacomb of St. Priscilla situated on the Via Salaria Nova. The fresco, which with the whole of the decorations of the chapel dates from the first half of the second century, is of the highest liturgical and theological importance. The painting is found upon the face of the arch immediately over the altar tomb, upon which beyond all reasonable doubt the Holy Sacrifice was offered. By a providential accident this particular fresco, having been covered by a thick crust of stalactites, escaped the notice of the early explorers of the catacombs, who, by their eagerness and ignorance combined, often did much irreparable harm. In the year 1893, Mgr. Joseph Wilpert, the most distinguished of a band of young scholars who looked upon the great archaeologist De Rossi (q.v.) as their master, arrived at the conclusion that the roof and arches of this chapel were decorated with frescoes. Chemical reagents were used to remove the crust which covered the surface, and by the patient care of Mgr. Wilpert this delicate operation was attended with complete success. The most important fresco thus recovered was that already referred to over the altar tomb. The scene represented is a picture of seven persons at table, six men and a woman. It seems clear that six of these are reclining as the ancients reclined at their meals. But the seventh personage, a bearded and impressive figure, sits somewhat apart at the extremity of the table in an attitude which is highly significant. His head is thrown back, he has a small loaf or cake in his hands, and his arms stretched out in front of him show that he is breaking it. Upon the table immediately before him is a two-handled cup. Further along the table there are two large plates, one containing two fishes, the other five loaves. At each extremity of the picture upon either side we notice baskets filled with loaves--four baskets at one end, three at the other. As a very little reflection will suffice to prove, no doubt can be felt as to the significance of the scene. It depicts beyond question that striking Eucharistic act, "the breaking of the bread" (klasis tou artou -- fractio panis), which seems to have so much impressed our Lord's immediate disciples. The phrase itself at once transports us back to the very beginnings of Christianity. No wonder that De Rossi, whose last years were gladdened by this find, described it as "the pearl of Catacomb discoveries". To point out briefly how constantly this phrase "fractio panis" recurs in early Christian literature, we may note that not only is the "blessing and breaking" of the bread mentioned in each of the four accounts of the Last Supper, but repeatedly also in the other Apostolic writings. For example in 1 Cor, x 16, "The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?" So again in Acts, ii, 42, "And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers" (cf. Acts, ii, 46). And particularly Acts, xx, 7, "And on the first day of the week, when we were assembled to break bread", where this practice is closely associated with the observance of Sunday. (Cf. also the diciples at Emmaus on Easter day--Luke, xxiv, 30, 35, and Acts, xxvii, 35). Similar prominence is given to this conception in other sub-Apostolic writings, notably in the Didache (q.v.) or "Teaching of the Apostles" (xiv, I), where it is associated with the observance of the Sunday as well as with the explicit mention of Sacrifice and with confession. "And on the Lord's day come together and break bread and give thanks, having first confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure." Further, in ch. xi of the same early treatise the consecrated Host is clearly designated by the term klasma, i.e. "broken bread". Nothing then could be more natural than that, in the earliest form of the liturgy, the breaking of the bread should have been regarded as the climax of the ritual employed and should have been for the early Christians what the Elevation in the Mass is nowadays for us. Moreover this Eucharistic significance of the picture is borne out by all the accessories. The loaves and the fishes upon the table point directly to the miraculous multiplication twice performed by Christ. The association of this miracle with the Blessed Eucharist is familiar, not only in other archaeological monuments, but also in early Christian literature. See for example Origen, "In Matt.", x, 25 (P.G. XIII, 902), and Ambrose, "De Virgin.", I, 3 (P.L., XVI, 219). Upon the symbolic significance of the fish and the anagram ichthys, it cannot be necessary to insist. Both the inscription of Abercius (q.v.) of the close of the second century and that of Autun a little later, as well as the large number of allusions in early Christian literature, make it clear that our Saviour Jesus Christ was indicated by this symbol (see e.g. Mowat in the "Atti del Congresso Internnaz. d'Archeol. Crist.", Rome, 1902, pp. 2-4) Moreover, the Abercius inscription clearly conveys that this "great fish" was to be the permanent food of the soul. We may also note that the one female fixture among the guests depicted in the Fractio Panis fresco is veiled which is not the case with the female figures represented in those other banqueting scenes found in the catacombs and usually interpreted as symbolic of the joys of heaven. The fresco of which we speak is not, as will be readily understood, either entirely realistic or entirely symbolical. That the president (proestos) of the synaxis (assembly) should break the bread seated, is probably not to be understood as implying that the bishops in the primitive church were in fact seated when they offered the liturgy any more than the attitude of the guests implies that the early Christians reclined on couches when they assisted at the Holy Sacrifice. On the other hand, the action of the breaking of the bread is clearly realistic. A further indication of the Eucharistic significance of the freseo here under discussion is afforded by the fact that in the fresco next to it in the same chamber is depicted the sacrifice of Abraham. On the other side is a representation of Daniel in the lions' den, to which Mgr. Wilpert also attaches a Eucharistic significance on account of the supernatural feeding of Daniel through the intervention of the prophet Habacuc (Dan., xiv, 36). WILPERT, in 1895, published a monograph giving a full account of this discovery under the title Fractio Panis, die alteste Darstellung der eucharistischen Opfers (Freiburz in Br.) This was translated into French the next year, it contains a collection of very carefully executed photogravures of the frescoes in the Capella Greca, but the dimness of the tones in the original fresco makes it impossible to distinguish the details clearly in any photographic copy. For this reason the coloured reproduction included by Mgr. Wilpert in his later work Die Malereien der Katakombem Roms, two folio volumes (Freiburg, 1903), also published at Rome in Italian, is much to be preferred. The Fractio Panis is shown upon plate xv, vol. I. Compare also MARUCCI elements d'Archeotogie Chretienne (Paris, 1899-1902), I, pp. 284-299: LECLERCQ in Dict. d' Archeologie, I, 3159-3162. HERBERT THURSTON France France The fifth in size (usually reckoned the fourth) of the great divisions of Europe. DESCRIPTIVE GEOGRAPHY The area of France is 207,107 square miles; it has a coastline 1560 miles and a land frontier 1525 miles in length. In shape it resembles a hexagon of which the sides are: (1) From Dunkirk to Point St-Matthieu (sands and dunes from Dunkirk to the mouth of the Somme; cliffs, called falaises, extending from the Somme to the Orne, except where their wall is broken by the estuary of the Seine; granite boulders intersected by deep inlets from the Orne to Point St-Matthieu. (2) From Point St-Matthieu to the mouth of the Bidassoa (alternate granite cliffs and river inlets as far as the River Loire; sandy stretches and arid moors from the Loire to the Garonne; sands, lagoons, and dunes from the Garonne to the Pyrenees). (3) From the Bidassoa to Point Cerbere (a formation known as Pyrenean chalk). (4) From Point Cerbere to the mouth of the Roya (a steep, rocky frontier from the Pyrenees to the Tech; sands and lagoons between the Tech and the Rhone, and an unbroken wall of pointed rocks stretching from the Rhone to the Roya). (5) From the Roya to Mount Donon (running along the Maritime, the Cottain, and the Graian Alps, as well as the mountains of Jura and the Vosges). (6) From Mount Donon to Dunkirk (an artificial frontier differentiated by few marked physical peculiarities). France is the only country in Europe having a coast line both on the Atlantic and on the Mediterranean; moreover, the passes of Belfort. Cote d'Or and Naurouse open up ready channels of communication between the Rhine, the English Channel, the Atlantic, and the Mediterranean. Furthermore, it is noteworthy, that wherever the French frontier is defended by lofty mountains (as, for instance, the Alps, the Pyrenees), the border people are akin to the French either in race, speech, or customs (the Latin races), while on the other hand, the Teutonic races, differing so widely from the French in ideas and sentiment, are physically divided from them only by the low-lying hills and plains of the North-East. Hence it follows that France has always lent itself with peculiar facility to the spread of any great intellectual movement, coming from the shores of the Mediterranean, as was the case with Christianity. France was the natural high road between Italy and England, between Germany and the Iberian peninsula. On French soil, the races of the North mingled with those of the South; and the very geographical configuration of the country accounts in a certain sense for the instinct of expansion, the gift of assimilation and of diffusion, thanks to which France has been able to play the part of general distributor of ideas. In fact, two widely different worlds meet in France. A journey from north to south leads through three distinct zones: the grain country reaching from the northern coast to a line drawn from Mezieres to Nantes; the vine country and the region of berries, southward from this to the latitude of Grenoble and Perpignan; the land of olive-garths and orange groves, extending to the southern boundary of the country. Its climate ranges from the foggy promontories of Brittany to the sunny shores of Provence; from the even temperature of the Atlantic to the sudden changes which are characteristic of the Mediterranean. Its people vary from the fair-haired races of Flanders and Lorraine, with a mixture of German blood in their veins, to the olive-skinned dwellers of the south, who are essentially Latin and Mediterranean in their extraction. Again Nature has formed, in the physiography of this country, a multitude of regions, each with its own characteristics -- its own personality, so to speak -- which, in former times, popular instinct called separate countries. The tendency to abstraction, however, which carried away the leaders of the Revolution, is responsible for the present purely arbitrary divisions of the soil, known as "departments". Contemporary geography is glad to avail itself of the old names and the old divisions into "countries" and "provinces" which more nearly correspond to the geographical formations as well as the natural peculiarities of the various regions. "Massif Central" (the Central Plateau), a rugged land inhabited by a stubborn race that is often glad to leave its fastness, and those lands of comfort that lie along the great Northern Plain, the valley of the Loire, and the fertile basin in which Paris stands. But in spite of this variety, France is a unit. These regions, so unlike and so diversified, balance and complete each other like the limbs of a living body. As Michelet puts it, "France is a person." STATISTICS In 1901, France had 31,031,000 inhabitants. The census no longer inquires as to the religion of French citizens, and it is only by way of approximation that we can compute the number of Catholics at 38 millions; Protestants, 600,000; Jews 68,000. The population of the French colonies amounts to 47,680,000 inhabitants, and in consequence France stands second to England as a colonizing power; but the difference between them is very great, the colonies of England having more than 356 millions of inhabitants. There are two points to be noted in the study of French statistics. The annual mean excess of births over deaths for each 10,000 inhabitants during the period 1901-1905 in France was 18, while in Italy it was 106, in Austria 113, in England 121, in Germany 149, in Belgium 155. In 1907, the deaths were more numerous than the births, the number of deaths being 70,455, while that of births was only 50,535 -- an excess of 19,920 deaths -- and this is notwithstanding the fact that in 1907 there were nearly 45,000 more marriages than in 1890. Official investigations attributed this phenomenon to sterile marriages. In 1907, in only 29 of 86 departments, the number of births exceeded the number of deaths. It may perhaps be legitimately inferred that the sterility of marriages coincides with the decay of religious belief. Again it is important to note the increase in population of the larger cities between the years 1789 and 1901: Marseilles, from 106,000 to 491,000; Lyons, from 139,000 to 459,000; Bordeaux, from 83,000 to 256,000; Lille, from 13,000 to 210,000; Toulouse, from 55,000 to 149,000; Saint-Etienne, from 9000 to 146,000. Paris, which in 1817 had 714,000 inhabitants, had 2,714,000 in 1901; Havre and Roubaix, which in 1821 had 17,000 and 9000 respectively, now have 130,000 and 142,000. In these great increases the multiplication of parishes has not always been proportionate to the increase in the population, and this is one of the causes of the indifference into which so many of the working people have fallen. In should be remembered that in former days nine-tenths of the people in France lived in the country; that while 556 of every 1000 Frenchmen lived by agriculture in 1856, that number had fallen to 419 in 1891. The emigrants from the country hurried into the industrial towns, many of which multiplied their population by fifteen, and there, accustomed as they had been to the village bell, they found no church in the neighbourhood, and after a few brief generations the once faithful family from the country developed the faithless dweller in the town. HISTORY TO THE THIRD REPUBLIC The treaty of Verdun (843) definitely established the partition of Charlemagne's empire into three independent kingdoms, and one of these was France. A great churchman, Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims (806-82), was the deviser of the new arrangement. He strongly supported the kingship of Charles the Bald, under whose scepter he would have placed Lorraine also. To Hincmar, the dream of a united Christendom did not appear under the guise of an empire, however ideal, but under the concrete form of a number of unit States, each being a member of one mighty body, the great Republic of Christendom. He would replace the empire by a Europe of which France was one member. Under Charles the Fat (880-88) it looked for a moment as though Charlemagne's empire was about to come to life again; but the illusion was temporary, and in its stead were quickly formed seven kingdoms: France, Navarre, Provence, Burgundy beyond the Jura, Lorraine, Germany, and Italy. Feudalism was the seething-pot, and the imperial edifice was crumbling to dust. Towards the close of the tenth century, in the Frankish kingdom alone, twenty-nine provinces or fragments of provinces, under the sway of dukes, counts, or viscounts, constituted veritable sovereignties, and at the end of the eleventh century there were as many as fifty-five of these minor states, of greater or lesser importance. As early as the tenth century one of the feudal families had begun to take the lead, that of the Dukes of Francia, descendants of Robert the Strong, and lords of all the country between the Seine and the Loire. >From 887 to 987 they successfully defended French soil against the invading Northmen, and the Eudes, or Odo, Duke of Francia (887-98), Robert his brother (922-23), and Raoul, or Rudolph, Robert's son-in-law (923-36), occupied the throne for a brief interval. The weakness of the later Carlovingian kings was evident to all, and in 987, on the death of Louis V, Adalberon, Archbishop of Reims, at a meeting of the chief men held at Senlis, contrasted the incapacity of the Carlovingian Charles of Lorraine, the heir to the throne, with the merits of Hugh, Duke of Francia. Gerbert, who afterwards became Sylvester II, adviser and secretary to Adalberon, and Arnoul, Bishop of Orleans, also spoke in support of Hugh, with the result that he was proclaimed king. Thus the Capetian dynasty had its rise in the person of Hugh Capet. It was the work of the Church, brought to pass by the influence of the See of Reims, renowned throughout France since the episcopate of Hincmar, renowned since the days of Clovis for the privilege of anointing the Frankish kings conferred on its titular, and renowned so opportunely at this time for the learning of its episcopal school presided over by Gerbert himself. The Church, which had set up the new dynasty, exercised a very salutary influence over French social life. That the origin and growth of the "Chansons de geste", i.e., of early epic literature, are closely bound up with the famous pilgrim shrines, whither the piety of the people resorted, has been recently proved by the literary efforts of M. Bedier. And military courage and physical heroism were schooled and blessed by the Church, which in the early part of the eleventh century transformed chivalry from a lay institution of German origin into a religious one, by placing among its liturgical rites the ceremony of knighthood, in which the candidate promised to defend truth, justice, and the oppressed. The Congregation of Cluny, founded in 910, which made rapid progress in the eleventh century, prepared France to play an important part in the reformation of the Church undertaken in the second half of the eleventh century by a monk of Cluny, Gregory VII, and gave the Church two other popes after him, Urban II and Pascal II. It was a Frenchman, Urban II, who at the Council of Claremont (1095), started the glorious movement of the Crusades, a war taken up by Christendom when France had led the way. The reign of Louis VI (1108-37) is of note in the history of the Church, and in that of France; in the one because the solemn adhesion of Louis VI to Innocent II assured the unity of the Church, which at the time was seriously menaced by the Antipope Antecletus; in the other because for the first timer Capetian kings took a stand as champions of law and order against the feudal system and as the protectors of public rights. A churchman, Suger, abbot of St-Denis, a friend of Louis VI and minister of Louis VII (1137-80), developed and realized this ideal of kingly duty. Louis VI, seconded by Suger, and counting on the support of the towns -- the "communes" they were called when they had obliged the feudal lords to grant them charters of freedom -- fulfilled to the letter the role of prince as it was conceived by the theology of the Middle Ages. "Kings have long arms", wrote Suger, "and it is their duty to repress with all their might, and by right of their office, the daring of those who rend the State by endless war, who rejoice in pillage, and who destroy homesteads and churches." Another French Churchman, St. Bernard, won Louis VII for the Crusades; and it was not his fault that Palestine, where the first crusade had set up a Latin kingdom, did not remain a French colony in the service of the Church. The divorce of Louis VII and Eleanor of Acquitain (1152) marred the ascendancy of French influence by paving the way for the growth of Anglo-Normal pretensions on the soil of France from the Channel to the Pyrenees. Soon, however, by virtue of feudal laws, the French king, Philip Augustus (1180-1223), proclaimed himself suzerain over Richard Coeur de Lion and John Lackland, and the victory of Bouvines which he gained over the Emperor Otto IV, backed by a coalition of feudal nobles (1214), was the first even in French history which called forth a movement of national solidarity around a French king. The war against the Albigensians under Louis VIII (1223-26) brought in its train the establishment of the influence and authority of the French monarchy in the south of France. St. Louis IX (1226-1270), "ruisselant de piete, et enflamme de charite", as a contemporary describes him, made kings so beloved that from that time dates that royal cult, so to speak, which was one of the moral forces in olden France, and which existed in no other country of Europe to the same degree. Piety had been for the kings of France, set on their thrones, set on their thrones by the Church of God, as it were a duty belonging to their charge or office; but in the piety of St. Louis there was a note all his own, the note of sanctity. With him ended the Crusades, but not their spirit. During the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, project after project attempting to set on foot a crusade was made, and we refer to them merely to point out that the spirit of a militant apostolate continued to ferment in the soul of France. The project of Charles Valois (1308-09), the French expedition under Peter I of Cyprus against Alexandria and the Armenian coasts (1365-1367), sung of by the French trouvere, Guillaume Machault, the crusade of John of Nevers, which ended in the bloody battle of Nicopolis (1396) -- in all these enterprises, the spirit of St. Louis lived, just as in the heart of the Christians of the east, whom France was thus trying to protect, there has survived a lasting gratitude toward the nation of St. Louis. If the feeble nation of the Marionites cries out today to France for help, it is because of a letter written by St. Louis to the nation of St. Maroun in May, 1250. In the days of St. Louis the influence of the French epic literature in Europe was supreme. Brunetto Latini, as early as the middle of the thirteenth century wrote that, "of all speech [parlures] that of the French was the most charming, and the most in favour with everyone." French held sway in England until the middle of the fourteenth century; it was fluently spoken at the Court of Constantinople at the time of the Fourth Crusade; and in Greece in the dukedoms, principalities and baronies found there by the House of Burgundy and Champagne. And it was in French that Rusticiano of Pisa, about 1300, wrote down from Marco Polo's lips the story of his wonderful travels. The University of Paris, founded by favour of Innocent III between 1280 and 1213, was saved from a spirit of exclusiveness by the happy intervention of Alexander IV, who obliged it to open its chairs to the mendicant friars. Among its professors were Duns Scotus; the Italians, St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure; Albert the Great, a German; Alexander of Hales, an Englishman. Among its pupils it counted Roger Bacon, Dante, Raimundus Lullus, Popes Gregory IX, Urban IV, Clement IV, and Boniface VIII. France was also the birthplace of Gothic art, which was carried by French architects into Germany. The method employed in the building of many Gothic cathedrals -- i.e., by the actual assistance of the faithful -- bears witness to the fact that at this period the lives of the French people were deeply penetrated with faith. An architectural wonder such as the cathedral of Chartres was in reality the work of popular art born of the faith of the people who worshipped there. Under Philip IV, the Fair (1285-1314), the royal house of France became very powerful. By means of alliances he extended his prestige as far as the Orient. His brother Charles of Valois married Catherine de Courtney, an heiress of the Latin Empire of Constantinople. The Kings of England and Minorca were his vassals, the King of Scotland his ally, the Kings of Naples and Hungary connections by marriage. He aimed at a sort of supremacy over the body politic of Europe. Pierre Dubois, his jurisconsult, dreamed that the pope would hand over all his domains to Philip and receive in exchange an annual income, while Philip would thus have the spiritual head of Christendom under his influence. Philip IV laboured to increase the royal prerogative and thereby the national unity of France. By sending magistrates in feudal territories, by defining certain cases (cas royaux) as reserved to the king's competency, he dealt a heavy blow to the feudalism of the Middle Ages. But on the other hand, under his rule many anti-Christian maxims began to creep into law and politics. Roman law was slowly re-introduced into social organization, and gradually the idea of a united Christendom disappeared from the national policy. Philip the Fair, pretending to rule by Divine right, gave it to be understood that he rendered an account of his kingship to no on under heaven. He denied the pope's right to represent, as the papacy had always done in the past, the claims of morality and justice where kings were concerned. Hence arose in 1294-1303, his struggle with Pope Boniface VIII, but in that struggle he was cunning enough to secure the support of the States-General, which represented public opinion in France. In later times, after centuries of monarchical government, this same public opinion rose against the abuse of power committed by its kings in the name of their pretended divine right, and thus made an implicit amende honorable to what the Church had taught concerning the origin, the limits, and the responsibility of all power, which had been forgotten or misinterpreted by the lawyers of Philip IV when they set up their pagan State as the absolute source of power. The election of Pope Clement V (1305) under Philip's influence, the removal of the papacy to Avignon, the nomination of seven French popes in succession, weakened the influence of the papacy in Christendom, though it has recently come to light that the Avignon popes did not always allow the independence of the Holy See to waver or disappear in the game of politics. Philip IV and his successors may have had the illusion that they were taking the place of the German emperors in European affairs. The papacy was imprisoned on their territory; the German empire was passing through a crisis, was, in fact, decaying, and the kings of France might well imagine themselves temporal vicars of God, side by side with, or even in opposition to, the spiritual vicar who lived at Avignon. But at this juncture the Hundred Years War broke out, and the French kingdom, which aspired to be the arbiter of Christendom, was menaced in its very existence by England. English kings aimed at the French crown, and the two nations fought for the possession of Guienne. Twice during the war was the independence of France imperilled. Defeated on the Ecluse (1340), at Crecy (1346), at Poitiers (1356), France was saved by Charles V (1364-80) and by Duguesclin, only to suffer French defeat under Charles VI at Agincourt (1415) and to be ceded by the Treaty of Troyes to Henry V, King of England. At this darkest hour of the monarchy, the nation itself was stirred. The revolutionary attempt by Etienne Marcel (1358), and the revolt which gave rise to the Ordonnace Cabochienne (1418) were the earliest signs of popular impatience at the absolutism of the French kings, but internal dissensions hindered an effective patriotic defence of the country. When Charles VII came to the throne, France had almost ceased to be French. The king and court lived beyond the Loire, and Paris was the seat of an English government. Blessed Joan of Arc was the saviour of French nationality as well as French royalty, and at the end of Charles' reign (1422-61) Calais was the only spot in France in the hands of the English. The ideal of a united Christendom continued to haunt the soul of France in spite of the predominating influence gradually assumed in French politics by purely national aspirations. From the reign of Charles VI, or even the last years of Charles V, dates the custom of giving to French kings the exclusive title of Rex Christianissimus. Pepin the Short and Charlemagne had been proclaimed "Most Christian" by the popes of their day: Alexander III had conferred the same title on Louis VII; but from Charles VI onwards the title comes into constant use as the special prerogative of the kings of France. "Because of the vigour with which Charlemagne, St. Louis, and other brave French kings, more than the other kings of Christendom, have upheld the Catholic Faith, the kings of France are known among the kings of Christendom as 'Most Christian'." Thus wrote Philippe de Mezieres, a contemporary of Charles VI. In later times, the Emperor Frederick III, addressing Charles VII, wrote "Your ancestors have won for your name the title Most Christian, as a heritage not to be separated from it." From the pontificate of Paul II (1464), the popes, in addressing bulls to the kings of France, always use the style and title Rex Christianissimus. Furthermore, European public opinion always looked upon Bl. Joan of Arc, who saved the French monarchy, as the heroine of Christendom, and believed that the Maid of Orleans meant to lead the king of France on another crusade when she had secured him in the peaceful possession of his own country. France's national heroine was thus heralded by the fancy of her contemporaries, by Christine de Pisan, and by that Venetian merchant whose letters have been preserved for us in the Morosini Chronicle, as a heroine whose aims were as wide as Christianity itself. The fifteenth century, during which France was growing in national spirit, and while men's minds were still conscious of the claims of Christendom on their country, was also the century during which, on the morrow of the Great Schism and of the Councils of Basle and of Constance, there began a movement among the powerful feudal bishops against pope and king, and which aimed at the emancipation of the Gallican Church. The propositions upheld by Gerson, and forced by him, as representing the University of Paris, on the Council of Constance, would have set up in the Church an aristocratic regime analogous to what the feudal lords. profiting by the weakness of Charles VI, had dreamed of establishing in the State. A royal proclamation in 1518, issued after the election of Martin V maintained in opposition to the pope "all the privileges and franchises of the kingdom," put an end to the custom of annates, limited the rights of the Roman court in collecting benefices, and forbade the sending to Rome of articles of gold or silver. This proposition was assented to by the young King Charles VII in 1423, but at the same time he sent Pope Martin V an embassy asking to be absolved from the oath he had taken to uphold the principles of the Gallican Church and seeking to arrange a concordat which would give the French king a right of patronage over 500 benefices in his kingdom. This was the beginning of the practice adopted by French kings of arranging the government of the Church directly with the popes over the heads of the bishops. Charles VII, whose struggle with England had left his authority still very precarious, was constrained, in 1438, during the Council of Basle, in order to appease the powerful prelates of the Assembly of Bourges, to promulgate the Pragmatic Sanction, thereby asserting in France those maxims of the Council of Basle which Pope Eugene had condemned. But straightway he bethought him of a concordat, and overtures in this sense were made to Eugene IV. Eugene replied that he well knew the Pragmatic Sanction -- "that odious act" -- was not the king's own free doing and a concordat was discussed between them. Louis XI (1461-83), whose domestic policy aimed at ending or weakening the new feudalism which had grown up during two centuries through the custom of presenting appanages to the brothers of the king, extended to the feudal bishops the ill will he professed toward the feudal lords. He detested the Pragmatic Sanction as an act that strengthened ecclesiastical feudalism, and on 27 November, 1461, he announced to the pope its suppression. At the same time he pleaded, as the demand of his Parliament, that for the future the pope should permit the collation of ecclesiastical benefices to be made either wholly or in part through the civil power. The Concordat of 1472 obtained from Rome very material concessions in this respect. At this time, besides "episcopal Gallicanism", against which pope and king were working together, we may trace, in the writings of the lawyers of the closing years of the fifteenth century, the beginnings of a "royal Gallicanism" which taught that in France the State should govern the Church. The Italian wars undertaken by Charles VIII (1493-98), and continued by Louis XII (1498-1515), aided by an excellent corps of artillery, and all the resources of French furia, to assert certain French claims over Naples and Milan, did not quite fulfill the dreams of the French kings. They had, however, a threefold result in the worlds of politics, religion, and art. Politically, they led foreign powers to believe that France was a menace to the balance of power, and hence arouse alliances to maintain that balance, such, for instance, as the League of Venice (1495), and the Holy League (1511-12). From the point of view of art, their carried a breath of the Renaissance across the Alps. And in the religious world they furnished France an opportunity on Italian soil of asserting for the first time the principles of royal Gallicanism. Louis XII, and the emperor Maximilian, supported by the opponents of Pope Julius II, convened in Pisa a council that threatened the rights of the Holy See. Matters looked very serious. The understanding between the pope and the French kings hung in the balance. Leo X understood the danger when the victory of Marignano opened to Francis I the road to Rome. The pope in alarm retired to Bologna, and the Concordat of 1516, negotiated between the cardinals and Duprat, the chancellor, and afterwards approved of by the Ecumenical Council of the Lateran, recognized the right of the King of France to nominate not only to 500 ecclesiastical benefices, as Charles VII had requested, but to all the benefices in his kingdom. It was a fair gift indeed. But if in matters temporal the bishops were thus in the king's hands, their institution in matters spiritual was reserved to the pope. Pope and king by common agreement thus put an end to an episcopal aristocracy such as the Gallicans of the great councils had dreamed of. The concordat between Leo X and Francis I was tantamount to a solemn repudiation of all the anti-Roman work of the great councils of the fifteenth century. The conclusion of this concordat was one of the reasons why France escaped the Reformation. From the moment that the disposal of church property, as laid down by the concordat, belonged to the civil power, royalty had nothing to gain from the Reformation. Whereas the kings of England and the German princelings saw in the reformation a chance to gain possession of ecclesiastical property, the kings of France, thanks to the concordat, were already in legal possession of those much-envied goods. When Charles V became King of Spain (1516) and emperor (1519), thus uniting in his person the hereditary possessions of the House of Austria and German, as well as the old domains of the House of Burgundy in the Low Countries -- uniting moreover the Spanish monarchy with Naples, Sicily, Sardinia, the northern part of Africa, and certain lands in America, Francis I inaugurated a struggle between France and the House of Austria. After forty-four years of war, from the victory of Marignano to the treaty of Cateau-Cambresis (1515-59), France relinquished hopes of retaining possession of Italy, but wrested the Bishoprics of Metz, Toul, and Verdun from the empire and had won back possession of Calais. The Spaniards were left in possession of Naples and the country around Milan, and their influence predominated throughout the Italian Peninsula. But the dream which Charles V had for a brief moment entertained of a world-wide empire had been shattered. During this struggle against the House of Austria, France, for motives of political and military exigency, had been obliged to lean in the Lutherans of Germany, and even on the sultan. The foreign policy of France since the time of Francis I had been to seek exclusively the good of the nation and no longer to be guided by the interests of Catholicism at large. The France of the Crusades even became the ally of the sultan. But, by a strange anomaly, this new political grouping allowed France to continue its protection to the Christians of the East. In the Middle Ages it protected them by force of arms; but since the sixteenth centuries, by treaties called capitulations, the first of which was drawn up in 1535. The spirit of French policy had changed, but it is always on France that the Christian communities of the East rely, and this protectorate continues to exist under the Third Republic, and has never failed them. The early part of the sixteenth century was marked by the growth of Protestantism in France, under the forms of Lutheranism and of Calvinism. Lutheranism was the first to make its entry. The minds of some in France were already prepared to receive it. Six years before Luther's time, the archbishop Lefebvre of Etaples (Faber Stapulensis), a protege of Louis XII and of Francis I, had preached the necessity of reading the scriptures and of "bringing back religion to its primitive purity". A certain number of tradesmen, some of whom, for business reasons, had travelled in Germany, and a few priests, were infatuated with Lutheran ideas. Until 1634, Francis I was almost favorable to the Lutherans, and he even proposed to make Melanchthon President of the College de France. But on learning, in 1534, that violent placards against the Church of Rome had been posted on the same day in many of the large towns, and even near the king's own room in the Chateau d'Amboise, he feared a Lutheran plot; an inquiry was ordered, and seven Lutherans were condemned to death and burned at the stake in Paris. Eminent ecclesiastics like du Bellay, Archbishop of Paris, and Sadolet, Bishop of Carpentras, deplored these executions, and the Valdois massacre ordered by d'Oppede, President of the Parliament of Aix, in 1545. Laymen, on the other hand, who ill understood the Christian gentleness of these prelates, reproached them with being slow and remiss in putting down heresy; and when, under Henry II, Calvinism crept in from Geneva, a policy of persecution was inaugurated. From 1547 to 1550, in less than three years, the chambre ardente, a committee of the Parliament of Paris, condemned more than 500 persons to retract their beliefs, to imprisonment, or to death at the stake. Notwithstanding this, the Calvinists, in 1555, were able to organize themselves into Churches on the plan of that at Geneva; and, in order to bind these Churches more closely together, they held a synod in Paris in 1559. There were in France at that time seventy-two Reformed Churches; two years later, in 1561, the number had increased to 2000. The methods, too, of the Calvinist propaganda had changed. The earlier Calvinists, like the Lutherans, had been artists and workingmen, but in the course of time, in the South and in the West, a number of princes and noblemen joined their ranks. Among these were two princes of the blood, descendants of St. Louis: Anthony of Bourbon, who became King of Navarre through his marriage with Jeanne d'Albret, and his brother the Prince de Conde. Another name of note is that of Admiral de Coligny, nephew of that duke of Montmorency who was the Premier Baron of Christendom. Thus it came to pass that in France Calvinism was not longer a religious force, but had become a political and military cabal; and the French kings in opposing it were but defending their own rights. Such was the beginning of the Wars of Religion. They had for their starting-point the conspiracy of Amboise (1560) by which the Protestant leaders aimed at seizing the person of Francis II, in order to remove him from the influence of Francis of Guise. During the reigns of Francis II, Charles IX, and Henry III, a powerful influence was exercised by the queen-mother, who made use of the conflicts between the opposing religious factions to establish more securely the power of her sons. In 1561, Catharine de' Medici arranged for the Poissy discussion to try and bring about an understanding between the two creeds, but during the Wars of religion she ever maintained an equivocal attitude between both parties, favouring now the one and now the other, until the time came when, fearing that Charles IX would shake himself free of her influence, she took a large share of responsibility in the odious massacre of St. Bartholomew. There were eight of these wars in the space of thirty years. The first was started by a massacre of Calvinists at Vassy by the troopers of Guise (1 March, 1562), and straightway both parties appealed for foreign aid. Catharine, who was at this time working in the Catholic cause, turned to Spain; Coligny and Conde turned to Elizabeth of England and turned over to her the port of Havre. Thus from the beginning were foreshadowed the lines which the Wars of religion would follow. They opened up France to the interference of such foreign princes as Elizabeth and Philip II, and to the plunder of foreign soldiers, such as those of the Duke of Alba and the German troopers (Reiter) called in by the Protestants. One after another, these wars ended in weak provisional treaties which did not last. Under the banners of the Reformation party or those of the League organized by the House of Guise to defend Catholicism, political opinions ranged themselves, and during these thirty years of civil disorder monarchical centralization was often in trouble of overthrow. Had the Guise party prevailed, the trend of policy adopted by the French monarchy towards Catholicism after the Concordat of Francis I would have been assuredly less Gallican. That concordat had placed the Church of France and its episcopate in the hands of the king. The old episcopal Gallicanism which held that the authority of the pope was not above that of the Church assembled in council and the royal Gallicanism which held that the king had no superior on the earth, not even the pope, were now allied against the papal monarchy strengthened by the Council of Trent. The consequence of all this was that the French kings refused to allow the decisions of that council to be published in France, and this refusal has never been withdrawn. At the end of the sixteenth century it seemed for an instant as though the home party of France was to shake off the yoke of Gallican opinions. Feudalism had been broken; the people were eager for liberty; the Catholics, disheartened by the corruption of the Valois court, contemplated elevating to the throne, in succession to Henry II, who was childless, a member of the powerful House of Guise. In fact, the League had asked the Holy See to grant the wish of the people, and give France a Guise as king. Henry of Navarre, the heir presumptive to the throne, was a Protestant; Sixtus V had given him the choice of remaining a Protestant, and never reigning in France, or of abjuring his heresy, receiving absolution from the pope himself, and, together with it, the throne of France. But there was third solution possible, and the French episcopate foresaw it, namely that the abjuration should be made not to the pope but to the French bishops. Gallican susceptibilities would thus be satisfied, dogmatic orthodoxy would be maintained on the French throne, and moreover it would do away with the danger to which the unity of France was exposed by the proneness of a certain number of Leaguers to encourage the intervention of Spanish armies and the ambitions of the Spanish king, Philip II, who cherished the idea of setting his own daughter in the throne of France. The abjuration of Henry IV made to the French bishops (25 July, 1593) was a victory of Catholicism over Protestantism, but none the less it was the victory of episcopal Gallicanism over the spirit of the League. Canonically, the absolution given by the bishops to Henry IV was unavailing, since the pope alone could lawfully give it; but politically that absolution was bound to have a decisive effect. From the day that Henry IV became a Catholic, the League was beaten. Two French prelates went to Rome to crave absolution for Henry. St. Philip Neri ordered Baronius -- smiling, no doubt, as he did so -- to tell the pope, whose confessor he, Baronius was, that he himself could not have absolution until he had absolved the King of France. And on 17 September, 1595, the Holy See solemnly absolved Henry IV, thereby sealing the reconciliation between the French monarchy and the Church of Rome. The accession of the Bourbon royal family was a defeat for Protestantism, but at the same time half a victory for Gallicanism. Ever since the year 1598 the dealing of the Bourbons with Protestantism were regulated by the Edict of Nantes. This instrument not only accorded the Protestants the liberty of practicing their religion in their own homes, in the towns and villages where it had been established before 1597, and in two localities in each bailliage, but also opened to them all employments and created mixed tribunals in which judges were chosen equally from among Catholics and Calvinists; it furthermore made them a political power by recognizing them for eight years as master of about one hundred towns which were known as "places of surety" (places de surete). Under favour of the political causes of the Edict Protestants rapidly became an imperium in imperio, and in 1627, at La Rochelle, they formed an alliance with England to defend, against the government of Louis XIII (1610-43), the privileges of which Cardinal Richelieu, the king's minister, wished to deprive them. The taking of La Rochelle by the king's troops (November, 1628), after a siege of fourteen months, and the submission of the Protestant rebels in the Cevenes, resulted in a royal decision which Richelieu called the Grace d'Alais: the Protestants lost all their political privileges and all their "places of surety" but on the other hand freedom of worship and absolute equality with Catholics were guaranteed them. Both Cardinal Richelieu, and his successor, Cardinal Mazarin, scrupulously observed this guarantee, but under Louis XIV a new policy was inaugurated. For twenty-five years the king forbade the Protestants everything that the edict of Nantes did not expressly guarantee them, and then, foolishly imagining that Protestantism was on the wane, and that there remained in France only a few hundred obstinate heretics, he revoked the Edict of Nantes (1685) and began an oppressive policy against Protestants, which provoked the rising of the Camisards in 1703-05, and which lasted with alternations of severity and kindness until 1784, when Louis XVI was obliged to give Protestants their civil rights once more. The very manner in which Louis XIV, who imagined himself the religious head of his kingdom, set about the Revocation, was only an application of the religious maxims of Gallicanism. In the person of Louis XIV, indeed, Gallicanism was on the throne. At the States-General in 1614, the tiers etat had endeavoured to make the assembly commit itself to certain decidedly Gallican declarations, but the clergy, thanks to Cardinal Duperron, had succeeded in shelving the question; then Richelieu careful; not to embroil himself with the pope, had taken up the mitigated and very reserved form of Gallicanism represented by the theologian Duval. As for Louis XIV, he considers himself a God on earth -- his religion is the State's; every subject who does not hold that religion is outside of the State. Hence the persecution of Protestants and of Jansenists. But at the same time he would never allow a papal Bull to be published in France until his Parliament decided whether it interfered with the "liberties" of the French Church or the authority of the king. And in 1682 he invited the clergy of France to proclaim the independence of the Gallican Church in a manifesto of four articles, at least two of which -- relating to the respective powers of a pope and a council -- broached questions which only an ecumenical council could decide. In consequence of this a crisis arose between the Holy See and Louis XIV which led to thirty-five sees being left vacant in 1689. The policy of Louis XIV in religious matters was adopted also by Louis XV. His way of striking at the Jesuits in 1763 was in principal the same as that taken by Louis XIV to impose Gallicanism on the Church -- the royal power pretending to mastery over the Church. The domestic policy of the seventeenth-century Bourbons, aided by Scully, Richelieu, Mazarin, and Louvois, completed the centralization of the kingly power. Abroad, the fundamental maxim of their policy was to keep up the struggle against the House of Austria. The result of the diplomacy of Richelieu (1624-42) and of Mazarin (1643-61) was a fresh defeat for the House of Austria; French arms were victorious at Rocroi, Fribourg, Noerdlingen, Lens, Sommershausen (1643-48), and by the Peace of Westphalia (1648) and that of the Pyrenees (1659), Alsace, Artois, and Roussillion were annexed to French territory. In the struggle Richelieu and Mazarin had the support of the Lutheran prince of Germany and of Protestant countries such as the Sweden of Gustavus Adolphus. In fact in may be laid down that during the Thirty Years War, France upheld Protestantism. Louis XIV, on the contrary, who for many years was arbiter of the destinies of Europe, was actuated by purely religious motives in some of his wars. Thus the war against Holland, and that against the League of Augsburg, and his intervention in the affairs of England were in some respects the result of of religious policy and of a desire to uphold Catholicism in Europe. The expeditions in the Mediterranean against the pirates of Barbary have all the halo of the old ideals of Christendom -- ideals which in the days of Louis XIII had haunted the mind of Father Joseph, the famous confidant of Richelieu, and had inspired him with the dream of crusades led by France, once the House of Austria should have been defeated. The long and complex reign of Louis XIV, in spite of the disasters which mark its close, gained for France the possession of Flanders, and of Franche-Comte, and saw a Bourbon, Philip V, grandson of Louis XIV, seated on the throne of Spain. The seventeenth century in France was par excellence a century of Catholic awakening. A number of bishops set about reforming their diocese according to the rules laid down by the Council of Trent, though its decrees did not run officially in France. The example of Italy bore fruit all over the country. Cardinal de la Rochefoucauld, Bishop of Claremont and afterwards of Senlis, had made the acquaintance of St. Charles Borromeo. Francis Taurugi, a companion of St. Philip Neri, was archbishop of Avignon. St. Francis de Sales Christianized lay society by his "Introduction to the Devout Life", which he wrote at the request of Henry IV. Cardinal de Berulle and his disciple de Condren founded the Oratory. St. Vincent de Paul, in founding the Priests of the Mission, and M. Olier, in founding the Sulpicians, prepared the uplifting of the secular clergy, and the development of the grands seminaires. It was the period, too, when France began to build up her colonial empire, when Samuel de Champlain was founding prosperous settlements in Acadia and Canada. At the suggestion of Pere Coton, confessor to Henry IV, the Jesuits followed in the wake of the colonists; they made Quebec the capital of all that country, and gave it a Frenchman, Mgr. de Montmorency-Laval as its first bishop. The first apostles to the Iroquois were the French Jesuits, Lallemant and de Brebeuf; and it was the French missionaries, as much as the traders who opened postal communication over 500 leagues of countries between the French colonies in Louisiana and Canada. In China, the French Jesuits, by their scientific labours, gained a real influence at court and converted at least one Chinese prince. Lastly, from the beginning of this same seventeenth century, under the protection of Gontaut-Biron, Marquis de Salignac, Ambassador of France, dates the establishment of the Jesuits at Smyrna, in the Archipelago, in Syria, and at Cairo. A Capuchin, Pere Joseph du Tremblay, Richelieu's confessor, established many Capuchin foundations in the East. A pious Parisian lady, Madame Ricouard, gave a sum of money for the erection of a bishopric at Babylon, and its first bishop was a French Carmelite, Jean Duval. St. Vincent De Paul sent the Lazarists into the galleys and prisons of Barbary, and among the islands of Madagascar, Bourbon, Mauritius, and the Mascarenes, to take possession of them in the name of France. On the advice of Jesuit Father de Rhodes, Propaganda and France decided to erect bishoprics in Annam, and in 1660 and 1661 three French bishops, Franc,ois Pallu, Pierre Lambert de Lamothe, and Cotrolendi, set out for the East. It was the activities of the French missionaries that paved the way for the visit of the Siamese envoys to the court of Louis XIV. In 1663 the Seminary for Foreign Missions was founded, and in 1700 the Societe de Missions Etrangeres, received its approved constitution, which has never been altered. To repeat a saying of Ferdinand Brunetiere, the eighteenth century was the least Christian and least French century in the history of France. Religiously speaking, the alliance of parliamentary Gallicanism and Jansenism weakened the idea of religion in an atmosphere already threatened by philosophers, and although the monarchy continued to keep the style and title of "Most Christian", unbelief and libertinage were harboured, and at times defended, at the court of Louis XV (1715-74), in the salons, and among the aristocracy. Politically, the tradition strife between France and the House of Austria ended, about the middle of the eighteenth century, with the famous Renversement des Alliances (see Choiseul, Etienne-Franc,ois, Duc de; Fleury, Andre-Hercule de). This century is filled with that struggle between France and England which may be called the second Hundred Years War, during which England had for an ally Frederick II, King of Prussia, a country which was then rapidly rising in importance. The command of the sea was at stake. In spite of men like Dupliex, Lally-Tollendal, and Montcalm, France lightly abandoned its colonies by successive treaties, the most important of which was the Treaty of Paris (1763). The acquisition of Lorraine (1766), and the purchase of Corsica from the Genoese (1768) were poor compensations for these losses; and when, under Louis XVI, the French navy once more raised its head, it helped in the revolt of the English colonies in America, and thus seconded the emancipation of the United States (1778-83). The movement of thought of which Montesquieu, Voltaire, Rousseau, and Diderot, each in his own fashion, had been protagonists, an impatience provoked by the abuses incident to a too centralized monarchy, and the yearning for equality which was deeply agitating the French people, all prepared the explosion of the French Revolution, That upheaval has been too long regarded as a break in the history of France. The researches of Albert Sorel have proved that the diplomatic traditions of the old regime were perpetuated under the Revolution; the idea of the State's ascendancy over the Church, which had actuated the ministers of Louis XIV and the adherents of Parliament -- the parliamentaires -- in the days of Louis XV reappears with the authors of the "Civil Constitution of the Clergy", even as the centralizing spirit of the old monarchy reappears with the administrative officials and the commissaries of the Convention. It is easier to cut off a king's head than to change the mental constitution of a people. The Constituent Assembly (5 May, 1789-30 September, 1791) rejected the motion of the Abbe d'Eymar declaring the Catholic religion to be the religion of the State, but it did not thereby mean to place the Catholic religion on the same level as other religions. Voulland, addressing the Assembly on the seemliness of having one dominant religion, declared that the Catholic religion was founded on too pure a moral basis not to be given the first place. Article 10 of the "Declarations of the Rights of Man" (August, 1789) proclaimed toleration, stipulating "that no one ought to be interfered with because of his opinions, even religious, provided that their manifestation does not disturb public order" (pourvu que leur manifestation ne trouble pas l'ordre public etabli par l`a). It was by virtue of the suppression of feudal privileges, and in accordance with the ideas professed by the lawyers of the old regime where church property was in question that the Constituent Assembly abolished tithes and confiscated the possessions of the Church, replacing them by an annuity grant from the treasury. The "Civil Constitution of the Clergy" was a more serious interference with the life of French Catholicism, and it was drawn up at the instigation of Jansenist lawyers. Without referring to the pope, it set up a new division into diocese, gave the voters, no matter who they might be, a right to nominate parish priests and bishops, ordered metropolitans to take charge of the canonical institution of their sufferagans, and forbade the bishops to seek a Bull of confirmation in office from Rome. The Constituent Assembly required all priests to swear to obey this constitution, which received the unwilling sanction of Louis XVI, 26 December, 1790, and was condemned by Pius VI. By Briefs dated 10 March and 13 April, Pius VI forbade the priests to take the oath, and the majority obeyed him. Against these "unsworn" (insermentes) or "refractory" priests a period of persecution soon began. The Legislative Assembly (1 October, 1791-21 September, 1792), while it prepared the way for the republic which both the great parties (the Mountain and the Girondists) equally wished, only aggravated the religious difficulty. On 19 November, 1791, it decreed that those priests who had not accepted the "Civil Constitution" would be required with a week to swear allegiance to the nation, to the law, and to the king, under pain of having their allowances stopped and of being held as suspects. The king refused to approve this, and (26 August, 1792) it declared that all refractory priests show leave France under pain of ten years' imprisonment or transportation to Guiana. The Convention (21 September, 1792-26 October, 1795) which proclaimed the republic and caused Louis XVI to be executed (21 January, 1793), followed a very tortuous policy toward religion. As early as 13 November, 1792, Cambon, in the name of the Financial Committee, announced to the Convention that he would speedily submit a scheme of general reform including a suppression of the appropriation for religious worship, which, he asserted, cost the republic "100,000,000 livres annually". The Jacobins opposed this scheme as premature, and Robespierre declared it derogatory to public morality. During the first eight months of its existence the policy of the Convention was to maintain the "Civil Constitution" and to increase the penalties against "refractory" priests who were suspected of complicity on the Vendee rising. A decree dated 18 March, 1793, punished with death all compromised priests. It no longer aimed at refractory priests only, but any ecclesiastic accused of disloyalty (incivisme) by any six citizens became liable to transportation. In the eyes of the revolution, there were no longer good priests and bad priests; for the sans-culottes every priest was suspect. Then, from the provinces, stirred up by the propaganda of Andre Dumont, Chaumette, and Fouche, there began a movement of dechristianization. The constitutional bishop, Gobrel, abdicated in November, 1793, together with his vicars-general. At the feast of Liberty which took place in Notre-Dame on 10 November an altar was set up to the Goddess of Reason, and the church of Our Lady became the temple of that goddess. Some days after this a deputation attired in priestly vestments, in mockery of Catholic worship, paraded before the Convention. The Commune of Paris, on 24 November, 1793, with Chaumette as its spokesman, demanded the closing of all churches. But the Committee of Public Safety was in favour of temporizing, to avoid frightening the populace and scandalizing Europe. On 21 November, 1793, Robespierre, speaking from the Jacobin tribune of the Convention, protested against the violence of the dechristianizing party, and in December the Committee of Public Safety induced the Convention to pass a decree ensuring freedom of worship, and forbidding the closing of Catholic churches. Everywhere throughout the provinces civil war was breaking out between the peasants, who clung to their religion and faith, and the fanatics of the Revolution, who, in the name of patriotism threatened, as they said, by the priests, were overturning the altars. According to the locality in which they happened to be, the propagandists either encouraged or hindered this violence against religion; but even in the every bitterest days of the terror, there was never a moment when Catholic worship was suppressed throughout France. When Robespierre had sent the partisans of Hebert and of Danton to the scaffold, he attempted to set up in France what he called la religion de l'Etre Supreme. Liberty of conscience was suppressed, but atheism was also a crime. Quoting the words of Rousseau about the indispensable dogmas, Robespierre had himself proclaimed a religious leader, a pontiff, and a dictator; and the worship of the Etre Supreme was held up by his supporters as the religious embodiment of patriotism. But after the 9th of Thermidor, Cambon proposed once more the principle of separation between Church and State, and it was decided that henceforth the Republic would not pay the expenses of any form of worship (18 September, 1794). The Convention next voted the laicization of the primary schools, and the establishment, at intervals of ten days, of feasts called fetes decadaires. When Bishop Gregoire in a speech ventured to hope that Catholicism would some day spring up anew, the Convention protested. Nevertheless the people in the provinces were anxious that the clergy should resume their functions, and "constitutional" priests, less in danger than the others, rebuilt the altars here and there throughout the country. In February, 1795, Boissy-d'Anglas carried a measure of religious liberty, and the very next day Mass was said in all the chapels of Paris. On Easter Sunday, 1795, in the same city which, a few months before, had applauded the worship of Reason, almost every shop closed its doors. In May, 1795, the Convention restored the churches for worship, on condition that the pastors should submit to the laws of the State; in September, 1795, less than a month before its dissolution, it regulated liberty of worship by a police law, and enacted severe penalties against priests liable to transportation or imprisonment who should venture back on French soil. The Directory (27 October, 1795 -- 9 November, 1799), which succeeded the Convention, imposed on all religious ministers (Fructidor, Year V) the obligation of swearing hatred to royalty and anarchy. A certain number of "papist" priests took the oath, and the "papist" religion was thus established here and there, though it continued to be disturbed by the incessant arbitrary acts of interference on the part of the administrative staff of the Directory, who by individual warrants deported priests charged with inciting to disturbance. In this way, 1657 French and 8235 Belgian, priests were driven into exile. The aim of the Directory was to substitute for Catholicism the culte decadaire, and for Sunday observance the rest on the decadis, or tenth days. In Paris, fifteen churches were given over to this cult. The Directory also favored an unofficial attempt of Chemin, the writer, and a few of his friends to set up a kind of national Church under the name of "Theophilanthropy"; but Theophilanthropy and the culte decadaire, while they disturbed the Church, did not satisfy the needs of the people for priests, altars, and the traditional festivals. All these were restored by the Concordat of Napoleon Bonaparte, who became Consul for ten years on 4 November, 1799. The Concordat assured to French Catholicism, in spite of the interpolation of the articles organiques, a hundred years of peace. The conduct of Napoleon I, when he became emperor (18 May, 1804) towards Pius VII was most offensive to the papacy; but even during those years when Napoleon was ill-treating Pius VII and keeping him a prisoner, Catholicism in France was reviving and expanding day by day. Numerous religious congregations came to life again or grew up rapidly, often under the guidance of simple priests or humble women. The Sisters of Christian Schools of Mercy, who work in hospitals and schools, date from 1802, as do the Sisters of Providence of Langres; the Sisters of Mercy of Montauban from 1804; the Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Jesus at St-Julien-du-Gua date from 1805. In 1806 we have the Sisters of Reuilly-sur-Loire, founded by the Abbe Dujarie; the Sisters of St. Regis at Aubenis, founded by the Abbe Therne; the Sisters of Notre Dame de Bon Secours at Charly; the Sisters of Mercy of Billom. the Sisters of Wisdom founded by Blessed Grignon de Montfort, remodeled their institutions at this time in La Vendee, and Madame Dupleix was founding at Lyons and at Durat the Confraternity of Mary and Joseph for visiting the prisons. The year 1807 saw the coming of the Sisters of Christian Teaching and Nursing (de l'Instruction chretienne et des malades) of St-Gildas-des-Bois founded by the Abbe Deshayes and the great teaching order of the Sisters of Ste-Chretienne of Metz. In 1809 there appeared in Aveyron the Sisters of the Blessed Virgin Mary; in 1810, the sisters of St. Joseph of Vaur (Ardeche), the Sister Hospitallers of Rennes, and the Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny. -- Such was the fruit of eight years of religious revival, and the list could easily be continued through the years that followed. In the Wars of the Revolution, which began 20 April, 1792, the French missionary qualities which, under the old regime, had been employed in the service of the Christian ideal were consecrated to "the Rights of Man" and to emancipating the people from "the tyrants"; but in the Napoleonic Wars which followed, these very peoples, fired with the principles of liberty which had come to them from France, expressed their newly developed national consciousness in a struggle against French armies. In this way the propaganda of the Revolution had in the end a disastrous reaction on the very country where its ideals originated. During the nineteenth century France was destined to undertake several wars for the emancipation of nationalities -- the Greek War (1827-28) under the Restoration; the Italian War (1859) under the second Empire -- and it was in the name of the principle of nationality that the Second Empire to grow until, in 1870, it had reached its full growth at the expense of France. Under the Restoration parliamentary government was introduced into France. The revolution of July, 1830, the "liberal" and "bourgeois" revolution asserted against the absolutism of Charles X those rights which had been guaranteed to Frenchmen by the Constitution -- the "Charte" as it was called -- and brought to the throne of Louis Phillipe, Duke of Orleans, during whose reign as "King of the French", the establishment of French rule in Algeria was finally completed. One of the most admirable charitable institutions of French origin dates from the July Monarchy, namely the Little Sisters of the Poor begun (1840) by Jeanne Jugan, Franchon Aubert, Marie Jamet, and Virginie Tredaniel, poor working-women who formed themselves into an association to take care of one blind old woman. In 1900 the congregation thus begun counted 3000 Little Sisters distributed among 250 to 260 houses all over the world, and caring for 28,000 old people. Under the July Monarchy, also, the conferences of St. Vincent De Paul were founded, the first of them at Paris, in May, 1883, by pious laymen under the prompting of Ozanam, for the material and moral assistance of poor families; in 1900 there were in France alone 1224 of these conferences, and in the whole world 5000. In 1895 the city of Paris had 208 conferences caring for 7908 families. The mean annual receipts of the conferences of St. Vincent De Paul in the whole of France amount to 2,198,566 francs ($440,000.00 or -L-88,000). In 1906 the receipts from the conferences all over the world amounted to 13,453,228 francs ($2,690,645), and their expenditures to 13,541,504 francs ($2,708,300), while, to meet extraordinary demands, they had a reserve balance of 3,069,154 francs ($613,830). The annual expenditure always exceeds the annual amount received. As Cardinal Regnier was fond of saying, "The conferences have taken the vow of poverty." The Revolution of February, 1848, against Louis Philippe and Guizot, his minister, who wished to maintain a property qualification for the suffrage, led to the establishment of the Second Republic and universal suffrage. By granting liberty of teaching (Loi Falloux), and by sending an army to Rome to assist Pius IX, it earned the gratitude of Catholics. At this point in history, when so many social and democratic aspirations were being agitated, the social efficaciousness of Christian thought was demonstrated by Vicomte de Melun, who developed the "Societe Charitable" and the "Annales de la Charite" and carried a law on old-age pensions and mutual benefit societies; and by Le Prevost, founder of the Congregation of the Brothers of St. Vincent De Paul, who, leading a religious life in the garb of laymen, visited among the working classes. The Second Empire, the issue of Louis Napoleon Bonaparte's coup d'etat (2 December, 1851), affirmed universal sufferage and this secured the victory of French democracy; but it reduced parlementarisme to an insignificant role, the Plebescite being employed as an ordinary means of ascertaining the will of the people. It was the second empire, too, that gave Nizza, Savoy, and Cochin-China to France. THE THIRD REPUBLIC The Third Republic -- tumultuously proclaimed, 4 September, 1870, on the ruins of the empire overthrown at Sedan -- was victorious, thanks to Thiers and the army of Versailles, over the Parisian outbreak called the Commune (March-May, 1871). Effectively defined by the Constitution of 1875, it had to acquiesce in the Treaty of Frankfort (1871) by which Alsace and Lorraine were ceded to Germany. On the other hand, it enriched the colonial possessions, or the sphere of influence, of France by the acquisition of Tongking, Tunis, and Madagascar. Under the Third Republic, a parliamentary system with two chambers was established on the double principle of a responsible ministry and a president above all responsibility, the latter elected by the two chambers for a period of seven years. Thiers, MacMahon, Jules Grevy, Sadi-Carnot, Felix Faure, Emile Loubet, Armand Fallierres have been successively at the head of the French state since 1870. Through all these changes in government, French foreign policy, either knowingly or by force of habit and precedent, has been of service to the Catholic Church, service amply repaid by the Church by perpetuating in some measure the Christian ideal of earlier times. The Crimean War, undertaken (1855) by Napoleon III, originated in the desire to protect Latin Christians in Palestine, the clients of France, against Russian encroachments. During the course of the nineteenth century French diplomacy at Rome and in the East has aimed at safeguarding the prerogatives of France as patron of Oriental Christendom, and of thus justifying the traditional trust of the Orientals in the "Franks" as the natural champions of Christianity in the Ottoman Empire. French influence in this field was threatened by Austria, Italy, and German in turn; the first of these powers alleged certain treaties with the sultan, daring from the eighteenth century as giving it the right to defend Catholic interests at the Sublime Porte; the other two made repeated efforts to induce Italian and German missionaries to seek protection from their own consuls rather than those of France. But on 22 May, 1888, the circular "Aspera rerum conditio", signed by Cardinal Simeoni, Prefect of the Propaganda, commanded all missionaries to respect the prerogatives of France as their protecting power. Even at the present time, in spite of the separation of Church and State, the diplomacy of the Third Republic in the East enjoys the prestige acquired by the France of St. Louis and Francis I. And amid all the ideas and tendencies of "laicization" this protectorate continues to exist as relic and a right of Christian France -- "Anticlericalism is not an article for exportation" says Gambetta, and up to recent years this has always been the motto of Republican France. In spite of constant threats under which the congregations have lived during the Third Republic, it is unquestionable that certain important institutes have seen the number of its members increase notably. This is illustrated by the following table: Institute -- Members (1879) -- Members (1900) Socitete des Missions Estrangeres -- 480 -- 1200 Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny -- 2067 -- 4000+ Daughters of Wisdom -- 3600 -- 4650 Sisters of St. Paul of Chartres -- 1119 -- 1732 Brothers of St. Gabriel -- 791 -- 1350 Little Brothers of Mary -- 3600 -- 4850 Little Sisters of the Poor -- 2683 -- 3073 Brothers of the Holy Spirit -- 515 -- 902 Taine has proved that vocations to the religious life increased remarkably in the France of the nineteenth century, when they were entirely spontaneous, as compared with the France of the eighteenth century, when many families, for worldly reasons, placed their daughters in convents. MISSIONARY FRANCE IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY The reawakening of British Catholicism at the beginning of the nineteenth century was in some measure due to the influence of the French refugee clergy whom the Revolution had driven into exile. And when, in 1789, in the United States of America, John Carroll was named Bishop of Baltimore, it was to the Sulpician Fathers that he appealed to establish his seminary, thus preparing for the part which that splendid institute of French priests was to take, and still continues to play, in building up the Church in America. The discussion between Monsignor Duborg, Bishop of New Orleans, and Madame Petit, a widow of Lyons, on the spiritual needs of Louisiana (1815), and the letter written by Abbe Jaricot to his sister Pauline, who also lived at Lyons, on the poverty of the foreign missions (1819), led these two ladies to organize, each independently of the other, societies for the collection of alms from the faithful for the propagation of Christianity, and from these first feeble beginnings was born, 3 May, 1822, the great work known to English-speaking Catholics as the "Propagation of Lyons". In 1898, this society collected from one country or another 7,700,921 francs ($1,140,180.00 or -L-228,000) for missionary purposes. Of this sum, no less than 4, 077, 085 francs was contributed by France alone, while, in 1908, owing to the many needs of the Church at home, France's contribution fell from 6,402,586 francs to 3,082,131 francs. In 1898, the work of the Sainte-Enfance (The Holy Childhood), also of French origin, which aspires to save both the bodies and the souls of Chinese children, collected 3,615,845 francs (about $723,000.00 or -L-145,000), of which 1,094,092 francs came from France alone, while in 1908-09, for the reason referred to above, French generosity could only contribute 813,952 francs to this work, the general receipts of which amounted to 3,761,954 francs. That work in 1907-08 helped 236 missions, 1171 orphanages, 7372 schools, and 2480 manual-training establishments. In 1898, again, L'Oeuvre des Ecoles d'Orient, an association for supplying schools in the East, collected in France 584,056 francs, and in other countries only 27,596 francs. In 1898 the Society of African Missions collected 50,000 francs, the Anti-Slavery Society 120,000 francs, while the Good-Friday alms for the maintenance of the Holy Land amounted to 122,000 francs, making in all, for the year 1898, a total of 6,047,231 francs contributed by France to the foreign missionaries without distinction of nationality. But France furnishes not only money but men and women to these missions. On the eve of the Law of 1901 Abbe Kannengieser compiled the following estimations of the religious, men and women, of French nationality engaged in mission work: + Socitete des Missions Estrangeres -- 1200 + Society of Jesus -- 750 + Lazarists -- 500 + Augustinians of the Assumption -- 216 + Brothers of the Christian Schools -- 813 + Capuchins -- 160 + Dominicans -- 80 + Missionaries of St. Francis de Sales -- 60 + Carmelites -- 14 + Marianists -- 80 + Little Brothers of Mary -- 359 + Oblates of St. Francis de Sales -- 25 + Franciscans -- 95 + Fathers of the Holy Spirit -- 429 + White Fathers -- 500 + African Missions -- 123 + Oblates of Mary Immaculate -- 400 + Marists -- 320 + Picpus Fathers -- 80 + Missionaries of Mary -- 46 + Brothers of St. Gabriel -- 53 + Redemptorists -- 100 + Priests of Betharram -- 80 + Christian Brothers of Ploermel -- 272 + Christian Brothers of the Sacred Heart -- 346 + Missionaries of the Sacred Heart -- 27 + Sulpician Fathers -- 30 + Congregation of the Holy Cross -- 40 + Fathers of Mercy -- 21 + Children of Mary Immaculate -- 15 + Brothers of Our Lady of the Annunciation -- 60 + Brothers of the Holy Family -- 40 + Benedictines of La-Pierre-qui-Vivre -- 25 + Fathers of La Salette -- 5 + Trappists -- 21 A similar list of the women engaged in religious work on the missions, drawn up on the eve of the Law of 1901, gave a grand total of 7745 religious men and 9150 religious women supplied by France alone for this work. The Missions Estrangeres in 1908 had in its missions 37 bishops, 1371 missionaries, 778 native priests, 3050 catechists, 45 seminaries, 2081 seminary students, 305 religious men, 4075 religious women, 2000 Chinese virgins, 5700 churches and chapels, 347 creches and orphanages, sheltering 20,409 children, 484 pharmacies and dispensaries, 108 hospitals and lepers asylums. Within the same year (1908) it brought about the baptism of 33,169 adults, and 139,956 infants. At Jerusalem Cardinal Lavigerie founded in 1855 the seminary of St. Anne for Oriental rites; the French Dominicans founded in 1890, at Jerusalem, a school for Biblical study, and on the northwest coast of Asia Minor, near Constantinople, the French Assumptionists reorganized the Uniat Greek Church, and prepared the way for the success of the Eucharistic Congress of 1893, presided over by the French Cardinal Langenieux, as legate of Pope Leo XIII, at which Christians of the may oriental rites were assembled. For the Lebanon district, French Jesuits have a school a Beirut with 520 students, for the most part medical, and a printing press unrivalled for its Arabic printing. Besides this they have 125 elementary schools about their university. At Smyrna French Lazarists have a congregation of 16,000 Catholics where, in 1800, there were only 3000. In Smyrna alone, the French schools, or schools under French influence, have upwards of 19,000 pupils, and in the vilayet of Smyrna nearly 3000 pupils. The schools of the French Capuchins in Palestine have 1000 pupils, those of the French Jesuits in European Turkey, 7000 pupils. In 1860, France intervened on behalf of the Christians of the East, who were menaced by the fanaticism of Turks, Arabs, and Druses. It is on this occasion that Faud Pasha is reported to have said, pointing to some religious who were present, "I do not fear the 40,000 bayonets you have at Damascus, but I do fear those sixty robes there". At Mosul some French Dominicans, assisted by Sisters of the Presentation of Tours, have had a residence since 1856; they have established hospitals, workshops, and dispensaries all over Mesopotamia, as well as a Syro-Chaldean seminary. These missionaries won back to Christian unity, under the pontificate of Leo XIII, 50,000 Nestorians, and 30,000 Armenian Gregorians. In like manner, 26 Jesuits of the province of Lyons have been building schools throughout Armenian during the past thirty years. The old See of Babylon was replaced in 1844 by the See of Bagdad where a French bishop rules over 90,000 Catholics of various rites. In Persia, the French Lazarists have a congregation of 80,000 faithful where, in 1840, there were only 400. The French Capuchins established at Aden are breaking ground in Arabia. French Jesuits are evangelizing Ceylon. Under the priests of the Missions Etrangeres, who are assisted by five communities of religious women, the number of Catholics in Pondicherry increased tenfold during the nineteenth century. Priests of St. Francis de Sales of Annecy have had charge of the vicariate of Vizagapatam since 1849. The city of Bombay alone has no fewer than twenty-seven conferences of ST. Vincent de Paul. In Burma the priests of the Missions Etrangeres minister to 40,000 Catholics, were they were only 5000 in 1800. the mission of Siam, made famous by Fenelon, and ruined at the beginning of the nineteenth century, numbers to-day more than 20,000 souls. And at the Penang seminary, French priests are forming a native clergy. The nine French mission of Tongking and Cochin-China have 650,000 Catholics. It was a missionary, Mgr. Puginier, who, from 1880 to 1892, did so much to open up those regions to French exploration. "Where it not for the missionaries and the Christians", a Malay pirate once said, "The French in Tongking would be as helpless as crabs without legs." China is the mission-field of Jesuits, Lazarists, and French priests of the Missions Etrangeres. The French-Corean dictionary published by the priests of the Missions Etrangeres; the works on Chinese philosophy, begin in the eighteenth century by the Jesuit Amiot, and carried on in the nineteenth century by the French Jesuits in their Chinese printing establishment at Zi-ka-wei; the researches in natural sciences made in China by the Lazarist David and the Jesuits Heude, Desgodins, Dechevrens; the works accomplished in the fields of astronomy and meteorology by the French Jesuits Zi-ka-wei -- all these achievements of French missionaries have won the applause of the learned world. In the nineteenth century the recovery of Japan to the Church was begun by Mgr Forcade, afterwards Archbishop of Aix, and French Marianists are labouring to build up a native Japanese clergy. In Oceanica, since the year 1836, when Chanel, Bataillion, and a few other Marists came to take possession of the thousands of islands scattered between Japan and New Zealand, the work of evangelizing has gone through Australia, New Zealand, the Wallace Islands, New Caledonia, the New Hebrides, and Sydney Island. The Fathers of the Sacred Heart of Issoudun are in the Gilbert Isles; the Fathers of Picpus are working in the Hawaiian islands, Tahiti, and the Marquesas. The fame of Father Damien (Joseph Damien de Veuster), one of the Picpus Fathers, the apostle of the lepers at Molokai, has spread throughout the world. In Africa Father Libermann (a converted Alsacian Jew) and his Congregation of the Holy Ghost and the Immaculate Heart of Mary undertook, in 1840, the evangelization of the black race. It has now spread over the whole of that pagan continent; and the missionaries established by Mgr Augouard in Ubangi are in the very heart of the cannibal districts. Jesuits, Holy Ghost Fathers, and Lazarists are working in Madagascar; Jesuits are established along the Zambesi River, and the African Missionaries of Lyons have settlements around the Gulf of Guinea, at the Cape of Good Hope, and at Dahomey, while the Oblates of Mary are in Natal. In Senegal Mother Anne-Marie Javouhey, foundress of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny -- she of whom Louis Phillipe said "Madame Javouhey c'est un grand homme" -- opened the first French schools in 1820, and set on foot the first attempts at agriculture in that region. In Egypt, French Jesuits have two colleges; the Lyons missionaries, one; the Brothers of the Christian Schools teach more than 1000 pupils; and 60 parish schools, with more than 3000 children, are under the care of French sisterhoods. French Lazarists minister to 13,000 souls in Abyssinia. The ecclesiastical province of Algeria, which in 1800 reckoned 4000 souls, had at the time of Cardinal Lavigerie's death 400,000, with 500 priests, 260 churches, and 230 schools, while Tunis, which in 1800 contained but 2000 Catholics, numbered 27,000 ministered to by 153 religious in 22 parishes. The Brothers of the Christian Schools were pioneers of the French language in Tunis, as they had been throughout the Ottoman Empire from Constantinople to Cairo, and the Congregation of the White Fathers, who sent out their first ten missionaries from Algiers on the 17th of April, 1878, towards equatorial Africa, founded, in Uganda and along Lake Tanganyika, Christian communities, one of which, in May, 1886, gave to the Faith 150 martyrs. Side by side with this peaceful conquest of the African continent by the initiative of a French cardinal, a place of honour must be given to the wonderful part played in the colonization and development of French Guiana, since the year 1828, by Mother Javouhey, of whose efforts in Senegal we have already spoken. It was she, who under the July monarch, and at the request of the government, undertook in Guiana the work of civilizing the unfortunate negroes taken by the men-of-war from captured slave ships, and whom she eventually employed as free workmen. Her example alone would suffice to refute the slander so often repeated that the French are not a colonizing race. Only in one part of the world -- the East -- is this vast missionary movement aided, however slightly, by the French Treasury. In the Levant a certain number of church schools received state aid as a help to the spreading of the French language, but of late years these subventions have been opposed and diminished. On 12 December, 1906, M. Dubief, in moving the Budget of Foreign Affairs, proposed to suppressed the sums voted to aid the schools conducted by religious congregations in the East. M. Pichon, minister of Foreign Affairs, promised to hasten the work of laicization, and by means of this promise he secured the continuation of the credit of 92,000 francs. It is a matter of regret that the aim of the Chambers for some years past has been to cut down the assistance given by France to these schools, and to create in the East French educational institutions of a purely secular character. M. Marcel Charlot, in 1906, and M. Aulard, in 1907, the one in the name of the State, the other in the interest of la Mission Laique, made a critical study of our religious schools in the east, and contributed to the laicizing movement which, if successful, would mean the dissolution of France's religious clientele in the East and a lessening of French political influence. FRANCE AT ROME Side by side with the part France has played in the missionary field, the diplomatic activity at Rome of the Third Republic, in its character as a protector of pious institutions, is worth noting. It tends to prove the depth, the reality, the force which underlay the old saying: Gallia Ecclesiae Primogenita Filia. In 1890, on the occasion of the French workingmen's pilgrimage, Count Lefebvre de Behaine, the French ambassador, formally renewed the claims of the French Republic over the chapel of St. Petronilla, founded by Pepin the Short in the basilica of St. Peter. The principal religious establishments over which certain prerogatives were exercised by the French embassy at Rome, until its suppression in 1903, were: the church and community of chaplains of St. Louis the French, the French national church in Rome, dating back to a confraternity instituted in 1454; the pious foundation of St. Yves of the Bretons, which dates from 1455; the church of St. Nicholas of the Lorrainers, which dates from 1622; the church of St. Claudius of the Burgundians, which dates from 1652; the convent of Trinit`a on the Pincian Hill, which was founded by Charles VIII, in 1494, for the Friars Minor, and became, in 1828, a boarding school under the care of the French ladies of the Sacred Heart. There has also been an ancient bond between France and the Lateran Chapter, by reason of the donations made to the chapter by Louis XI and Henry IV, and the annual grant apportioned to it by Charles X, in 1845, and by Napoleon III, in 1863. Although this grant was discontinued by the republic in 1871, the Lateran Chapter until the suppression of the Embassy of the Holy See (1904) always kept up official relations with the French ambassador whom, on the 1st of January of each year, it charged with a special message of greeting to the President of the Republic. Lastly, since 1230 there has always been a French auditor of the Rota. In 1472 Sixtus IV formally recognized this to be the right of the French nation. The allowance made by France to the auditor was discontinued in 1882, but the office has survived, and the reorganization of the tribunal of the Rota made by Pope Pius X (September and October 1908) was followed by the appointment of a French auditor. ECCLESIASTICAL DIVISIONS In 1780 France, with the exception of Venaissin, which belonged immediately to the pope, was divided into 135 dioceses; eighteen archbishoprics or ecclesiastical provinces with 106 suffragan sees and eleven sees depending on foreign metropolitans. The latter eleven sees were: Strasburg, suffragan of Mainz; St-Die, Nancy, Metz, Toul, Verdun, suffragans of Trier; and five in Corsica, suffragans of Genoa or of Pisa. The eighteen archiepiscopal sees were: Aix, Albe, Aries, Auch, Besonc,on, Bourdeaux, Bourges, Cambrai, Embrun, Lyons, Narbonne, Paris, Reims, Rouen, Sens, Toulouse, Tours, Vienne. In 1791 the constituent assembly suppressed the 135 dioceses, and created ten metropolitan sees with one suffragan diocese in each department. The Concordat of 1851 set up fifty bishoprics and ten archbishoprics; the Concordat of 1817 made a fresh arrangement, which was realized in 1822 and 1823 by the creation of new bishoprics. France and its colonies are presently divided in to ninety diocese, of which eighteen are metropolitan and seventy-two suffragan, as follows: + Marseilles (Metropolitan) -- Frejus, Digne, Gap, Nice, Ajaccio. (Suffragans) + Albi -- Rodez, Cahors, Mende, Perpignan. + Algiers -- Constantine, Oran. + Auch -- Aire, Tarbes, Bayonne. + Avignon -- Nimes, Valence, Viviers, Montpellier. + Besanc,on -- Verdun, Belley, St-Die, Nancy. + Bordeaux -- Agen, Angouleme, Poitiers, Perigueux, La Rochelle, Luc,on, La Basse-Terre (Guadaloupe, W. I.), Reunion (Indian Ocean), Fort-de-France, Martinique, W. I.). + Bourges -- Clermont, Limoges, Le Puy, Tulle, St-Flour. + Cambrai -- Arras. + Chamber -- yAnnecy, Tarentaise, Maurienne. + Lyons -- Autun, Langres, Dijon, St-Claude, Grenoble. + Paris -- Chartres, Meaux, Orleans, Blois, Versailles. + Reims -- Soissons, Chalons-sur-Marne, Beauvais, Amiens. + Rennes -- Quimper, Vannes, St-Brieuc. + Rouen -- Bayeux, avreux, Seez, Coutances. + Sens -- Troyes, Nevers, Moulins. + Toulouse -- Montauban, Pamiers, Carcassonne. + Tours -- Le Mans, Angers, Nantes, Laval. THE THIRD REPUBLIC AND THE CHURCH IN FRANCE The policy known as anticlerical, inaugurated by Gambetta in his speech at Romans, 18 September, 1878, containing the famous catchword "Le clericalisme, c'est l'ennemi". was due to the influence of the Masonic lodges, which ever since that date have shown their hatred even of the very idea of God. If one carefully follows up the series of aspirations uttered at the Masonic meetings, there will surely be found the first germ of the successive laws which have been framed against the Church. To justify its action before the people, the Government has asserted that the sympathies of a great number of Catholics, including the many of the clergy, were for the monarchical parties. This policy also presented itself as a retaliation for the attempt of the 16th of May, 1877, by which the monarchists had tried to impede in France the progressive actions of the liberals (la Gauche) and of the democratic spirit. Its first embodiments were, in 1879, the exclusion of the priests from the administrative committees of hospitals and of boards of charity; in 1880, certain measures directed against the religious congregations; from 1880 to 1890, the substitution of lay women for nuns in many hospitals; and, in 1882 and 1886, the "School Laws" (lois scolaires) which will later on be discussed in detail. The Concordat continued to govern the relations of Church and State, but in 1881, the method of stoppage of salary (suppression de traitement) began to be employed against priests whose political attitude was unsatisfactory to the Government, and the Law of 1893, which subjected the financial administration of church property to the same rules as civil establishments, occasioned lively concern among the clergy. As early as March, 1888, Leo XIII had written to President Grevy, complaining of the anti-religious bitterness, and expressing a hope that the eldest daughter of the Church would find it possible to abandon this struggle if she would not forfeit that unity and homogeneity among her citizens which had been the source of her own peculiar greatness, and thus oblige history to proclaim that one inconsiderate day's work had destroyed in France the magnificent achievement of the ages. Jules Grevy replied that the religious feeling complained of way the outcome mainly of the hostile attitude of a section of the clergy to the Republic. Some years later (12 November, 1890), Cardinal Lavigerie, returning from Rome, and inspired by Leo XIII, delivered a speech in the presence of all the authorities, military and civil, of Algeria, in which he said: "When the will of a people as to the form of its government has been clearly affirmed, and when, to snatch a people from the abysses which threatens it, unreserved adhesion to this political form is necessary, then the moment has come to declare the test completed, and it only remains to make all those sacrifices which conscience and honour permit us, and command us, to make for the good of our country." This speech, which caused a great commotion, was followed by a letter of Cardinal Rampolla, Secretary of State to Leo XIII, addressed to the Bishop of St-Flour, in which the cardinal exhorted Catholics to come forward and take part in public affairs, thus entering upon the readiest and surest path to the attainment of that noble aim, the good of religion and the salvation of souls. Lastly, a Brief of Leo XIII to Cardinal Lavigerie, in the early part of the year 1891, assured him that his zeal and activity answered perfectly to the needs of the age and the pope's expectations. From these utterances dates in France the policy known as "Raillement", and as "Leo's Republican Policy". At once the Archbishops of Tours, Cambrai, the Bishops of Bayeux, Langres, Digne, Bayonne, and Grenoble declared their adhesion to the "Algiers Programme", and the Monarchical press accused them of "kissing the Republic feet of their executioners". On 16 January, 1892, a collective letter was published by the five French cardinals, enumerating all the acts of oppression sanctioned by the Republic against the Church, and concluding, in conformity with the wish of Rome, by announcing the following programme: Frank and loyal acceptance of political institutions; respect for the laws of the country whenever they do not clash with conscientious obligations; respect for the representatives of authority, combined with steady resistance to all encroachments on the spiritual domain. Within a month the seventy-five bishops subscribed to the above programme, and in the atmosphere thus prepared, the voice of Pope Leo once more spoke out. In the Encyclical "Inter innumeras sollicitudines", dated 10 February, 1892, Leo XIII besought Catholics not to judge the Republic by the irreligious character of its government, and explained that a distinction must be drawn between the form of government, which ought to be accepted, and its laws, which ought to be improved. Thus was the policy of rallying to the Republic precisely stated, as recommended to the Catholics of France, and expounded in the brochures, in Paris, of Cardinal Perraud, and at Rome, of Fr. Brandi, editor of the "Civilt`a Cattolica". Anticlericalists and Monarchists were alarmed. The Monarchists protested against the interference of the pope in French politics, and the anticlericals declared that the Republic had not room for "Roman Republicans". Both parties asserted that it was impossible to distinguish between the Republican form of government and the Republican laws. A trifling incident, arising out of a visit paid by some French pilgrims to the Parthenon in Rome, which contains the tomb of Victor Emmanuel, called forth from M. Fallieres, Minister of Justice, a circular against pilgrimages (October, 1891), and occasioned a lively debate in the French Chamber on the separation of Church and State. But in spite of these outbreaks of Anticlericalism, the political horizons, especially after the Encyclical of February, 1892, became more serene. The policy of combining Republican forces by a fusion of Moderates and Radicals to support a common programme of Republican concentration, which programme was incessantly developing new anticlerical measures as concessions to the Radicals -- gradually went out of fashion. After the October elections, in 1893, for the first time in many long years, a homogeneous ministry was formed, one ministry composed exclusively of Moderate Republicans, and known as the Casimir Perier-Spuller Ministry. On 3 March, 1894, in a discussion in the Chamber on the prohibition of religious emblems by the socialist Mayor of Saint-Denis, Spuller, the minister of Public Worship, declared that it was time to take a stand against all fanaticisms whatsoever -- against all sectaries, regardless of the particular sect to which they might belong -- and that the Chamber could rely at once of the vigilance of the Government to uphold the rights of the State, and on the new spirit (esprit nouveau) which animated the Government, and tended to reconcile all citizens and bring back all Frenchmen to the principles of common sense and justice, and of the charity necessary for every society that wishes to survive. Thus it seemed that there would be developing, side by side with the policy of ralliement practised by the Church, a similar conciliatory policy on the part of the State. A letter from Cardinal Rampolla, dated 30 January, 1895, to M. Auguste Roussel, formerly an editor of the "Univers", but who had become editor-in-chief of the "Verite", found fault with the latter periodical for stirring up feeling against the Republic, fostering in the mind of its readers the conviction that it was idle to hope for religious peace from such a form of government, creating an atmosphere of distrust and discouragement, and thwarting the movement toward general good-feeling which the Holy See desired, especially in light of the elections. This letter created a great sensation, and the newspaper polemics contrasted the Catholics of the "Univers" and the "Croix", docile toward Leo XIII, with the refractory Catholics of the "Verite". On 5 February, 1896, Felix Faure wrote as follows to Pope Leo: "The President of the Republic cannot forget the generous motives which prompted the advice given by Your Holiness to the Catholics of France, encouraging them to accept loyally the government of their country. Your Holiness regrets that these appeals for harmony and peace have not been everywhere listened to; and we join in those regrets. That enlightened advice given to the opponents of the Republic, for whose consciences the head of the Church is 'all-powerful', ought to have been followed by all. Nevertheless, we note at the present time, with regret, that there are men who, under the cloak of religion, foment a policy of discord and of strife. It would, however, be unjust not to recognize that, while the salutary instructions of Your Holiness have not produced all the effects that might have been expected of them, very many loyal Catholics have bowed before them. At the same time, this manifestation of goodwill produced among those Republicans who were most firmly attached to the rights of the civil power a spirit of conciliation which has largely contributed to mitigate the conflict of passions which saddened us." This letter, published for the first time at the end of the year 1905, in the "White Book" of the Holy See, places in clear relief the relations existing between the Church and the Republic four years after the encyclical of February, 1892, and three months before the formation of the Meline Ministry, which was to lead the Republic towards even greater moderation. The Meline Ministry (1896-98) secured for Catholics for two years a certain amelioration of their lot. But the division among Catholics persisted, and this division, which arose from their indocility to Leo XIII, was the principal cause of their defeat in the elections of 1898, when the Meline Ministry came to an end. The old Anticlerical Republican party came once more into power; the Dreyfus affair, a purely judicial matter around which political factions grew up, was made the pretext on the morrow of the death of President Faure (16 February, 1899) for beginning a formidable antimiltarist, and anticlerical agitation, which led to the formation of the Waldeck-Rousseau and the Combes Ministries. The Waldeck-Rousseau Ministry (1899-1902) passed fresh legislation against the congregations (it will be found in detail at the end of this article) and brought France to the verge of a breach with Rome over the question of the Nobis nominavit. These two words, which occurred in episcopal Bulls, signified that the priest chosen by the State to fill a bishopric had been designated and presented to the Holy See. On 13 June, 1901, when Bulls were required for the bishops of Carcassonne and Annecy, the Waldeck-Rousseau Ministry proposed that the word Nobis should be omitted, in order to affirm more clearly the State's right of nomination. The Combes Ministry (1902-05) continued the dispute over this matter, and on 22 November, 1903, the Holy See, in order to avoid a breach with France, agreed to omit the obnoxious word, on condition that, in future, the President of the Republic should demand the canonical institution of bishops by letters patent, containing the words, We name him, and present him to Your Holiness. In spite of this concession by the Holy See, M. Combs set himself the task of planning the separation of Church and State. He felt that public opinion was not yet ripe for this stroke, and all his efforts were directed to making separation inevitable. The laicization of the naval and military hospitals (1903-04), the order prohibiting soldiers to frequent Catholic clubs (9 February, 1904); the vote of the Chamber (14 February, 1904) in favour of the motion to repeal the Falloux Law were episodes less serious than the succession of calculated acts by which the breach with Rome was being approached. Three quarrels succeeded one another. 1. In regard to vacant sees, Combe's policy was to demand canonical institution for the candidate of his choice without previously consulting Rome. The Holy See refused its consent in the cases of the bishoprics of Maurienne, Bayonne, Ajaccio, and Vannes, and accepted M. Combe's candidate for Nevers. "All or none", replied M. Combes, on 19 March, 1904, to the the nuncio, Mgr Lorenzelli; and all the sees remained vacant. 2. On 25 March, 1904, the chamber agreed, by 502 votes against 12, to allocate a sum of money to defray the expenses of a visit by M. Loubet, President of the Republic, to Rome. M. Loubet was thus the first head of a Catholic State to pay a visit to the King of Italy in Rome. A note from Cardinal Rampolla to M. Nisard, the French Ambassador, dated 1 June, 1903, and a dispatch from the cardinal to the nuncio, Lorenzelli, dated 8 June, had explained the reasons why such a visit would be considered a grave affront to the Holy See. On 28 April, 1904, Cardinal Merry del Val sent a protest to M. Nisard against M. Loubet's visit to Rome. On 6 May, M. Nisard handed to Cardinal Merry del Val a diplomatic note in which the French government objected to the reasons given by the Holy See and to the manner in which they were presented. At the same time, to prevent the heads of other Catholic counties from following M. Loubet's example, the Holy See sent a diplomatic note to all the powers in which it was explained that if, in spite of this visit, the nuncio to France had not been recalled, it was only for very grave reasons of an order and nature altogether special. By an indiscretion, which has been attributed to the Government of the Principality of Monaco, "L'Humanite", a newspaper belonging to the socialist deputy, Jaures, published this note on 17 May. On 20 May, M. Nisard sought an explanation from Cardinal Merry del Val; on 21 May was granted leave of absence by his Government; and on 28 May, in the Chamber, the Government gave it to be understood that M. Nisard's departure from Rome had a significance much more serious than that of a simple leave of absence. 3. Having learned of a letter from Cardinal Serafino Vannutelli (17 May, 1904) inviting Monsignor Geay, Bishop of Laval, in the name of the Holy Office, to resign his see, and of a letter in which Monsignor Lorenzelli, the papal nuncio, requested Monsignor Le Nordez, Bishop of Dijon, to desist from holding ordinations until further orders, the French Government caused its charge d'affaires at Rome, M. Robert de Courcel, to inquire into the matter. When on 9 July, 1904, Cardinal Merry del Val cited Mgr Le Nordez to appear at Rome within fifteen days, under pain of suspension, M. Robert de Courcel announced to the cardinal that, unless this letter to Mgr Le Nordez was withdrawn, diplomatic relations between France and the Holy See would cease; and on 30 July, 1904, a note handed by M. Robert de Courcel to Cardinal Merry del Val announced that France had decided to put an end to these relations. In this way the breach was effected without any formal denunciation of the Concordat. On 10 February, 1905, the Chamber declared that "the attitude of the Vatican" had rendered the separation of Church and State inevitable. The "Osservatore Romano" replied that this was an "historical lie". The discussions in the chamber lasted from 21 March to 3 July, and in the Senate from 9 November to 6 December, and on 11 December 1905, the separation Law was gazetted in the "Journal Officiel". Laws Affecting the Congregations The Monarchy had taken fiscal measures against property held in mortmain ("the dead hand") but the first rigorous enactments against religious congregations date from the Revolution. The Law of 13 February, 1790, declared that monastic vows were no longer recognized, and that the orders and congregations in which such vows were made were forever suppressed. The Concordat itself was silent as to congregations; but the Eleventh of the Organic articles implicitly prohibited them, declaring that all ecclesiastical establishments except chapters and seminaries were suppressed. Two years later a decree, dated 3 Messidor, Year XII, suppressing certain congregations which had come into existence in spite of the law, added a provision that the civil authority could, by decree, formally authorize such associations after having taken cognizance of their statutes. The Lazarists, the Missions Estrangeres, the Friars of the Holy Ghost, and the Sulpicians were, in virtue of this law, authorized by decree in 1804; the Brothers of the Christian Schools, in 1808. Under the restoration, the Chamber of Peers refused the king the right of creating congregations by royal warrant (par ordonnace), asserting that for each particular re-establishment of a congregation a law was necessary. Such was the principle which ruled until the year 1901; but the applications of that principle varied with the changes of government. Under the Second Empire it was admitted in practice that a simple administrative authorization was sufficient to legalize a congregation of women, provided that such congregation adopted the statutes of a congregation previously authorized. Under the Third Republic, it was under the pretext of a strict enforcement of the law that, in 1880, the Society of Jesus was dissolved, and the other congregations were ordered to apply for authorization with three months. The protests of the Catholics, and the criticisms which became general on the archaic character of the laws upon which these decrees were based had this much effect, that, after a brutal application of the decrees to most of the congregations of men, the government dare not apply them to the unauthorized congregations of women; they gradually became a dead letter; and little by little the congregations of men were re-formed in the name of individual liberty. But in this condition of affairs, only the formally authorized congregations could be considered as "moral persons" before the law. Since 1849 the religious congregations had been paying into the treasury a "mortmain tax" (taxe des biens de mainmorte) in lieu of the succession duties which the properties of a "moral person" escapes. On the twofold consideration that this tax did not touch personal estate and that property held in unacknowledged mortmain evaded it, the Third republic passed the following enactments. + A law of increment (droit d'accroissement) so called because it was intended to reach that increase in the individual interest of each surviving member in the common estate which should accrue upon the decease of a fellow-member. This duty is represented by a composition tax (taxe abonnement) assessed at the rate of 0.3 percent on the market value of the real and person estate held by the association. On real estate held by associations not subject to the mortmain law, the rate is 0.4 percent. + A tax of four percent on the revenue of property owned or occupied by congregations, this revenue being assumed equal to one-twentieth of the gross value of the property. On 1 January, 1901, France numbered 19,424 establishments of religious congregations, with 159,628 members. Of these establishments, 3126 belonged to congregations of men; 16,298 to congregations of women (2870 of the latter being regularly authorized, and 13,428 unrecognized). The members of the male congregations number 30,136, of whom 23,327 belonged to teaching institutes, 552 served in hospitals, and 7277 followed the contemplative vocation [sic]. The value of real property being taxed as held by congregations amounted to 463,715,146 francs (about $92,000,000 or between -L-18,000,000 and -L-19,000,000) and in this estimate was included all property devoted by the religious to benevolent and educational purposes. But the Department of Domains, in drawing up its statistical report (which statistics were with justice questioned), explained that, in addition to the real property taxed as belonging to congregations, account should be taken of the real property occupied by them through the complaisance of lay corporations or proprietors whom the State declared to be mere intermediaries (personnes interposees), and the department placed the combined value of these two classes of property at 1,071,775,260 francs. To this unfair estimate may be traced the popular notion -- which was cleverly exploited by certain political parties -- about le milliard des congregations. The law of associations, as of 1 July, 1901, provided that no congregation, whether of men or of women, could be formed without a legislative authorizing act, which act should determine the function of such congregation. Thus ended the regime of tolerance to congregations of women which had been inaugurated by the Empire. Congregations previously authorized and those which should subsequently obtain authorization had, according to this law, the status of "moral persons", but this status held them to an obligation and kept them perpetually under a threat. On the one hand, it was enacted that they must each year draw up a list of their members, an inventory of their possessions, and a statement of their receipts and expenses, and must present these documents to the prefectoral authority upon demand. On the other hand, it was provided that, to deprive any congregation of its authorization, nothing more was required than an ordinary decree of the Council of Ministers. And lastly, these authorized congregations could found "new establishments" only in virtue of a decree of the Council of State, and the Council of State, in interpreting the law, considers that there is a "new establishment" when laymen in cooperation with one or more members of a congregation set up a school or a hospital. If the master of an industrial enterprise rewards a sister for teaching or caring for the children of this workmen, the law considers that there is a new establishment, for which an authorization of the Council of State is necessary. As for the unauthorized Congregations, the Law of 1901 declared them dissolved, allowing them three months to apply for authorization. Congregations which should re-form after dissolution, or which should in the future be formed without authorization were, by the same law, made liable to pains and penalties (fines of from 16 to 5000 francs; terms of imprisonment of from 6 days to one year); double penalties were to be inflicted on founders and administrators, and the act of providing premises for, and thus abetting, the operation of such congregations was, in 1902, declared an offense entailing the same penalties. Moreover, the law made every member of an unauthorized religious congregation incapable of directing any teaching establishment, or of teaching in one, under pain of fine or imprisonment, and this offense might entail the closing of the establishment. The Government found itself face-to-face with 17,000 unauthorized congregations; it decided to dissolve all of them without exception -- educational establishments, industrial establishments, contemplative establishments -- though charitable establishments were tolerated provisionally. From another point of view the law was singularly arbitrary and juridically defective; it struck at every member of a religious congregation who was not secularized, but it did not precisely state what constitutes secularization. Is it sufficient, for secularization to be effective and sincere, that the religious -- or, to employ the current French term, the congreganiste -- should be absolved from his vows and should re-enter the diocese from which he originally came? The prevalent legal opinion does not admit this; it admits the right of the courts to ascertain whether other elements of fact do not result in a virtual persistence of the congregation. Thus the courts may regard as religious persons who, in the eyes of the Church, are no longer such; and the fact of being a congreganiste, which fact constitutes an offense, is not a precise, material fact defined and limited by the letter of the enactment; it is a point upon which the interpretation of the courts remains the sovereign authority. The principles of liquidation were as follows: property belonging to congreganistes before their entrance to the congregation, or acquired since that time, whether by succession independent of testamentary provision (ab intestat) or by legacy in direct line, was to be restored to them. Gifts and bequests made otherwise than in direct line could not legally be claimed by the former congreganistes unless they established the point that they had not been intermediaries (personnes interposees). Benefactions to congregations could be reclaimed by benefactors or their heirs within a term of six months. After these deductions made by the congreganistes and their benefactors, the residue of the estate of the congregation was to be subject to the disposition of the courts. The law refused to recognize that property created by the labour or thrift of the congreganistes necessarily ought to be distributed among them, and it was held sufficient that, by an administrative ruling of 16 August, 1901, provision was made for allowances to former congreganistes who had no means of subsistence or who should establish the fact of having by their labour contributed to the acquisition of the property under liquidation. The juridical liquidation of the congregational estates had some serious consequences. The Chamber soon perceived that too often the liquidators intentionally complicated the business with which they were charged (it being in their interest to multiple lawsuits the expense of which could not in any case fall upon them) and that the personal profits derived by the liquidators from these operations were exorbitant. In confiding so delicate a business to irresponsible functionaries, the framer of the Law of 1901 had committed a grave error of judgment. On 31 December, 1907, the Senate resolved to nominate a commission of inquiry to examine the accounts of the liquidators, and the report of this commission, published in early September, 1908, revealed enormous irregularities. It was to satisfy these belated misgivings, that the Government, in February, 1908, introduced a bill substituting for the irresponsible judicial liquidation an administrative liquidation under the control of the prefects. But this provision is to apply only to the congregations which shall be dissolved hereafter; what has happened in the past seven years is irreparable, and when Catholic publicists speak of "the evaporation of the famous milliard of the congregations" the champions of the Law of 1901 are painfully embarrassed. The Laicization of Primary Instruction (a) As to the Matter of Instruction The Law of 28 March, 1882, which made primary instruction obligatory, gratuitous, and secular (laique), intentionally omitted religious instruction from the curriculum of the public school, and provided one free day every week, besides Sunday, to allow the children, if their parents saw fit, to receive religious instruction; but this instruction was to be given outside of the school buildings. Thus the priest had no right to enter the schools, even outside of class hours, to hold catechism. The school regulations of 18 January, 1887, laid it down that the children could be sent to church for catechism or religious exercises only outside of class hours, and that teachers were not bound either to take them to church or to watch over their behaviour while there. It was added that during the week preceding the First Communion teachers were to allow pupils to leave the school when their religious duties called them to church. The spirit of the Law of 1882 implied that religious emblems should be excluded from the schools, but out of regard for the religious feelings of the people in those neighbourhoods, the prefects allowed the crucifixes to remain in a certain number of schools; they took care, however, that no religious emblems should be placed in any of the newly erected school buildings. This temporizing policy was continued by the ministerial order or 9 April, 1903, but in 1906 and 1907 the administration at last called for the definitive disappearance of the crucifix from all public schools. The Law of 1882 is silent as to the teaching, in the public schools, of the students' duties toward God. The Senate, after a speech by Jules Ferry, refused to entertain the proposal of Jules Simon, that these duties should be mentioned in the law; but the Board of Education (Conseil Superieur de l'Instruction Publique), acting on a recommendation of Paul Janet, the Spiritualist philosopher, inserted in the executive instructions, with which it supplemented the text of the law, a recommendation that the teacher should admonish the pupils not to use the name of God lightly, to respect the idea of God, and to obey the laws of God as revealed by conscience and reason. However, in the public schools dependent on the municipality of Paris, the antispiritualist tendency became so violent that, after 1882, the new edition of certain school books expunged, even where they occurred in selected specimens of literature, the words God, Providence, Creator. These early manifestations led Catholics to declare that the laic and neutral school was really a Godless school. In the controversy which arose, some quotations from the public school textbooks became famous. For instance, la Fontaine's lines Petit poisson deviendra grand, Pourvu que Dieu lui prete vie were made to read "que l'on lui prete vie". And while politicians were deprecating the assertion that the schools were Godless, the Masonic conventicles and the professional articles written by certain state pedagogues were explaining that the notion of God must eventually disappear in the school. In practice, the chapter of duties toward God was one which very few teachers touched upon. In 1894, M. Divinat, afterwards director of the normal school of the department of the Seine, wrote: "To teach God, it is necessary to believe in God. Now how are we to find in these days teachers whose souls are sincerely and profoundly religious? It may be affirmed without any exaggeration that, since 1882, the lay public school has been very nearly the Godless school." This frank and unimpeachable testimony, justifying, as it does, all the sad predictions of the Catholics, has been corroborated by the experience of the last fifteen years. With the cry, Laiciser la laique, a certain number of teachers have carried on an active campaign for the formal elimination of the idea of God, as a remnant of "Clericalism", from the school programme. The powerful organization known as the "Ligue de l'Enseignement", whose Masonic affinities are indisputable, has supported this movement. For the exponents of the tendency, to be laique, one must be the enemy of all rational metaphysics -- to be laique, one must be an atheist. The very idea of neutrality in education, to which anti-religious teachers have not always consistently adhered, is nowadays out of favour with many members of the pedagogical profession. In 1904, the teachers of the Department of the Seine advocated, almost unanimously, in place of "denominational neutrality" (neutralite confessionelle), which they said was a lie (un mensonge), the establishment of a "critical teaching" (enseignement critique), which, in the name of science, should abandon all reserves in regard to denominational susceptibilities. But that neutrality was something very closely resembling a lie, is just what Catholic orators were saying in 1882, and thus the evolution of the primary school, and these fits of candour in which the very truth of the matter is confessed, justify, after a quarter of a century, the fears expressed by Catholics at the very outset. It is to be feared, moreover, that this substitution of critical for neutral teaching will very soon issue in the introduction, even in the primary schools, of lessons on the history of religions which shall serve as weapons against Christian revelation; such a step is already being advocated by the Freemasons and by certain groups of unbelieving savants, and herein lies one of the greatest perils of to-morrow. Bills introduced by MM. Briand and Doumergue impose heavy penalties on fathers whose children refuse to make use of the irreligious books given them by their teachers, and render it impossible for parents to prosecute teachers whose immoral and irreligious instruction may give them reason for complaint. These bills, which are soon to be discussed, are now (June, 1909) producing a very painful impression. (b) Laicization of the Teaching Staff The Law of 30 October, 1886, drawn and advocated by Rene Goblet, called for the laicization of the teaching staff in the public schools. In the schools for boys this laicization has been an accomplished fact since 1891, since which date no Brother of the Christian Schools has acted either as principal or as teacher in public primary instruction. The difficulty of forming a body of female lay teachers impeded the process of laicizing the public schools for girls, but this, too, has been complete since 1906, except in some few communes, where it is to be effected before the year 1913. Denominational Primary Instruction From the eleventh century onwards, history shows unmistakable traces, in most provinces of France, of small schools founded by the Church, such as were recommended by Charlemagne's capitulary in the year 789. The ever-increasing number of schools, writes Guibert de Nogent in the twelfth century, makes access to them easy for the humblest. The seventeenth century saw the foundation of a certain number of teaching institutes; the Ursulines, who between the year 1602 and the Revolution, founded 289 houses, and who numbered 9000 members in 1792; the Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent De Paul founded in 1630, recognized in 1657; the Congregation of Notre-Dame, founded by St. Peter Fourier, recognized in 1622; the Brothers of the Christian Schools, called, in the eighteenth century, Brothers of Saint-Yon, founded by St. John the Baptist de la Salle, and who had 123 classes in 1719, when their founder died, and 550 classes in 1789. In the last twenty years a large number of monographs which have been given restricted publication in the provinces, have presented historical evidence of the care which the Church was devoting to primary education during the period immediately preceding the Revolution. At the beginning of the Consulate, Fourcroy, anti-religious as he was, alarmed, to use his own words, at the "almost total ineffectiveness of the primary schools" (nullite presque totale), recommended it as a useful expedient, to confide a portion of the primary teaching to the clergy and to revive "the Institute of the Brothers, which had formerly been of the greatest service". In 1805, the Brothers, having re-established a mother-house at Lyons, were solicited to furnish teachers in thirty-six towns. The Government of the First Empire authorized in ten years 880 communities or establishments of teaching sisters; the Restoration, less generous, authorized only 599; the Monarchy of July only 389. Until 1833 these congregations could exercise their functions only in schools controlled by the State, for the University would allow no infringement of its monopoly. The magnificent tribute to the educational activity of the clergy which Guizot uttered during the debates on the Law of 1833 was endorsed by the law itself which, partially suppressing the monopoly of the University, established the principal of free primary teaching. The Law of 25 March, 1850, held "letters of obedience" given by religious associations to their members, to be equivalent to the diplomas given by the State, which legally qualified their recipients to be teachers. Between 1852 and 1860 the Empire issued 884 decrees recognizing congregations or local establishments of teaching sisters; from 1861 to 1869 -- the period of change which followed the Italian war -- while Duruy was Minister of Public Instruction, only 77 of these decrees were issued. The Law of 28 March, 1882, deprived the "letters of obedience" of all their value by providing that every teacher must hold a diploma (brevet) from one of the government jurys, or examining boards. The congregationistes (see above) submitted to this formality. With this exception, the Law upheld the liberty of private teaching. The Law of 1886 authorized mayors and school inspectors (inspecteurs d'academie) to oppose the opening of any private school on moral or hygienic grounds; in such cases the litigation was taken before one of the university councils (conseils universitaires), in which the private educational establishments were represented by elected delegates, and the council gave a decision. These councils could also take disciplinary action against private teachers, in the form of censure or suspension of teaching licence. The masters and mistresses of private schools might give religious instruction in their schools, and were left free in the choice of methods, programs, and books, but the state authority, after consultation with the Council of Public Instruction (Conseil Superieur de l'Instruction Publique), might prohibit the introduction and use of books judged contrary to morality, the Constitution, of the law. An order of the Council of State, dated 29 July, 1888, declared that neither departments nor communes had a legal right to grant appropriations, on their respective local budgets, to private schools; thus the establishment and support of these schools has fallen on Catholic charity exclusively. The communes can only give assistance to poor pupils in private schools as individuals. A first, very serious, attack on the principal of freedom of teaching was made by the Law of 7 July, 1904, which formally declared that "teaching of every grade and every kind is forbidden in France to the congregations". The members of the authorized congregations, equally with the rest, fell under the disability thus created. Every Brother, every religious woman, who wished to continue the work of teaching was forthwith compelled to be secularized, and the courts remained, and still remain, competent to contest the legal value of such secularizations. A clause, the legal effect of which was transitory, was introduced empowering the Government, according to the needs of particular localities, to authorize for one or more years the continuance of congreganiste schools; but M. Combes immediately closed 14,404 out of 16,904 such schools, and it is decreed that in 1910 the last of the congreganiste schools shall have disappeared. From time to time the Ministry publishes a list of congreganiste schools which must be closed definitely by the end of the school year, and thus the Government in power is the sole arbiter to accord or to refuse them a few last years of existence. The bishops are seeking to maintain primary Catholic education or to reorganize it with secular or lay teachers. In some diocese a movement is on foot for the acquisition of teaching diplomas for the seminarists. Already in twenty-four diocese there are diocesan organizations for free teaching -- diocesan committees composed of ecclesiastics and laymen, which maintain a strict control of all the private schools in their diocese. These measures have been imperatively demanded in order to repair the losses suffered by free primary education, the number of pupils having fallen, according to statistics complied in 1907 by M. Keller, from 1,600,000 to 1,000,000. Denominational Secondary Education Statistics published by the Education Commission (Commission d'Enseignement) show that, out of a total of 162,110 pupils in the secondary schools for the year 1898, 50,793 belonged the the lycees, 33,949 to the colleges, 9725 to private establishments taught by laymen, and 67,643 to private establishments taught by ecclesiastics. To these figures must be added 23,497 boys in the petits seminaires. Thus, in the aggregate, the State was giving primary education to 84,742 pupils; the Church to 91,140. The fundamental law on secondary education is still the Falloux Law of 15 March, 1850. Any Frenchman over twenty-five years of age, having the degree of Bachelor, or a special diploma of qualification (brevet de capacite), may, after passing a term of five years in a teaching establishment, open a house of secondary education, subject to objections on moral or hygienic grounds, of which grounds the university councils are the judges. In contrast with the case of private primary education, Catholic establishments of secondary education may be subsidized by the communes or the departments. A first serious stroke at the liberty of secondary education was delivered by the Law of 7 July, 1904, depriving the congreganistes of the right of teaching. Other projects, which the Government has already induced the Senate to accept, are now pending and these would exact much more rigorous conditions as to pedagogic qualifications on the part of Catholic secondary school teachers of either sex; the Catholic establishments would be subject to a compulsory inspection, bearing, as in the case of primary education, upon the conformity of the teaching with the Constitution and the law; the Government would reserve the right to close the establishment by decree. It may be foreseen in the course of the year 1909 all or part of these proposals will become law, and the effects will be disastrous, first, to Catholic girls' schools, where many of the teachers, whether laywomen or secularized congreganistes, will not immediately be in possession of the requisite diplomas. Such schools will thus be placed at a further disadvantage with the lycees, colleges, and courses for young women organized by the State under the Law of 21 December, 1880, numbering as many as 104, with 8300 pupils, in 1883, and in 1906, numbering 171, with 32,500 pupils. Secondly, for the petits seminaires the results will be still more disastrous. These institutions have hitherto existed under a particular statute, which it will be necessary here to consider. "Secondary ecclesiastical schools", as the petits seminaires were then called, were made by the decrees of 9 April, 1809, and 15 November, 1811, dependent on the University. There was to be only one secondary ecclesiastical school in each department, and its course was to be that of the lycee, or college of the state. A warrant of Louis XVIII, dated 5 October, 1814, allowed a second petit seminaires in each department, subject to the authorization of the head (grand maitre) of the University of France; it also gave permission for these institutions to be established in country districts, that the pupils should be obliged to assume the ecclesiastical habit after two years of study, and that the teachers should be directly dependent in the bishops. The circular of 4 July, 1816, forbade the petits seminaires to receive externs, and this prohibition was confirmed by the ordinance of June, 1828, which limited the number of their pupils to 20,000. In this way the Government wished the petits seminaires to be reserved exclusively for the education of future priests, and to be kept from competing with the University in any sense whatever, and upon these conditions it exempted them from taxation and from the control of the University, and granted them the rights of legal personality. The ordinances of 1828 were never formally abrogated, but in practice, since 1850, a certain number of petits seminaires, retaining certain privileges and immunities in recognition of their special mission, have received pupils in preparation not only for the priesthood, but also for a great variety of careers. Legislative projects, the passage of which is now imminent, will be a source of at least temporary embarrassment to the petits seminaires, a certain number of which -- those, namely, which were diocesan institutions -- have disappeared in consequence of the Law of Separation. Statistics show that in 1906, Catholic secondary education possessed 104 fewer colleges, and 22,223 fewer pupils than in 1898, and that the number of pupils in petits seminaires had in eight years decreased by 8711. Denominational Higher Education Until 1882 the State supported five faculties of theology: at Paris, Bordeaux, Aix, Rouen, and Lyons. These faculties had no regular pupils, but only attendants at the lectures delivered by their professors; the Church attached no canonical value to the degrees; the state did not make these decrees a condition for any ecclesiastical appointment. The faculties themselves were suppressed by the Ferry Ministry. The Protestants still had two faculties of theology maintained by the State; that of Paris, for Calvinists and Lutherans, and that of Montauban, for Calvinists exclusively. The separation Law of 1905 left these two faculties to be supported by the Protestants, and once detached from the University organizations, they have become free theological schools. The university monopoly, abolished as to primary education by the Law of 1833, and as to secondary education by the law of 1850, was also abolished for higher education by the Law of 12 July, 1875, which permitted any Frenchman, subject to certain conditions, to create establishments of higher education. In the period between 1875 and 1907 the Institut Catholique de Paris admitted twenty-nine doctors of theology, thirteen of canon law, eight of scholastic philosophy, one hundred and ninety-two of law, thirty-two of literature, ten of science. The first three of these degrees have been gained by candidates under tests of the institute itself; the others from state boards (jurys). The institute is preparing to set up a medical course and one in the history of religion. The Institut Catholique de Lille has connected itself with a school of higher industrial and commercial instruction (see Baunard, Louis); the Institut Catholique d'Angers, one of agriculture. The Institut Catholique de Toulouse has but one faculty, that of theology; it is organizing lectures for students of literature and of sciences who are following the courses of the state faculties. Laws Affecting the Applications and Effects of Religion in Civil Life (a) The Sunday Rest The Revolution had abolished all institutions which formerly existed in connection with the Sunday rest and had substituted the decadi (see above) for the Sunday. Under the Restoration the Law of 18 November, 1814, forbade all "exterior" labour on Sunday; a tradesman might not open his shop; by the letter of the law, he might work and cause others to work in his closed shop. What the Restoration really aimed at was a public token of obedience to the precepts of religion. The Law of 12 July, 1880, on the contrary, permitted work on Sunday. The evil social effects of this law were soon perceived. Subtle discussions arose in the Chambers: should the weekly rest, which the labour organizations demanded, be a day fixed by legislation, or should it be Sunday? It was for some time feared that such a legislative prescription would look like a concession to denominationalism, but the decision of the Committee on Labour (conseil superieur du travail) and of many labour unions was explicit in favour of Sunday. On 10 July, 1906, a law was passed finally establishing Sunday as the weekly day of rest, and providing, moreover, numerous restrictions and exceptions, the details of which were to be arranged by administrative regulations. An unconscious homage to the Divine law, rendered by an unbelieving Parliamentary majority, this enactment, on account of a certain temporary disturbance which it occasioned in the country's industry and commerce, and in the supply of commodities, was the object of unfortunate aminadversions on the part of certain journals which were in other respects defenders of Catholic interests. The hostility manifested by a certain number of prominent Catholics towards the Sunday rest, and their cooperation with every attempt to restrict the application of the law, produced a regrettable effect on pubic opinion. (b) Oaths The form of oath administered in courts of justice is not peculiar to any creed. It supposes a belief in God. The images of Christ have disappeared from the courtrooms. Proposals are being considered by the Chambers to suppress the words "devant Dieu et devant hommes" (before God and man) in the legal form of oath, or to authorize a demand on the part of any atheist to have the oath administered to him in a different form. (c) Immunities Since the law made military service a universal obligation in France, three enactments have followed one another: that of 27 July 1872, dispensing ecclesiastics from the obligation; that of 15 July, 1889, which fixed the term of active service for ordinary citizens at three years, and for priests at one; that of 21 March, 1905, fixing the term of active service at two years for priests as for others, and imposing upon them, up to the age of forty-five, all the series of obligations to which members of the reserves and of the territorial army are subject. (d) Marriage Under the old regime, parish priests officially registered births, deaths, and marriages for the State. In 1787, Louis XVI accorded to the Protestants the same privilege which, indeed, they had enjoyed under the Edict of Nantes, from 1595 to 1685. The Revolutionary law and the code Napoleon deprived the clergy of this status. Civil marriage was instituted, and the priest was forbidden to solemnize any marriage not previously contracted in the presence of a civil functionary. Immediately after the separation of church and State (1905), the question was raised, whether this prohibition was still to be maintained; the Supreme Court of Appeals (Cour de Cassation) replied in the affirmative, and punished a priest who had blessed a marriage not contracted before the mayor. Certain courts have admitted that if, after a civil marriage, one of the two parties, contrary to previous engagements, should refuse to go to church, this would constitute an injury to the other party so grave as to justify a suit for divorce; but this opinion is not unanimous. Catholics, for that matter, wish to abolish the law requiring the previous civil marriage. Some of the impediments defined by the Church are not recognized by the State, such as, e.g., the impediment of spiritual relationship. One impediment recognized by the civil code (articles 148-150), but which the Council of Trent refused to make a canonical impediment, in spite of the solicitation of Charles IX's ambassadors, is that which results from the refusal of parents' consent. The Law of 21 June 1907, the chief advocate of which was the Abbe Lamier, considerably loosened the obligations imposed on adults with regard to parental consent, and the discrepancies in this respect between the state law and the Church law have, in consequence, become less serious. The Law of 20 September, 1792, admitted divorce, even by mutual consent, and abolished that form of separation which, while terminating cohabitation and community possessions, maintains the indissolubility of the civil bond. The Civil Code of 1804, though imposing conditions more rigorous than those of the Law of 1792, maintained divorce, and at the same time re-established legal separation (separation de corps). The Law of 8 May, 1816, abolished divorce and maintained separation. The Law of 27 July, 1884, re-established divorce on the grounds of the condemnation of one party to an afflicting and infamous punishment, of violence, cruelty, and grave injuries, of adultery on the part of either husband or wife; it did not admit divorce by mutual consent; it maintained separation and authorized the courts to transform into a divorce, upon the demand of either party and cause shown, at the end of three years, a separation which had been granted at the suit of either. This law has recently been aggravated by two enactments which permit the adulterous husband to contract marriage with his accomplice and, instead of merely permitting the courts to convert separation into divorce at the end of three years, declare this conversion to be of right upon the demand of either party. The annual proportion of divorces to population has increased, from 3,68 per 10,000 inhabitants in 1900, to 5.57 per 10,000 inhabitants in 1907. (e) Interments and Cemeteries The Decree of 23 Prairial, Year XII, ordered that there should be distinctions of religious beliefs in regard to cemeteries. This decree was abrogated by the Law of 14 November, 1881, and since then a Protestant or a Jew may be buried in that part of the cemetery which had until then been reserved for Catholics. The Law of 15 November, 1887, on free interments, forbids any proceedings which may contravene the wishes of a deceased person who has, by "an authentic act", expressed a desire to be buried without religious ceremonies. To annul such an "act", the same normal conditions are required as for the revocation of a will, and as a consequence of this law, certain death-bed conversions, when the deceased has not had time to comply with the legal conditions of revocation, have been followed by non-religious burial. The society founded in 1880 to promote cremation brought about, in 1886, the insertion of the word incineration in the law of free interments and, in 1889, the issue of an administrative order defining the conditions in which cremation might be practised. Between 1889 and 1904 the number of incinerations performed in the cemetery of Pere Lachaise amounted to 3484. The Decrees of 23 Prairial, Year XII, and of 18 May, 1806, assigned to the public establishments which had been constituted to administer the property and resources devoted to public worship (fabriques and consistoires) a monopoly of all undertaking, that is to say, all monies received on account of funeral processions, burial or exhumations, draperies, and other objects used to enhance the solemnity of funeral processions. Most of the fabriques, in the important towns, exploited this monopoly through middlemen. Some years ago attention was called in the Chambers to the fact that the profits derived from non-religious interments, as well as from religious, were being taken by the fabriques, and upon this pretext, the law of 28 December, 1904, laicized the business of funeral-management, assigning the monopoly of it to the communes. Only the furniture used for the exterior or interior decoration of religious edifices could thenceforward be provided by the fabriques. But the separation law of 1905 intervened, and all such decorative furniture became the property of the associations cultuelles (see below). As no association cultuelle was formed for the Catholic religion, the material fell into the hands of sequestrators of the fabrique property. The Law of Separation "The Law of Separation of the Churches and the State" (Loi de Separation des Eglises et de l'Etat) of 1905 proceeded from the principle that the state professes no religious belief. Regarded from the viewpoint of the life of the Church, it completely dissociated the State from the appointment of bishops and parish priests. Soon after the passage of the law all the vacant sees received titulars by the direct nomination of Pius X. As to the annual revenue of the Church, the appropriation for public worship (budget des cultes), which in 1905 amounted to 42,324,933 francs, was suppressed. The departments and communes were forbidden to vote appropriations for public worship. The law grants, first, life pensions equivalent in each case to three-fourths of former salary to ministers of religion who were not less than sixty years of age when the law was promulgated and had spent thirty years in ecclesiastical services remunerated by the State. Secondly, it grants life pensions equivalent to one-half the salary to ministers of religion who wee not less than forty-five years of age and had passed more than twenty years in ecclesiastical services remunerated by the State. It makes grants for periods of from four to eight years for ecclesiastics less than forty-five years of age who shall continue to discharge their functions. The law resulted, in the budget of 1907, in the elimination of the item of 37,441,800 francs ($7,488,360) for salaries to ministers of religion and the inclusion of 29,563,871 francs ($5,912,774) for the pensions and allowances of the first year, making a savings of about eight millions. As the allowances are to diminish progressively until the savings are complete, at the end of eight years, and as the pensions are to cease with the lives of the pensioners, the appropriations on account of religious worship will decrease notably as year follows year. With respect to the buildings which the Concordat had placed at the disposal of the church, the law provides that the episcopal residences, for two years, the presbyteries and seminaries (grands seminaires), for five years, the churches, for an indefinite period, should be left at the disposal of the associations cultuelles, which will be discussed later on in this article. In regard to Church property, this consisted of (a) the mensae episcopales and mensae curiales (see Mensa), which were composed of the possessions restored to the Church after the concordat, together with the sum total of the donations made to bishoprics or parishes in the course of the intervening century; (b) the property of the parish fabriques, intended to meet all the expenses of public worship, and derived either from possessions restored to the Church after the Concordat or from gifts and legacies, and augmented by pew-rents, collections, and funeral fees. The Law of Separation divided the property of the mensae and the fabriques into three classes. The first of these classes consisted of property received from the State, and this the State resumed; as to the second, consisting of property not received from the State, and on the other hand burdened with eleemosynary or educational obligations, it was ruled that the representatives of the fabriques could give it to public establishments or to establishments of public utility with eleemosynary or educational character, subject to the approbation of the prefect. Lastly, there was a third category which comprised property not derived from state grants and not burdened with any obligations or only with obligations connected with public worship. It was ruled that such property should pass into the hands of the associations cultuelles, and that if no such body appeared to receive it it should be assigned by decree to communal benevolent institutions within the territorial limits of the parish or diocese. This brings us to the subject of the associations cultuelles. Under the Concordat, the episcopal mensa and the parochial fabrique were public institutions. When religious worship ceased to be a department of the public service, the Chambers, in order to replace the institutions which had been suppressed, wished to call into existence certain private "moral persons", or associations. Without any previous understanding with the Holy See, the rupture with which was already complete, the Chambers decided that in each diocese and each parish associations for religious worship (associations cultuelles) could be created to receive as proprietors the property of the mensa, with the responsibility of taking care of it. The transfer of the property was to be effected by decisions of the former fabriques in favor of these new associations. The law imposed a certain minimum number of administrators on each association, the number varying from seven to twenty-five, according to the importance of the commune, and the administrators might be French or foreign, men or women, priests or laymen. The preparation of statutes for the associations was left entirely free. Very lively controversies arose. It was suggested that the application of this law would be followed by an influx of lay Catholics, members of the associations cultuelles, into the government of the Church. Some thought this anxiety excessive; for, as the law allowed a number of adjacent parishes to be to be administered by a single association cultuelle, it seems that it would have been, strictly speaking, possible for one association, composed of the bishop and twenty-four priests chosen by him, to receive both the property of the mensa and that of all the parishes of the diocese. But other reasons for anxiety appeared when Articles 4 and 8 of the Law were carefully compared. Article 4 provided that these associations must, in their constitutions, "conform to the general rules of organization of public worship", and as a matter of fact, at Riom, in 1907, the court refused the use of the church to a schismatical priest who was supported by a schismatical association cultuelle. But Article 8 provided for the case by which several associations cultuelles, each with its own priest, should lay claim to the same church, and gave the Council of State the right to decide between them, "taking account of the circumstances of fact". Thus, while, according to Article 4, it appeared that the cultuelle recognized by, and in communion with, the hierarchy must naturally be the owner of the property of the fabrique, Article 8 left to the Council of State, a purely lay authority, the settlement of any dispute which might arise between a cultuelle faithful to the bishop and a schismatic cultuelle. Thus it belonged to the Council of State to pronounce upon the orthodoxy of any association cultuelle and its conformity with the "general rules of public worship" as provided by Article 4. A general assembly of the episcopate, held 30 May, 1906, considered the question of the association cultuelles, but the decisions reached were not divulged. Should such associations be formed according to the Law, or must they refuse to form any? In the month of March, twenty-three Catholic writers and members of the Chambers had expressed, in a confidential letter to the bishops, a hope that cultuelles might be given a trial. The publication of this letter had stirred up a bitter controversy, and for some months the Catholics of France were seriously divided. Pius X, in the Encyclical "Gravissimo oficii" (10 August, 1906), gave it as his judgment that this law, made without his assent, and which even purported to be made against him, threatened to intrude lay authority into the natural operation of the ecclesiastical organization; the Encyclical prohibited the formation, not only of associations cultuelles, but of any form of association whatsoever "so long as it should not be certainly and legally evident that the divine constitution of the Church, the immutable rights of the Roman pontiff and the bishops, such as their necessary authority over the property of the Church, particularly over the sacred edifices would, in the said association, be irrevocable and fully secure". The half-contradiction between Article 4 and Article 8 was not the only serious contradiction which the Church could allege. The author of the law had further restricted in a singularly parsimonious fashion the property rights of the future associations cultuelles. They were permitted to establish unlimited reserve funds, but they were to have the free disposal of only a portion equivalent to six times the mean annual expenditure, and the surplus was to be kept in the Caisse des Despots et Consignations, and employed exclusively in the acquisition or conservation of real and personal property for the use of religious worship. Moreover, the business transactions of all the cultuelles were to be under state inspection and control. Thus the law on the one hand did not leave to the Church, legally represented by the associations cultuelles, the right of freely possessing the ecclesiastical parsimony, of increasing it at will, of disposing of it at will; and on the other hand it left to the jurisdiction of the State the right, in any case of conflicting claims, to accept or to reject the claims of any cultuelle which might be in communion with the hierarchy. The interdict laid upon the associations cultuelles had several juridical consequences. First, the third of the classes of fabriques property described above was placed under sequestration, to be assigned by the State to communal benevolent institutions, of which every commune possesses at least one -- the free hospital and dispensary. Secondly, the suppressed fabriques were under regular legal obligations, e.g., Masses to be said as consideration for pious foundations. In the intention of the author of the law, the obligation of causing these Masses to be said would have fallen upon the associations cultuelles; as these have not been founded, are the communal institutions, which enjoy the revenue of the foundations, bound to fulfil these obligations? For two years the responses given to this question by the civil authority were hesitating. The Law of 15 April, 1908, laid it down that these institutions shall in nowise be bound to cause Masses to be said in prospective consideration of which the foundations were established; that only the founders themselves or their heirs in direct line, shall have the right to claim, within a period of six months, restitution of the capital of the said foundation, but that certain clerical benefit societies (the mutualites sacerdotal, organized to received the funds of the old diocesan caisses for the support of superannuated priests) could receive income from these foundations and, in return, accept the obligation of the Masses. It appeared to the Holy See, however, that the constitutions of these benefit societies did not adequately safeguard the rights of the bishops, and the French clergy were thenceforward forbidden to avail themselves of this law. As the right of recovery on account of nonfulfillment of the conditions has been allowed only to heirs in the direct line, the numberless pious foundations established by priests or other celibates are forever lost. And at the present writing no pious foundation is legally feasible in France, because there is in the Church no personality legally qualified to receive such a bequest. Hence the absolute impossibility, for any French Catholic, for securing to himself in perpetuity the celebration in his own parish church of a Mass for the repose of his soul. Thirdly, the use of the churches was to be assigned to the associations cultuelles, on the condition that the later should keep up the buildings. The cultuelles not having been formed, would the State take possession of the churches? It dared not; or rather it did not wish to drive home upon the popular mind the effect of the separation. After a brief period of transition, during which ridiculous proces-verbaux were drawn up against the priests who said Mass, the State left the religious edifices at the disposal of the clergy and people, officially placing assemblies for religious worship in the same official category as ordinary public gatherings; it was sufficient for the religious authority to make, at the beginning of each year, a declaration in advance for all the gatherings of public worship to be held during the year. Rome forbade the Church of France to comply with this formality of an annual declaration, thus once more endeavouring to make the State understand that legislation regulating the life of the Catholic Church could not depend on the mere will of the State, and that ecclesiastical authority could not, even by a simple declaration, actively concur in any such legislation. Once more it was thought that the closing of the churches was imminent. Then came two new laws. The Law of 2 January, 1907, permits the exercise of religious worship in the churches purely on sufferance and without any legal title. According to this new law, the clergy have only the actual use of the edifices, the maintenance of which is an obligation incumbent upon the proprietor -- the State or the commune. But grave complications are to be expected. If the proprietor refuses the needful repairs, the church may be closed for the sake of public safety -- unless, that is, the faithful tax themselves to pay for repairs. The Church, tolerated in her own buildings, has no recourse against any mayor who might order the bells to be tolled for a nonreligious funeral. At one time it was believed that the priests would be able to rent the churches on lease, but, owing to the demands of ministerial orders, this last hope had to be abandoned. At last assemblages for religious worship were juridically classified as public meetings, and, as the Church refused to make the anticipatory declaration required by the law of 1881, on public meetings, a law passed of 28 March, 1907, abolished this requirement in respect of all public meetings, those for religious worship included. Such was the patchwork of expedients by which the Government, embarrassed by its own law of 1905, and still refusing to negotiate with Rome, contrived what looked like a modus vivendi. The voter sees that the priest is still in the church, and that Mass is still being said there, and this is all that is needed by the Government to convince the shallow multitude that the Church is not persecuted, and that if the conditions of its existence are not prosperous, the blame must be laid on the successive refusals of the pope -- the refusal to permit the formation of cultuelles, the refusal to permit compliance with the law in the matter of declaring assemblies for public worship, the refusal to let priests to form mutualites approved by the State. All the evils of the situation are due to the fundamental error committed by the State at the very outset when, wishing to reorganize the life of the Church in France, it broke with the Holy See instead of opening negotiations. Hence the impossibility of the church actively co-operating in the execution of laws enacted by the civil authority in a purely one-sided fashion--laws which took the place of a concordat never regularly annulled. (See Concordat of 1801.) Civil Regulation of Public Worship (a) Rules Relating to Religious Ceremonies While, under the Concordat, an administrative regulation was necessary for the opening of even a private chapel, it is now lawful to open places of worship without any previous authorization. A mayor can prohibit processions in his commune simply on the pretext of avoiding public disorder; as a matter of fact, in most of the great cities of France, processions do not take place. Mayors can even prohibit the presence in funeral processions of priests wearing their vestments, but very few mayors have ever issued such an order. Both the parish priest and the mayor have authority to cause the bells to be rung. A ministerial circular dated 27 January, 1907, withholds from the mayor the right to have the bells rung for "civil baptisms" or for non-religious marriages or burials, but there is no penal sanction for the transgression of this order. It is now forbidden to erect or affix any religious sign or emblem in public places or upon public monuments; but the existing emblems remain, and private property may be decorated, even externally, with religious emblems. (b) Repression of Interference with Religious Worship The law punishes with a fine of from 16 to 200 francs and imprisonment of from six days to two months anyone who by violence, threats, or an act which may be construed as pressure (pression) has attempted to influence an individual to exercise or abstain from exercising any religious worship, or who, by disorderly conduct, interferes with exercise of any such worship. It punishes, with a fine of from 500 to 3000 francs or imprisonment of from two months to one year, outrages or slanders against functionaries, if committed publicly in places of religious worship, and of three months to two years any preacher who shall incite his hearers to resist the laws. The Law of Separation and the Protestants and Jews The Law of 1905 suppressed the special organic articles which regulated Protestant worship and the Decree of 1844 which had organized Jewish worship, recognized since 1806, and provided, since 1831, with state-paid rabbis. Before 1905 there had been a Reformed Church which was administered in each parish by a presbyterial council elected by the members of the denomination, and at the capital by a consistory to which all the councils sent delegates, and which nominated pastors with the consent of the Government. The Church was very much divided in theology. It included: the Orthodox, who had carried, in the general synod of 1872, by 61 votes to 45, a declaration of faith involving as of necessity the acceptance of certain dogmas; the Liberals, who, in spite of their defeat in 1872, continued to claim for the pastor an unlimited freedom of teaching in his own church; a midway party (centre droit) who were nearer to the Liberals than to the Orthodox. The Law of 1905, in terminating the official existence of a reformed Church, had this interesting result, that the theological divisions of the various groups openly expressed themselves in the formation of three distinct great organizations for the reformed religion: (1) the Union Nationale des Eglises Reformees Evangeliques, formed by the Orthodox at the Synod of Orleans (6 February, 1906), and requiring as a condition the acceptance of the Declaration of Faith of 1872; in this body, the regional synods, in which the delegates of the presbyterial associations meet, and the national synods hold spiritual authority; (2) the Union des Eglises Reformees de France, formed by the centre droit at the synod of Jarnac (June, 1907), with the like synodal organizations, and with the hope, hardly justified so far, of receiving the adhesion of both the extreme parties; (3) the United Reformed Churches (Eglises Reformees Unies), a very vague grouping of independent presbyterial associations, leaving to each Church its autonomy, restricting the functions of the synods, and representing, in place of dogma, the negative tendencies called "liberal". In this new threefold organization one feature, the consistory, disappeared. The Lutheran Church has but sixty-seven parishes in France. It has grouped its cultuelles into one general association. The Jewish denomination has formed the Union des Associations Cultuelles Israelites en France. The central consistory is composed of the grand rabbi, certain rabbis elected by the graduates of the Rabbinical School of France who are employed in educational or religious functions, and lay members elected for a term of eight years by the associations cultuelles. The rabbis are elected, subject to the approval of the consistory. Chaplaincies The law authorizes the State, the departments, and the communes to pay salaries to chaplains in public institutions such a lycees, colleges, schools, hospitals, asylums, and prisons. In the Army the office of chaplain has not been abolished, but it remains unoccupied. Since 1 January, 1906, no minister of religion has been a member of the staff of any military hospital; the local ministers of religion may enter these hospitals at the request if sick soldiers. A decree dated 6 February, 1907, abolished the naval chaplaincies, but certain ecclesiastics who formerly filled these posts will continue to discharge the functions proper to them. The State does not allow appropriations for the maintenance of chaplaincies in schools were there are no boarders. It is a curious fact that, while the laws forbid priests to enter primary schools, they have, up to the present, admitted to the secondary schools chapl;ains paid out of the public purse; the Government feared that if this guarantee of religious training were wanting parents would send their children to private schools. But a practice recently established in a certain number of lycees tend to relieve the State of the expense of chaplaincies by compelling parents who wish their children to receive religious instruction to pay an additional sum. Political Groups, the Press, and Intellectual and Social Organizations Politically speaking, the Catholic group which receives the active sympathies of the Catholic press is that known as the Action Liberale Populaire, founded by M. Jacques Piou, a Member of the Chambers, on the basis indicated for Catholics by the instructions of Leo XIII. This association, which was legally incorporated 17 May, 1902, comprises 14,000 committees and more than 200,000 adherents. It acts by means of lectures, publications, and congresses. In the Chamber elected in 1906 there were 77 deputies belonging to this association. Catholic daily journalism is represented chiefly by "L'Univers", "La Croix", and the "People Franc,ais." The former of these papers, founded 3 November 1833, by the Abbe Migne, had Eugene Veuillot for its editor from 1839 on, and Louis Veuillot after 1844. Its adhesion to the political directions given by Leo XIII detached from the "Univers", in 1893, a group of editors who founded "La Verite Franc,ais": this split ended with the amalgamation of the "Univers" and the Verite", 19 January, 1907. In October, 1908, under the management of M. Franc,ois Veuillot, acquired greater importance with an enlarged form. "The Good Press" (Maison de la Bonne Presse), founded in 1873 by the Augustinians of the Assumption, immediately after issued the "Pelerin", a bulletin of pious enterprises and pilgrimages, and after 1883 a daily paper, "La Croix", which has been edited since 1 April, 1900, by M. Feron Vrau. About a hundred local "Croix" are connected with the Paris "Croix". "The Good Press" publishes "Questions Actuelles", "Cosmos", "Mois Litteraire", and many other periodicals, and with it is connected the "Presse Regionale", which maintains a certain number of provincial papers defending Catholic interests. Many independent papers, either conservative or nominally liberal, are reckoned as Catholic, although a certain number of them have misled Catholic opinion by their opposition to the programme of Leo XIII. The leading Catholic review is "Le Correspondant", founded in 1829, formerly the organ of the Liberal Catholics such as Montalembert and Falloux. Its policy is "to rally all defenders of the Catholic cause, whatever their origin, on the broad ground of liberty for all; to afford them a common centre where, laying aside difficulties which must be secondary in the view of Christians, each one can do his part, in letters, in science, in historical and philosophical science, in social life, to win the victory for Christian ideas." Monarchist by its antecedents, with a public in which Monarchists form a large proportion, the "Correspondant" has had for its editor, since May, 1904, M. Etienne Lamy, of the Academie Franc,aise, who was a Republican member of the national Assembly in 1871, and who, in 1881, brought down upon himself the displeasure of the republican electors by his sturdy opposition to the laws suppressing religious congregations. The chief enterprises for the benefit of Catholic students in Paris are the Cercle Catholique du Luxembourg, which was founded in 1847, and in 1902 became the Association Generale des Etudiants Catholiques de Paris; the Olivaint and the Laennec lectures, established in 1875, the former for students in law and letters, the latter for medical students, by fathers of the Society of Jesus; the Reunion des Etudiants founded in 1895 by the Marist Fathers, and of which Ferdinand Brunetiere was president of the board of directors until his death. Besides these, the Association Catholique de la Jeunesse Franc,aise, founded in 1886, now (June, 1909) unites in one group nearly 100,000 young men, students, peasants, employees of various kinds, and labourers; it has 2400 groups in the provinces, and holds annual congresses in which, for some years past, social questions have been actively discussed. It was at the congregation held by this association at Besanc,on in 1898, that the conversion of Ferdinand Brunetiere was made known in a very remarkable speech of the famous academician. Since 1905 it has been publishing its "Annales", and since 1907 a journal, "La Vie Nouvelle." The extremely original association of the "Sillon" (furrow), attractive to some, disquieting to others, was founded in 1894 in the crypt of the Stanislaus college and became, in 1898, under the direction of M. Marc Sangnier, a focus of social, popular, and democratic action. M. Sangnier and his friends develop, in their Cercles d'etudes, and propagate, in public meetings of the most enthusiastic character, the twofold idea that democracy is the type of social organization which tends to the highest development of conscience and of civic responsibility in the individual, and that this organization needs Christianity for its realization. To be a sillonniste. according to the adherents of the Sillon, it is not enough merely to profess a doctrine, but one must live a life more fully Christian and fraternal. The Sillon has held a national congress every year since 1902; that of 1909 brought together more than 3000 members. The character of the organization has exposed it to lively criticisms; its reception has not been the same in all dioceses. But in spite of obstacles, the sillonistes continue their activity, often independent of, but never in opposition to, the hierarchy, carrying on their work of penetration in indifferent or hostile surroundings. They have a review, "Le Sillon", and a newspaper, "L'Eveil Democratique", which in two years has gained 50,000. Catholic undertakings for the benefit of the young people of the poorer classes have developed mightily of late years. In 1900 the "Commission des Patronages" drew up statistics according to which the Catholics had charge of 3588 protectories (patronages) and 32,574 institutions of various kinds giving Christian care to the young. In the city of Paris alone there were at that date, 176 Catholic protectories, with 26,000 young girls under their care. The Gymnastic Federation of the Protectories of France, formed after the gymnastic festival which was held at the Vatican on 5 to 8 October, 1905, numbers to-day (June, 1909) 549 Catholic gymnastic societies and 60,000 young people. The State carries on its fight against the Church in the field of post-academic education; in 1894 there were in France only 34 non-religious (laiques) protectories, 1366 for boys, and 998 for girls. To the political groups, the journalistic work, the good works for the benefit of the young, must be added to the "Catholic social" undertakings, the earliest of which was the Oeuvre dyes Cercles Catholiques d'Ouviers, funded in 1871 by Count Albert de Mun, the chief result of which was the introduction by Catholics in the Legislature of a number of legislative projects on social questions. The last five years have seen in France the birth and development, through the initiative of M. Henri Lorin and the Lyons journal, the "Chronique de Sud-Est", of the institution known as the the semaines sociales, a series of social courses which bring together a great many priests and Catholic lay people. This idea has been imitated in Catholic Spain and Italy. Lastly a body of Jesuits have begun a valuable collection of brochures and tracts, under the title "L'Action populaire", which forms a veritable reference library for those who wish to study social Catholicism and an inestimable source of information for those who wish to join actively in the movement. The Church in France During the First Three Years after the Law of Separation On 16 December, 1905, a large number of bishops issued a request to the parish priest and members of the fabric committees (fabriques -- see above) not to be present at the taking of inventories of church furniture prescribed by the Law of Separation except as mere witnesses and after making all reserves. A circular, dated 10 January, 1906, ordering the agents of the Department of Public Domains to open the tabernacles, intensified the feeling of indignation and, in consequences of an appellation, was implicitly disavowed, by M. Merlou, the Minister of France. But the feeling lasted and, from the end of January to the end of March, expressed itself, in a certain number of churches, in violent outbreaks against the agents who came to take the inventories. The breaking open of locked doors, the cashiering of military officers who refused to lend the aid of their troops to these proceedings, the arrest and prosecution of people taking part in Catholic demonstrations, and the mortal wounds inflicted on some of them in the departments of Nord, and of Haute-Loire aggravated the public irritation. There was some hope among Catholics that the general elections, which would take place in May, would result in defeat for the Government; but these hopes were not realized; the opposition lost fifty seats in the balloting of 6-20 May. The first general gathering of the bishops was held on 30 May, 1906. The Encyclical "Gravissiomo officii" (10 August, 1906), which rejected the cultuelles, received the absolute obedience of the Catholics. The attempt to form schismatic cultuelles, made by some priests and laymen in eight localities, met with derision and contempt, and these isolated bodies of schismatics failed to obtain possession of the religious edifices even by appealing to the courts. The second and third general gatherings of the bishops (4-7 September, 1906, and 15 January, 1907), thanked Pius X for the encyclical and discussed the organization of public worship, in accordance with a very definite programme for deliberation which the Holy See had sent to Cardinal Richard, Archbishop of Paris. On 12 December, 1906, Mgr. Montagnini, who had remained in Paris as guardian of the pontifical archives, was expelled from France after a minute domiciliary search and the seizures of his papers. The Vatican protested in a circular dated 19 December. Various incidents in the application of the law -- the expulsion of Cardinal Richard from his archiepiscopal residence (15 December, 1906), expulsions of seminarists from the seminaries, the employment of troops at Beaupreau and at Auray to enforce such an expulsion -- called forth lively protests from the Catholic press which saw, in all these episodes, the realization of the settled policy thus expounded by M. Viviani, Minister of Labour, in the Chamber of Deputies, 8 November, 1906: "Through our fathers, through our elders, through ourselves -- all of us together-- we have bound ourselves to a work of anticlericalism, to a work of irreligion. . . . We have extinguished in the firmament lights which shall not be rekindled. We have shown the toilers that heaven contained only chimeras." Successive meetings of the bishops have organized the work of the Denier du Clerge. The organization is diocesan, not parochial. No individual is taxed; the subscriptions are entirely voluntary; but in many diocese the diocesan budget fixes, without, however, imposing, the contribution which each parish ought to furnish. A commission of control, composed of priests and laymen, in many diocese takes charge of the disbursement of the Denier du Clerge, If a parish contributes insufficiently, and that not from lack of means but from lack of goodwill, the bishop can withdraw its parish priest. Two penalties can be inflicted on Catholics who culpably refuse to contribute to the support of religious worship: a diminution of pomp in the administration of the sacraments, and an increase, as affecting such persons, of incidental burdens. The first results of the Denier du Clerge in the various dioceses are not as yet well ascertained; they seem to justify neither over-enthusiastic hopes nor over-pessimistic fears. An inter-diocesan fund (caisse) is beginning to do its work in aiding the poorer dioceses. In many communities, the communal authority, having taken possession of the presbytery, has rented it to the parish priest for a certain sum, but the law declares that the lease, to be valid, must have been ratified by the prefect. By this means the State has sought to prevent the communes from renting presbyteries too cheap. Of 32,093 presbyteries existing in France, 3643 were still occupied rent-free by the parish priests at the beginning of October, 1908. A circular of M, Briand, Minister of Justice, has aminadverted on this fact as an abuse. It appears that in most of the dioceses a central committee, or a diocesan bureau, composed of priests and laymen, is to be formed, with the episcopal authority for its centre, to combine the direction of all the organized work of the diocese. Subject to this committee there will be committees in the several arrondissements, cantons, and parishes. When consulted in May, 1907, Pius X preferred small parochial committees under the cures to the formation of parochial associations (which might be interpreted as an acceptance of the Law of 1901 on associations), with an unlimited number of members. The ecclesiastical seminaries, which the Law of Separation drove out of the buildings they were occupying, have been reconstituted in other homes under the title "Ecoles Superieures de Theologie." At present one of the most serious preoccupations of the Church in France is the supply of priests. In 1878, when Mgr. Bougaud wrote his book, "Le grand peril de l'Eglise de France," there was a deficiency of 2467 priests in France. Pere Dudon, who has studied the question of the supply of priests very profoundly, computes that in 1906, at the breaking of the Concordat, there was a deficiency of 3109, and the very insecurity of the position of the Church before the law furnishes ground for the fear that vocations will go on decreasing in frequency. Geography. -- Reclus, La France in Geographie universelle (Paris, 1876), II; Vidal de la Blanche, La France (Paris, 1903); Michelet, Tableau de la France in vol. II of the Histoire mentioned below; Dumazet, Voyage en France (47 vols., Paris, 1894-1907); Marshall, Cathedral Cities of France (London, 1907). General History. -- Michelet, Histoire de France (new edition, 17 vols., Paris, 1871-74 -- recommended by the truthfulness of its historical colouring rather than exactness of detail, a picture rather than a narrative); Martin, Histoire de France (19 vols., Paris, 1855-60 -- conscientious research with anti-Catholic tendencies and somewhat out of date); Dareste, Histoire de France, (8 vols., Paris, 1864-73 -- clear and judicious); Bodley, France (2nd. ed., London, 1899); Galton, Church and State in France, 1300-1900 (London, 1907); Kitchen, A History of France (Oxford, 1892-94). A group of specialists under the direction of Lavisse have undertaken the publication of a Histoire of France of which the published volumes bring their subject down to the end of Louis XIV; this work -- the contributors to which are men of learning, each following his own bent, though never violently -- gives the last word of science at the present time. Louis Batiffol, La Renaissance (Paris, 1905), is the only volume which has yet appeared of a collection now being prepared under the title Histoire de France pour tous. Adams, The Growth of the French Nation (London, 1897). No General History of the Church of France is really worthy to be recommended. The principal documents to consult are: Gallia Chistiana (q. v.); Jean, Les archeveques et eveques de France de 1682 `a 1801 (Paris, 1891); Hanotaux ed., Instructions des ambassadeurs de France aupres du Saint-Siege (Paris, 1888); Imbart de la Tour, Archives de l'histoire religieuse de la France (4 vols. have appeared); Baunard, Un siecle de l"eglise de France (Tours, 1901 -- dealing with the nineteenth century); L'episcopat franc,ais au XIXe siecle (Paris, 1907). On the Sources of the History of France the chief repertories are: Monod, Bibliographie de l'histoire de France (Paris, 1888); Catalogue del l'histoire de France de la Bibliotheque Nationale (Paris, 1855-82); Langlois and Stein, Les archives de l'histoire de France (Paris, 1891); Monlinier, Les sources de l'histoire de France (4 vols., Paris, 1901-04). For bibliography of the French Revolution, see FRENCH REVOLUTION. For France in the Nineteenth Century see NAPOLEON. Also Currier, Constitutional and Organic Laws of France, 1875-1889 (Philadelphia, 1891); Viel-Castel, Histoire de la Restauration (20 vols., Paris, and trans., London, 1888); Thureau-Dangin, Histoire de la monarchie de Julliet (Paris); de la Gorce, Histoire du second Empire (7 vols., Paris); Ollivier, L'Empire liberal (Paris, 1904-06 -- 13 vols. have appeared); Lamy, Etudes sur le second Empire (Paris); Hanotaux, Histoire de la France contemporaine, 1870-1883 (4 vols., Paris, 1902-09); Zevort, Histoire de la troisieme Republique (4 vols., Paris, 1900-05); Coubertin, L'Evolution franc,aise sous la troisieme Republique (tr., London, 1898); Parmele, The Evolution of an Empire (New York, 1897). On the Religious History of France under the Third Republic: Deridour, L'Eglise catholique et l'Etat sous la troisieme Republique (2 vols., Paris, 1906-08 -- very anti-Catholic); Lecannet, L'Eglise de France sous la troisieme Republique (Paris, 1907 -- Catholic; brings the subject down to 1878); Du toast `a l'encyclique (Paris, 1893). For parochial statistics see the annuals Le clerge Franc,ais and le France ecclesiastique. On the Law against Congregations and the Law of Separation: Briand, La separation (2 vols., Paris, 1907 and 1909); Speeches of Waldeck-Rousseau and Ribot; De Mund, La loi des suspects (2 vols., Paris, 1902) Combes, Une campagne laique (2 vols, Paris, 1902 and 1906). the Law on Associations has been discussed by Troulliot and Chapsal; that on Separation by Reville, with radical tendencies, and by Taudiere and Lamarzelle, with Catholic tendencies. La Revue d'orgainisation et la defense religieuse, publishjed by the Good Press since 1906, gives every day the state of the law in relation to Catholic interests. On the Marriage Laws: Sermet, La loi du 21 Jun 1907 sur le Mariage (Toulouse, 1908). -- On the influence of Freemasonry: Prache, La petition contra la mac,onnerie; rapport parlementaire (Paris, 1905); Goyau, La Franc-Mac,onnerie en France (Paris, 1899). On the Religious Orders: Memoire pour la defense des congregations religieuses (Paris, 1880); Kannengeiser, France et Allemagne (Paris, 1900). On the Missions and the Protectorate: Piolet, Les missions catholiques franc,aises (six vols., Paris, 1900-03); Bouvier, Loin du pays (Paris, 1808); Rey, La protection diplomatique et consulaire dans les echelles du Levant (Paris, 1899); Goyau, Les nations apotres. Vieille France, jeune Allemagne (Paris, 1903); Kannengeiser, Les missions catholiques, France et Allemagne (Paris, 1900). On France at Rome: Lacroix, Memoire historique sur les institutions de la France `a Rome (2nd. ed., Rome, 1892). On the School Situation: Speeches of Jules Ferry; Pichard, Nouveau code de l'instruction primaire (18th ed., Paris, 1905); Goyau, L'ecole d'aujourd'hui (2 vols., Paris, 1899 and 1906); Lescoeur, La mentalite laique `a l'ecole (Paris, 1906); des Alleuls, Histoire de l'enseignement secondaire, 2 vols., Paris, 1900 -- official); Lamarzelle, La crise universitaire (Paris, 1900). On Charitable Institutions: Paris charitable (3rd ed. Paris, 1904); La France charitable (Paris, 1899) -- two collections of monographs published by the office central des institutions charitables. -- On Social Organizations the chief sources are collective reports on Catholic enterprises published at the Exposition of 1900, the Guide annuaire social (annual since 1905) and the Manual social pratique (1909) published by the Action populaire of Reims, with brochures issued by this last association. -- On the Grouping of Religious Movements: Fraenzel, Vers l'union des catholiques (Paris, 1907); Guide d'action religieuse (Paris, 1908). GEORGES GOYAU French Literature French Literature Origin and Foundations of the French Language When the Romans became masters of Gaul, they imposed their language on that country, together with their religion, their laws, their customs, and their culture. The low Latin, which thus became universal throughout Gaul, was not slow in undergoing a change while passing through Celtic and Frankish throats, and in showing traces of climate and of racial genius. From this transformation rose a new tongue, the Romance, which was destined to gradually evolve itself into the French. The glossaries of Reichenau and of Cassel contain many translations of Latin and Germanic words into Romance; they date from the eighth century. The earliest texts in our possession belong to the ninth century, and are more valuable from an archeological than from a literary standpoint. These are the formulas called "Les Serments de Strasbourg" (the oaths pronounced by the soldiers of Louis the German and of Charles the Bald, A.D. 842); the song or "Prose de Sainte Eulalie", an imitation of a Latin hymn of the Church (about 880); a portion of a "Homelie sur Jonas" discovered at Valenciennes, and written in a mixture of Latin and Romance, dating from the early part of the tenth century; "La Vie de Saint Leger", a bald narrative in verse, written in the latter part of the tenth century. The metamorphosis, under the action of influences now no longer traceable, of Low Latin into Romance did not proceed along the same lines everywhere in Gaul. From the Pyrenees to the Scheldt it varied with the varying localities, and gave rise to many dialects. These dialects may be grouped into two principal languages and which usually named for word used for an affirmative in each: the Romance language of oc in the South and the Romance language of oil in the North. The oil language comprised all the varieties of speech in use to the north of an imaginary line drawn from the estuary of the Girande to the Alps, passing through Limousin, Auvergne, and Dauphiny. In the twelfth century, the speech of the Ile-de-France began to take the lead over all the others, for the very good reason that it was the speech of the royal domain. Hereafter the French language possesses its form, and can give birth to a literature. In the Middle Ages Epic Poetry In France, as everywhere else, literature began with poetry, and that epic. For many centuries this seems to have been the form natural to the French mind; and the abundance of the output is striking proof of the breadth and power of the movement. To comprehend more clearly the great mass of epic works of this period, we distinguish three subject-matters, or three cycles: the French, or national cycle; the Breton cycle; the antique cycle. The origin of the French cycle go back to the first age of Frankish domination. The Frankish chiefs all kept their singers, who celebrated their exploits in poems of heroic inspiration. These compositions, called cantilenes, were sung at the harp, either at their festivals, or at the head of the army before a battle. This spontaneous growth of epic poetry goes on until the tenth century; but after the tenth century, the inventive power of the poets -- the trouveres, as they are called -- is exhausted; they no longer compose new songs, but co-ordinate, above all amplify, and finally reduce to writing the songs left to them by their predecessors. By dint of this labour of arrangement and editing they compose the chansons de geste ("history songs", from the Latin gesta, "things done", "history"). Comparatively short, these chansons de geste are written in lines of six syllables which are made into couplets, or laisses, with assonances, or imperfect rhymes (such, as e.g., perde and superbe). Like the old cantilenes, they were intended to be sung by the trouvere at feasts or in battle. They are all connected with real historical episodes which, however, are embellished, and often disfigured, with popular traditions and the fruits of the poet's own imagination. The most famous of these chansons de geste, the "Chanson de Roland", put into writing about the year 1080, and by an unknown author, is the chef d'oeuvre of this national epic poetry. It admirably reflects the society of the time. With its scenes of carnage, its loud clash of blades, its heroic barons who sacrifice their lives for the emperor and die after commending their souls to God, its miraculous intervention of angels who receive the soul of the brave warrior, the Chanson de Roland places vividly before the imagination the France of the eleventh century, warlike, violent, still barbarous, but thoroughly animated by an ardent faith. The "Chanson de Roland" is the most widely known of the chansons de geste, but a multitude of them are extant, and they all contain great beauties. While some of them, centering upon Charlemagne ("Le Pelerinage de Charlemagne", "Aimeri de Narbonne", "Girard de Viane", etc.), celebrate the union of France under the kingship and conflicts with external enemies, others are inspired by the struggles maintained by great feudal chiefs against the king ("Ogier le Danois", Renaud de Montauban", "Gerard de Roussillion"), by the wars of vassals among themselves, and by historical memories belonging particularly to this or that province ("Raoul de Cambrai", the "Geste des Lorains", "Auberi le Bourgoing"). The interesting element in all of them is, chiefly, their faithful portrayal of the feudal world, its virtues, and its asperities. From the end of the twelfth century, the success of the chansons de geste is counterbalanced by that of the Romances of the Breton cycle. Here imagination roams at large, above all, that kind of imagination which we call fantasy. The marvellous plays an important part. Manners are less violent, more delicate. Love, almost absent from the chansons de geste, holds a great place and utters itself in a style at once respectful and exalted. We find everywhere the impress of a twofold mysticism, that of chivalry and of religion. In other words, if the chansons de geste bear the stamp of the Germanic spirit, the Breton romances are inspired by the Celtic. The central figure is that of King Arthur, a character borrowed from history, the incarnation of the independence of the Breton race. Around him are his companions, the knights of the Round Table and Merlin the wizard. The Breton romances were intended to be read, not to be sung; they were written, moreover, in prose. In course of time, Chrestien de Troyes, a poet rather facile and prolific than truly talented, put them into rhymed verse. Between 1160 and 1180 he wrote "Perceval le Gallois", "Le Chevalier au lion", "Lancelot en la charrette", "Cliges", "Eric et Enide". In these romances Launcelot is the type of l'amour courtois -- the "gentle love" which every knight must bear his lady. As for the antique cycle, it is no more than a work of imitation. The clerics, observing the success of epic and narrative poetry, conceived the idea of throwing into the same form the traditions of antiquity. The "Roman d'Alexandre" and the "Roman de Troie", both written in the second half of the twelfth century, and amusing for their anachronisms and their baroque conceits, are, on the other hand, long, diffuse and mediocre. Lyric Poetry In these primitive periods of history the lines of division between various types of literature are not well defined. From the cantilene there sprang in turn the lyric poetry of the North. In these rough-hewn romances, the poet relates four or five couplets of varied rhythm, but all ending with the same refrain, an adventure of war or of love; they are called chansons de toile (spinning songs) or chansons de danse, because women sang them either as they spun and chatted or as they danced rondes. Love nearly always plays the chief part in them -- the love, successful or crossed, of a young girl for a beau chevalier, or perhaps a love crushed by the death of the beloved -- such are the themes of the principal chansons de toile that have come down to us, "Belle Bremboure", "Belle Idoine", "Belle Aiglantine", "Belle Doette". But it was in Provence that lyric verse was to reach its fullest development. Subtle, learned, and somewhat artificial, Provenc,al poetry had for its only theme love -- an idealized and quintessential love -- l'amour courtois. On this common theme, the troubadours embroidered variations of the utmost richness; the form which they employed, a very complex one, had given rise to manifold combinations of rhythms. The men of the North were dazzled when they came to know Provenc,al poetry. Strangely enough, it did not spread directly from province to province within the borders of France, but by way of the Orient, from the Holy Land, during the Crusades, where Southern and Northern lords met each other. Soon a whole group of poets of the oil tongue in the North and East -- Conon de Bethune, Grace Brule, Blondel de Nesles, and especially Thiebaut, Count of Champagne -- set to work to imitate the Provenc,al compositions. Bourgeoise and Satirical Literature The epic and the lyric were essentially aristocratic; they addressed themselves to an audience of barons that represented almost exclusively the manners and feelings of the upper classes in the feudal world. At the beginning of the thirteenth century, and after the liberation of the communes, the bourgeoisie makes its appearance, and from that moment dates the origin and rise of a bourgeois literature. It begins with the fabliaux, little tales told in line of eight syllables, pleasant stories intended only to amuse. The characters they introduce are people of humble or middling station -- tradesmen, artisans, and their women-folk -- who are put through all sorts of ridiculous adventures; their vices and oddities are ridiculed smartly and with some degree of malice -- too often, also with coarseness and indecency. These fabliaux are animated by the Gallic spirit of irony and banter, in contrast to the heroic or "gentle" (courtois), spirit which inspires the epic and lyric works. Bourgeoise and villagers find here a realistic picture of their existence and their manners, but freely caricatured so as to provoke laughter. Combine the spirit of the fabliaux with memories of the chanson de geste, and we have the "Roman de Renart", a vast collection, formed early in the thirteenth century, of stories in verse thrown together without sequence or connection. This work which, it is believed, was proceeded by another now lost, contains 30,000 lines. Enlarged by successive editions, the "Roman de Renart" is the work not only of several authors, but of a whole country and a whole epoch. What gives it unity, in spite of the diversity and incongruity of the stories of which it is made up, is that in all parts, the same hero appears again and again -- Renart, the fox. The action round about Renart is carried on by many other characters, such as Ysengrin, the wolf, Noble, the lion, Chantecler, the cock, pseudo-animals that mingle with their bearing and instincts as animals traits and feelings borrowed from humanity. Under pretext of relating an intrigue bristling with complications, in which Ysengin and Renart are pitted against each other, the "Roman", a kind of parody of the chansons de geste, ridicules the nobles, feudal society, and feudal institutions. Didactic Poetry Nobles and bourgeois, the two classes which, in the literature of the Middle Ages, speak with two accents so dissimilar, have one point of resemblance: the one class is as ignorant as the other. Only the clerics had any hold upon science -- the little science that those times possessed. It had long remained shut up in Latin books composed in imitation of ancient models, but, beginning in the thirteenth century, the clerics conceived the idea of bringing the contents of these works within the domain of the vulgar tongue. This was the origin of didactic literature, in which the most important work is "Roman de la Rose", an immense encyclopedic work produced by two authors with tendencies and mentalities in absolute mutual opposition, collaborating at an interval of forty years. The first 4000 lines of the "Roman de la Rose" were written about the year 1236 by Guillame de Lorris, a charming versifier endowed with every attractive quality. In the design of Guillame de Lorris, the work is another "Art of Love"; the author proposes to describe in it love and the effects of love, and to indicate the way of success for a lover. He personifies all the phases of love and varieties of love and the other sentiments which attend it, and makes them so many allegorical figures. Jealousy, Sadness, Reason, Fair Response (Bel-Accueil) -- such are the abstractions to which Lorris lends a tenuous embodiment. With Jean de Meung, who wrote the continuation of the "Roman de la Rose", about 1275, the inspiration changes completely. Love is not longer the only subject. In a number of prolix discourses, aggregating 22,000 lines in length, the latter author not only contrives to bring in a multitude of notions on physics and philosophy, but enters into a very severe criticism of contemporary social organization. Prose and the Chroniclers Prose separates itself from poetry but slowly; when the epic outpouring is exhausted history appears to takes its place. It is the great movement of the Crusades that gives the impulse. Villehardouin, in his "Histoire de la Conquete de Constantinople" (1207) relates the events which he witnessed as a participant in the Fourth Crusade; he knows how to see and how to tell, with restraint and vigour, what he has seen and done. His chronicle is not, strictly speaking, history, but rather memoirs. Joinville attaches more importance to the moral element; the charm of his "Histoire de St. Louis" (1309) is in the bonhomie, at once frank and deliberate, with which he sets forth the king's virtues and recounts his "chevaleries". The great representative of history in the Middle Ages is Froissart (1337-1410); in him we have to deal with a veritable writer. Just when the feudal world was entering upon its period of decadence, and the chivalry of France had been decimated at Crecy and Agincourt, feudalism and chivalry find in Froissart their most marvelous portrayer. His work, "Choniques de France, d'Angleterre, d'Espagne, de Bretagne, Gascogne, de Flandre et autres lieux" is the story of all the splendid feats of arms in the Hundred Years' War. Pitched battles, assaults, mere skirmishes, isolated raids, deeds of chivalric daring, single combats -- he describes them with picturesque effect and a distinction of style new in our literature. An aristocratic writer, he is above all attracted by the brilliant aspects of society -- wealth, gallantry, chivalry. He scorns the bourgeois and the common people, and considers it quite natural that they should pay the cost of war. In his work is nothing to recall the gloominess of the period; he has seen in it nothing but exploits and heroic adventure. Froissart knew how to depict the outward semblance of an epoch. Philippe de Commynes, on the other hand, the historian of Louis XI, is a connoisseur of souls; his viewpoint is from within. A minister of Louis XI and then of Charles VIII, he is versed in affairs. He is much given, moreover, to analysis of character and the unravelling of events which have a political bearing. He goes backs from effects to causes and is already rising to the conception of the general laws which govern history. One must not look for either brilliancy or relief in his style; but he has clearness, precision, solidity. The Drama The fifteenth century would make but a sorry figure in the history of French literature had it not been that in this epoch there developed and flourished a literary form which had been inchoate during the preceding centuries. Entirely original in foundation and style, that drama owes nothing to antiquity. It was the Church,. the great power of those ages, which gave birth to it. For the masses in the Middle Ages, the Church was the home where, united in the same thoughts, and the same consoling hopes, they spent that part of their lives which was the best, and so the longest offices of the church were the most beloved by the people. Conformable with this feeling, the clergy interpolated in the offices representations of certain events in religious history. Such was the liturgical drama, which was presented more especially at the feasts of Christmas ("Les Pasteurs", "L'Epoux", "Les Prophetes") and Easter ("La Passion", "La Resurrection", "Les Pelerins"). At first the liturgical drama was not more than a translation of Bible into action and dialogue, but little by little it changed as it developed. The text became longer, verse took the place of prose, the vernacular supplanted Latin. The drama at the same time was tending to make for itself an independent existence and to come forth from the Church. In the fourteenth century there appeared "Les Miracles de Notre-Dame", a stage presentment of a marvelous event brought about by the intervention of the Blessed Virgin. Thus was the drama making its way toward its completer form, that of the mysteries. A mystery is the exposition in dialogue of an historical incident taken from Holy Scripture or from the lives of the saints. Mysteries may be grouped, according to their subjects, in three cycles: the Old Testament cycle ("Le Mystere du Viel Testament", in 50,000 lines), the New Testament cycle, ("La Passion", composed by Arnoul Greban and presented in 1450), the cycle of the saints ("Les Actes des Apotres") by Arnoul and Simon Greban). Metrically, the mystery is written in lines of eight syllables; the lyric passages were supposed to be sung. A prologue serves the purpose of stating the theme and bespeaking silence of the audience. The piece itself is divided into days, each day occupying as many lines as could be recited at one seance, and the whole ends with an invitation to prayer: "Chatons Te Deum laudamus". The dramatic system of the mysteries contains certain thoroughly characteristics elements. First of all, the constant recourse to the marvellous: God, the Blessed Virgin, and the Saints intervene in the action; later on abstract characters -- Justice and Peace, Truth, Mercy -- are added. Then the mingling of the tragic and the comic: side by side with scenes intended to excite deep emotion, the authors of mysteries present others which are mere buffoonery, and sometimes of the coarsest kind. This comic element is borrowed from scenes of modern life: for anachronism is rampant in the mysteries, contemporary questions are discussed, Christ and the saints are depicted as people of the fifteenth century. Lastly, not only does the action wander without restraint from place to place, but occasionally it goes on in several different places at the same time. If the conception was original and interesting, the execution of it, unfortunately, was very mediocre. The authors of mysteries were not artists; they knew nothing of character-drawing; their characters are all of a piece, without individual traits. Above all, the style is deplorable, and but seldom escapes platitude and solecism. The fifteenth was, as a whole, the great century of mysteries; they were then in perfect harmony with the ideas and sentiments of the period. In the next century, with the change in those ideas and sentiments, they were to enter upon their decadence and to disappear. Did comedy too, in its turn, come forth from the Church? Can we connect it with the burlesque offices of the "Feast of Fools" and the "Feast of the Ass"? -- Beyond doubt we cannot. But in the fourteenth century, joyous bands of comrades organized themselves for their own common amusement -- the "Basoche", a society of lawyers, and the "Sots" or the "Enfants sans souci". It was by these societies that comic pieces were composed and played throughout the fifteenth century. Farces, moralities, and follies (soties) were the kinds of compositions which they cultivated. The farce was a comic piece the aim of which was to amuse; although it did not issue all complete from the fabliau, the farce bore a strong analogy to that form, and, as the themes were identical, the farce was often nothing more than a fabliau in action. The best specimen of the type is "La Farce d'Avocat Pathelin" (1470) which presents a duel of wits between an advocate and a cloth-merchant, the one as thorough a rascal as the other. The morality, a comic piece with moral aims, is far inferior to the farce. Essentially pedantic, it constantly employs allegory, personifying the sentiments, defects, and good qualities of men, and sets them in opposition to each other on the stage. As for the folly (sotie), which may be called a dramatic pamphlet or squib, and belongs to the satiric drama, it was the special work of the "Enfants sans souci" and lasted but a short while. The true literary distinction of the fifteenth century is to have given France a great poet -- not the elegant, cold, Charles d'Orleans, but that "child of poor and mean extraction" (de povre et petite extrace), that "mauvais garc,on" who was Franc,ois Villon. Insubordinate scholar, haunter of taverns, guilty of theft and even of assassinations, the marvel is that he should have been able to evoke his grave and lofty poetry from that life of infamy. His chief collection, "Le Grand Testament" (1489) is dominated by that thought of death which, for the first time in France, finds its expression in the "Ballade des Dames du Temps jadis". Thus did the Christian Middle Ages utter through Villon what had been their essential preoccupation. The Renaissance and the Reformation When the sixteenth century opens, literature in France may be regarded as exhausted and moribund. What had been lacking in the Middle Ages was the enthusiasm for form, the worship of art, combined with a language sufficiently supple and opulent. The Renaissance was about to bestow these gifts; it was to communicate the sense of beauty to the writers of that age by setting before them as models the great masterpieces of antiquity. Reversion to antiquity -- this is the characteristics which dominates all the literature of the sixteenth century. The movement did not attain its effect directly, but through Italy, and as a sequel to the wars of Charles VIII. "The first contact with Italy" says Brunetiere, "was in truth a kind of revelation for us French. In the midst of the feudal barbarism of which the fifteenth century still bore the stamp, Italy presented the spectacle of an old civilization. She awed the foreigner by the ancient authority of her religion and all the pomp of wealth and of the arts. Add to this the allurement of her climate and her manners. Italy of the Renaissance, invaded, devastated, trampled under foot by the men of the North, suddenly, like the Greece of yore, took possession of the rude conquerors. They conceived the idea of another life, more free, more ornate -- in a word, more 'human' -- than that which they had been leading for five or six centuries; a confused feeling of the power of beauty twined itself into the souls of gendarmes and lansquenets, and it was then that the breath of the Renaissance, coming over the mountains with the armies of Charles VIII, of Louis XII, and of Francis I, completed in less than fifty years the dissipation of what little still survived of the medieval tradition." If the language very quickly undergoes the modification brought about by this new spirit, it is only little by little that the various forms of literature allow themselves to be penetrated by it. Such is the case with poetry. The principal poet of the earlier half of the sixteenth century, Clement Marot (1497-1544), belongs, by his inspiration, to both the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Of the Middle Ages he has first of all his scholastic education and also an uncontrolled passion for allegories and for bizarre and complicated versification. In the best of his "Epitres" he sacrifices to the worst of the faults held in honour by the fifteenth century: the taste for alliteration, for playing upon words, and for childish trick of rhyme. On another side the influence of the Renaissance reveals itself in his work in many imitations of the Latins, Virgil, Catullus, Ovid. The "Epitres", his masterpiece are, besides, in a style of composition borrowed from the Latin. A court poet, attached to the personal suite of Margaurite de Valois, herself a humanist and a patroness of humanists, no man was more favorably situated for the effect of that influence. Marot is, in other respects, a very original poet; his "Epitres" mark the appearance of a quality almost new in French literature -- wit. The art of saying things prettily, of telling a story cleverly, of winning pardon for his mockeries by mocking at himself, was Marot's. Graeco-Latin imitation is really only an accidental feature of the work of Marot. With the poets who succeed him it becomes the very origin of their inspiration. For the poets who later formed the group called "La Pleiade", Joachim du Bellay furnished a programme in the "Deffence et Illustration de la langue franc,aise" (1549). To eschew the superannuated formulae and the "condiments" (epiceries) of the Middle Ages, to imitate without reserve anything that has come down to us from antiquity, to enrich the language by every means practicable -- by borrowing from Greek, from Latin, from the vocabulary of the handicrafts -- these are the principles which this author lays down in his work. And these are the principles which the chief of the "Pleiade", Pierre de Ronsard (1524-85), applies. Ronsard's ambition is to exercise his wits in all the styles of composition in which the Greeks and Romans excelled. After their example he composed odes, an epic work (the "Franciade", in which he aspires to do for France what Virgil, with the AEneid, did for Rome), and some eclogues. If he has utterly failed in his epic attempt, and if his abuse of erudition renders his odes very difficult to read, it must nevertheless be said that these works sparkle with beauties of the first order. Ronsard was not only, as was said long ago of him, the marvelous workmen of little pieces, of sonnets and tiny odes; in brilliancy of imagination, in the gift for inventing new rhymes, he is one of the greatest poets known to French literature. Side by side with him Du Bellay, in his "Regrets", inaugurated la poesie intime, the lyricism of confidences, and Jodelle gave to the world "Cleopatre" (1552), the first, in point of date, of the tragedies imitated from the antique, thus opening the way for Robert Garnier and Montchrestien. At the same time that the Renaissance was bringing us the feeling for art, the Reformation was giving currency to new ideas and tendencies. The two inspirations commingled rendered possible the work of the two masters of sixteenth-century prose, Rabelais and Montaigne. In that prodigious nursery tale, in which he scatters buffoneries and indecencies by the handful, it would be a mistake to think that the author of "Gargantua" hides a thought and a symbol under every line of text. All the same it is true that one must break the bone to find the "subtantific marrow". Rabelais has a hatred of the Middle Ages, of its scholasticism and its asceticism. For his part he does not mistrust human nature; he believes it to be good, and wants people to follow its law, which is instinct. His ideal is the abbey of Thelema, where the rule runs: Do as you please (Fais ce que tu volundras). "Nature is my gentle guide" says Montaigne on his part. This is one of the ideas which circulate in his essays, the first book of which appeared in 1580. In this sort of disjointed confession, Montaigne speaks above all of himself, his life, his tastes, his habits, his favorite reading. As he goes along, he expounds his philosophy, which is a kind of skepticism, if you will, but applying exclusively to the things which belong to reason, for with Montaigne the Christian faith remains intact. What makes Montaigne an original writer, and makes his place in French literature one of capital importance, is his having been the first to introduce into that literature, by his minute study of his own Ego, that psychological and moral study of man which was to form the foundation of great works in the next century. In a general way the Reformation produced a profound impression on the writers of the sixteenth century, giving them a freedom of movement and of thought unknown to their predecessors of the Middle Ages. On the other hand, multiplying theological discussions, controversies, and fierce polemics between Catholics and Protestants -- dividing France into two parties -- it gave birth to a whole literature of conflict. We will confine ourselves to mention of Calvin and his "Institution de la religion chretienne" (1541). As a theologian he need not concern us here; we need only say that, by the simplicity of his exposition, by the energy of his harsh and gloomy style, he effects an entrance into our literature for a whole range of subject-matters which had until then been reserved for Latin. Calvin was a teacher of the Reformation; Agrippa d'Aubigne was its soldier, but one who had taken the pen in hand. It was after long service in the field that he had composed his "Tragiques", a versified work unlike any other, a medley of satire and epic. Here the author presence a picture of France devastated by wars of religion, and paints his adversaries in odious colors. Now and then hatred inspires him with fine utterances. After all these struggles and all this violence, the age could not but long for peace, and could not but hold all these excesses in horror. Such a spirit inspires the "Satire Menipee" (1594), a work, part prose, part verse, which, with its irony, gives evidence that an epoch has come to an end, fatigued with its own struggles and ready for a great renovation. The Seventeenth Century: the Classical Age The seventeenth century is the most noteworthy epoch in the history of French literature. The circumstances of the age, it is true, are peculiarly favorable for literary development. France is once more the strongest factor in European statecraft; her political influence is supreme, thanks to the wonderful achievements of her arms and the brilliant achievements of her diplomacy. Conscious of her greatness, she ceases to be dependent on foreign literatures, and fashions new literary forms which she bids other countries to copy. The internal peace which she enjoys favors the disinterested study of art and literature, without the need of giving her literary creations a social or political tendency. Authors are patronized by society and the court. Intellectual conditions are especially favorable; the national mind, steeped in the learning and culture of the classics, has become sufficiently strengthened to emancipate itself from the yoke of servile imitation. The language, capable henceforth of giving adequate expression to every shade of thought, has become clearly conscious of its power and is exclusively French in syntax and vocabulary. Such are the circumstances, such the elements which combine to form the genesis of the classical literature of France. It does not, indeed, claim to have determined the extreme limits beyond which literary activity in France may not range; progress will continue throughout the ages to come. But in the works of that period may be seen the most complete and perfect presentation of the distinguishing qualities of the French race; the ideal counterpart, in miniature, of the most perfect form of French literature. It is characterized, in the main, by a tendency which seeks the apotheosis of human reason in the realm of literary activity, and regards the expression of moral truth as the end of literary composition. Hence the fondness of the literature of the seventeenth century for general ideas and for sentiments that are common to mankind, and its success in those kinds of literature which are based on the general study of the human heart. It reached perfection in dramatic literature, in sacred eloquence and in the study of morals. Hence the contempt of the seventeenth century literature for all that is relative, individual and mutable; in lyric poetry, which appeals primarily to the individual sentiment, in the description of material phenomena, and the external manifestations of nature, it falls short of success. For thorough understanding of the development of French literature in the seventeenth century, we must consider it in three periods: (1) from the year 1600 to 1659, the period of preparation; (2) 1659-1688, the Golden Age of classicism; (3) 1688-1715, the period of transition between the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. First Period (1600-1659) With the followers of Ronsard and those poets who immediately succeeded him a kind of lassitude has seized upon poetry at the end of the sixteenth century; impoverished and spiritless, it handled only trifling subjects. Besides, having been long subject to the artistic domination of Italy, and having owed allegiance to Spain also since the intervention of the Spaniards in the days of the League, poetry had become infected with mannerisms, and suffered a considerable lowering of tone. A reform was necessary, and Malherbe, whose "Odes" appear between the years 1600 and 1628, undertook it. From the first he repudiated the idea of servile imitation of ancient classical authors; discrimination should be shown in borrowing from their writings, and imitation should be restricted to features likely to strengthen the thought. On the other hand, if the language of the sixteenth century was copious, many of its terms were not of the purest; these Malherbe severely interdicted. With regard to prosody, he lays down the strictest rules. Malherbe's reform, therefore, aims at purifying the terminology of the language, and fixing set forms of prosody. Unluckily, it must be secured at a heavy price; subordinated unduly to inflexible rule, its movement impeded, lyric poetry is finally crushed out of life. Two centuries must elapse before it revives and shakes off the yoke of Malherbe. Nor was the rule of Malherbe established without resistance. Of the writers of that time, none were less disposed to submit to it than Mathurin Regnier (1579-1613), a poet who in many ways recalls the sixteenth century. His satires are one long protest against the theory so dear to Malherbe. An enemy to rule and constraint, Regnier again and again insists upon the absolute freedom of the poet; the poet must write as the spirit moves him; let every writer be what he is, is the only principle he accepts. A numerous group of poets shared Regnier's views, those known by the name of les Grotesques. Such are Saint-Armant, Theophile de Viau, the direct heirs of the Pleiade; and Scarron, whose poetry is the very incarnation of the burlesque form imported from Italy. Malherbe would perhaps have been unable to combat this opposition, had not two other forces come to his assistance in checking the flood of license that was spreading with Regnier and his associates. The first of these was the culture of French society. The rise of a cultured class, and of its life of refinement, which took place during the end of the reign of Henry IV, is one of the striking facts of the first half of the seventeenth century. A new institution, the salon, presided over by women, now makes its appearance; here men of the world meet literary men to discuss serious questions with women, The salon will prove of service to writers, though sometimes a hindrance or a lure to false paths, and the next two centuries of literature will show evidence of its influence. The first salon was that of the Marquise de Rambouillet; for more than twenty years people of superior intellect and culture were wont to gather there. By exacting from its guests refinement and elegant manners it contributed to chasten the language and to strip it of all low and grotesque words. It is in the salon that the over-refinement called preciosity budded and bloomed. However, the influence of the Precieuses was perhaps more harmless than some would have us believe. They have enriched the language with many clever expressions; they have helped to develop the taste for precision and subtilty in psychological analysis. They favoured also, though in an indirect way, that study of the human heart which was the grand theme of seventeenth century literature. Authority also, as represented by Richelieu, enrolled itself in the crusade of reform and added its sanction to the new disciplinary laws. Under the patronage of the great minister, and by his inspiration, the French academy was founded in the year 1635. In virtue of its origin and its aims, the academy exerted officially the same influence as the salon. It watched over the purity of the language and over its regular development. One of its members, Vaguelas, the great grammarian of that age, contributed in an especial way toward this object. If the new ideal found its expression in poetry, prose was also soon to share in the advantages of the reform. Balzac, in his "Lettres" (1624), created French prose. He is said to have furnished the rules of French prose composition; in fact it is his chief merit to have taught his own age, along with the art of composition, what the greatest minds of the sixteenth century -- Rabelais and Montaigne -- had not known: the rhythm, the flow, and the harmony of the period. In this way, he has fashioned the magnificent form, which the great prose writers of the last half of the seventeenth century will find at their disposal when they seek to give outward shape to the sublime conceptions of their minds. At the same time, Voiture, one of the habitues of the Hotel de Rambouillet, gave to French prose its raciness, is vigour, and its ease of movement. Balzac and Voiture, of the great writers of the time, are masters of styles of the seventeenth century, but Descartes, whose "Discours de la Method" appeared in 1673, has left his mark deeply stamped on French classical literature. This could not be otherwise; the principles which gained distinction for him were the same as those invoked for the literary reform. But reason, whose sovereign authority Descartes proclaimed and whose power he demonstrated, was the same reason whose absolutism Malherbe sought to establish in literature. The abstract tone, the surety of inference proceeding directly to the solution of one or two questions clearly laid down, permitting no chance thoughts to lead it away from the straight line, the determination to take up only one subject, mastering it completely, to simplify everything, to see in man only and abstract soul, without a body, and in this soul not the phenomena, but the substance -- these are at the same time Cartesian principles and literary peculiarities of the seventeenth century. The craving for order and uniformity which made itself felt in every branch of literature seized the theatrical world and achieved the masterpieces of the classic drama. In 1629, Jean Mairet produced his "Sophonisbe", in which the unities are for the first time observed -- unity of action, unity of time, unity of place. The plot turns on one incident which is tragic witjout a trace of the comic element, the action does not extend beyond one day, and tere is no change of scene. The framework of classical trahegy was created; what was needed was a writer of genius to fill in the structure. Corneille was this man in the merveille of "Le Cid", he gave to the French stage its first masterpiece. Lofty sentiments, strong dialogie, a brilliant style, and rapid action, not exceeding twenty-four hours were all combined in this play. While its subject was taken from modern history, Corneille, after the famous controversy on "Le Cid", stirred up by his jealous rivals, returned to subjects taken from Roman history for this later pieces, which date from 1640 to 1643, namely, "Horace", "Cinna", and "Polyeucte". In these the plot becomes more and more complicated; the poet prefers perpelexing and anomolous situations, and looks for variety and strangeness of incident to tyhe neglect of the snetimenst and the passions. the noble simplicityand serene beuarty which characterized his great works are replaced by the riddles of "Heraclius" and the extravagances of "Attila". Corneille's "Polyeucte" shows reaces ofthe controversies on Divne Grace whihc at that time agitated the minds of men. Jansenism p[rofiundly influenced the entire litertaure of the sveneteenth century, gioving rise, first and foremost, to one of its prose masterpieces, the "Lettes provinciales" (1656-67) of Pascal. in these the author champions the cvause of his freunds of Port-Royal against the Jesuits. They display all of the quakities which it had taken sixty year sof progress in literature to develop: clearness of exposition, beauty iof form, elegance and distinction of style, a subtle wit, graceful irony, and geniality. diveested of all dull learning and all dialectic formalism, it placed within the reach of every serious mind the deepest theological questions. as far removed form the vigorous rhetorical of balzac as from the studied wit of Voiture, it embodied ion prose the greatest effort to reach perfection that we meet with in the earlky part of the seventeenth century. Second Period (1659-88); the Great Epoch Towards 1660 all the lliterary charactreitics which we have seen gradually developing in the previous sixty years have taken definite form. This is now reinforced by the influence of the court. After the short-lived trouble of Frande, one man embodies all the destinies of France: the king, Louis XIV, young, victorious, at the zenith of his glory. In literature, as in his government, the king will successfully carry out his taste for regularity, for harmony, and for nobility. The influence of his strong personality will check the tendencies toward the caprice, eccentricity, and imaginative waywardness that characterized the preceding period. Henceforth nothing is appreciated in literature but what is reasonable, natural, and harmoniously proportionate, and what depicts the universal in man. Then follow in succession all those masterpieces which realise this idea, upheld by Boileau, the great law giver of classicism. Beginning in 1660, Boileau gave to the world his "Satires", his "Epistles", in which he shows himself a marvelous critic, unerring in his estimate of contemporary writers, and his "Art poetique" (1674), a literary code which held sway for more than a century. Seek the truth, be guided by reason, imitate nature -- these are the principles which Boileau never ceases to enjoin, and which his friends, Moliere, Racine, La Fontaine, put into practice. Moliere, who, since 1653, had been playing in the provinces his first comedy, "L'Etourdi", produced the "Precieuses Ridicules" at Paris, in 1659, and until his death (1673) continued to produce play after play. To paint human life and to delineate character are the aims which Moliere proposes to himself. Even his farces are full of points drawn from observation and study. In his great comedies it is clear that he rejects everything which is not based on a study of the heart. Moliere is not concerned with plot and denounement; each incident stands on its own merits; for him a comedy is but a succession of scenes whose aim is to place a character in the full light of day. Each of his characters is an exhaustive study of some particular failing or the comprehensive presentment of a whole type in a single physiognomy. Some of his best types are not characteristic of any one period -- the hypocrite, the miser, the coquette. It is Moliere's undying merit that we cannot observe in our experience any of these characteristics without being reminded of some of Moliere's originals. In 1667, Racine, after his first attempts, the "Thebaide" and "Alexandre", reproduced his "Andromaque", which achieved a success no less marked than that of the "Cid"; after that, scarcely a year passed without the production of a new work. After bringing out the "Phedre" in 1677, Racine withdrew from the stage, partly from a desire for rest and partly on account of religious scruples. The only dramas produced by him in this last period were "Esther" (1689) and "Athalie" (1691). His tragedies were a reaction against the heroic and romantic drama which had prevailed during the first part of the century. He places on the stage the representation of reality; his plays have their source in reason rather than in imagination. The result is a loss of apparent grandeur, on the one hand, but also, on the other hand, an increased moral range and a wider psychology. Again, instead of the complicated action of which Corneille is so fond, Racine substitutes "a simple action, burdened with little incident, which, as it gradually advances towards its end, is sustained only by the interests, the sentiments, and the emotions of the characters" (preface to "Berenice"). It is, accordingly, the study of character and emotion that we must look for in Racine. In "Britannicus" and "Athalie" he has painted the passion of ambition; but it is love which dominates his tragedies. The vigour, the vehemence, with which Racine has analysed this passion show what a degree of audacity may coexist with that classic genius of which he himself is the best example. In some points of detail, La Fontaine, whose "Fables" began to appear in 1668, differs from the other great classics. He has a weakness for the old authors of the sixteenth century and even for those of the Middle Ages, for the words and phrases of a bygone time, and certain popular expressions. But he is an utter classic in the correctness and appropriateness of expression, in the nice attention to details of composition displayed in his "Fables" (a charming genre which he himself created), and in the added perfection of nature as he paints it. The winged grace with which he skims over every theme, his talent for giving life and interest to the actors in his fables, his consummate skill in handling verse -- all these qualities make him one of the great writers of the seventeenth century. In this second period of the seventeenth century, all forms of literature bear their fine flower. In his "Maxims" (1665), the Duke de la Rochefoucald displays a profound knowledge of human nature, and an almost perfect literary style. The "Lettres" of Madame de Sevigne, the first of which bear the date of 1617, are marvels of wit, vivacity, and sprightliness. In his "Memoires" (completed in 1675) Cardinal de Retz furnishes us a model for this class of writing. In the "Princesse de Cleves" (1678) Madame de La Fayette created the psychological romance. Finally, it would be a misconception of the classical genius not to allow to religious inspiration a marked place in this period. The whole corpus of the seventeenth century was deeply penetrated by the spirit of religion. Few of its writers escaped that influence; and those who did, also remained outside the general current and the philosophic movement of the century. Pulpit oratory, too, reached a high degree of excellence. The first years of the century had been, so to say, fragrant with the oratory of that most lovable of saints, Francis de Sales (1567-1622). He had, in 1602, preached the Lenten sermons before Henry IV at the Louvre, and ravished his hearers by the unction of his discourse, overflowing with a wealth of pleasing imagery. The religious revival was then universal; orders were founded or reformed. Among them the Oratorians, like the Jesuits, produced more than one remarkable and vigorous preacher. The Jansenists, in their turn, introduced in pulpit eloquence a sober style without any great wealth of fancy, without vivacity or brilliancy, but simple, grave, uniform. Thus, sacred eloquence, already flourishing before 1660, gradually rid itself of the defects from which it had suffered in the preceding period: the trivialities, the tawdry refinements, the abuse of profane learning. It was especially during the brilliant period extending from 1659 to 1688 that Christian eloquence reached its greatest power and perfection, when its two most illustrious representatives were Bossuet and Bourdaloue. In 1659 Bossuet preached in Paris, at the Minims, his first course of Lenten sermons; during the next ten years his mighty voice was heard pouring forth eloquent sermons, panegyrics, and funeral orations. Animated, earnest, and familiar in his sermons, sublime in his funeral orations, simple and lucid in theological expositions, he always carried out the principle, embodied in a celebrated definition, "of employing the word only for the thought, and the thought for truth and virtue". Not only is he a magnificent orator, the greatest that ever occupied the pulpit in France, but he is also, perhaps, the writer who has had the most delicate appreciation of the French language. Furthermore, it must not be forgotten that Bossuet, in his "Discourse on Universal History" (1681) did the work of a historian. He is, indeed, the only historian of the seventeenth century. In the art of investigating historical causes, he is a master of exceptional penetration, and his conclusions have been confirmed by the most recent discoveries of historical science. He founded the philosophy of history, and Montesquieu, in the following century, had but little to add to his work. Bourdaloue, who ascended the pulpit left vacant by Bossuet (1669), is a very different man. In Bourdaloue we do not find the abruptness and familiarity Bossuet, but an unbroken evenness, a style always regular and symmetrical, above all a logician; he appeals to the reason rather than to the imagination and the sensibilities. From 1688 to 1715 In the short space of eighteen years classical literature was in its glory. It resulted from the equilibrium between all the forces of society and all the faculties of the mind, an equilibrium not destined to last long. If, during the last years of the century, the great writers still living preserve their powers unimpaired to the end, we feel, nonetheless, that new forces are forming. In 1688, the king, aged and absorbed by the cares of his foreign policy, ceased to take his former interest in literature. Discipline becomes relaxed. The salon, which for a while had been eclipsed by the Court, gradually regained its ascendancy. Under its influence, preciosity, which had disappeared during the great period of classicism, began to revive. This becomes evident in a department in which it would seem the precieux would have but little interest, that of sacred eloquence. Flechier marks an inordinate propensity to wit and frivolities of language. Massillion, who is Flechier's heir, lacks the fine equilibrium between thought and form which was found in Bossuet. He is a wonderful rhetorician who sacrifices too much to the adornments of style. Besides, the conception of style prevalent from 1659 to 1688 underwent a change. In the writers of the golden age the period was, perhaps, somewhat too long, but it was broad and spacious, effectively reproducing the movements of the thought; it was now replaced by a shorter phrase, more rapid and more incisive. This new style is that of the "Caracteres"; these, too, distinguish it from the work of the preceding period. The same artistic qualities are also found in Saint-Simon, who did not write his "Memoires" until after 1722, the materials for which he had been collecting since 1696. He is a writer, however, who from many points of view is connected with the seventeenth century. Saint-Simon not only gives a moral portrait of the person dealt with in his "Memoires", but by dint of violent colours, of contrasting touches, daring figures combined into a brutal, incorrect, passionate, and feverish style, he reproduces the physical man to the life. In dramatic literature comedy follows the same tendencies. After Moliere, and after Regnard, who imitated him, the comedy of character comes to an end, and with Dancourt (1661-1725), the comedy of manners, which has its inspiration in the actual, replaces it. Lastly, Fenelon introduces into literature a spirit utterly foreign to the pure classics, so reverent of tradition -- the spirit of novelty. Telemaque (1699), a romance imitated from antiquity, records the views of the author on government, foreshadows the eighteenth century, and its mania for reform. The Eighteenth Century To do justice to the writers of the eighteenth century, we must change our point of view. In truth, the eighteenth century's conception of literature differed profoundly from that of the great writers of the time of Louis XIV. The eighteenth century, moreover, never rises above mediocrity when it attempts to follow in the footsteps of the seventeenth, but is always interesting when it breaks loose from it. To follow its literary development, we must divide it, like the preceding century, into three periods: (1) 1715-50; (2) 1750-89; (3) 1789-1800. From 1715 to 1750 After the death of Louis XIV, the tendencies which already manifested themselves in the last period of the seventeenth century became more marked. The classical ideal became more and more distorted and weakened. Consequently, all the great branches of literature which flourished by following this ideal either decay of are radically modified. The tragic vein in particular is completely exhausted. After Racine, there are no longer any great writers of tragedy, but only imitators, of whom the most brilliant is Voltaire, whose versatility fits him for every kind of literature. Comedy shows more vitality than tragedy. With Dancourt it has taken the direction of portrayal of manners in their most fleeting aspects, and the tendency betrays itself in Lesage (1688-1747). "Turcaret", which places on the stage not a character, but a condition in life -- that of the financier, is a piece of direct, profound, and merciless observation. Applying the same methods to romantic literature Lesage wrote "Gil Blas", which first appeared in 1715, and in which, in spite of a peculiar method of narration, borrowed from Spain, the manners and the society of the time are drawn to the life. Thus "Gil Blas" inaugurates in French literature the romance of manners. The most original of the writers of comedy in this period, however, is Marivaux, who, between 1722 and 1740, produced his charming works, "La surprise de l'amour", "Le jeu de l'amour et du hasard", "Le Legs", "Les fausses confidences", etc. The utmost refinement in the analysis of love -- a love that is timid and scrupulous -- propriety in the setting of his works, a subtile wit bearing the stamp of good society, grace and delicacy of feeling -- these are the distinguishing characteristics of Marivaux. But if the great classical types are exhausted or fall to pieces giving birth to new forms, literature is compensated by the enlargement of its domain in some directions, absorbing new sources of inspiration. Writers turn away from the consideration of man as a moral unit; on the other hand they devote themselves to the study of man regarded as a product of the changing conditions of the State, political, social, and religious. In fact, this new direction of literary activity is favoured by the birth of what has been called "the philosophic spirit". After the death of Louis XIV, the severe restraint upon men's intellects was at an end. Respect for authority and for the social hierarchy, submission to the dictates of religion -- these were things never questioned by any of the seventeenth century writers. From the earliest years of the eighteenth century, on the contrary, an aggressive movement against every form of authority, spiritual as well as temporal, becomes perceptible. This twofold disposition -- curiosity about human idiosyncrasies as they vary with times, places, environments, and governments, and a spirit of unfettered criticism -- is met with in Montesquieu, chronologically the first of the great writers of the eighteenth century. Montesquieu, indeed, does not manifest any destructive inclination in regard to government and religion; nevertheless, the the "Lettres persanes" (1721), there is a tone of satire previously unknown. Montesquieu shows himself the disciple of La Broyere, but does not hesitate to discuss subjects from which his master would have been obliged to refrain; social problems, the royal power, the papacy. The "Lettres persanes" is a pamphlet rather than the work of a moralist. They make an epoch in the history of French literature, marking the first appearance of the political satire. But the two truly great works of Montesquieu are the "Considerations sur la grandeur et la decadence des Romains" (1734), and the "Esprit des Lois" (1748). In the "Considerations", Montesquieu, by undertaking to explain the succession events by the power of ideas, the character of the people, the action and reaction of cause and effect, inaugurated an historical method unknown to his predecessors -- certainly not to Bossuet, who was the most illustrious of them. From the "Considerationes" the whole movement of modern historical study was to draw its inspiration later on. In the "Esprit des Lois", his studies how laws are evolved under the influences of government, climate, religion, and manners. On all these subjects, in spite of certain errors of detail, he threw a light that was altogether new. With Montesquieu, jurisprudence, politics, and sociology made their entrance into literature. With Buffon, science has its turn. Already Fontenelle, in his "Entretiens surf la pluralite des Mondes" had popularized the most difficult astronomical theories. Buffon, in his "Histoire naturelle", the first volumes of which appeared in 1749, set forth the ideas of his time on geology and biological species in a style that is brilliant and highly coloured, but somewhat studied in its magnificence. No doubt Buffon's descriptions are written in a pompous, ambition style ill-suited to the severity of a scientific subject, and they are too often interlarded with commonplaces. It is none the less true that in introducing natural history into literature he exercised a considerable influence; from Buffon, who set forth nature in its various aspects, a number of writers were to issue. The consequence of this broadening of literature was the loss of the purely speculative and disinterested character which it displayed in the seventeenth century, when the sole aim of the writer had been production of a beautiful work and the inculcation of certain moral truths. The writers of the eighteenth century, on the contrary, wish to spread in society the philosophical and scientific theories they have adopted, and this diffusion is effected in the salons. From the beginning of the century the salons, formed from the debris of Louis XIV's court, has assumed a considerable importance. First, it was the little court of the Duchesse du Maine, at Sceaux, and the salon of the Marquise de Lambert, at Paris. Later on, other salons were opened, those of Mme Geoffrin, Mme du Deffnd, Mlle de Lespinasse. These salons in their day represented public opinion, and the authors wrote to influence the views of those who frequented them. Moderately perceptible in the first half of the century, this tendency of literature to become an instrument of propaganda and even of controversy became bolder in the second. From 1750 to 1789 Voltaire is one of the first to mark the character of this period. Of the writers who flourished about the middle of the eighteenth century, the greatest glory surrounds Voltaire (1694-1778). The kind of intellectual sovereignty which he enjoyed, not only in France by throughout Europe, is attributable to his great talent as a writer of prose as well as to his great versatility. There is no literary form -- tragedy, comedy, epic poetry, tales in prose, history, criticism, or philosophy -- in which he did not practise with more or less success. It has been said of him that he was only "second in every class", and again that he is the "first of mediocrities". Though paradoxically expressed, these verdicts are partial truths. In no branch of literature was Voltaire an originator in the full sense of the word. A man of varied gifts, living at a time when thought extended its domain in every direction and took hold of every novelty, he is the most accomplished and the most brilliant of the popularizers. In the early part of his career, from 1717 to 1750, he confines himself almost entirely to purely literary work; but after 1750 his writings assume the militant character which henceforth distinguishes French literature. In his historical works, such as the "Siecle de Louis Quatorze" (1751) and the "Essai sur le Moeurs" (1756), he became a controversialist, assailing in his narrative the Church, her institutions, and her influence on the course of events. Finally, the "Dictionnaire philosophique" (1764) and a number of treatises dealing with both philosophy and exegesis, which Voltaire gave to the world between 1763 and 1776, are wholly devoted to religious polemics. But, while Voltaire shows his hostility to religion, he attacks neither political authority, nor the social hierarchy; he is conservative, not revolutionary, in this respect. With Diderot and the Encyclopedists, however, literature becomes frankly destructive of the established order of things. Like Voltaire, Diderot is one of the most prolific writers of the eighteenth century, producing in turn romances, philosophical treatises tending toward atheism, essays in art-criticism, dramas. But it is only in productiveness that Diderot can be compared with Voltaire, for he has none of Voltaire's admirable literary gifts. He is above all an improvisatore, and, with the exception of some pages which are remarkable for movement and colour, his work is confused and uneven. His principle production is the "Encyclopedia", to which the author devoted the greatest part of his life; the first two volumes appeared in 1751. The aim of this bulky publication was to give a summary of science, art, literature, philosophy and politics, up to the middle of the eighteenth century. To bring this enterprise to a successful issue, Diderot, who reserved to himself the greatest part of the work, called to his assistance numerous collaborators, amongst whom were Voltaire, Buffon, Montesquieu, D'Alembert and Condillac. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was entrusted with the department of music. Despite the assistance of talents so diverse, the same spirit breathes throughout the work. In philosophy, the Encyclopedists seek to subvert the principles on which the existing institutions and the authority of dogma in religion were based. The Encyclopedia, therefore, which embodies all the opinions of that age, is a work of destruction. However that may be, its influence was considerable; it served as a rallying-point for the philosophers, and by acting on public opinion, as Diderot had intended, came to "change the common way of thinking". The Encyclopedia wrought the ruin of society, but proposed nothing to take its place; Jean-Jacques Rousseau dreamed of effecting its re-constitution on a new plan. On certain points, Rousseau breaks with the philosophes and the Encyclopedists. both of these believed in the sovereignty of reason., not, as was the case in the seventeenth-century writers, with reason subject to faith and controlled by it, but with reason absolute, universal, and refusing to admit what eludes its deductions -- that is to say, the truths revealed by religion. They also believed in the omnipotence of science, in human progress and in civilization guided by reason and science. Rousseau on the contrary, in his first notable work, "Discours sur les sciences et les arts" (1751), assails reason and science, and in a certain sense denies progress. On the other hand, in maintaining the natural goodness of man he approaches the philosophes. in his opinion, society has perverted man, who is by nature good and virtuous, has replaced primitive liberty with despotism, and brought inequality amongst men. society, therefore, is evil; being so, it must be abolished, and men must return to the state of nature, that happiness may reign among them. this return to the natural state Rousseau preaches in his romance, "La nouvelle Heloise" (1760), in his work on education, "Emile" (1762), lastly in the "Contrat social" (1762) which was to become the Gospel of the Revolution. From the publication of his first work, Rousseau won a success that was immediate and startling. This was because he brought qualities which were entirely novel or which had long been forgotten. With him eloquence returns to literature. Leaving aside his influence on the movement of politics, we must give him credit for all that the French literature of the nineteenth century owes to him. Rousseau, by causing a reaction against the philosophy of his time, prepared the revival of religious sentiment. It was he who, by signalizing in his most beautiful pages the emotions awakened in him by certain landscapes, aroused in the popular imagination the feeling for nature. Rousseau, too, by his thoroughly plebeian manner of parading his personality and displaying his egotism, helped to develop that sentiment of individualism, whence sprang the lyric poetry of the nineteenth century. He is also responsible for some of the most regrettable characteristics of nineteenth-century literature -- for that melancholy and unrest that has been termed "the distemper of the age", and which was originally the distemper of the hypochonandriacal Jean-Jacques; for the revolt against society; for the belief that passion has rights of its own and dominates the lives of mortals as a fatal compulsion. The close of the eighteenth century is from some points of view a time of regeneration, and forebodes a still more radical and complete transformation of literature in the immediate future. Some branches of literature that had been neglected in the course of the century receive new life and energy. Since Lesage's "Turcaret" and after Marivaux, comedy had hardly produced anything above the commonplace; it revives in the amusing "Barbier de Seville" (1775) of Beaumarchais, full of life and rapid movement. Beaumarchais owes much to his predecessors, to Moliere, Regnard, and many others. His originality as a playwright consists in the political and social satire with which his comedies are filled. In this respect they are the children of the eighteenth century, especially combative. In the "Barbier de Seville" the impertinent Figaro rails at the privileges of the aristocracy. In the "Mariage de Figaro" the satire becomes more violent; the famous monologue of the fifth act is a bitter invective against the aristocracy, against the inequality of social conditions and the restrictions imposed on liberty of thought. Finally, with Andre Chenier, lyric poetry revives, after the neglect of the eighteenth century, which had looked upon verse-writing as a mere diversion and a frivolous toying with syllables. By returning to an ancient and especially Greek models, in his "Eclogues" and his "Elegies" (1785-91), Chester begins by bringing into his poetry a new note; at the very outset he renews Ronsard's experiment; later on the Revolution affords him a more vigorous inspiration. In presence of the horrors of the Terror, stirred up by wrath and impelled by indignation, he composed his "Iambles" (1794). In recovering the sincerity of emotion and gravity of thought which were wanting to the versifiers of the eighteenth century (John-Baptiste Rousseau, Delille and even Voltaire), Andre Chenier restored to French poetry the true voice of the lyre. From 1789 to 1800 In the throes of the Revolution there is an abundance of writing, but these works, mere imitations of great writers who flourished during the century, are valueless; the sole author of note is Chenier (d. 1974). It is true that under the influence of events, a new literary genre arises, that of political eloquence. The isolated protestations of the States-General under the monarchy afforded no opportunity for public speaking; it was in other modes, notably through the pulpit, that the eloquence for which a strictly appropriate platform was lacking must perforce manifest itself in that period. But the great revolutionary assemblies favoured the development of remarkable oratorical gifts. The most famous among the orators -- and he was one who really possessed genius -- was Mirabeau. The blemishes of his style -- a congeries of violent contrasts -- the incoherency of his figures and the discordance of his shades of meaning -- all these defects vanished in the mighty onrush of his eloquence, swept away in an overmastering current of oratorical inspiration. The Nineteenth Century It is yet too early to attempt the task of determining the due place of the nineteenth century in the literary history of France; the men and affairs of the century are still near to us, and in the study of literature a true perspective can be obtained only from a certain distance. A few general characteristics, however, may be taken as already fairly ascertained. The nineteenth was one of renascence in literature: in it, following immediately upon great events, a great intellectual movement came into being, and at one definitely assignable movement there appeared a splendid efflorescence of genius; most of all this movement was a renascence because it rid itself of those theories, adopted by the preceding century, which had been the death of that century's impoverished literature. Imagination and feeling reappear in literature, and out of these qualities lyric poetry and the romance develop. At the same time the sciences, daily acquiring more importance, exercise a greater influence on thought, so that minds take a new mould. We may distinguish three periods in the nineteenth century: the first, the period of preparation, is that of the First Empire; the second, that of intellectual efflorescence, extends from 1820 to 1850; lastly, the modern period, which seems to us in these days less brilliant because the works produced in it have not yet attained the prestige that comes with age. From 1800 to 1820 Chateaubriand is the great originator of nineteenth-century French literature; from him proceed nearly the whole line of nineteenth-century writers. In 1802 appeared his "Genie du Christianisme"; in this work Chateaubriand not only defends Christianity, toward which the intellectuals of the eighteenth century had been vaguely hostile -- not only shows that Christianity is the greatest source of inspiration to the letters and the arts -- but also sets forth certain literary theories of his own. He asserts the necessity of breaking with classical tradition, which has had its day and is exhausted, and of opening a new way for art. This is one of the great ideas developed by this author and thenceforth all is over with Classicism. But Chateaubriand's work and his influence were not limited to this; constantly calling attention to the interest offered by the study of the Middle Ages, as he does in "La Genie de Christianisme", he engages both history and poetry new directions. On the other side, where he displays his own personal sufferings in "Rene" (1805), he develops the sentiment of the Ego, already affirmed by Rousseau, from which modern lyricism springs. Lastly, in the many beautiful passages of "Les Martyrs", or of his description of travels, he furnishes models of a magnificent prose style, full of color, rythmical, well-fitted to reproduce the most brilliant aspects of nature and to express the deepest emotions of the heart. Side by side with Chateaubriand, another great figure dominates this first period, that of Madame de Stael. Where Chateaubriand personifies the reaction against the eighteenth century, Mme. de Stael, on the contrary, is the incarnation of eighteenth-century traditions. Here is the school of the Ideologues, lineal representatives of the Encyclopedists. And yet in many respects she must be regarded as an innovator. In her book, "De la Litterature", she lays the foundation of that modern literary criticism which aims to study each work in its own particular conditions of origin. In her "Considerations sur la Revolution franc,aise" (1818) she is the first to inquire into the causes of that great social effect, thus leading the way where many of the great historians of the nineteenth century are to follow. Lastly, in her principal work, "De l'Allemagne" (1810), she reveals to France a whole literature then unknown to that country, the influence of which is to make itself felt in the Romantic writers. From 1820 to 1850 In this period those literary ideas in which the germs had been placed in Chateaubriand found their fullest expression with the romantic school. Almost all the writers whose works appeared between 1820 and 1850 were connected with this school. Its theories may best be defined as the opposite of Classicist doctrine. The Classicists were idealists; they held that art should above all be the representation of the beautiful; the romantics were now about to claim from the municipality of literature a full license to give public representations of hideous and grotesque things. The Classics hold that reason is the ruling faculty in poetry; the Romantics protest in the name of imagination and fantasy. The Classics go to antiquity for the models of their art and the sources of their inspiration; the Romantics are inspired by contemporary foreign literatures, by Goethe, Schiller, and Byron; they will reach the point of swearing by the example of Shakespeare as men in the seventeenth century swore by the words of Aristotle. For pagan mythology they will substitute the Christian art of the Middle Ages, will extol the Gothic cathedrals and put the troubadours in place of the rhapsodists. The same system applies in respect to form: where the classic prized clarity and precision above all things, the Romantics will seek rather glitter and colour, and carry their taste for effect, for contrast, and for antithesis to the point of mania. Though the Romantic doctrine had its manifestations in every form of literature, its first applications were in poetry. Lamartine, with the publication of his "Meditations poetiques" (1820) gave the signal for the movement, and presented the first monument of modern lyricism. In this collection of his and in those which followed -- "Nouvelles Meditations" (1823), "Harmonies poetiques et religieuses" (1830) -- we find a combination of all those qualities the lack of which had kept the versifiers of the preceding century from being true poets. The expansion of the man's own individual nature, the religious faith which makes him see Divine manifestations in everything, his disquiet in presence of great problems of human destiny, his deep and serious love, his intimate communion with nature, his dreamy melancholy -- these are the great sentiments from which Lamartine's lyricism has its origins. If Lamartine is the earliest of the Romantics, the real chief of the new school is Victor Hugo, whose career, from 1822 to 1885, extends over the whole century, but who by his inspiration belonged to the period (1820-1850) which we are now considering. Not only has he endeavoured to define the romantic ideal in many of his prefaces, but he has set himself to realize it all departments of literature, no less in romance and drama than in poetry. Still, it is in the last that he has produced his finest works. With him, however, lyricism results less from the outpouring of his inmost feelings and his Ego than from a masterly faculty which he has of concentrating his mind upon events taking place around him -- events public and private -- of listening to their reverberations, their echoes within himself, and translating these echoes into strophes of incomparable amplitude, magnificence, and diversity of movement. In a later period, this impersonal lyricism, which has dictated all his poetical works from 1831 to 1856, gives pl;ace to another inspiration, the product of which is "La Legende des Siecles" (1859-76). This vast epic of humanity, viewed in its great moments, is, perhaps, a unique work in French literature; at any rate it is the work in which Victor Hugo has most thorough;y realized his genius -- a genius compact of imagination that exaggerates beings and things beyond all measure, of art mighty to describe, to paint, and to evoke, and a marvelous gift for creating images. Very different from both Lamartine and Victor Hugo is Alfred de Musset (1810-57). In his poetical works as well as his prose dramas (Comedies et proverbes), Musset exhibits some qualities which are not apparent in his great predecessors, elegance, lightness of touch, wit. On the other hand, he has neither Victor Hugo's variety of inspiration not Lamartine's elevation of thought. He is characterized by the profound, sincere, penetrating emotion by which he expresses the inmost sufferings of his stricken and harassed soul. The peculiarity of Alfred de Vigny (1797-1863), another great poet of this period, is that, unlike most of the Romantics, who are not rich in ideas, he is a thinker. A philosophical poet, he fills his verses, not with sensations, emotions, and personal confidences, but with ideas translated into symbols ("Poems anciens et modernes"; "Les Destines") which express his pessimistic conception of life. As for Theophile Gautier, while his youthful enthusiasms and his extreme taste for the picturesque connect him with the Romantics, he parts company with them in a conception of poetry (Emaux et Camees, 1852), wherein he makes no exhibition either of his Ego or of its sentimental outpourings, but keeps to the work of rendering the aspect of things outside himself with a painter's fidelity and resources of colouring. Thus his lyricism forms a transition between that of the Romantics and that of the Parnassien school which is to succeed them. The great ambition of Romanticism was to be supreme in the drama as well as in poetry. Indeed it was in the theatre that the great battle was fought in which, between 1820 and 1830, the partisans of the new school encountered the belated defenders of the classical ideal. But while in lyric poetry Romanticism succeeded in creating veritable masterpieces, it was almost a failure in the drama. In 1827, victor Hugo, in his preface to "Cromwell", expounds the new dramatic system: no more unities, but absolute liberty for the author to develop his action just as he conceives it; the mingling of the tragic and the comic, which the Classics abhor, is authorized and even recommended; no more dreams; no more minor characters introduced into the piece solely that the hero may explain the plot to them for the benefit of the audience; on the other hand, there was to be an historical setting, local colour, complicated accessories, and authentic costuming. Lastly, Shakespeare, Goethe, and Schiller are the masters to imitate, not Corneille and Racine. This resounding preface was followed by a succession of works in which the authors endeavoured to apply its theories. There is "Henri III et sa Cour" (1829), by Alexander Dumas, pere, full of animation but infantile in its psychology and written in a bad, melodramatic style; Alfred de Vigny contributes "Le More de Venise" (1829) and "La Marechale d'Ancre" (1830); last comes Victor Hugo's own series of dramas in verse and prose, "Hernani" (1830), "Marion de Lorme" (1831), "Le roi s'amuse" (1832), "Ruy Blas" (1838), "Les Burgraves" (1843). These pieces are characterized by a wealth of extraordinary incident -- by dark intrigues, duels, assassinations, poisoning, ambuscades, abductions; their historical setting, above all, is a feast for the eyes. Solid foundation there is none; historical truth and logical action are utterly lacking. The dramas of Victor Hugo survive and still bear staging only because the author has lavished upon them all the resources of his lyricism. As for Comedy, it was neglected by the romantics -- for Musset's delicious, and often profound, little pieces were not made to be acted. From 1820 to 1850 the comic stage was dominated by an author who was altogether outside the romantic movement, Scribe, a prolific writer of vaudevilles with no power of vital observation, but a great command of sustained plot. The romance, which had been neglected by the great writers of the seventeenth and eighteenth century, in this period takes a foremost place in literature. Here again we find the influence of Romanticism, though that influence clashes with other tendencies. In the historical romance, imitated from Walter Scott, it is supreme. Alfred de Vigny's "Cinq Mars" (1826) and Victor Hugo's "Notre-Dame de Paris" (1831) are distinctly Romantic in the local colour which their authors employ and the violently dramatic character of their plots. The same characteristics appear in the innumerable romances of Alexander Dumas, pere, which, although no means strong in literary quality, give pleasure by their fecundity of invention (Les Trois Mousquetaires, 1844). Again, the romances of George Sand, at least those written in her first manner, are of the Romantic school by virtue of their lyrical exaltation of the Ego, their elaborate display of sentiment, and of passion exaggerated to the degree of paroxysm ("Indiana", 1832). Her heroines are possessed by the restlessness, the unsatisfied longings, the anguish of soul which Rene suffered. George Sand, however, was to abandon Romanticism at a later period, in her romances of country life ("La Mare au Diable", "Franc,ois le Champi", etc., from 1844 to 1850), idealized pictures of peasant life and true masterpieces of their class. But if George Sand's career was half finished before she started with romanticism, other writers in this department altogether escaped its influence, abiding by the traditions of the eighteenth century. Benjamin Constance, in "Adolphe", carries on the line of romances of psychological analysis. Stendahl, too, who inherited his odes and his precise, dry style from the philosophes of the eighteenth century, is a subtile psychologist, sometimes penetrating, often affected. Little appreciated in his own day, he will exert a great influence in the second half of the nineteenth century. Merimee very much resembles Stendahl; he excels in the art of fitting into the frame of a short novel a finished picture of his frame of action, with clean-cut, vigorous indications of his characters. And Balzac, the great master of the romance in this period, owes almost nothing to Romanticism. A peer of the creative geniuses -- the Shakespeare and Molieres -- Balzac could set in motion, in his "Comedie Humaine", an imaginary world of beings as truly living as the flesh-and-blood beings who people the actual world. Certain of his characters, while animated with an intensely individual life, present, at the same time, so universal a portraiture as to constitute veritable types corresponding to the great passions and sentiments of humanity. Among the great branches of literature which were restored between 1820 and 1850 history and criticism must be reckoned. At the beginning of the nineteenth century history could hardly be said to exist. The philosophical tendencies which it had acquired during the eighteenth century wee prejudicial to its exactitude. But what it lacked to a still more marked degree was the power of realizing the past -- in other words the power of imagination -- combined with the critical spirit. Romanticism supplied it with the former of these requisites, which developed so fast in the first half of the nineteenth century; the latter it borrows from the sciences, which developed so fast in the first part of the nineteenth century and impressed the mind of that age with their vigorous methods. Of the historians of that period, some attach the greater importance to the critical study and interpretation of the facts, others devote themselves to reconstructing the features of the past, with all its colour and picturesque quality. To the former school belong Guizot, who traces the concatenation of facts, showing what causes -- political, social and religious -- produced them; Thiers, who in his "Le Consulat l'Empire", lays bare Napoleon's policy and strategy with remarkable lucidity; Mignet, who excels in the art of singling out the essential features of an epoch. Augustin Thierry and Michelet belong to the other school. Thierry possesses in a rare degree the sense of historical verity, and his "Recits des Temps Merovingiens" (1838) is the first example in French literature of a picturesque history which is at the same time founded upon exact erudition. Lastly, with Michelet, history becomes in very truth, a resurrection of the past. Powerfully imaginative, indeed a poet by instinct, Michelet rather conjures up history than relates it. His "Histoire de France" is a canvas in which he has in marvellous fashion caused persons, feelings, and manners to live again. Concurrently with history, and under the same influences, literary criticism puts on a new physiognomy. It is no longer theoretic; henceforth its principle concern is not to judge the merits of literary works, but to determine the conditions in which they have been elaborated. It is personified in Sainte-Beuve (1804-69), who traces a detailed biography and a careful portrait of each writer and, reconstructing his appearance and character in a thousand scrupulously verified particulars, seeks thus to explain his works. Lastly, the religious renascence which took place at the beginning of the century, after the revolutionary frenzy, and which, in profane literature, gave Chateaubriand and Lamartine their inspiration, had the effect of giving back its force and brilliancy to sacred literature, so impoverished in the eighteenth century. Theological controversy reappeared with Lamennais, a remarkable writer with a violent imagination and a style characterized by its strong reliefs ("Essai sur l'indifference en matiere de religion", 1817; "Paroles d'un croyant", 1834). At the same time Pere Lacordaire lifted the multitude out of itself with his fiery discourses, and imported into the pulpit eloquence the burning lyricism of the romantics. From 1850 to the End of the Century This period seems confused to our present view, which, with its necessarily short focus, can hardly distinguish all the dormant tendencies. Still, speaking very generally, it may be said that the period was marked by a reaction against the lyricism of the Romantics, a return to the study of reality, and lastly, the coming of Positivism, through the influence of Renan and Taine, two philosophers who acted powerfully upon most writers of their time. In poetry these tendencies have expressed themselves in the theories and the works of Parnassian poets, so called because the first collection of their verses appear (in 1866) under the title "Parnasse contemporain". The Parnassian poetry is characterized, in the first place, by great striving after impersonality, the writer making it is object to avoid putting into his work anything of his own personal emotion; and next, anxious to be before all things an artist, the writer carries to excess the effort to attain perfection of form. The chief of the Parnassian school was Laconte de l'Isle (1820-1894); he does not take himself as the theme of his "Poemes antiques" (1853) or his "Poemes barbares" (1862); his theme is the history of humanity. His work is at once learned, epical, and philosophical. Others belonging to the Parnassian school, though each with his own personality, are: J. M. de Heredia (1842-1905), an immediate disciple of Laconte de l'Isle, who has managed to produce a complete picture of some epoch in each of the sonnets of his "Trophees" (1893); Sully-Prudhomme, both poet of the interior life and poet philosopher; Franc,ois Coppee, whose true originality consists in being the poet of the common people and of their everyday life. In reaction against certain tendencies of the Parnassians there appeared in the last quarter of the nineteenth century the Symbolist poets, grouped around Paul Verlaine (1844-1896), who in some points of view recalls Villon, and Stephanie Mallarme (1842-1898). It is as yet difficult to define the action and the degree of importance of these Symbolist poets, who, moreover, made a merit of being obscure. At present Parnassism and Symbolism seem to have been reconcilled in the person of M. Henri de Regnier (b. 1864). We may mention, also, among the poets of to-day, M. Jean Richepin, a belated Romantic. In the second half of the nineteenth century the romance developed to an extent even more considerable than in the first. It tends to engulf all other literary forms and and becomes itself the only department of literature. It is a convenient frame successively for historical pictures, studies of passion, pictures of manners, and moral theories. The same tendencies appear in it as we have already noted in the period from 1820 to 1850, with, however, this notable difference, that the realistic current becomes much stronger. This time the originator and master is Gustave Flaubert, author of one of the masterpieces of all romance, "Madame Bovary" (1857). The peculiar characteristic of Flaubert is his combination of the elements of romanticism with those of Realism. For him the great Romantic masters -- Chateaubriand, Victor Hugo -- are the object of a special cult; on another side, by his conception of art, Flaubert is a Realist. In the first place he does not admit the propriety of a writer's putting himself into his work; the work must be objective, impersonal, impassive. In the second place he makes it his task to paint life as it is, or as he sees it, whatever there may be in it of unlovliness and of vulgarity. This theory of the romance is in evidence in all his works, as much as in a study of provincial bourgeois life, like "Madame Bovary", as in a picture of Paris life, like "l'Education sentimentale", or a reconstruction of a vanished civilization, like "Salammbo" (1862). From Flaubert's example and from the misinterpretation of Positivist theories issued the Naturalist school. This again was realism, but realism publishing far and wide its own scientific pretentions and seeking to assimilate the processes of literature to those of science. The leader, and the theorist of naturalism was Emile Zola (1840-1902), a writer whose gift was compounded of strength and triviality, and whose books ("Les Rougon-Macquart", a series of romances from 1871 to 1893), are tainted with an unpardonable coarseness. To the naturalist school belong the Goncourt brothers who have sought to express reality by the aid of a bizarre, tortured, and pedantic vocabulary, and Guy de Maupassant (1850-1893), whose powers of observation, his intensity of vision, and a robust style borrowed from the finest traditions place him among the best writers of this group. Alphonse Daudet (1840-97), another writer who aims to portray life as it is, nevertheless stands apart from naturalism by virtue of his own peculiar qualities of sensibility, fancy, and irony. If he has painted Parisian life ("Le Nabab", 1879), he has nonetheless succeeded in describing the destinies of the lowly with a sympathetic tenderness. In spite of the encroaching Realist tendencies, the idealist and Romantic romance, in the manner of George Sand, survived with Octave Feuillet (1821-91), a dainty writer who embodies in a wonderful degree the type of the fashionable story-teller. However, after 1885, although Realism is still the inspiration of most French fiction, Naturalism, with its exaggerations, its deliberate determination to be coarse, its narrow and brutal aesthetics, loses ground and soon falls into disrepute. The traditions of the romance of psychological analysis reappear with M. Paul Bourget, who following the example of Octave Feuillet, chooses fashionable life as the setting of his stories. In recent years, M. Bourget has broadened his manner and attacked the great moral and social problems of the hour ("L'Etape", 1902; "Un divorce", 1904; "L'Emigre", 1907). M. Eduoard Rod, a Swiss by birth, has undertaken in his romances to deal with questions of conscience. On another side, by way of reaction against the crass dogmatism of Zola and his school, a certain number of writers, with a talent for playing upon fine shades of meaning and a very especial taste for crowding contrary ideas together, have taken a delight in filling their romances with a subtile and penetrating irony. The master of this school is M. Anatole France. M. Maurice Barres, who holds from Stendahl, was, in his earlier career, of the ironical school, but has more recently applied himself to demonstrating the influence of native soil and tradition ("Les Deracines", 1807). Another class of story writers has exerted itself to increase the field of romance, which, with the naturalists, had well nigh been shut up within the limits of Parisian life. Some, like M. Pierre Loti, marvellous at evoking the impression of far distant lands, have imported an exotic atmosphere; others have sought to reproduce with sympathetic fidelity the manners of their native provinces. This latter has been done for Anjou and the Vendee, with much elevation of thought and elegance of style, by M. Bazin (La Terre qui meurt). The drama, which had produced nothing of any real value under the influence of Romanticism, passed through a period of great brilliancy after 1850. Most of the works produced since that date belong to the comedy of manners, often containing little of the comic, which derives its origin from the Romantic drama -- to which it owes its ambition to reproduce "atmosphere" -- and from the comedy of Scribe. The essential characteristic of the work of scribe is the care which he brings to the contrivance of his scenes, the disposal of his action, and the preparation of his denouement. This dexterity in managing a plot reappears in almost all the dramatic authors of the second half of the nineteenth century, with whom it is an important element of their art. Lastly, the influence of the romance makes itself felt; as the romance strives after exact portraiture of life and manners, so does the drama. To resume, the modern comedy of manners combines Scribe's theatrical technique with Balzac's observation. The chief initiator of the dramatic movement of his time was Alexandre Dumas, fils (1824-96). An extremely penetrating observer, he had at the same time the mental idiosyncracy of a quasi-mystical moralist. At first his gift of observation dominates; in "La Dame aux Camelias" (1852), "Question d'argent" (1857), and "Le pere prodigue" (1859) he depicts Parisian society. Then, from 1867 on, the moralist runs away with him and he creates a new type, the "problem play" (piece de these), in which, in an exuberantly spirited dialogue of dazzling wit, he studies and discusses certain fundamental social questions (Les idees de Madame Aubray", 1867). The work of the younger Dumas is often bizarre and irritating, that of Emile Augier (1820-89), who shares public favor with him, is more uniform. The dominant quality in Augier is good sense; he has devoted himself to painting bourgeois society, using methods almost identical with those of the Classics, and, like them, creating general types. At the same time when Naturalism was trying to obtain possession of the drama, as it had already taken possession of romance, Henri Becque (1837-89), who produced little besides, was the principle dramatist of that school ("Les Corbeaux", 1882). But the movement was short-lived; Naturalism in drama soon ran to excesses which ruined its reputation. Dumas fils, however, is still the master from whom the contemporary dramatists hold, and Edouard Pailleron, Henri Lavedon, Maurice Donnat, and Paul Hervieu all owe him much. It is to be noted that in the last years of the nineteenth century the French stage witnessed a revival of the heroic comedy in M. Edmond Rostand's "Cyrano de Bergerac" (1897). We have already spoke of Renan and Taine in connection with the general tendencies of this period; these two names also belong to the literature of history. Renan (1832-92), with his "Origines du Christianisme", opened the domain of literature to religious history, which before had belonged only to pure erudition. Apart from the wavering skepticism and dilettantism in his work, his influence has been felt by a great number of writers. Taine (1828-93), inaugurated in history of the method of "little facts" borrowed from the sciences. He classifies and arranges a mass of unimportant events which serve him as document of his epoch, and from these he gathers tendencies and laws (Les Origines de la France Contemporaine). Side by side with Renan and Taine we must place Fustel de Coulanges (1830-1889), whose method is the scrupulous analysis of text, and above all the study of the laws of social change. Since these great masters, historical literature has risen to superb heights; among the most brilliant historians of our own day it will suffice to mention MM. Albert Sorel, Albert Vandal, and Henri Houssaye. Lastly, following Sainte-Beuve, some remarkable writers have raised criticism to the independent rank of a great department of literature. Here M. Brunetiere (1849-1906) introduced the idea of evolution, showing how literary forms are born, develop, flourish, and then become dissolved and resolve into other forms. No one has pleaded the cause of tradition with greater warmth, and even violence, than M. Brunetiere and this same classical tradition is defended by M. Jules Lamaitre, under the fluctuating forms of a clever and ingenious criticism, which has nothing of dilettantism but the appearance, and by M. Emile Faguet, in monographs remarkable for precise analysis and vigorous relief. In conclusion, it may be asked: What stage of its development has French literature now reached? and what character is it likely to assume in the course of the twentieth century? -- It would be vain to attempt a guess, but some of the influences which seem bound to affect it may be here indicated. First, science will increasingly impose on writers of the future its discipline and methods. On the other hand the fact that the study of Greek and Latin is losing ground in France cannot fail to have the most profound consequences in literature. Lastly, we seem, in these days, to be assisting at a social transformation, the shock of which will make itself felt in arts and letters. Belgian Literature in the French Language In the Middle Ages the literature in French which developed in the provinces of Hainault, Flanders, Brabant, and Liege had all the characteristics of the French literature of the time, except that it furnished neither works nor names of any mark. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries there was the same poverty of literary output. In the eighteenth century, under the then universal influence of French literature, a grand signeur, the Prince de Ligne (1735-1814), rivals in easy grace of style the French writers of his time -- "the only foreigner", as Mme. de Stael says, "who has who ever become a model in French literature, instead of being an imitator." But the true expansion of French Belgian literature -- which, however, is never more than a reflection of French literature properly so called -- dates from the formation of an independent Belgian kingdom. Charles de Coster (d. 1879), the earliest of the Belgian writers of the nineteenth century worthy of mention, brings out the very soul of Flanders in his legendary romance "Tiel Uylenspielgel", which in other respects reproduces the qualities and defects of the Romantics. From 1880, beginning with M. Camille Lemonnier, Naturalism reigns in Belgium. Naturalism, following the example set in France is dethroned by Symbolism about 1889. It may even be properly said that Symbolism deveolped in Belgium rather than France; its principle representatives are M. Rodenbach, an exquisite poet who has depicted for us the fascination of Bruggs (Le Regne du silence, Bruges-la-Morte), M. Verhaeren ("Les Soirs", 1887), and M. Maeterlinck, who has essayed to create a Symbolistic drama. Swiss Literature in the French Language Swiss-French literature has produced great writers, but has not kept them; they have deserted their original country to seek naturalization in France. This was the case with J.J. Rousseau, Mme. de Stael, and Benjamin Constant who, though Swiss by origin, are thoroughly French writers. In the nineteenth century, Swiss-French literature, above all, boasts of critics like Alexandre Vinet (1797-1847), and Edmund Scherer (1815-89), both distinguished by their tendency to emphasize moral interests, both, moreover, treating chiefly of French literature. In romance, likewise, M. Victor Cherbuliez (1829-1900), who excelled in the knack of weaving into the plot of a story current questions of art, science, and philosophy, and M. Eduoard Rod are very decidedly French writers. The only true Swiss author is Topfer (1799-1816 [sic]), who has left some true masterpieces of romance at once sentimental and humorous, such as his "Histoire de M. Pencil" and his "Voyages et aventures du docteur Festus" (1849). Nisard, Histoire de la litterature franc,aise (Brussels, 1879); Brunetiere, Manuel de l'Histoire de la litterature franc,aise (Paris, 1897); Id, Histoire de la litterature franc,aise classique (Paris, only one volume has appeared); Doumic, Histoire de la litterature franc,aise (Paris, 1900); Lawson, Histoire de la litterature franc,aise; Paris, La litterature franc,aise au Moyen-Age; La Poesie au Moyen-Age; Sainte-Beuve, Tableau de la litterature franc,aise au XVIe siecle; Causeries du Lundi; Nouveaux Lundis; Brunetiere, Etudes critiques sur l'histoire de la litterature franc,aise (Paris, 1887 --); Id, Histoire et litterature (Paris, 1884-86); Id., Questions de critique (Paris, 1889); Id., Nouvelles questions de critiques (Paris, 1890); Id., Essais sur la litterature contemporaine (Paris, 1892); Id., Nouveaux essais de litterature contemporaine (Paris, 1895); Id., L'evolution de la poesie lyrique in France au XIXe siecle; Id., L'evolution des genres (Paris, 1890 --); Les epoques du theatre franc,aise; Bourget, Essais de psychologie contemporaine; Nouveaux essais de psychologie contemporaine; Lemaitre: Les contemporains: Impressions de theatre; Faguet, Etudes litteratures sur le XVIe siecle; Dix-septilme siecle: Dix-huitieme siecle; Dix-neuvieme siecle; Politiques et moralistes de XIXe siecle; Doumic, Etudes sur la litterature franc,aise: escrevains d'aujour' hui (Paris, 1896-1900); Id., Potraits d'escrevains (Paris, 1892); Id., Les Junenes (Paris, --); Id., Les hommes et les idees du XIXe siecle (Paris, 1904); Id., De Scribe `a Ibsen (Paris, 1893); Id., Essais sur le theatre contemporain (Paris, 1898). English Works -- Saintsbury, Short history of French Literature (London, 1882); van Laun, Hist. of French Lit. (3 vols, Edinburgh, 1876); Hirschfield, Geschicte der frans. Literatur (Leipzig and Vienna, 1900). RENE DOUMIC Marc' Antonio Franceschini Marc' Antonio Franceschini Italian painter; b. at Bologna, 1648; d. there c. 1729; best known for the decorative works he carried out in Parma, Bologna, and Genoa, and for the designs executed for Clement XI for certain mosaics in St. Peter's. He may be regarded as a member of the Eclectic School and a follower of the Carracci, and his chief works consist of the Ranuzzi ceiling in Bologna, two fine pictures in the Bologna Gallery (Annunciation and the Holy Family) and one in the Servite convent depicting the founders of the order. Other less important churches in the same city are adorned with his works and there are five of his paintings at Vienna. He also decorated a church at Crema in 1716, and a few years later painted a fine picture of St. Thomas of Villanova giving alms to the poor, to be seen in the Augustinian church at Rimini. He is believed to have lived to a great age. Historians have stated that he visited Madrid, but the more general opinion is that he declined an invitation to that city, saying that he did not wish to leave his native country. He painted down to the very moment of his death, and on one of his pictures at Venice he declares that he was seventy-eight when he finished it, and on another in Genoa, representing Rebecca, that he was eighty. His drawing was very precise, colouring fresh and vivid, and his shadows were not so intense as those of his predecessors. GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON Bl. Frances d'Amboise Bl. Frances d'Amboise Duchess of Brittany, afterwards Carmelite nun, b. 1427; d. at Nantes, 4 Nov., 1485. The daughter of Louis d'Amboise, Viscount de Thouars, she was betrothed when only four years old, to Peter, second son of John V, Duke of Brittany, the marriage being solemnized when she had reached the age of fifteen. The union was, however, not very happy owing to the morose disposition of the husband who occasionally ill-treated his wife; but her gentleness gradually changed his heart, he assisted her in her works of charity and did penance for his former dissolute life. After his succession to the dukedom in 1450 her wholesome influence made itself felt in wider circles; she also intervened, not always succeessfully, in the never-ending family feuds. The duke died, leaving no legitimate heir, in l457 after having borne testimony in his last will to the devotedness of his wife. The latter consecrated her life to God, but for several years she was unable to consummate the sacrifice by entering a convent. While being educated by her future mother-in-law she had early distinguished herself by almsdeeds and fervent devotion to the Blessed Sacrament. During her married life she devoted a large portion of her fortune to the foundation of a convent of Poor Clares at Nantes, which she would have joined had her strength allowed it; she also took part in the preliminaries of the canonization of St. Vincent Ferrer, became a benefactress of the Dominican convent at Nantes, and made the acquaintance of Blessed John Soreth, General of the Carmelites, who in 1452 had established the first community of Carmelite nuns. Some of these, coming from Liege, were received by Frances at Vannes (31 Oct., 1463) where they were entertained at the castle until the convent called "The Three Maries" was habitable. Having provided their dowries she entered the novitiate (25 March, 1468), making her profession the following year. After some time spent as infirmarian she was elected prioress for life (1473), and became by her splendid example the model of a true Carmelite nun, and, in a sense, the foundress of this branch of the order. The convent proving too small she obtained not without litigation, a larger one at Nantes. She died in a holy ecstasy, and miracles were wrought at her tomb. During the Huguenot wars and the French revolution her body had to be saved twice from profanation. Pius IX beatified her 16 July, 1863. BENEDICT ZIMMERMAN St. Frances of Rome St. Frances of Rome (Bussa di Leoni.) One of the greatest mystics of the fifteenth century; born at Rome, of a noble family, in 1384; died there, 9 March, 1440. Her youthful desire was to enter religion, but at her father's wish she married, at the age of twelve, Lorenzo de' Ponziani. Among her children we know of Battista, who carried on the family name, Evangelista, a child of great gifts (d. 1411), and Ages (d. 1413). Frances was remarkable for her charity to the poor, and her zeal for souls. She won away many Roman ladies from a life of frivolity, and united them in an association of oblates attached to the White Benedictine monastery of Santa Maria Nuova; later they became the Benedictine Oblate Congregation of Tor di Specchi (25 March, 1433) which was approved by Eugene IV (4 July, 1433). Its members led the life of religious, but without the strict cloister or formal vows, and gave themselves up to prayer and good works. With her husband's consent Frances practiced continency, and advanced in a life of contemplation. Her visions often assumed the form of drama enacted for her by heavenly personages. She had the gift of miracles and ecstasy, we well as the bodily vision of her guardian angel, had revelations concerning purgatory and hell, and foretold the ending of the Western Schism. She could read the secrets of consciences and detect plots of diabolical origin. She was remarkable for her humility and detachment, her obedience and patience, exemplified on the occasion ofher husband's banishment, the captivity of Battista, her sons' death, and the loss of all her property. On the death of husband (1436) she retired among her oblates at Tor di Specchi, seeking admission for charity's sake, and was made superior. On the occasion of a visit to her son, she fell ill and died on the day she had foretold. Her canonization was preceded by three processes (1440, 1443, 1451) and Paul V declared her a saint on 9 May, 1608, assigning 9 March as her feast day. Long before that, however, the faithful were wont to venerate her body in the church of Santa Maria Nuova in the Roman Forum, now known as the church of Santa Francesca Romana. FRANCESCO PAOLI Ausonio Franchi Ausonio Franchi The pseudonym of CRISTOFORO BONAVINO, philosopher; b. 24 February, 1821, at Pegli, province of Genoa; d. 12 September, 1895, at Genoa. He entered the ecclesiastical state, and some time after his ordination to the priesthood, was appointed director of an institution for secondary education at Genoa. Soon, however, he became imbued with the doctrines of French positivism and German criticism. Doubts arose in his mind, followed by an internal struggle which he describes in his work on the philosophy of the Italian schools. At the same time, important political events were taking place in Italy, culminating in the revolution of 1848. Misled, as he later says of himself, by a political passion, and also by a kind of philosophical passion, Franchi abandoned the priest's habit and office in 1849, and assumed the name of Ausonio Franchi (i.e. free Italian), indicating thereby his break with his own past and his new aspirations. Henceforth all his talents were devoted to the cause of intellectual and political liberty. The dogmatic authority of the Church and the despotic authority of the State are the objects of his incessant attacks. Combining Kant's phenomenalism and Comte's positivism, he falls into a sort of relativism and agnosticism. For him, religious truth and reason, Catholicism and freedom, are irreconcilable, and Franchi does not hesitate in his choice. In 1854 he founded the "Ragione", a religious, political, and social weekly which was a means of propagating these ideas. Terenzio Mamiani, then Minister of Education, appointed him professor of the history of philosophy in the University of Pavia (1860), and later (1863) in the University of Milan, where he remained until 1888. No work was published by him between 1872 and 1889. A change was again taking place in his mind, not now due to passion, but to the professor's more mature reflection. It led to the publication of Franchi's last work, in which he announces his return to the Church, criticizes his former works and arguments, and denounces the opinions and principles of his earlier writings. His works are: "Elementi di Grammatica generale applicati alle due lingue italiana e latina" (Genoa, 1848-49), under the name of Cristoforo Bonavino. Under the name of Ausonio Franchi he wrote "La Filosofia delle scuole italiane" (Capolago, 1852; "Appendice", Genoa, 1853); "La religione del secolo XIXo" (Lausanne, 1853); "Studi filosofici e religiosi: Del Sentimento" (Turin, 1854); "Il Razionalismo del Popolo" (Geneva, 1856); "Letture sulla Storia della Filosofia moderna; Bacone, Descartes, Spinoza, Malebranche" (Milan, 1863); "Sulla Teorica del Giudizio" (Milan, 1870); "La Caduta del Principato ecclesiastico e la Restaurazione dell' Impero Germanico" (Milan, 1871); "Saggi di critica e polemica" (Milan, 1871-72). He also edited "Appendice alle Memorie politiche di Felice Orsini" (Turin, 1858); "Epistolario di Giuseppe La Farina" (Milan, 1869(; and Scritti politici di Giuseppe La Farina" (Milan, 1870). C.A. DUBRAY Francia Francia (FRANCESCO RAIBOLINI) A famous Bolognese goldsmith, engraver, and artist, b. about 1450; d. in 1517. His family was one of the best in Bologna, and owned land at Zola Predosa. His father was a wood-carver, but Francesco entered the guild of goldsmiths (1482), and was elected its head in the following year. His master was one Duc, surnamed Francia, doubtless because of his native land, and Francesco adopted this surname, either through gratitude, or more probably as a valuable trade-mark. Like Pisanello, Verrocchio, Pollaiuolo, and Ghirlandajo, he is an example of what Italian art owes to close association with the minor arts. A gradation of the fine arts, the idea of greater or lesser dignity and rank, did not then exist and was to spring up only later, in the school of Michelangelo. This fact imparts to all the aesthetic manifestations of the classic period that unity and perfection of detail and life which imagination and taste impress on all things. The relations between the goldsmith's art and painting were then particularly close. In this way painting was enabled to rise above the vulgar demands of a pious imagerie of the Giottesque type, and the dry and pedantic learning of Uccello and Andrea del Castagno. Art, ornament, and beauty, which threatened to disappear, were thus restored to painting. This is why the "industrial" side of Francia's art, exemplified in his admirable medals, nielli, and enamels, his work as a jeweller, an armourer, and a type-caster, cannot be too strongly insisted on. He is known to have designed the italic type for the edition of Virgil published by Aldus Manutius (Venice, 1501). We know also that the invention of engraving is partly due to the art of niello in which Francia was a master. A few prints are ascribed to Francia; in the art of engraving he was the first master of Marcantonio Raimondi. Circumstances, however, impelled Francia to become a painter. Very probably he received his first lessons from Francesco Cossa (d. at Bologna, 1485), but it was from Lorenzo Costa that he received his principal instruction. This artist, slightly younger than Francia, had recently won renown at Ferrara and returned in 1483 to Bologna, where he set up his studio in the house occupied by the goldsmith. More than one work (church of the Misericordia, Bentivoglio palace) resulted from their friendly collaboration. Certain peculiarities of Francia, his familiar scenic arrangements, the beautiful architecture, the carved thrones of his Madonnas, the little angelic musicians seated on steps, are touches of Ferrarese taste which proclaim the influence of Costa. In landscape Francia felt later the influence of Perugino (1446-1524), who, in 1497, was painting his "Virgo Gloriosa" at San Giovanni in Monte. These influences, however, should be acknowledged with all the reserve imposed in the case of an already mature man, who had long been an artist of repute when he began to paint. The earliest extant works of Francia, e. g. the "Calvary" of the Archiginnasio of Bologna, the "Madonna" of Berlin, above all the remarkable "St. Stephen" of the Casino Borghese, are remarkable for a certain character of "dilettantism" (Burckhardt), for something so intentionally unique and original that one does not know with what to connect them in all the history of painting. We feel ourselves in the presence of a master who grasps with firmness his own ideas and is extremely personal in his tendencies, one who takes up a new craft only because it enables him to apply highly individual theories or express his intimate tastes. The early attempts were followed by a series of great works dated as follows: the Felicini reredos (Bologna, 1494), that of the Bentivoglio (San Giacomo Maggiore, 1499), those of the Scappi and the Manzuoli, the great "Annunciation" (Pinacoteca of Bologna, 1500), and various others now in the museums of Berlin and St. Petersburg. It is always the same subject so beloved throughout the fifteenth century, the Virgin surrounded by various saints; even when styled an "Annunciation", the treatment remains the same. The composition is necessarily uniform, in deference to the law of symmetry. There is naturally no action, the painter's object being to produce with these motionless figures an effect of harmony and recollection. It is a calm and tranquil beauty that he seeks to reproduce. But within these limits no one, not even Giovanni Bellini, though his "Madonna of San Zaccaria" dates from 1505, achieved so much. The orderly disposition of his figures and his well-balanced lines, heightened often by an architectural background or by landscapes, produces an impression of profound peace. So much happiness could have but one legitimate expression, i. e. music. In other words the angels playing on the harp or the lute, whom Francia loved to introduce, interpret naturally the emotions awakened by the harmony of form. Let it be added, and in this he differs from Perugino, that with him lyricism never becomes mere formula. The inspiration of Francia seems inexhaustible; hence his ability to vary indefinitely, and always with success, the same theme. Francia was always too conscientious to reproduce in a commonplace way works which were the outcome, on his part, of a deep emotional life. In this artist the conventional never replaces true sentiment, as in Perugino during the last twenty-five years of his life. The types of Francia, though extremely general in significance, are none the less markedly individual; his Sebastian has not the same features, the same piety, the same ecstasy as Bernard, nor is his figure of Augustine the same as that of Francis. In execution he displays admirable care in all details and is never negligent. The figures are irreproachably constructed, while the elegant ornamentation, the sculptures, embroideries, tiaras, and dalmatics betray the sharp and critical eye of the goldsmith and engraver. Of this we are reminded still more forcibly by his fondness for, and careful selection of, the best materials for his palette, and his taste for compact, thick, enamelled painting, of itself a pleasure to the eye. Each picture of Francia has its own sonorous harmony; throughout his work we seem to hear, as it were, an orchestration of colour. We have here the principles of an entirely new art, altogether different from the ultra-intellectual preoccupations of the Florentine School. Horace had said that poetry was a kind of painting, ut pictura poesis; one might imagine that in turn Francia wished to prove that painting was a kind of music. It was the idea likely to arise in an ancient musical city immemorially famous for its singers and its lute-players. Only in his later pictures, however, e. g. the "Baptism of Christ" (Dresden, 1509), the "Deposition" (Turin, 1515), the "Sacra Conversazione" of Parma, above all in that of London (about 1516), does Francia display the full measure of his genius. Several of his frescoes are known, e. g. the "Madonna del Terremuoto" (Bologna, 1505) and two charming pages from the life of St. Cecilia, her marriage and her burial, at San Giacomo Maggiore (1507). He is also the author of beautiful portraits (Pitti Palace, also the Uffizi, in Florence). No doubt his modesty, his quiet and retired life, spent entirely at Bologna, his avoidance of historical and mythological subjects, a mental temper which held him aloof from the great movement of the Renaissance and caused him to pursue so novel an occupation, suffice to explain the semi-obliteration of his fame. His contemporaries, nevertheless, considered him a man of no small importance. Raphael corresponded with him, though there is no proof that the letter and sonnet quoted by Malvasia are authentic. In 1508 he was named director of the mint of Bologna, and in 1514, master of all the artistic corporations of the city. He was handsome, says his contemporary Seccadinari, very eloquent, well-informed, and distinguished. His influence, nevertheless, was confined to Bologna. He lived apart from the pagan and rationalistic movement of the fifteenth century, was an isolated man of great and noble gifts, original and pure in his use of them, in a word the most eminent personality in Northern Italian art previous to Titian and Correggio. He had two sons, Giacomo and Giulio, b. in 1485 and 1487. VASARI, ed. MILANESI, III, 555; MALVASIA, Felsina Pittrice (Bologna, 1641); CALVI, Memorie della vita di Fr. Raibolini detto il Francia (Bologna, 1812); DUCHESNE, Essai sur les Nielles (Paris, 1812); REID, The Engravings of Francia (London, 1871); WILLIAMSON, Francia (London, 1901). LOUIS GILLET Francis I Francis I King of France; b. at Cognac, 12 September, 1494; d. at Rambouillet, 31 March, 1547. He was the son of Charles of Orleans, Count of Angouleme, and Louise of Savoy, and the husband of Claude of France, daughter of Louis XII. He succeeded to the throne 1 January, 1515, not as son-in-law, since the Salic Law did not permit succession through women, but as cousin of Louis XII, who had no male heir. His victory at Marignano (1515) over the Swiss who were defending Maximilian Sforza established the young king's reputation in Italy. He took advantage of this at "the interview of Bologna" to bring to a successful termination the efforts of his predecessors, Charles VII and Louis XI, to impose on Leo X the concordat which governed the organization of the French Church from that time till the end of the old regime (see FRANCE). This marked the beginning of a series of measures destined to establish in France the preponderance of the royal power. Francis I sought by every means, even by exceptional tribunals, to destroy among the nobles, both bishops and seigneurs (lords), the spirit of independence. The formula of royal edicts "car tel est notre bon plaisir" (because it is our good pleasure) dates from his reign. The death of Emperor Maximilian I (1519) led Francis I to dispute the imperial crown with Charles of Austria who had recently inherited the crown of Spain. The latter became emperor as Charles V. Surrounded on the south, north-east, and east by the states of Charles V, Francis I, immediately after his interview of the Field of the Cloth of Gold with Henry VIII of England (1520), began the struggle with the House of Austria which was to be prolonged, with occasional truces, until 1756. Four successive wars against Charles V filled the reign of King Francis. The first, famous for the exploits and death of Bayard, the "chevalier sans peur et sans reproche", the treason of the Constable de Bourbon, the defeat of Francis I at Pavia (1525), and his captivity, ended with the Treaty of Madrid (1526), by which he ceded Burgundy to Charles V. The second war, rendered necessary by the refusal of the deputies of Burgundy to become the subjects of the emperor, and marked by the alliance between Francis I and the Italian princes, among them Pope Clement VII (League of Cognac, 1526), brought about the sack of Rome by the imperial troops under the command of the Constable de Bourbon (1527), and ended with the Peace of Cambrai (1529), in reality no more than a truce. After its conclusion, Francis I, who had lost his wife, Claude of France, in 1524, wedded Eleanor of Austria, sister of Charles V. The third war, entered upon by Francis I after he had reorganized a permanent national army, and at the time when Charles V had undertaken an expedition against Tunis, was marked by the entrance of the French troops into Savoy and the entrance of the troops of Charles V into Provence (1536); it was brought to an end, thanks to the mediation of Pope Paul III, by the treaty of Aigues-Mortes. The fourth war, resulting from the ambitious designs of Francis I on Milan, was marked by the alliance of Charles V with Henry VIII, by the French victory of Ceresole (1544), and was ended by the Treaties of Crespy and Ardres (1544 and 1546). The history of no other reign has been so profoundly studied in modern times as that of Francis I. A series of recent works has brought out the originality and novelty of his political maxims. The struggle against the House of Austria made Francis I the ally of the Holy See during the pontificate of Clement VII, whose niece, Catherine, had married Henry II, the future King of France (see CATHERINE DE' MEDICI), but he could not prevail upon Clement VII to grant a divorce to Henry VIII of England. Impelled by the desire to menace Charles V not only on the frontiers but even in the interior of his territory, Francis I sent his agents into Germany, who fostered political and religious anarchy and favoured the political ascendency of the Protestant princes. His policy in this respect was opposed to Catholic interests and even opposed to those of Christianity, for, after having in 1522 and 1523 sent Antonio Rincon to the King of Poland and the Voivode of Transylvania to urge them to threaten Charles V on the eastern frontier of the empire, Francis I thought of utilizing the Turks against the emperor. Before he had even thought of this alliance rumours spread throughout Germany held him responsible for the victories of the Mussulmans at Belgrade and Rhodes. Francis I entered into negotiations with the Sultan Soliman in 1526 through his agent Frangipani, and in 1528 through Antonio Rincon. The Progress of the Turks in central Europe between 1528 and 1532 injured the reputation of Francis I. He then secured the assistance of the Turks against Charles V in the Italian peninsula and in the Western Mediterranean. Then followed his negotiations with Barbarossa (1533-34), at that time master of all North Africa. In 1535 his ambassador Jean de la Forest was sent to Barbarossa to arrange for a campaign against the Genoese, and to the sultan to secure his alliance with Francis I in order to preserve the European balance of power. From these negotiations of Jean de la Forest date the abandonment by France of the medieval idea of la Chretiente, or Christendom, and, on the other hand, her protection of the Christians in the East (see FRANCE). Francis I played the part of a Maecenas in the spread of the Renaissance in France. He invited from Italy the great artists Leonardo da Vinci, Rosso, Primaticcio, Benvenuto Cellini, and Andrea del Sarto. He began the present Louvre, built or decorated the chateaux of Fontainebleau and Chambord, and was patron of the poets Marot and du Bellay. His most valuable service to Humanism was the foundation of the College de France, intended originally for the teaching of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. He was also the founder of the Imprimerie Royale. While he permitted the development in intellectual circles of certain Protestant ideas simultaneously with Humanism, he was on the other hand, after 1534, quite hostile to the propagation of Protestantism among the common people, as is shown by his persecution (1545) of the Vaudois of Chabrieres and Merindol. The poems of Francis I, though interesting as historical documents, are mediocre work. His tomb and that of his wife, Claude of France, in St. Denis, were designed by Philibert Delorme, and executed by Pierre Bontemps. CONTEMPORARY SOURCES: Catalogue des actes de Franc,ois Ier (10 vols., Paris, 1887-1907); Ordonnances du regne de Franc,ois Ier, 1515-1516 (Paris, 1902); CHAMPOLLION-FIGEAC, Captivite du Roi Franc,ois Ier (Paris, 1847); Poesies de Franc,ois Ier, ed. CHAMPOLLION-FIGEAC (Paris, 1847); Journal de Louise de Savoie, ed. GUICHENON (Paris, 1778); Journal de Jean Barillon, ed. VAISSIRE (Paris, 1897-99); Journal d'un bourgeois de Paris sous le regne de Franc,ois Ier, ed. LALANNE (Paris, 1854); Chronique du Roi Franc,ois Ier, ed. GUIFFREY, (Paris, 1864); Memoires de Martin du Bellay, de Fleurange, de Saulx de Tavannes, de Vieilleville; Histoire du gentil seigneur de Bayard, ed. ROMAN (Paris, 1878); MONLUC, Commentaires, ed. DE RUBLE (Paris, 1864-1872). MODERN WORKS: PAULIN PARIS, etudes sur le regne de Franc,ois Ier (2 vols., Paris, 1885); MADELIN, De Conventu Bononiensi (Paris, 1901); MIGNET, Rivalite de Franc,ois Ier et de Charles-Quint (2 vols., Paris, 1878); HAMY, Entrevue de Franc,ois Ier avec Henri VIII `a Boulogne-Sur-Mer en 1532; Intervention de la France dans l'affaire du divorce (Paris, 1898); BOURRILLY, La premiere ambassade d'Antonio Rincon en Orient in Revue d'Histoire Moderne et Contemporaine (1900-1901), II; IDEM, L'ambassade de Laforest et Marillac `a Constantinople in Rev. Hist. (1901), LXXVI; IDEM, La regne de Franc,ois Ier in Revue d'Histoire Moderne et Contemporaine (1902-1903), IV; LEMONNIER, La France sous Charles VIII, Louis XII et Franc,ois Ier in LAVISSE, Histoire de France (Paris, 1903), V; URSU, La politique oriental de Franc,ois Ier (Paris, 1908). GEORGES GOYAU Rule of Saint Francis Rule of Saint Francis As known, St. Francis founded three orders and gave each of them a special rule. Here only the rule of the first order is to be considered, i.e., that of the Friars Minor, under the following headings: I. ORIGIN AND CONTENTS OF THE RULE; II. INTERPRETATION AND OBSERVANCE OF THE RULE. I. ORIGIN AND CONTENTS OF THE RULE (1) Origin There is, as in so many other points in the life of St. Francis, not a small amount of doubt and controversy about the Rule of St. Francis. Whether St. Francis wrote several rules or one rule only, with several versions, whether he received it directly from heaven through revelation, or whether it was the fruit of long experience, whether he gave it the last touch or whether its definite form is due to the influence of others, all these are questions which find different answers. However in some cases, it is more a question of words than of facts. We may speak of three successive rules or of three successive versions of the same rule; that makes little difference, since the spirit in the three cases is the same. For clearness, we shall speak simply of the three rules, the first of which is of the year 1209, the second of 1221, the third of 1223; expounding more especially the one of 1223, as this is properly the Rule of St. Francis, the object of this article. (a) The Rule of 1209 This is the rule St. Francis presented to Innocent III for approval in the year 1209; its real text is not known. If, however, we regard the statements of Thomas of Celano (I Cel., i, 9 and 13, ed. d'Alencon, Rome, 1906) and St. Bonaventure (Legenda major, c. iii), we are forced to conclude that this primitive rule was little more than some passages of the Gospel heard in 1208 in the chapel of Portiuncula. From which Gospel precisely these words were taken, we do not know. The following passages, Matt., xix, 21; Matt., xvi, 24; Luke, ix, 3, occurring in the second rule (i and xiv), are considered as a part of the original one of 1209. They enjoin apostolical life with all its renouncements and privations. The three vows of obedience, chastity, and poverty, essential to any religious order, and some practical rules of conduct were added. Thomas of Celano says in this regard (I Cel., i, 13): "Blessed Francis, seeing that the Lord God was daily increasing the number [of the brethren] for that very purpose, wrote down simply and in few words for himself and for his brethren, both present and future, a pattern and rule of life, using chiefly the language of the holy Gospel after whose perfection alone he yearned" [version of Ferrers Howell (London, 1908), p. 31]. St. Bonaventure (loc. cit.) and the so-called "Legend of the Three Companions" (viii) repeat almost the same words. The fact can otherwise be gathered from the description of the early state of the order, made by St. Francis himself in the "Testament": "And when the Lord gave me some brothers, no one showed me what I ought to do, but the Most High Himself revealed to me that I should live according to the form of the holy Gospel. And I caused it to be written in few words and simply, and the Lord Pope confirmed it for me" (version of Paschal Robinson). These last words of St. Francis refer to the oral approval of the original rule, given by Innocent III, 1209. Angelo Clareno, in his (not printed) "Exposition of the Rule," alleges that this rule was approved in the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215. But this is not certain; it is not even proved that St. Francis was in Rome at that time. Still, indirectly, Angelo Clareno is right, inasmuch as the prohibition of founding new orders, decreed at this council, was not applied to St. Francis's institute. Some letters of Honorius III, given 1219 (Bullarium Franciscanum, I, 2), may also be considered as a general approbation of the life and rule of the friars. The text of the primitive rule seems to have perished very early, since Hugo of Digne (Expositio in Regulam, Prologus and c. xii) in the middle of the thirteenth century, Ubertino of Casale (Arbor Vitae, Bk. V, c. v, Venice, 1485, f.E.II, v., a) and Angelo Clareno (Expositio in Regulam, passim) in the beginning of the fourteenth century, quote constantly as the first rule, confirmed by Innocent III, the one written in 1221. However, endeavours of reconstruction have been made by Karl Mueller (Die Anfaenge des Minoritenordens und der Bussbruderschaften, Freiburg im Br., 1885, 185-188), and by H. Boehmer (Analekten zur Geschichte des Franciscus von Assisi, Tuebingen and Leipzig, 1904, 88-89). This first rule marks the stage of the order governed by St. Francis's personal authority, and it is quite natural that this first attempt could not be developed as later rules were. But to conclude hence that Francis did not intend to found an order properly so called, in other words, to write any religious rule at all, is quite different. All that can be said is this, that St. Francis did not take as his model any monastic order, but simply the life of Christ and His Apostles, the Gospel itself. (b) The Rule of 1221 If we give credit to Jacques de Vitry, in a letter written at Genoa, 1216 (Boehmer, loc. cit., 98), and to the traditional "Legend of the Three Companions" (c. xiv), the rule of 1209 was successively improved at the annual general chapter at Portiuncula by new statutes, the fruit of ever-growing experience. Jacques de Vitry (loc. cit.) writes: "The men of this Religion with great fruit assemble every year at a determined place, that they may rejoice in the Lord and take their meals, and by the counsel of good men they make and promulgate holy statutes, which are confirmed by the Pope." Indeed Thomas of Celano records one such statute (II Cel., ii, 91): "He [Francis], for a general commonition in a certain Chapter, caused these words to be written: 'Let the Friars take care not to appear gloomy and sad like hypocrites, but let them be jovial and merry, showing that they rejoice in the Lord, and becomingly courteous.'" This passage is literally found in the rule of 1221, c. vii. The traditional "Legend of the Three Companions" says (c. xiv): "At Whitsuntide [every year] all the brethren assembled unto St. Mary and consulted how best they might observe the Rule. Moreover St. Francis gave unto them admonition, rebukes, and precepts, according as seemed good unto him by the counsel of the Lord." And c. ix: "For he [St. Francis] made divers Rules, and essayed them, before he made that which at the last he left unto the brethren" (translation of Salter, London, 1902, p. 88, 60). During the years 1219-1220 in the absence of the holy founder in the East, some events happened which determined Francis to recast his rule, in order to prevent similar troubles in the future. The only author who informs us well on this point is Jordanus of Giano in his Chronicle (Analecta Franciscana, I, iv sq.; ed. Boehmer, Paris, 1908, 9 sq.). The vicars left in charge of the brothers by St. Francis having made some innovations against the spirit of the rule, and St. Francis having heard of this, he immediately returned to Italy and with the help of Cardinal Ugolino repressed the disorders. Jordanus (ed. Boehmer, p. 15) then goes on: "And thus the disturbers with the help of the Lord being kept down, he [St. Francis] reformed the Order according to its statutes [alias institutions, Instituta]. And the blessed Francis seeing that brother Caesarius [of Spires] was learned in holy letters, he charged him to embellish with texts of the Gospel the Rule which he himself had written with simple words." The narrative of Jordanus, precious though it be, is incomplete. "Speculum perfectionis" (ed. Sabatier, Paris, 1898, c. lxviii), Angelo Clareno (Felice Tocco, "Le due prime Tribolazioni dell'Ordine Francescano," Rome, 1908, p. 36; Doellinger, "Sektengeschichte," II, 440 sq.; and "Expositio in Regulam"), Bartholomew of Pisa [Liber Conformitatum fruct., XII, pars II, ed. Milan, 1510, f. cxxxv, v., a, Anal. Franc., IV (1906), 585] tell us that at some general chapter the ministers and custodes, alias the learned brethren, asked Cardinal Ugolino to use his friendship with St. Francis that he might introduce some organization into the order according to the Rules of St. Augustine, St. Benedict, and St. Bernard, and that they might receive some influence. St. Francis being questioned, answered that he was called to walk by the way of simplicity, and that he would always follow the folly of the Cross. The chapter at which this occurred was most, likely the one of 1220. The authority of the aforesaid sources may be contested, still, an allusion to those events may be seen in Il Cel., ii, 141. At any rate in a Bull of Honorius III, Viterbo, 22 Sept., 1220 (Bull. Franc., I, 6), addressed "to the Priors or Custodes of the Friars Minor," one year of novitiate is introduced, in conformity with other orders, after which no one may leave the order (c. ii of the rule of 1221). Furthermore we see in c. xviii of the second rule, that much authority is given to the ministers through the general chapter, which hitherto had been frequented by all the brothers, but now is reserved to the ministers. The second rule was probably published at the General Chapter of Portiuncula, 1221, where for the last time all the friars convened. It was certainly in use in the autumn of the same year, since the Friars in Germany held at Augsburg, Oct., 1221, a provincial chapter in accordance with c. xviii of this rule (See Jordanus, c. xxiii, Analecta Franciscana, i, 9; ed. Boehmer, p. 27). The second rule is called "Regula prima" by all older Franciscan writers, it being the first known in its text, or also "Regula non bullata," for it was never solemnly confirmed by a papal Bull. It has been preserved in many manuscripts and has been often printed, but there are some noteworthy discrepancies of text in chaps. x and xii. The following remarks may be added to characterize it. The rule of 1221 consists of twenty-three chapters, some of which are composed almost entirely of scriptural texts; in others many admonitions are found and towards the end even prayers. The introductory words "Brother Francis . . . promises obedience and reverence to our Lord Pope Innocent" (d. 1216) show clearly that the second rule is only an enlarged version of the primitive one. In chaps. iv and xviii appears an organization, which at the time the first rule was written (1209) could not have existed, since St. Francis had then only twelve companions. Chap. vii, on Working and Serving, is almost certainly of the primitive rule, for its prohibition "not to be chamberlains nor cellarers, nor overseers in the houses of those whom they serve," found scarcely, or only exceptionally, any application in 1221. The Life of Brother Giles (Analecta Francisc., iii, 74 sq., and the introduction of Robinson's "The Golden Sayings of the Blessed Brother Giles," Philadelphia, 1907) may be read as an illustration of this chapter. It may appear strange that neither Thomas of Celano nor St. Bonaventure mentions this second rule, which certainly marked an important stage in the Franciscan Order. The reason thereof may be because it was composed in connexion with troubles arisen within the order, on which they preferred to keep silent. (c) The Rule of 1223 St. Bonaventure (Leg. maj., c. iv) relates that when the order had greatly increased, St. Francis had a vision which determined him to reduce the rule to a more compendious form. (See also II Cel., ii, 159.) From St. Bonaventure (loc. cit.), "Speculum perfectionis" (c. i), and other sources we know that St. Francis, with Brother Leo and Brother Bonizo of Bologna (see, however, on the latter, Carmichael, "The Two Companions" in Franciscan Monthly, ix (1904), n. 86, p. 34-37), went in 1223 to Fonte Colombo, a beautiful wood-covered hill near Rieti, where, fasting on bread and water, he caused the rule, the fruit of his prayers, to be written by the hand of Brother Leo, as the Holy Spirit dictated. Elias, to whom this rule was entrusted, after a few days declared that he had lost it, hence St. Francis had the rule rewritten. Spiritual sources give other rather dramatic circumstances, under which the new rule was communicated to the provincials, headed by Brother Elias. As the primary authorities on the life of St. Francis say nothing on the point, it may be supposed that those records serve only to justify the Spirituals in their opposition to the rest of the order. The rule composed in 1223 was solemnly confirmed by the Bull "Solet annuere" of Honorius III, 29 Nov., 1223 (Bull. Franc., I, 15), and, as St. Bonaventure (Leg. maj., c. iv) and many other early Franciscan writers observe, by the Bull of the Highest Priest Jesus Christ, through the impression of the Stigmata, 14 Sept., 1224. The rule of 1223 is the Franciscan Rule properly so called, the rule which the Friars Minor still observe. It is named by Franciscan authors "Regula bullata" or "Regula secunda." The question has been put whether St. Francis was quite free in drawing up the definitive text of his rule. From what has been already said, it may be gathered that St. Francis successively developed his rule, adapting it to the circumstances; hence if all the particulars of the former rules are not found in the last one that is no reason to say St. Francis omitted them against his own will. Those who believe in an influence exercised on St. Francis in recasting the third rule appeal to the following points: Firstly, in a letter (Opuscula S. Francisci, Quaracchi, 1904, ep. iii, p. 108 sq.) which St. Francis wrote to a certain minister, perhaps to Elias, he proposes that at the next chapter of Whitsuntide a chapter of the rule should be written to the effect that if any brother has sinned venially and humbly owns it, they (the ministers or the priests) shall "have absolutely no power of enjoining other penance save only this: go and sin no more." Now in c. vii of the third rule only merciful treatment of sinning brothers in general is recommended. Secondly, Angelo Clareno (Trib. i, ed. Tocco, op. cit., p. 58, and "Expositio in Reg.") tells us that the dispositions of c. x in the third rule were much in favour of the friars, who recurred to their ministers for the pure observance of the rule, but Honorius III, seeing the inconvenience of such a large concession, modified those passages, before approving the rule. Thirdly, Gregory IX, in the Bull "Quo elongati" (1230), says that he knew the intention of St. Francis with regard to the rule, as he had assisted him when he wrote it and obtained its confirmation. Fourthly, in c. xiv of the second rule, is the passage of the evangelical prohibitions (Luke, ix, 3), which is not to be found in the last rule, and the reason thereof is indicated by Spiritual authorities, such as "Speculum perfectionis," c. iii, Angelo Clareno (Trib. 1): "the Ministers caused it to be removed from the Rule." It is hard to say how far these assertions are true, since we have all this information, with the exception of that given by Gregory IX, from sources that are not quite free of suspicion. Carmichael (Dublin Review, 1904, CXXXIV, n. 269, p. 372 sq.) has with skill attacked all these arguments. Still some divergence of views may have existed on a few points. Another question connected with the former one is whether the rule was revealed to St. Francis. To put the question clearly we should ask, which of the three rules was revealed? Against the theory of the Spirituals it is more reasonable to say that St. Francis followed an inner light of grace when taking the texts of the Gospel as his rule of life in the years 1208-1209. Only of that first rule does St. Francis himself speak as revealed to him. (See the words of his Testament cited above.) Of course a special guidance of Providence must be admitted in a work of such importance as the definitive Rule of St. Francis. (2) Contents of the Rule The rule is contained in the Bull "Solet annuere," and begins with these characteristic words: "The rule and life of the Minor Brothers is this, namely, to observe the holy Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ by living in obedience, without property and in chastity." St. Francis promises obedience to Pope Honorius and his successors, the other brothers are to obey Brother Francis and his successors (c. i). Having thus laid the solid foundation of unity upon the Church, St. Francis gives particulars concerning reception, profession, and vestments of the brothers. They are forbidden to wear shoes, if not compelled through necessity (c. ii). Chapter the third prescribes for the clerics "the Divine Office according to the order of the holy Roman Church, with the exception of the Psalter; wherefore (or, as soon as) they may have breviaries." The laybrothers have to say Paternosters, disposed according to the canonical hours. The brothers are to "fast from the feast of All Saints until the Nativity of the Lord," during Lent, and every Friday. The forty days' fast (obligatory in the rule of 1221), which begins Epiphany, is left free to the good will of the brothers. Beautiful exhortations follow on the behaviour of the brothers when they go through the world. They are forbidden to ride on horseback, unless compelled by manifest necessity or infirmity (c. iii). The next chapter "strictly enjoins on all the brothers that in no wise they receive coins or money, either themselves or through an interposed person." However, the ministers and custodes have to take the greatest care of their subjects through spiritual friends, according to places and times and other circumstances, saving always that, as has been said, they shall not "receive coins or money" (c. iv). To banish idleness and to provide for their support, St. Francis insists on the duty of working for "those brothers to whom the Lord has given the grace of working." But they must work in such a way that "they do not extinguish the spirit of prayer and devotion, to which all temporal things must be subservient." As a reward of their labour they may receive things needed, with the exception of coins or money (c. v). Of the highest importance is chapter vi. It contains the prescriptions of the most ideal poverty: "The brothers shall appropriate nothing to themselves, neither a house nor place nor anything. And as pilgrims and strangers in this world...let them go confidently in quest of alms." "This, my dearest brothers, is the height of the most sublime poverty, which has made you heirs and kings of the kingdom of heaven: poor in goods, but exalted in virtue...." Then follows an appeal for fraternal love and mutual confidence, "for if a mother nourishes and loves her carnal son, how much more earnestly ought one to love and nourish his spiritual brother!" (c. vi). The following chapter treats of penance to be inflicted on brothers who have sinned. In some cases they must recur to their ministers, who "should beware lest they be angry or troubled on account of the sins of others, because anger and trouble impede charity in themselves and in others" (c. vii). Chapter viii charges all the brothers "always to have one of the brothers of this religion (order) as Minister General and servant of the whole brotherhood." At his death the provincial ministers and custodes must elect a successor in the Whitsun chapter. The general chapter, at which the provincial ministers are always bound to convene, is to be held every three years, or at a longer or shorter interval, where the general so wishes. After the Whitsun chapter, provincial chapters may be convoked by the ministers (c. viii). A special chapter on preachers follows next. The brothers are forbidden to preach in any diocese against the will of the bishop, and unless they are approved by the minister general. The brothers must preach "for the utility and edification of the people, announcing to them vices and virtues, punishment and glory..." (c. ix). "Of the admonition and correction of the Brothers" is the title of chapter x. The ministers "shall visit and admonish their brothers, and shall humbly and charitably correct them, not commanding them anything against their souls and our Rule. The brothers however who are subject must remember that, for God, they have renounced their own will." If any brother cannot observe the rule spiritually, he must recur to his minister, who is bound to receive him kindly (c. x). In chapter xi the brothers are forbidden to have suspicious intimacy with women, nor are they allowed to "enter monasteries of nuns, except those to whom special permission has been granted by the Apostolic See." Nor may they "be godfathers of men or women." The twelfth and last chapter treats of those who wish to go among the Saracens and other infidels, for which purpose they must obtain leave from their provincial ministers. The ministers are bound to ask of the pope a cardinal-protector, "so that" -- with these touching words St. Francis concludes his rule -- "being always subject and submissive at the feet of the same holy Church, grounded in the Catholic faith, we may observe poverty and humility and the holy Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, which we have firmly promised" (c. xii). As may be seen from this short survey the Franciscan rule contains many commandments, tempered by the sweet exhortations of St. Francis. It is the tender voice of a loving father that speaks to his children through the rule. This rule has been praised in the highest terms by different authorities. First of all St. Francis himself had a high idea of it: "This Rule he declared to be for his brethren the book of life, the hope of salvation, the marrow of the Gospel, the way of perfection, the key of Paradise and the covenant of an eternal alliance (II Cel., ii, 158). Nicholas III (Exiit) speaks in the same way: "This Rule is founded on the words of the Gospel, it has its force from the example of Christ's life, it is confirmed by the words and deeds of the founders of the Church, the Apostles." Angelo Clareno (Expositio) calls it "the Rule of charity and piety," "the Rule of peace, truth and piety." "The Evangelical Rule" is a much-used expression for it in old Franciscan literature. The influence which the Rule of St. Francis has exercised for now seven hundred years is immeasurable. Millions have followed it, finding in it peace of heart, and the means of their own and other men's sanctification. Nor has the rule had less important effects in a more general way. Unlike all former rules, it established poverty not only for the individual members, but for the order as a whole. On this point St. Francis influenced even the Order of St. Dominic and many subsequent institutions. As early as the thirteenth century, Salimbene (ed. Holder-Egger, Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script., XXXII, 256) wrote: "Whoever wants to found a new congregation, always take something from the Order of blessed Francis." For the general influence of Franciscan poverty see Dubois, "St. Francis of Assisi, social reformer" (New York, 1906). The constitution of the order is likewise different from that of the monastic orders. It is strictly hierarchical, the convents being grouped into provinces which are governed by the provincials, who in turn are under the jurisdiction of the minister general, the head and ruler of the whole order. -- The words of St. Francis (c. iii Reg.): "Let the clerics perform the Divine office according to the order of the holy Roman Church with the exception of the Psalter," have had a singular result. Through adopting the shorter breviary of the papal Curia the Franciscans made this breviary popular, reformed it in many points and led to its being practically received by the whole secular clergy. (See Baeumer, "Geschichte des Breviers," Freiburg im Br., 1895, p. 318 sqq.; Batiffol, "Histoire du Breviaire Romain," Paris, 1893, p. 142 sqq.) The principles concerning preaching as laid down by St. Francis in c. ix of his Rule contain the secret of the great Franciscan preachers who have always been among the most successful and popular. Finally, chap. xii on missions amongst the infidels is a happy innovation in religious rules, as Angelo Clareno in his exposition wisely observed. There can be no doubt that the great impulse given to foreign missions in the thirteenth century is due to St. Francis, who was himself a missionary in the East and saw some of his brethren martyred for the Faith. II. INTERPRETATION The ideal that St. Francis laid down in his rule is very high; the apostolical life was to be put in practice by his brethren, and indeed we see that St. Francis and his companions lived perfectly according to that standard. But the number of the friars rapidly increasing, and on the other hand, some being received into the order who had not the pure intentions and the great zeal of Francis, the rule gave rise to many controversies, and, as a consequence, to many declarations and expositions. The first exposition of the rule was given by St. Francis himself in his Testament (1226). He puts there his own and his first disciples' life as an example to the brothers. Moreover he forbids them "to ask for any letter from the Roman Curia, either for a church or for any other place, whether under pretext of preaching, or on account of their bodily persecution." He enjoins also on all brothers "not to put glosses on the Rule," but as he had written it purely and simply, so ought they "understand it simply and purely -- and with holy operation observe it until the end." Nevertheless we have a great number of expositions of the rule, and it cannot be said that they are, in their greatest part, against the will of St. Francis. He himself had in his lifetime been humble enough to submit in everything to the decisions of the Church, and so he desired his sons to do. Even the Spirituals, who cleaved to the letter of the rule, as Olivi and Clareno, were not against reasonable expounding of the rule, and have written expositions thereof themselves. Besides, the decisions of the popes are not dispensations, but authentic interpretations of a rule, that binds only inasmuch as it is approved by the Church. To proceed with order, we shall firstly speak of the authentic interpretations, secondly of the private expositions. (1) Authentic Interpretations These are the papal Constitutions on the rule. Doubts about the meaning and the observance of the rule having risen at the general chapter of Assisi (1230), a deputation of prominent men was sent to Gregory IX, to obtain a papal decision. On 28 September, 1230, the pope edited the Bull "Quo elongati" (Bull. Franc., I, 68), a document of capital importance for the future of the order. In this Bull the pope, claiming to know the intentions of the holy founder, since he had assisted him in the composition and approval of the rule, declares that for the tranquillity of conscience of the friars, the Testament of St. Francis has no binding power over them, as Francis, when making it, had no legislative power. Nor are the brothers bound to all the counsels of the Gospel, but only to those that are expressly mentioned in the rule, by way of precept or of prohibition. Dispositions are made with regard to money and property. The brothers may appoint a messenger (nuntius), who may receive money from benefactors and in the latter's name either spend it for the present needs of the friars, or confide it to a spiritual friend for imminent wants. The principle of absolute poverty is maintained for the individual friar and for the whole community; still the use of the necessary movable objects is granted them. These are some of the most striking dispositions of Gregory IX, whose principles of wise interpretation have remained fundamental for the order. Innocent IV, in the Bull "Ordinem vestrum," 14 Nov., 1245 (Bull. Franc. I, 400), confirmed the dispositions of his predecessor, but at the same time made more ample concessions, since he allowed the brothers to recur to the messenger or spiritual friend not only for things necessary, but also for things useful and convenient (commoda). The order, however, in two general chapters, at Metz, 1249, and at Narbonne, 1260, declined to receive this privilege, inasmuch as it goes farther than the concession of Gregory IX. In the same Bull Innocent IV declares that all things in the use of the friars belong to the Apostolic See, unless the donor has reserved the ownership to himself. A necessary consequence of this disposition was the institution of a procurator by the same pope through the Bull "Quanto studiosius," 19 Aug., 1247 (Bull. Franc., I, 487). This procurator was to act in the name of the Apostolic See as a civil party in the administration of the goods in use of the friars. The faculties of this procurator, or Apostolic syndic, were much enlarged by Martin IV through the Bull "Exultantes in Domino," 18 January, 1283 (Bull. Franc., III, 501), especially in regard to lawsuits. The order received the disposition of Martin IV at the chapter of Milan, 1285, but warned at the same time against the multiplication of legal actions (see Ehrle, Archiv fuer Litteratur- und Kirchengeschichte, VI, 55). The two most famous Constitutions on the Franciscan rule, which have been inserted in the text of canon law, and which are still in uncontested authority with the Friars Minor, are the Bulls "Exiit qui seminat" of Nicholas III, and "Exivi de Paradiso" of Clement V. The Constitution "Exiit" (c. iii, in VI, lib. V, tit. xii), prepared with the advice of eminent men in and outside the order, given at Soriano near Viterbo, 14 Aug., 1279, treats the whole rule both theoretically and practically. Nicholas III, against the enemies of the order, states that complete expropriation, in common as well as in particular, is licit, holy, and meritorious, it being taught by Christ Himself, although He, for the sake of the weak, sometimes took money. The brothers have the moderate use of things according to their rule. The proprietorship goes to the Holy See, unless the donor retains it. The question of the money is treated with special care. The employment of the messenger and spiritual friend is confirmed and explained. The friars have no right over the money, nor can they call to account an unfaithful messenger. Lest the great number of papal decisions should produce confusion, the pope declares that all former Bulls on the subject are abolished, if they are against the present one. However, this Constitution did not put an end to the questions moved by the more zealous brothers, called Spirituals. It was through their agitation at the papal court at Avignon (1309-1312) that Clement V gave the Constitution "Exivi," 6 May, 1312 (c. i, Clem., lib. V, tit. xi). Whilst Angelo Clareno, the head of the Spirituals, rejects all papal declarations on the rule, he speaks well of the Bull "Exivi," "which is among the others like a flying eagle, approaching nearest to the intention of the Founder" (Archiv fuer Litteratur-und Kirchengeschichte, II, 139). Clement V declares that the Friars Minor are bound to poverty (usus pauper) in those points on which the rule insists. Characteristic of this Bull is the casuistic manner in which the prescriptions of the rule are treated. It declares that St. Francis wished to oblige his brothers under mortal sin in all those cases in which he uses commanding words or equivalent expressions, some of which cases are specified. The Constitutions "Exiit" and "Exivi" have remained fundamental laws for the Franciscans, although they were in the most important point practically suppressed by John XXII, who in his Bull "Ad conditorem canonum," 8 Dec., 1322 (Bull. Franc., V, 233), renounced on behalf of the Apostolic See the proprietorship of the goods of which the order had the use, declaring (according to the Roman law) that in many things the use could not be distinguished from the property. Consequently he forbade the appointment of an Apostolic syndic. Martin V in "Amabiles fructus," 1 Nov., 1428 (Bull. Franc., VII, 712), restored the former state of things for the Observants. (2) Private Expositions Only the earliest ones, which had influence on the development of the order, can be mentioned here. The most important is that of the Four Masters, edited at least six times in old collections of Franciscan texts, under the names of Monumenta, Speculum, Firmamenturn (Brescia, 1502; Salamanca, 1506, 1511; Rouen, 1509; Paris, 1512; Venice, 1513). The chapter of the custodes at Montpellier, 1541, had ordered that the solution of some doubts about the rule should be asked for from each province. We know of two expositions of the rule drawn up on this occasion. Eccleston (c. xii, alias xiii, Analecta Francisc., I, 244) speaks of the short but severe exposition which the friars in England sent to the general, beseeching him by the blood of Jesus Christ to let the rule stand as it was given by St. Francis. Unfortunately, the text of this declaration has not been handed down. We have, however, that of the province of Paris, issued on the same occasion by four masters of theology, Alexander of Hales, Jean de la Rochelle, Robert of Bastia, and Richard of Cornwall. The custos Godfried figures only as an official person. This interesting exposition of the rule, and the most ancient, for it was written in the spring of 1242, is short and treats only some dubious points, in conformity with the Bull "Quo elongati" and two later decisions of Gregory IX (1240, 1241). Their method is casuistic. They propose doubts, resolve them, and sometimes leave the questions to the superiors, or invoke a decision of the pope, although they speak twice (c. ii, ix) of the possible danger for the pure observance of the rule, if too many papal privileges are obtained. The work of the Four Masters has had the same effect on subsequent private expositions as the Bull "Quo elongati" had on all following pontifical declarations. The most prolific writer on the Rule of St. Francis was St. Bonaventure, who was compelled to answer fierce adversaries, such as Guillaume de Saint-Amour and others. His treatises are found in the Quaracchi edition of his works, VIII, 1898 (see BONAVENTURE, SAINT). The standpoint of St. Bonaventure is observance of the rule as explained by the papal declarations and with wise accommodation to circumstances. He himself exercised great influence on the decretal "Exiit" of Nicholas III. About the same time as St. Bonaventure, Hugo of Digne (d. about 1280) wrote several treatises on the rule. His exposition is found in the above-mentioned collections, for instance in the "Firmamentum" (Paris, 1512), IV, f. xxxiv, v. (Venice, 1513), III, f. xxxii, v. John of Wales (Guallensis) wrote before 1279 an exposition, edited in "Firmamenturn" (Venice, 1513), III, f. xxviii, v. In his treatise "De Perfectione evangelica," John of Peckham has a special chapter (c. x) on the Franciscan rule, often quoted as an exposition, "Firmamentum," ed. 1512, IV, f. xciv, v; 1513, III, f. lxxii, r. David of Augsburg's sober explanation, written before the Bull "Exiit," is edited in great part by Lempp in "Zeitschrift fuer Kirchengeschichte," vol. XIX (Gotha, 1898-99), 15-46, 340-360. Another expositor of the Franciscan rule towards the end of the thirteenth century was Pierre Johannis Olivi, who, besides a methodical exposition (Firmamentum, 1513, III, f. cvi, r.), wrote a great number of tracts relating to Franciscan poverty. These treatises, comprised under the name "De perfectione evangelica" are not yet printed in their entirety [see Ehrle, "Archiv fuer Litteratur-und Kirchengeschichte," III, 497, and Oliger, "Archivum Franciscanum Historicum" (1908), I, 617]. The theories of poverty taught by Olivi exercised great fascination over the Spirituals, especially over Angelo Clareno (d. 1337), whose exposition of the rule will shortly published by the present writer. Of others who directly or indirectly exposed the rule, or particular points of it, we can only name the best known, according to the centuries in which they lived. Fourteenth century: Ubertino of Casale, Gundisalvus of Vallebona, Petrus Aureoli, Bartholomew of Pisa, Bartholo di Sassoferrato (a lawyer). Fifteenth century: St. Bernardine of Siena, St. John Capistran, Cristoforo di Varese (not published), Alessandro Ariosto (Serena Conscientia), Jean Perrin, Jean Philippi. Sixteenth century: Brendolinus, Gilbert Nicolai, Antonio de Cordova, Jerome of Politio (O.Cap.), Francis Gonzaga. Seventeenth century: Peter Marchant, Pedro of Navarre, Mattheucci, De Gubernatis. Eighteenth century: Kerkhove, Kazenberger (several times reedited in nineteenth century), Castellucio, Viatora Coccaleo (O.Cap.), Gabrielle Angelo a Vincentia. Nineteenth century: Benoffi, O.M.Con. (Spirito della Regola de' Frati Minori, Rome, 1807; Fano, 1841) Alberto a Bulsano (Knoll, O.Cap.), Winkes, Maas, Hilarius Parisiensis (O.Cap.), whose learned but extravagant work has been put on the Index of forbidden books. Finally, Bonaventure Dernoye (Medulla S. Evangelii per Christum dictata S. Francisco in sua seraphica Regula, Antwerp, 1657) and Ladislas de Poris (O.Cap.), Meditations sur la Regle des Freres Mineurs (Paris, 1898) have written voluminous works on the rule for purposes of preaching and pious meditation. The Rule of St. Francis is observed today by the Friars Minor and the Capuchins without dispensations. Besides the rule, both have their own general constitutions. The Conventuals profess the rule "juxta Constitutiones Urbanas" (1628), in which all former papal declarations are declared not to be binding on the Conventuals, and in which their departure from the rule, especially with regard to poverty, is again sanctioned. TEXTS: -- The original of the Bull "Solet annuere" is preserved as a relic in the sacristy of S. Francesco at Assisi. The text is also found in the registers of Honorius III, in the Vatican Archives. Facsimiles of both and also of "Exiit " and "Exivi" are published in "Seraphicae Legislationis Textus Originales" (Rome, 1901). The texts alone "Seraphicae Legislationis Textus Originales" (Quaracchi, 1897). Critical editions of the rules, with introductions on their origin: Opuscula S.P. Francisci (Quaracchi, 1904); BOEHMER, Analekten zur Geschichte des Franciscus von Assisi (Tuebingen, Leipzig, 1904). The papal decretals on the rule: SBARALEA, Bullarium Franciscanum, I-III (Rome, 1759-1765), V-VII (Rome, 1898-1904). English translations of the second and third rule: Works of...St. Francis of Assisi (London, 1882), 25-63; critical edition: PASCHAL ROBINSON, The Writings of St. Francis of Assisi (Philadelphia, 1906), 25-74; DE LA WARR, The Writings of St. Francis of Assisi (London, 1907), 1-36. LITERATURE: -- CARMICHAEL, The Origin of the Rule of St. Francis in Dublin Review, CXXXIV, n. 269 (April, 1904), 357-395; MUELLER, Die Anfaenge des Minoritenordens und der Bussbruderschaften (Freiburg im Br., 1895). A good corrective of Mueller is EHRLE, Controversen ueber die Anfaenge des Minoritenordens in Zeitschrift fuer kath. Theologie (1887), XI, 725-746; IDEM, Die Spaltung des Franciscanerordens in die Communitaet und die Spiritualen in Archiv fuer Litteratur- und Kirchengeschichte (Berlin, 1887), III, 554 sq.; SCHNUERER, Franz von Assisi (Munich, 1905), 81-109; FISCHER, Der heilige Franziskus von Assisi waehrend der Jahre 1219-1221 (Fribourg, 1907). Very little has been written on the old expositors of the rule. See however: HILARIUS PARISIENSIS, Regula Fratrum Minorum juxta Rom. Pontificum decreta et documenta Ordinis explanata (Lyons, Paris, 1870), X-XXX. A list of all the expositors till the middle of the seventeenth century is given by SBARLEA, Supplementum ad Scriptores Ord. Min. (Rome, 1806), LXIX. LIVARIUS OLIGER Francis Borgia St. Francis Borgia (Span. Francisco de Borja y Aragon) Francis Borgia, born 28 October, 1510, was the son of Juan Borgia, third Duke of Gandia, and of Juana of Aragon; died 30 September, 1572. The future saint was unhappy in his ancestry. His grandfather, Juan Borgia, the second son of Alexander VI, was assassinated in Rome on 14 June, 1497, by an unknown hand, which his family always believed to be that of Caesar Borgia. Rodrigo Borgia, elected pope in 1402 under the name of Alexander VI, had eight children. The eldest, Pedro Luis, had acquired in 1485 the hereditary Duchy of Gandia in the Kingdom of Valencia, which, at his death, passed to his brother Juan, who had married Maria Enriquez de Luna. Having been left a widow by the murder of her husband, Maria Enriquez withdrew to her duchy and devoted herself piously to the education of her two children, Juan and Isabel. After the marriage of her son in 1509, she followed the example of her daughter, who had entered the convent of Poor Clares in Gandia, and it was through these two women that sanctity entered the Borgia family, and in the House of Gandia was begun the work of reparation which Francis Borgia was to crown. Great-grandson of Alexander VI, on the paternal side, he was, on his mother's side, the great-grandson of the Catholic King Ferdinand of Aragon. This monarch had procured the appointment of his natural son, Alfonso, to the Archbishopric of Saragossa at the age of nine years. By Anna de Gurrea, Alfonso had two sons, who succeeded him in his archiepiscopal see, and two daughters, one of whom, Juana, married Duke Juan of Gandia and became the mother of our saint. By this marriage Juan had three sons and four daughters. By a second, contracted in 1523, he had five sons and five daughters. The eldest of all and heir to the dukedom was Francis. Piously reared in a court which felt the influence of the two Poor Clares, the mother and sister of the reigning duke, Francis lost his own mother when he was but ten. In 1521, a sedition amongst the populace imperilled the child's life, and the position of the nobility. When the disturbance was suppressed, Francis was sent to Saragossa to continue his education at the court of his uncle, the archbishop, an ostentatious prelate who had never been consecrated nor even ordained priest. Although in this court the Spanish faith retained its fervour, it lapsed nevertheless into the inconsistencies permitted by the times, and Francis could not disguise from himself the relation in which his grandmother stood to the dead archbishop, although he was much indebted to her for his early religious training. While at Saragossa Francis cultivated his mind and attracted the attention of his relatives by his fervour. They being desirous of assuring the fortune of the heir of Gandia, sent him at the age of twelve to Tordesillas as page to the Infanta Catarina, the youngest child and companion in solitude of the unfortunate queen, Juana the Mad. In 1525 the Infanta married King Juan III of Portugal, and Francis returned to Saragossa to complete his education. At last, in 1528, the court of Charles V was opened to him, and the most brilliant future awaited him. On the way to Valladolid, while passing, brilliantly escorted, through Alcala de Henares, Francis encountered a poor man whom the servants of the Inquisition were leading to prison. It was Ignatius of Loyola. The young nobleman exchanged a glance of emotion with the prisoner, little dreaming that one day they should be united by the closest ties. The emperor and empress welcomed Borgia less as a subject than as a kinsman. He was seventeen, endowed with every charm, accompanied by a magnificent train of followers, and, after the emperor, his presence was the most gallant and knightly at court. In 1529, at the desire of the empress, Charles V gave him in marriage the hand of Eleanor de Castro, at the same time making him Marquess of Lombay, master of the hounds, and equerry to the empress, and appointing Eleanor Camarera Mayor. The newly-created Marquess of Lombay enjoyed a privileged station. Whenever the emperor was travelling or conducting a campaign, he confided to the young equerry the care of the empress, and on his return to Spain treated him as a confidant and friend. In 1535, Charles V led the expedition against Tunis unaccompanied by Borgia, but in the following year the favourite followed his sovereign on the unfortunate campaign in Provence. Besides the virtues which made him the model of the court and the personal attractions which made him its ornament, the Marquess of Lombay possessed a cultivated musical taste. He delighted above all in ecclesiastical compositions, and these display a remarkable contrapuntal style and bear witness to the skill of the composer, justifying indeed the assertion that, in the sixteenth century and prior to Palestrina, Borgia was one of the chief restorers of sacred music. In 1538, at Toledo, an eighth child was born to the Marquess of Lombay, and on 1 May of the next year the Empress Isabella died. The equerry was commissioned to convey her remains to Granada, where they were interred on 17 May. The death of the empress caused the first break in the brilliant career of the Marquess and Marchioness of Lombay. It detached them from the court and taught the nobleman the vanity of life and of its grandeurs. Blessed John of Avila preached the funeral sermon, and Francis, having made known to him his desire of reforming his life, returned to Toledo resolved to become a perfect Christian. On 26 June, 1539, Charles V named Borgia Viceroy of Catalonia, and the importance of the charge tested the sterling qualities of the courtier. Precise instructions determined his course of action. He was to reform the administration of justice, put the finances in order, fortify the city of Barcelona, and repress outlawry. On his arrival at the viceregal city, on 23 August, he at once proceeded, with an energy which no opposition could daunt, to build the ramparts, rid the country of the brigands who terrorized it, reform the monasteries, and develop learning. During his vice-regency he showed himself an inflexible justiciary, and above all an exemplary Christian. But a series of grievous trials were destined to develop in him the work of sanctification begun at Granada. In 1543 he became, by the death of his father, Duke of Gandia, and was named by the emperor master of the household of Prince Philip of Spain, who was betrothed to the Princess of Portugal. This appointment seemed to indicate Francis as the chief minister of the future reign, but by God's permission the sovereigns of Portugal opposed the appointment. Francis then retired to his Duchy of Gandia, and for three years awaited the termination of the displeasure which barred him from court. He profited by this leisure to reorganize his duchy, to found a university in which he himself took the degree of Doctor of Theology, and to attain to a still higher degree of virtue. In 1546 his wife died,. The duke had invited the Jesuits to Gandia and become their protector and disciple, and even at that time their model. But he desired still more, and on 1 February, 1548, became one of them by the pronunciation of the solemn vows of religion, although authorized by the pope to remain in the world, until he should have fulfilled his obligations towards his children and his estates-his obligations as father and as ruler. On 31 August, 1550, the Duke of Gandia left his estates to see them no more. On 23 October he arrived at Rome, threw himself at the feet of St. Ignatius, and edified by his rare humility those especially who recalled the ancient power of the Borgias. Quick to conceive great projects, he even then urged St. Ignatius to found the Roman College. On 4 February, 1551, he left Rome, without making known his intention of departure. On 4 April, he reached Azpeitia in Guipuzcoa, and chose as his abode the hermitage of Santa Magdalena near Onate. Charles V having permitted him to relinquish his possessions, he abdicated in favour of his eldest son, was ordained priest 25 May, and at once began to deliver a series of sermons in Guipuzcoa which revived the faith of the country. Nothing was talked of throughout Spain but this change of life, and Onate became the object of incessant pilgrimage. The neophyte was obliged to tear himself from prayer in order to preach in the cities which called him, and which his burning words, his example, and even his mere appearance, stirred profoundly. In 1553 he was invited to visit Portugal. The court received him as a messenger from God and vowed to him, thenceforth, a veneration which it has always preserved. On his return from this journey, Francis learned that, at the request of the emperor, Pope Julius III was willing to bestow on him the cardinalate. St. Ignatius prevailed upon the pope to reconsider this decision, but two years later the project was renewed and Borgia anxiously inquired whether he might in conscience oppose the desire of the pope. St. Ignatius again relieved his embarrassment by requesting him to pronounce the solemn vows of profession, by which he engaged not to accept any dignities save at the formal command of the pope. Thenceforth the saint was reassured. Pius IV and Pius V loved him too well to impose upon him a dignity which would have caused him distress. Gregory XIII, it is true, appeared resolved, in 1572, to overcome his reluctance, but on this occasion death saved him from the elevation he had so long feared. On 10 June, 1554, St. Ignatius named Francis Borgia commissary-general of the Society in Spain. Two years later he confided to him the care of the missions of the East and West Indies, that is to say of all the missions of the Society. To do this was to entrust to a recruit the future of his order in the peninsula, but in this choice the founder displayed his rare knowledge of men, for within seven years Francis was to transform the provinces confided to him. He found them poor in subjects, containing but few houses, and those scarcely known. He left them strengthened by his influence and rich in disciples drawn from the highest grades of society. These latter, whom his example had done so much to attract, were assembled chiefly in his novitiate at Simancas, and were sufficient for numerous foundations. Everything aided Borgia-his name, his sanctity, his eager power of initiative, and his influence with the Princess Juana, who governed Castile in the absence of her brother Philip. On 22 April, 1555, Queen Juana the Mad died at Tordesillas, attended by Borgia. To the saint's presence has been ascribed the serenity enjoyed by the queen in her last moments. The veneration which he inspired was thereby increased, and furthermore his extreme austerity, the care which he lavished on the poor in the hospitals, the marvellous graces with which God surrounded his apostolate contributed to augment a renown by which he profited to further God's work. In 1565 and 1566 he founded the missions of Florida, New Spain, and Peru, thus extending even to the New World the effects of his insatiable zeal. In December, 1556, and three other times, Charles V shut himself up at Yuste. He at once summoned thither his old favourite, whose example had done so much to inspire him with the desire to abdicate. In the following month of August, he sent him to Lisbon to deal with various questions concerning the succession of Juan III. When the emperor died, 21 September, 1558, Borgia was unable to be present at his bedside, but he was one of the testamentary executors appointed by the monarch, and it was he who, at the solemn services at Valladolid, pronounced the eulogy of the deceased sovereign. A trial was to close this period of success. In 1559 Philip II returned to reign in Spain. Prejudiced for various reasons (and his prejudice was fomented by many who were envious of Borgia, some of whose interpolated works had been recently condemned by the Inquisition), Philip seemed to have forgotten his old friendship for the Marquess of Lombay, and he manifested towards him a displeasure which increased when he learned that the saint had gone to Lisbon. Indifferent to this storm, Francis continued for two years in Portugal his preaching and his foundations, and then, at the request of Pope Pius IV, went to Rome in 1561. But storms have their providential mission. It may be questioned whether but for the disgrace of 1543 the Duke of Gandia would have become a religious, and whether, but for the trial which took him away from Spain, he would have accomplished the work which awaited him in Italy. At Rome it was not long before he won the veneration of the public. Cardinals Otho Truchsess, Archbishop of Augsburg, Stanislaus Hosius, and Alexander Farnese evinced towards him a sincere friendship. Two men above all rejoiced at his coming. They were Michael Chisleri, the future Pope Pius V, and Charles Borromeo, whom Borgia'a example aided to become a saint. On 16 February, 1564, Francis Borgia was named assistant general in Spain and Portugal, and on 20 January, 1565, was elected vicar-general of the Society of Jesus. He was elected general 2 July, 1565, by thirty-one votes out of thirty-nine, to succeed Father James Laynez. Although much weakened by his austerities, worn by attacks of gout and an affection of the stomach, the new general still possessed much strength, which, added to his abundant store of initiative, his daring in the conception and execution of vast designs, and the influence which he exercised over the Christian princes and at Rome, made him for the Society at once the exemplary model and the providential head. In Spain he had had other cares in addition to those of government. Henceforth he was to be only the general. The preacher was silent. The director of souls ceased to exercise his activity, except through his correspondence, which, it is true, was immense and which carried throughout the entire world light and strength to kings, bishops and apostles, to nearly all who in his day served the Catholic cause. His chief anxiety being to strengthen and develop his order, he sent visitors to all the provinces of Europe, to Brazil, India, and Japan. The instructions, with which he furnished them were models of prudence, kindness, and breadth of mind. For the missionaries as well as for the fathers delegated by the pope to the Diet of Augsburg, for the confessors of princes and the professors of colleges he mapped out wide and secure paths. While too much a man of duty to permit relaxation or abuse, he attracted chiefly by his kindness, and won souls to good by his example. The edition of the rules, at which he laboured incessantly, was completed in 1567. He published them at Rome, dispatched them (throughout the Society), and strongly urged their observance. The text of those now in force was edited after his death, in 1580, but it differs little from that issued by Borgia, to whom the Society owes the chief edition of its rules as well as that of the Spiritual Exercises, of which he had borne the expense in 1548. In order to ensure the spiritual and intellectual formation of the young religious and the apostolic character of the whole order, it became necessary to take other measures. The task of Borgia was to establish, first at Rome, then in all the provinces, wisely regulated novitiates and flourishing houses of study, and to develop the cultivation of the interior life by establishing in all of these the custom of a daily hour of prayer. He completed at Rome the house and church of S. Andrea in Quirinale, in 1567. Illustrious novices flocked thither, among them Stanislaus Kostka (d. 1568), and the future martyr Rudolph Acquaviva. Since his first journey to Rome, Borgia had been preoccupied with the idea of founding a Roman college, and while in Spain had generously supported the project. In 1567, he built the church of the college, assured it even then an income of six thousand ducats, and at the same time drew up the rule of studies, which, in 1583, inspired the compilers of the Ratio Studiorum of the Society. Being a man of prayer as well as of action, the saintly general, despite overwhelming occupations, did not permit his soul to be distracted from continual contemplation. Strengthened by so vigilant and holy an administration the Society could not but develop. Spain and Portugal numbered many foundations; in Italy Borgia created the Roman province, and founded several colleges in Piedmont. France and the Northern province, however, were the chief field of his triumphs. His relations with the Cardinal de Lorraine and his influence with the French Court made it possible for him to put an end to numerous misunderstandings, to secure the revocation of several hostile edicts, and to found eight colleges in France. In Flanders and Bohemia, in the Tyrol and in Germany, he maintained and multiplied important foundations. The province of Poland was entirely his work. At Rome everything was transformed under his hands. He had built S. Andrea and the church of the Roman college. He assisted agenerously in the building of the Gesu, and although the official founder of that church was Cardinal Farnese, and the Roman College has taken the name of one of its greatest benefactors, Gregory XIII, Borgia contributed more than anyone towards these foundations. During the seven years of his government, Borgia had introduced so many reforms into his order as to deserve to be called its second founder. Three saints of this epoch laboured incessantly to further the renaissance of Catholicism. They were St. Francis Borgia, St. Pius V, and St. Charles Borromeo. The pontificate of Pius V and the generalship of Borgia began within an interval of a few months and ended at almost the same time. The saintly pope had entire confidence in the saintly general, who conformed with intelligent devotion to every desire of the pontiff. It was he who inspired the pope with the idea of demanding from the Universities of Perugia and Bologna, and eventually from all the Catholic universities, a profession of the Catholic faith. It was also he who, in 1568, desired the pope to appoint a commission of cardinals charged with promoting the conversion of infidels and heretics, which was the germ of the Congregation for the Propogation of the Faith, established later by Gregory XV in 1622. A pestilential fever invaded Rome in 1566, and Borgia organized methods of relief, established ambulances, and distributed forty of his religious to such purpose that the same fever having broken out two years later it was to Borgia that the pope at once confided the task of safeguarding the city. Francis Borgia had always greatly loved the foreign missions. He reformed those of India and the Far East and created those of America. Within a few years, he had the glory of numbering among his sons sixty-six martyrs, the most illustrious of whom were the fifty-three missionaries of Brazil who with their superior, Ignacio Azevedo, were massacred by Huguenot corsairs. It remained for Francis to terminate his beautiful life with a splendid act of obedience to the pope and devotion to the Church. On 7 June, 1571, Pius V requested him to accompany his nephew, Cardinal Bonelli, on an embassy to Spain and Portugal. Francis was then recovering from a severe illness; it was feared that he had not the strength to bear fatigue, and he himself felt that such a journey would cost him his life, but he gave it generously. Spain welcomed him with transports. The old distrust of Philip II was forgotten. Barcelona and Valencia hastened to meet their former viceroy and saintly duke. The crowds in the streets cried: "Where is the saint?" They found him emaciated by penance. Wherever he went, he reconciled differences and soothed discord. At Madrid, Philip II received him with open arms, the Inquisition approved and recommended his genuine works. The reparation was complete, and it seemed as though God wished by this journey to give Spain to understand for the last time this living sermon, the sight of a saint. Gandia ardently desired to behold its holy duke, but he would never consent to return thither. The embassy to Lisbon was no less consoling to Borgia. Among other happy results he prevailed upon the king, Don Sebastian, to ask in marriage the hand of Marguerite of Valois, the sister of Charles IX. This was the desire of St. Pius V, but this project, being formulated too late, was frustrated by the Queen of Navarre, who had meanwhile secured the hand of Marguerite for her son. An order from the pope expressed his wish that the embassy should also reach the French court. The winter promised to be severe and was destined to prove fatal to Borgia. Still more grievous to him was to be the spectacle of the devastation which heresy had caused in that country, and which struck sorrow to the heart of the saint. At Blois, Charles IX and Catherine de' Medici accorded Borgia the reception due to a Spanish grandee, but to the cardinal legate as well as to him they gave only fair words in which there was little sincerity. On 25 February they left Blois. By the time they reached Lyons, Borgia's lungs were already affected. Under these conditions the passage of Mt. Cenis over snow-covered roads was extremely painful. By exerting all his strength the invalid reached Turin. On the way the people came out of the villages crying: "We wish to see the saint". Advised of his cousin's condition, Alfonso of Este, Duke of Ferrara, sent to Alexandria and had him brought to his ducal city, where he remained from 19 April until 3 September. His recovery was despaired of and it was said that he would not survive the autumn. Wishing to die either at Loretto or at Rome, he departed in a litter on 3 September, spent eight days at Loretto, and then, despite the sufferings caused by the slightest jolt, ordered the bearers to push forward with the utmost speed for Rome. It was expected that any instant might see the end of his agony. They reached the "Porta del Popolo" on 28 September. The dying man halted his litter and thanked God that he had been able to accomplish this act of obedience. He was borne to his cell which was soon invaded by cardinals and prelates. For two days Francis Borgia, fully conscious, awaited death, receiving those who visited him and blessing through his younger brother, Thomas Borgia, all his children and grandchildren. Shortly after midnight on 30 September, his beautiful life came to a peaceful and painless close. In the Catholic Church he had been one of the most striking examples of the conversion of souls after the Renaissance, and for the Society of Jesus he had been the protector chosen by Providence to whom, after St. Ignatius, it owes most. In 1607 the Duke of Lerma, minister of Philip III and grandson of the holy religious, having seen his granddaughter miraculously cured through the intercession of Francis, caused the process for his canonization to be begun. The ordinary process, begun at once in several cities, was followed, in 1637, by the Apostolic process. In 1617 Madrid received the remains of the saint. In 1624 the Congregation of Rites announced that his beatification and canonization might be proceeded with. The beatification was celebrated at Madrid with incomparable splendour. Urban VIII having decreed, in 1631, that a Blessed might not be canonized without a new procedure, a new process was begun. It was reserved for Clement X to sign the Bull of canonization of St. Francis Borgia, on 20 June, 1670. Spared from the decree of Joseph Bonaparte who, in 1809, ordered the confiscation of all shrines and precious objects, the silver shrine containing the remains of the saint, after various vicissitudes, was removed, in 1901, to the church of the Society at Madrid, where it is honoured at the present time. It is with good reason that Spain and the Church venerate in St. Francis Borgia a great man and a great saint. The highest nobles of Spain are proud of their descent from, or their connexion with him. By his penitent and apostolic life he repaired the sins of his family and rendered glorious a name, which but for him, would have remained a source of humiliation for the Church. His feast is celebrated 10 October. Sources: Archives of Osuna (Madrid), of Simancas; National Archives of Paris; Archives of the Society of Jesus; Regeste du generalat de Laynez et de Borgia, etc. Literature: Monumenta historica S. J. (Madrid); Mon. Borgiana; Chronicon Polanci; Epistolae Mixtae; Quadrimetres; Epistolae Patris Nadal, etc.; Epistolae et instructiones S. Ignatii; Orlandini and Sacchini, Historia Societatis Jesu; AlcAzar, Chrono-historia de la provincia de Toledo; Lives of the saint by Vasquez (1586; manuscript, still unedited), Ribadeneyra, (1592), Nieremberg (1643), Bartoli (1681), Cienfuegos (1701); Acta SS., Oct., V; Astrain, Historia de la Compania de Jesus en la Asistencia de Espana, I and II (1902, 1905); BEthencourt, Historia genealogica y heraldica de la monarchia espanola (Madrid, 1902), IV, Gandia, Casa de Borja; Boletin de la Academia de la Historia (Madrid), passim; Suau, S. Franc,ois de Borgia in Les Saints (Paris, 1905); Idem, Histoire de S. Franc,ois de Borgia (Paris, 1909). Pierre Suau Franciscan Order Franciscan Order A term commonly used to designate the members of the various foundations of religious, whether men or women, professing to observe the Rule of St. Francis of Assisi in some one of its several forms. The aim of the present article is to indicate briefly the origin and relationship of these different foundations. ORIGIN OF THE THREE ORDERS It is customary to say that St. Francis founded three orders, as we read in the Office for 4 October: Tres ordines hic ordinat: primumque Fratrum nominat Minorum: pauperumque fit Dominarum medius: sed Poenitentium tertius sexum capit utrumque. (Brev. Rom. Serap., in Solem. S.P. Fran., ant. 3, ad Laudes) These three orders -- the Friars Minor, the Poor Ladies or Clares, and the Brothers and Sisters of Penance -- are generally referred to as the First, Second, and Third Orders of St. Francis. First Order. The existence of the Friars Minor or first order properly dates from 1209, in which year St. Francis obtained from Innocent III an unwritten approbation of the simple rule he had composed for the guidance of his first companions. This rule has not come down to us in its original form; it was subsequently rewritten by the saint and solemnly confirmed by Honorius III, 29 Nov., 1223 (Litt. "Solet Annuere"). This second rule, as it is usually called, of the Friars Minor is the one at present professed throughout the whole First Order of St. Francis (see Rule of Saint Francis). Second Order. The foundation of the Poor Ladies or second order may be said to have been laid in 1212. In that year St. Clare who had besought St. Francis to be allowed to embrace the new manner of life he had instituted, was established by him at St. Damian's near Assisi, together with several other pious maidens who had joined her. It is erroneous to suppose that St. Francis ever drew up a formal rule for these Poor ladies and no mention of such a document is found in any of the early authorities. The rule imposed upon the Poor Ladies at St. Damian's about 1219 by Cardinal Ugolino, afterwards Gregory IX, was recast by St. Clare towards the end of her life, with the assistance of Cardinal Rinaldo, afterwards Alexander IV, and in this revised form was approved by Innocent IV, 9 Aug., 1253 (Litt. "Solet Annuere"). (See Poor Clares). Third Order. Tradition assigns the year 1221 as the date of the foundation of the Brothers and Sisters of Penance, now known as tertiaries. This third order was devised by St. Francis as a sort of middle state between the cloister and the world for those who, wishing to follow in the saint's footsteps, were debarred by marriage or other ties from entering either the first or second order. There has been some difference of opinion as to how far the saint composed a rule for these tertiaries. It is generally admitted, however, that the rule approved by Nicholas IV, 18 Aug., 1289 (Litt. "Supra Montem") does not represent the original rule of the third order. Some recent writers have tried to show that the third order, as we now call it, was really the starting point of the whole Franciscan Order. They assert that the Second and Third Orders of St. Francis were not added to the First, but that the three branches, the Friars Minor, Poor ladies, and Brother and Sisters of Penance, grew out of the lay confraternity of penance which was St. Francis's first and original intention, and were separated from it into different groups by Cardinal Ugolino, the protector of the order, during St. Francis's absence in the East (1219-21). This interesting, if somewhat arbitrary, theory is not without importance for the early history of all three orders, but it is not yet sufficiently proven to preclude the more usual account given above, according to which the Franciscan Order developed into three distinct branches, namely, the first, second, and third orders, by process of addition and not by process of division, and this is still the view generally received. PRESENT ORGANIZATION OF THE THREE ORDERS First Order. Coming next to the present organization of the Franciscan Order, the Friars Minor, or first order, now comprises three separate bodies, namely: the Friars Minor properly so called, or parent stem, founded, as has been said in 1209; the Friars Minor Conventuals, and the Friars Minor Capuchins, both of which grew out of the parent stem, and were constituted independent orders in 1517 and 1619 respectively. All three orders profess the rule of the Friars Minor approved by Honorius III in 1223, but each one has its particular constitutions and its own minister general. The various lesser foundations of Franciscan friars following the rule of the first order, which once enjoyed a separate or quasi-separate existence, are now either extinct, like the Clareni, Coletani, and Celestines, or have become amalgamated with the Friars Minor, as in the case of the Observants, Reformati, Recollects, Alcantarines, etc. (On all these lesser foundations, now extinct, see Friars Minor) Second Order. As regards the Second Order, of Poor ladies, now commonly called Poor Clares, this order includes all the different monasteries of cloistered nuns professing the Rule of St. Clare approved by Innocent IV in 1253, whether they observe the same in all its original strictness or according to the dispensations granted by Urvan IV, 18 Oct., 1263 (Litt. "Beata Clara") or the constitutions drawn up by St. Colette (d. 1447) and approved by Pius II, 18 March, 1458 (Litt. "Etsi"). The Sisters of the Annunciation and the Conceptionists are in some sense offshoots of the second order, but they now follow different rules from that of the Poor Ladies. Third Order. In connection with the Brothers and Sisters of Penance or Third order of St. Francis, it is necessary to distinguish between the third order secular and the third order regular. Secular. The third order secular was founded, as we have seen, by St. Francis about 1221 and embraces devout persons of both sexes living in the world and following a rule of life approved by Nicholas IV in 1289, and modified by Leo XIII, 30 May, 1883 (Constit. "Misericors"). It includes not only members who form part of logical fraternities, but also isolated tertiaries, hermits, pilgrims, etc. Regular. The early history of the third order regular is uncertain and is susceptible of controversy. Some attribute its foundation to St. Elizabeth of Hungary in 1228, others to Blessed Angelina of Marsciano in 1395. The latter is said to have established at Foligno the first Franciscan monastery of enclosed tertiary nuns in Italy. It is certain that early in the fifteenth century tertiary communities of men and women existed in different parts of Europe and that the Italian friars of the third order regular were recognized as a mendicant order by the Holy See. Since about 1458 the latter body has been governed by own minister general and its members take solemn vows. New Foundations. In addition to this third order regular, properly so called, and quite independently of it, a very large number of Franciscan tertiary congregations -- both of men and women -- have been founded, more especially since the beginning of the ninteenth century. These new foundations have taken as a basis of their institutes a special rule for members of the third order living in community approved by Leo X. 20 Jan., 1521 (Bull "Inter"). Although this rule is a greatly modified by their particular constitution which, for the rest, differ widely according to the end of each foundation. These various congregations of regular tertiaries are either autonomous or under episcopal jurisdiction, and for the most part they are Franciscan in name only, not a few of them having abandoned the habit and even the traditional cord of the order. BIBLIOGRAPHY. For the vexed question of the origin and evolution of the third orders, see MUeLLER, Die Anfange des Minoritenordens und der Bussbruderschaften (Freiburg, 1885), 33 sqq; EHRLE in Zeitschr, j.k. Theol., XI, 743 sqq; MANDONNET, Les regles et le gouvernement de l Ordo de Paeniltentia au XIII siccle in Opuscules de critique historique, vol. l. fasc. IV (Paris, 1902); LEMMENS in Rom. Quartalschrift, XVI, 93 sqq; VAN ORTROY in Analecta Bollandiana, XVIII, 294 sqq. XXIV, 415 sqq; D'ALENCON in Etudes Franciscaines, II, 646 sq; GOETZ in Zeitschrift for Kirchengeschichte, XXIII, 97-107. The rules of the three orders are printed in Seraphicae Legislationis Textus originates (Quaracchi, 1897). A general conspectus of the Franciscan Order and its various branches is given in HOLZ-APPEL, Manuale, Historia, O.F.M. (Freiburg, 1909); HEIM-BUCHER, Die Orden und Kongregationen (Paderborn, 1907); II, 307-533; also PATREM, Tableau synoptique de tout l Ordre Seraphique (Paris, 1879): and CUSACK, St. Francis and the Franciscans (New York, 1867). PASCHAL ROBINSON St. Francis Caracciolo St. Francis Caracciolo Co-founder with John Augustine Adorno of the Conregation of the Minor Clerks Regular; b. in Villa Santa Maria in the Abrusso (Italy), 13 October, 1563; d. at Agnone, 4 June, 1608. He belonged to the Pisquizio branch of the Caracciolo and received in baptism the name of Ascanio. From his infancy he was remarkable for his gentleness and uprightness. Having been cured of leprosy at the age of twenty-two he vowed himself to an ecclesiastical life, and distributing his goods to the poor, went to Naples in 1585 to study theology. In 1587 he was ordained priest and joined the contraternity of the Bianchi della Giustizia (The white robes of Justice), whose object was to assist condemned criminals to die holy deaths. A letter frorn Giovanni Agostino Adorno to another Ascanio Caracciolo, begging him to take part in founding a new religious institute, having been delivered by mistake to our saint, he saw in this circumstance an confidence of the Divine Will towards him (1588). He assisted in drawing up rules for the new congregation, which was approved by Sixtus V, 1 July, 1588, and confirmed by Gregory XIV, 18 February 1591, and by Clement VIII, 1 June, 1592. The congregation is both contemplative and active, and to the three usual vows a fourth is added, namely, that its members must not aspire to ecclesiastical dignities outside the order nor seek them within it. Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament is kept up by rotation, and mortification is continually practised. The motto of the order "Ad majorem Dei Resurgentis gloriam" was chosen from the fact that Francis and Adorno made their profession at Naples on Low Sunday, 9 April, 1589. In spite of his refusal he was chosen general, 9 March, 1593, in the first house of the congregation in Naples, called St. Mary Major's or Pietrasanta, given to them by Sixtus V. He made three journeys into Spain to establish foundations under the protection of Philip II and Philip III. He opened the house of the Holy Ghost at Madrid on 20 January, 1599, that of Our Lady of the Annunciation at Valladolid on 9 September, 1601, and that of St. Joseph at Alcala sometime in 1601, for teaching science. In Rome he obtained possession of St. Leonard's church, which he afterwards exchanged for that of St. Agnes in the Piazza Navona (18 September, 1598), and later he secured for the institute the church of San Lorenso in Lucina (11 June, 1606) which was made over to him by a bull of Pope Paul X, and which was, however, annulled by the Bull "Susceptum" of Pope Pius X (9 November, 1906). St. Francis Caracciolo was the author of a valuable work, "Le sette stazioni sopra la Passione di N.S. Gesu Christo", which was printed in Rome in 1710. He loved the poor. Like St. Thomas Aquinas, a relative on his mother's side, his purity was angelic. Pope Paul V desired to confer an important bishopric on him, but he steadfastly refused it. His frequent motto was "Zelus domus tuae comedit me". Invited by the Oratorians at Agnone in the Abruzzo to convert their house into a college for his congregation, he fell ill during the negotiations and died there on the vigil of Corpus Christi. He was beatified by Pope Clement XIV on 4 June, 1769, and canonized by Pope Pius VII on 24 May, 1807. In 1838 he was chosen as patron of the city of Naples, where his body lies. At first he was buried in St. Mary Major's, but his remains were afterwards translated to the church of Monteverginella, which was given in exchange to the Minor Clerks Regular (1823) after their suppression at the time of the French Revolution. St. Francis is no longer venerated there with old fervour and devotion. FRANCESCO PAOLI St. Francis de Geronimo St. Francis de Geronimo (Girolamo, Hieronymo). Born 17 December, 1642; died 11 May, 1716. His birthplace was Grottaglie, a small town in Apulia, situated about five or six leagues from Taranto. At the age of sixteen he entered the college of Taranto, which was under the care of the Society of Jesus. He studied humanities and philosophy there, and was so successful that his bishop sent him to Naples to attend lectures in theology and canon law at the celebrated college of Gesu Vecchio, which at that time rivalled the greatest universities in Europe. He was ordained there, 18 March, 1666. After spending four years in charge of the pupils of the college of nobles in Naples, where the students surnamed him the holy prefect, il santo prefetto, he entered the novitiate of the Society of Jesus, 1 July, 1670. At the end of his first year's probation he was sent with an experienced missioner to get his first lessons in the art of preaching in the neighborhood of Otranto. A new term of four years spent labouring in towns and villages at missionary work revealed so clearly to his superiors his wonderful gift of preaching that, after allowing him to complete his theological studies, they determined to devote him to that work, and sent him to reside at Gesu Nuovo, the residence of the professed fathers at Naples. Francis would fain have gone and laboured, perhaps even laid down his life, as he often said, amidst the barbarous and idolatrous nations of the Far East. He wrote frequently to his superiors, begging them to grant him that great favour. Finally they told him to abandon the idea altogether, and to concentrate his zeal and energy on the city and Kingdom of Naples. Francis understood this to be the will of God, and insisted no more. Naples thus became for forty years, from 1676 until his death, the centre of his apostolic labours. He first devoted himself to stirring up the religious enthusiasm of a congregation of workmen, called the "Oratio della Missione", established at the professed house in Naples. The main object of this association was to provide the missionary father with devoted helpers amidst the thousand difficulties that would suddenly arise in the course of his work. Encouraged by the enthusiastic sermons of the director, these people became zealous co-operators. One remarkable feature of their work was the multitude of sinners they brought forth to the feet of Francis. In the notes which he sent his superiors concerning his favorite missionary work, the saint takes great pleasure in speaking of the fervour that animated the members of his dear "Oratory". Nor did their devoted director overlook the material needs of those who assisted him in the good work. In the Oratory he succeeded in establishing a mont de piete. The capital was increased by the gifts of the associate. Thanks to this institute they could have each day, in case of illness, a sum of four carlines (about one-third of a dollar); should death visit any of the members, a respectable funeral was afforded them costing the institute eighteen ducats; and they had the further privilege, which was much sought after, of being interred in the church of the Gesu Nuovo (see Brevi notizie, pp. 131-6). He established also in the Gesu one of the most important and beneficial works of the professed house of Naples, the general Communion on the third Sunday of each month (Brevi notizie, 126). He was an indefagitable preacher, and often spoke forty times in one day, choosing those streets which he new to be the centre of some secret scandal. His short, energetic, and eloquent sermons touch the guilty consciences of his hearers, and worked miraculous conversion. The rest of the week, not given over to labour in the city, was spent visiting the environs of Naples; on some occasions passing through no less than fifty hamlets a day, he preached in the streets, the public squares, and the churches. The following Sunday he would have the consolation of seeing at the Sacred Table crowds of 11,000, 12,000, and even 13,000 persons; according to his biographer there were ordinarily 15,000 men present at the monthly general Communion. But his work par excellence was giving missions in the open air and in the low quarters of the city of Naples. His tall figure, ample brow, large dark eyes, and aquiline nose, sunken cheeks, pallid countenance, and looks that spoke of his ascetic austerities produced a wonderful impression. The people crushed forward to meet him, to see him, to kiss his hand, and to touch his garments. When he exhorted sinners to repetence, he seemed to acquire a power that was more than natural, and his feeble voice became resonant and awe-inspiring. "He is a lamb, when he talks", the people said, "but a lion when he preaches". Like the ideal popular preacher he was, when in the presence of an audience as fickle and impressionable as the Neapolitans, Francis left nothing undone that could strike their imaginations. At one time he would bring a skull to the pulpit, and showing it to his hearers would drive home the lesson he wished to impart; at another, stopping suddenly in the middle of his discourse, he would uncover his shoulders and scourge himself with an iron chain until he bled. The effect was irresistible: young men of evil lives would rush forward and follow the example of the preacher, confessing their sins aloud; and abandoned women would cast themselves before the crucifix, and cut off their long hair, giving expression to their bitter sorrow and repentance. This apostolic labour in union with the cruel penance and the ardent spirit of prayer of the saint worked wonderful results amid the slaves of sin and crime. Thus the two refuges in Naples contained in a short time 250 penitents each; and in the Asylum of the Holy Ghost he sheltered for a while 190 children of these unfortunates, preserving them thereby from the danger of afterwards following the shameful tradition of their mothers. He had the consolation of seeing twenty-two of them embrace the religious life. So also he changed the royal convict ships, which were sinks of iniquity, into refuges of Christian peace and resignation; and he tells us further that he brought many Turkish and Moorish slaves to the true faith, and made use of the pompous ceremonials at their baptisms to strike the heart and imaginations of the spectators (Breve notizie, 121-6). Whatever time was unoccupied by his town missions he devoted to giving country or village missions of four, eight, or ten days, but never more; here and there he gave a retreat to a religious community, but in order to save his time he would not hear their confessions [cf. Recueil de lettres per le Nozze Malvezzi Hercolani (1876), p. 28]. To consolidate the great he work tried to establish everywhere an association of St. Francis Xavier, his patron and model; or else a congregation of the Blessed Virgin. For twenty-two years he preached her praises every Tuesday in the Neapolitan Church, known by the name of St. Mary of Constantinople. Although he engaged in such active exterior work, St. Francis had a mystical soul. He was often seen walking through the streets of Naples with a look of ecstasy on his face and tears streaming from his eyes; his companion had constantly to call his attention to the people who saluted him, so that Francis finally decided to walk bear-headed in public. He had the reputation at Naples of being a great miracle-worker, and his biographers, as those who testified during the process of his canonization, did not hesitate to contribute to him a host of wonders and cures of all kinds. His obsequies were, for the Neopolitans, the occasion of a triumphant procession; and had it not been for the intervention of the Swiss Guard, the zeal of his followers might have exposed the remains to the risk of desecration. In all the streets and squares of Naples, in every part of the suburbs, in the smallest neighboring hamlets, everyone spoke of the holiness, zeal, eloquence, and inexhaustible charity of the deceased missionary. The ecclesiastical authorities soon recognized that the cause of his beatification should be begun. On 2 May, 1758, Benedict XIV declared that Francis de Geranimo had practiced the theological and cardinal virtues in a heroic degree. He would have been beatified soon afterwards only for the storm that assailed the Society of Jesus about this time and ended in its suppression. Pius VII could not proceed with the beautification until 2 May, 1806; and Gregory XVI canonized the saint solemnly on 26 May, 1839. St. Francis de Geronimo wrote little. Some of his letters have been collected by his biographers and inserted in their works; for his writings, cf. Sommervogel, "Bibl. de la Comp de Jesus", new ed., III, column 1358. We must mention by itself the account he wrote to his superiors of the fifteen most laborious years of his ministry, which has furnished the materials for the most striking details of this sketch. The work dates from October 1693. The saint modestly calls it "Brevi notizie della cose di gloria di Dio accadute negli exercizi delle sacri missioni di Napoli da quindici anni in qua, quanto si potuto richiamare in memoria". Boero published it in S. Francesco di Girolamo, e le sue missioni dentro e fuori di Napoli", p. 67-181 (Florence, 1882). The archives of the Society of Jesus contain a voluminous collection of his sermons, or rather developed plans of his sermons. It is well to recall this proof of the care he took in preparing himself for the ministry of the pulpit, for his biographers are wont to dwell on the fact that his eloquent discourses were extemporaneous. Among his chief biographers the following are worthy of particular mention: Stradiotti, who lived twenty-five years with the saint on the professed house at Naples and had been his superior; he wrote his life in 1719, just three years after the death of St. Francis. Six years later, a new life appeared, written by a very remarkable Jesuit, Bagnati. He lived with St. Francis for he last fifteen years of his life and was his ordinary confessor. The most popular biography is that written by de Bonis, who composed his work at the time the process of the beautification of the saint was being drawn up. Worthy of note also is the Summarium de virtutibus ven. Francisci de Hieronymo (1751). It is a work to be used with caution; the postulator of the saint's cause, Muzzarelli, extracted from it a great number of important facts relating to the labours and miracles of the saint, "Raccolta di avveminenti singolari e documenti autentici spettanti alla vita del B. Francesco di Geronimo" (Rome, 1806). Lastly, the Historie de S. Franc,ois de Geronimo, ed. Bach (Metz, 1851) is the most complete work on the subject, but strives too much after the edification of the reader. C. Carayon, Bibliographie historique de la Compagne de Jesus, nn. 1861-89 (Paris, 1864). FRANCIS VAN ORTROY St. Francis de Sales St. Francis de Sales Bishop of Geneva, Doctor of the Universal Church; born at Thorens, in the Duchy of Savoy, 21 August, 1567; died at Lyons, 28 December, 1622. His father, Franc,ois de Sales de Boisy, and his mother, Franc,oise de Sionnaz, belonged to old Savoyard aristocratic families. The future saint was the eldest of six brothers. His father intended him for the magistracy and sent him at an early age to the colleges of La Roche and Annecy. From 1583 till 1588 he studied rhetoric and humanities at the college of Clermont, Paris, under the care of the Jesuits. While there he began a course of theology. After a terrible and prolonged temptation to despair, caused by the discussions of the theologians of the day on the question of predestination, from which he was suddenly freed as he knelt before a miraculous image of Our Lady at St. Etienne-des-Gres, he made a vow of chastity and consecrated himself to the Blessed Virgin Mary. In 1588 he studied law at Padua, where the Jesuit Father Possevin was his spiritual director. He received his diploma of doctorate from the famous Pancirola in 1592. Having been admitted as a lawyer before the senate of Chambery, he was about to be appointed senator. His father had selected one of the noblest heiresses of Savoy to be the partner of his future life, but Francis declared his intention of embracing the ecclesiastical life. A sharp struggle ensued. His father would not consent to see his expectations thwarted. Then Claude de Granier, Bishop of Geneva, obtained for Francis, on his own initiative, the position of Provost of the Chapter of Geneva, a post in the patronage of the pope. It was the highest office in the diocese, M. de Boisy yielded and Francis received Holy Orders (1593). From the time of the Reformation the seat of the Bishopric of Geneva had been fixed at Annecy. There with apostolic zeal, the new provost devoted himself to preaching, hearing confessions, and the other work of his ministry. In the following year (1594) he volunteered to evangelize Le Chablais, where the Genevans had imposed the Reformed Faith, and which had just been restored to the Duchy of Savoy. He made his headquarters in the fortress of Allinges. Risking his life, he journeyed through the entire district, preaching constantly; by dint of zeal, learning, kindness and holiness he at last obtained a hearing. He then settled in Thonon, the chief town. He confuted the preachers sent by Geneva to oppose him; he converted the syndic and several prominent Calvinists. At the request of the pope, Clement VIII, he went to Geneva to interview Theodore Beza, who was called the Patriarch of the Reformation. The latter received him kindly and seemed for a while shaken, but had not the courage to take the final steps. A large part of the inhabitants of Le Chablais returned to the true fold (1597 and 1598). Claude de Granier then chose Francis as his coadjutor, in spite of his refusal, and sent him to Rome (1599). Pope Clement VIII ratified the choice; but he wished to examine the candidate personally, in presence of the Sacred College. The improvised examination was a triumph for Francis. "Drink, my son", said the Pope to him. "from your cistern, and from your living wellspring; may your waters issue forth, and may they become public fountains where the world may quench its thirst." The prophesy was to be realized. On his return from Rome the religious affairs of the territory of Gex, a dependency of France, necessitated his going to Paris. There the coadjutor formed an intimate friendship with Cardinal de Berulle, Antoine Deshayes, secretary of Henry IV, and Henry IV himself, who wished "to make a third in this fair friendship" (etre de tiers dans cette belle amitie). The king made him preach the Lent at Court, and wished to keep him in France. He urged him to continue, by his sermons and writings, to teach those souls that had to live in the world how to have confidence in God, and how to be genuinely and truly pious - graces of which he saw the great necessity. On the death of Claude de Granier, Francis was consecrated Bishop of Geneva (1602). His first step was to institute catechetical instructions for the faithful, both young and old. He made prudent regulations for the guidance of his clergy. He carefully visited the parishes scattered through the rugged mountains of his diocese. He reformed the religious communities. His goodness, patience and mildness became proverbial. He had an intense love for the poor, especially those who were of respectable family. His food was plain, his dress and his household simple. He completely dispensed with superfluities and lived with the greatest economy, in order to be able to provide more abundantly for the wants of the needy. He heard confessions, gave advice, and preached incessantly. He wrote innumerable letters (mainly letters of direction) and found time to publish the numerous works mentioned below. Together with St. Jane Frances de Chantal, he founded (1607) the Institute of the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin, for young girls and widows who, feeling themselves called to the religious life, have not sufficient strength, or lack inclination, for the corporal austerities of the great orders. His zeal extended beyond the limits of his own diocese. He delivered the Lent and Advent discourses which are still famous - those at Dijon (1604), where he first met the Baroness de Chantal; at Chambery (1606); at Grenoble (1616, 1617, 1618), where he converted the Marechal de Lesdiguieres. During his last stay in Paris (November, 1618, to September, 1619) he had to go into the pulpit each day to satisfy the pious wishes of those who thronged to hear him. "Never", said they, "have such holy, such apostolic sermons been preached." He came into contact here with all the distinguished ecclesiastics of the day, and in particular with St. Vincent de Paul. His friends tried energetically to induce him to remain in France, offering him first the wealthy Abbey of Ste. Genevieve and then the coadjutor-bishopric of Paris, but he refused all to return to Annecy. In 1622 he had to accompany the Court of Savoy into France. At Lyons he insisted on occupying a small, poorly furnished room in a house belonging to the gardener of the Visitation Convent. There, on 27 December, he was seized with apoplexy. He received the last sacraments and made his profession of faith, repeating constantly the words: "God's will be done! Jesus, my God and my all!" He died next day, in the fifty-sixth year of his age. Immense crowds flocked to visit his remains, which the people of Lyons were anxious to keep in their city. With much difficulty his body was brought back to Annecy, but his heart was left at Lyons. A great number of wonderful favours have been obtained at his tomb in the Visitation Convent of Annecy. His heart, at the time of the French Revolution, was carried by the Visitation nuns from Lyons to Venice, where it is venerated to-day. St. Francis de Sales was beatified in 1661, and canonized by Alexander VII in 1665; he was proclaimed Doctor of the Universal Church by Pope Pius IX, in 1877. The following is a list of the principal works of the holy Doctor: (1) "Controversies", leaflets which the zealous missioner scattered among the inhabitants of Le Chablais in the beginning, when t hese people did not venture to come and hear him preach. They form a complete proof of the Catholic Faith. In the first part, the author defends the authority of the Church, and in the second and third parts, the rules of faith, which were not observed by the heretical ministers. The primacy of St. Peter is amply vindicated. (2) "Defense of the Standard of the Cross", a demonstration of the virtue o of the True Cross; o of the Crucifix; o of the Sign of the Cross; o an explanation of the Veneration of the Cross. (3) "An Introduction to the Devout Life", a work intended to lead "Philothea", the soul living in the world, into the paths of devotion, that is to say, of true and solid piety. Every one should strive to become pious, and "it is an error, it is even a heresy", to hold that piety is incompatible with any state of life. In the first part the author helps the soul to free itself from all inclination to, or affection for, sin; in the second, he teaches it how to be united to God by prayer and the sacraments; in the third, he exercises it in the practice of virtue; in the fourth, he strengthens it against temptation; in the fifth, he teaches it how to form its resolutions and to persevere. The "Introduction", which is a masterpiece of psychology, practical morality, and common sense, was translated into nearly every language even in the lifetime of the author, and it has since gone through innumerable editions. (4) "Treatise on the Love of God", an authoritative work which reflects perfectly the mind and heart of Francis de Sales as a great genius and a great saint. It contains twelve books. The first four give us a history, or rather explain the theory, of Divine love, its birth in the soul, its growth, its perfection, and its decay and annihilation; the fifth book shows that this love is twofold - the love of complacency and the love of benevolence; the sixth and seventh treat of affective love, which is practised in prayer; the eight and ninth deal with effective love, that is, conformity to the will of God, and submission to His good pleasure. The last three resume what has preceded and teach how to apply practically the lessons taught therein. (5) "Spiritual Conferences"; familiar conversations on religious virtues addressed to the sisters of the Visitation and collected by them. We find in them that practical common sense, keenness of perception and delicacy of feeling which were characteristic of the kind-hearted and energetic Saint. (6) "Sermons". - These are divided into two classes: those composed previously to his consecration as a bishop, and which he himself wrote out in full; and the discourses he delivered when a bishop, of which, as a rule, only outlines and synopses have been preserved. Some of the latter, however, were taken down in extenso by his hearers. Pius IX, in his Bull proclaiming him Doctor of the Church calls the Saint "The Master and Restorer of Sacred Eloquence". He is one of those who at the beginning of the seventeenth century formed the beautiful French language; he foreshadows and prepares the way for the great sacred orators about to appear. He speaks simply, naturally, and from his heart. To speak well we need only love well, was his maxim. His mind was imbued with the Holy Writings, which he comments, and explains, and applies practically with no less accuracy than grace. (7) "Letters", mostly letters of direction, in which the minister of God effaces himself and teaches the soul to listen to God, the only true director. The advice given is suited to all the circumstances and necessities of life and to all persons of good will. While trying to efface his own personality in these letters, the saint makes himself known to us and unconsciously discovers to us the treasures of his soul. (8) A large number of very precious treatises or opuscula. Migne (5 vols., quarto) and Vives (12 vols., octavo, Paris) have edited the works of St. Francis de Sales. But the edition which we may call definitive was published at Annecy in 1892, by the English Benedictine, Dom Mackey: a work remarkable for its typographical execution, the brilliant criticism that settles the text, the large quantity of hitherto unedited matter, and the interesting study accompanying each volume. Dom Mackey published twelve volumes. Father Navatel, S.J., is continuing the work. We may give here a brief resume of the spiritual teaching contained in these works, of which the Church has said: "The writings of Francis de Sales, filled with celestial doctrine are a bright light in the Church, pointing out to souls an easy and safe way to arrive at the perfection of a Christian life." (Breviarium Romanum, 29 January, lect. VI.) There are two elements in the spiritual life: first, a struggle against our lower nature; secondly, union of our wills with God, in other words, penance and love. St. Francis de Sales looks chiefly to love. Not that he neglects penance, which is absolutely necessary, but he wishes it to be practised from a motive of love. He requires mortification of the senses, but he relies first on mortification of the mind, the will, and the heart. This interior mortification he requires to be unceasing and always accompanied by love. The end to be realized is a life of loving, simple, generous, and constant fidelity to the will of God, which is nothing else than our present duty. The model proposed is Christ, whom we must ever keep before our eyes. "You will study His countenance, and perform your actions as He did" (Introd., 2nd part, ch. i). The practical means of arriving at this perfection are: remembrance of the presence of God, filial prayer, a right intention in all our actions, and frequent recourse to God by pious and confiding ejaculations and interior aspirations. Besides the Institute of the Visitation, which he founded, the nineteenth century has seen associations of the secular clergy and pious laymen, and several religious congregations, formed under the patronage of the holy Doctor. Among them we may mention the Missionaries of St. Francis de Sales, of Annecy; the Salesians, founded at Turin by the Venerable Don Bosco, specially devoted to the Christian and technical education of the children of the poorer classes; the Oblates of St. Francis de Sales, established at Troyes (France) by Father Brisson, who try to realize in the religious and priestly life the spirit of the holy Doctor, such as we have described it, and such as he bequeathed it to the nuns of the Visitation. MACKEY, OEuvres de St Franc,ois de Sales (Annecy, 1892-); CHARLES-AUGUSTE DE SALES, Histoire du Bienheureux Franc,ois de Sales (2nd ed., Paris, 1885); CAMUS, Esprit de S. Franc,ois de Sales (2d ed., Paris, 1833); and in Collection S. Honore d'Eylau (Paris, 1904); Vie de S. Franc,ois de Sales by HAMON (Paris); PERENNES (Paris); DE MARGERIE (Paris); STROWSKI, St. Franc,ois de Sales (Paris); Annales Salesiennes in Revu Mensuelle (Paris, 1906, etc.). MACKEY has given an English translation of the Letters to Persons in the World, and of the Letters to Persons in Religion (London); he has also published noteworthy articles on St. Francis de Sales as an Orator (London) and St. Francis de Sales as a Director in Am. Eccl. Rev. (1898). RAPHAEL PERNIN St. Francis of Assisi St. Francis of Assisi Founder of the Franciscan Order, born at Assisi in Umbria, in 1181 or 1182 -- the exact year is uncertain; died there, 3 October, 1226. His father, Pietro Bernardone, was a wealthy Assisian cloth merchant. Of his mother, Pica, little is known, but she is said to have belonged to a noble family of Provence. Francis was one of several children. The legend that he was born in a stable dates from the fifteenth century only, and appears to have originated in the desire of certain writers to make his life resemble that of Christ. At baptism the saint received the name of Giovanni, which his father afterwards altered to Francesco, through fondness it would seem for France, whither business had led him at the time of his son's birth. In any case, since the child was renamed in infancy, the change can hardly have had anything to do with his aptitude for learning French, as some have thought. Francis received some elementary instruction from the priests of St. George's at Assisi, though he learned more perhaps in the school of the Troubadours, who were just then making for refinement in Italy. However this may be, he was not very studious, and his literary education remained incomplete. Although associated with his father in trade, he showed little liking for a merchant's career, and his parents seemed to have indulged his every whim. Thomas of Celano, his first biographer, speaks in very severe terms of Francis's youth. Certain it is that the saint's early life gave no presage of the golden years that were to come. No one loved pleasure more than Francis; he had a ready wit, sang merrily, delighted in fine clothes and showy display. Handsome, gay, gallant, and courteous, he soon became the prime favourite among the young nobles of Assisi, the foremost in every feat of arms, the leader of the civil revels, the very king of frolic. But even at this time Francis showed an instinctive sympathy with the poor, and though he spent money lavishly, it still flowed in such channels as to attest a princely magnanimity of spirit. When about twenty, Francis went out with the townsmen to fight the Perugians in one of the petty skirmishes so frequent at that time between the rival cities. The Assisians were defeated on this occasion, and Francis, being among those taken prisoners, was held captive for more than a year in Perugia. A low fever which he there contracted appears to have turned his thoughts to the things of eternity; at least the emptiness of the life he had been leading came to him during that long illness. With returning health, however, Francis's eagerness after glory reawakened and his fancy wandered in search of victories; at length he resolved to embrace a military career, and circumstances seemed to favour his aspirations. A knight of Assisi was about to join "the gentle count", Walter of Brienne, who was then in arms in the Neapolitan States against the emperor, and Francis arranged to accompany him. His biographers tell us that the night before Francis set forth he had a strange dream, in which he saw a vast hall hung with armour all marked with the Cross. "These", said a voice, "are for you and your soldiers." "I know I shall be a great prince", exclaimed Francis exultingly, as he started for Apulia. But a second illness arrested his course at Spoleto. There, we are told, Francis had another dream in which the same voice bade him turn back to Assisi. He did so at once. This was in 1205. Although Francis still joined at times in the noisy revels of his former comrades, his changed demeanour plainly showed that his heart was no longer with them; a yearning for the life of the spirit had already possessed it. His companions twitted Francis on his absent-mindedness and asked if he were minded to be married. "Yes", he replied, "I am about to take a wife of surpassing fairness." She was no other than Lady Poverty whom Dante and Giotto have wedded to his name, and whom even now he had begun to love. After a short period of uncertainty he began to seek in prayer and solitude the answer to his call; he had already given up his gay attire and wasteful ways. One day, while crossing the Umbrian plain on horseback, Francis unexpectedly drew near a poor leper. The sudden appearance of this repulsive object filled him with disgust and he instinctively retreated, but presently controlling his natural aversion he dismounted, embraced the unfortunate man, and gave him all the money he had. About the same time Francis made a pilgrimage to Rome. Pained at the miserly offerings he saw at the tomb of St. Peter, he emptied his purse thereon. Then, as if to put his fastidious nature to the test, he exchanged clothes with a tattered mendicant and stood for the rest of the day fasting among the horde of beggars at the door of the basilica. Not long after his return to Assisi, whilst Francis was praying before an ancient crucifix in the forsaken wayside chapel of St. Damian's below the town, he heard a voice saying: "Go, Francis, and repair my house, which as you see is falling into ruin." Taking this behest literally, as referring to the ruinous church wherein he knelt, Francis went to his father's shop, impulsively bundled together a load of coloured drapery, and mounting his horse hastened to Foligno, then a mart of some importance, and there sold both horse and stuff to procure the money needful for the restoration of St. Damian's. When, however, the poor priest who officiated there refused to receive the gold thus gotten, Francis flung it from him disdainfully. The elder Bernardone, a most niggardly man, was incensed beyond measure at his son's conduct, and Francis, to avert his father's wrath, hid himself in a cave near St. Damian's for a whole month. When he emerged from this place of concealment and returned to the town, emaciated with hunger and squalid with dirt, Francis was followed by a hooting rabble, pelted with mud and stones, and otherwise mocked as a madman. Finally, he was dragged home by his father, beaten, bound, and locked in a dark closet. Freed by his mother during Bernardone's absence, Francis returned at once to St. Damian's, where he found a shelter with the officiating priest, but he was soon cited before the city consuls by his father. The latter, not content with having recovered the scattered gold from St. Damian's, sought also to force his son to forego his inheritance. This Francis was only too eager to do; he declared, however, that since he had entered the service of God he was no longer under civil jurisdiction. Having therefore been taken before the bishop, Francis stripped himself of the very clothes he wore, and gave them to his father, saying: "Hitherto I have called you my father on earth; henceforth I desire to say only 'Our Father who art in Heaven.'" Then and there, as Dante sings, were solemnized Francis's nuptials with his beloved spouse, the Lady Poverty, under which name, in the mystical language afterwards so familiar to him, he comprehended the total surrender of all worldly goods, honours, and privileges. And now Francis wandered forth into the hills behind Assisi, improvising hymns of praise as he went. "I am the herald of the great King", he declared in answer to some robbers, who thereupon despoiled him of all he had and threw him scornfully in a snow drift. Naked and half frozen, Francis crawled to a neighbouring monastery and there worked for a time as a scullion. At Gubbio, whither he went next, Francis obtained from a friend the cloak, girdle, and staff of a pilgrim as an alms. Returning to Assisi, he traversed the city begging stones for the restoration of St. Damian's. These he carried to the old chapel, set in place himself, and so at length rebuilt it. In the same way Francis afterwards restored two other deserted chapels, St. Peter's, some distance from the city, and St. Mary of the Angels, in the plain below it, at a spot called the Porziuncola. Meantime he redoubled his zeal in works of charity, more especially in nursing the lepers. On a certain morning in 1208, probably 24 February, Francis was hearing Mass in the chapel of St. Mary of the Angels, near which he had then built himself a hut; the Gospel of the day told how the disciples of Christ were to possess neither gold nor silver, nor scrip for their journey, nor two coats, nor shoes, nor a staff, and that they were to exhort sinners to repentance and announce the Kingdom of God. Francis took these words as if spoken directly to himself, and so soon as Mass was over threw away the poor fragment left him of the world's goods, his shoes, cloak, pilgrim staff, and empty wallet. At last he had found his vocation. Having obtained a coarse woolen tunic of "beast colour", the dress then worn by the poorest Umbrian peasants, and tied it round him with a knotted rope, Francis went forth at once exhorting the people of the country-side to penance, brotherly love, and peace. The Assisians had already ceased to scoff at Francis; they now paused in wonderment; his example even drew others to him. Bernard of Quintavalle, a magnate of the town, was the first to join Francis, and he was soon followed by Peter of Cattaneo, a well-known canon of the cathedral. In true spirit of religious enthusiasm, Francis repaired to the church of St. Nicholas and sought to learn God's will in their regard by thrice opening at random the book of the Gospels on the altar. Each time it opened at passages where Christ told His disciples to leave all things and follow Him. "This shall be our rule of life", exclaimed Francis, and led his companions to the public square, where they forthwith gave away all their belongings to the poor. After this they procured rough habits like that of Francis, and built themselves small huts near his at the Porziuncola. A few days later Giles, afterwards the great ecstatic and sayer of "good words", became the third follower of Francis. The little band divided and went about, two and two, making such an impression by their words and behaviour that before long several other disciples grouped themselves round Francis eager to share his poverty, among them being Sabatinus, vir bonus et justus, Moricus, who had belonged to the Crucigeri, John of Capella, who afterwards fell away, Philip "the Long", and four others of whom we know only the names. When the number of his companions had increased to eleven, Francis found it expedient to draw up a written rule for them. This first rule, as it is called, of the Friars Minor has not come down to us in its original form, but it appears to have been very short and simple, a mere adaptation of the Gospel precepts already selected by Francis for the guidance of his first companions, and which he desired to practice in all their perfection. When this rule was ready the Penitents of Assisi, as Francis and his followers styled themselves, set out for Rome to seek the approval of the Holy See, although as yet no such approbation was obligatory. There are differing accounts of Francis's reception by Innocent III. It seems, however, that Guido, Bishop of Assisi, who was then in Rome, commended Francis to Cardinal John of St. Paul, and that at the instance of the latter, the pope recalled the saint whose first overtures he had, as it appears, somewhat rudely rejected. Moreover, in site of the sinister predictions of others in the Sacred College, who regarded the mode of life proposed by Francis as unsafe and impracticable, Innocent, moved it is said by a dream in which he beheld the Poor Man of Assisi upholding the tottering Lateran, gave a verbal sanction to the rule submitted by Francis and granted the saint and his companions leave to preach repentance everywhere. Before leaving Rome they all received the ecclesiastical tonsure, Francis himself being ordained deacon later on. After their return to Assisi, the Friars Minor -- for thus Francis had names his brethren, either after the minores, or lower classes, as some think, or as others believe, with reference to the Gospel (Matthew 25:40-45), and as a perpetual reminder of their humility -- found shelter in a deserted hut at Rivo Torto in the plain below the city, but were forced to abandon this poor abode by a rough peasant who drove in his ass upon them. About 1211 they obtained a permanent foothold near Assisi, through the generosity of the Benedictines of Monte Subasio, who gave them the little chapel of St. Mary of the Angels or the Porziuncola. Adjoining this humble sanctuary, already dear to Francis, the first Franciscan convent was formed by the erection of a few small huts or cells of wattle, straw, and mud, and enclosed by a hedge. From this settlement, which became the cradle of the Franciscan Order (Caput et Mater Ordinis) and the central spot in the life of St. Francis, the Friars Minor went forth two by two exhorting the people of the surrounding country. Like children "careless of the day", they wandered from place to place singing in their joy, and calling themselves the Lord's minstrels. The wide world was their cloister; sleeping in haylofts, grottos, or church porches, they toiled with the labourers in the fields, and when none gave them work they would beg. In a short while Francis and his companions gained an immense influence, and men of different grades of life and ways of thought flocked to the order. Among the new recruits made about this time By Francis were the famous Three Companions, who afterwards wrote his life, namely: Angelus Tancredi, a noble cavalier; Leo, the saint's secretary and confessor; and Rufinus, a cousin of St. Clare; besides Juniper, "the renowned jester of the Lord". During the Lent of 1212, a new joy, great as it was unexpected, came to Francis. Clare, a young heiress of Assisi, moved by the saint's preaching at the church of St. George, sought him out, and begged to be allowed to embrace the new manner of life he had founded. By his advice, Clare, who was then but eighteen, secretly left her father's house on the night following Palm Sunday, and with two companions went to the Porziuncola, where the friars met her in procession, carrying lighted torches. Then Francis, having cut off her hair, clothed her in the Minorite habit and thus received her to a life of poverty, penance, and seclusion. Clare stayed provisionally with some Benedictine nuns near Assisi, until Francis could provide a suitable retreat for her, and for St. Agnes, her sister, and the other pious maidens who had joined her. He eventually established them at St. Damian's, in a dwelling adjoining the chapel he had rebuilt with his own hands, which was now given to the saint by the Benedictines as domicile for his spiritual daughters, and which thus became the first monastery of the Second Franciscan Order of Poor Ladies, now known as Poor Clares. In the autumn of the same year (1212) Francis's burning desire for the conversion of the Saracens led him to embark for Syria, but having been shipwrecked on the coast of Slavonia, he had to return to Ancona. The following spring he devoted himself to evangelizing Central Italy. About this time (1213) Francis received from Count Orlando of Chiusi the mountain of La Verna, an isolated peak among the Tuscan Apennines, rising some 4000 feet above the valley of the Casentino, as a retreat, "especially favourable for contemplation", to which he might retire from time to time for prayer and rest. For Francis never altogether separated the contemplative from the active life, as the several hermitages associated with his memory, and the quaint regulations he wrote for those living in them bear witness. At one time, indeed, a strong desire to give himself wholly to a life of contemplation seems to have possessed the saint. During the next year (1214) Francis set out for Morocco, in another attempt to reach the infidels and, if needs be, to shed his blood for the Gospel, but while yet in Spain was overtaken by so severe an illness that he was compelled to turn back to Italy once more. Authentic details are unfortunately lacking of Francis's journey to Spain and sojourn there. It probably took place in the winter of 1214-1215. After his return to Umbria he received several noble and learned men into his order, including his future biographer Thomas of Celano. The next eighteen months comprise, perhaps, the most obscure period of the saint's life. That he took part in the Lateran Council of 1215 may well be, but it is not certain; we know from Eccleston, however, that Francis was present at the death of Innocent II, which took place at Perugia, in July 1216. Shortly afterwards, i.e. very early in the pontificate of Honorius III, is placed the concession of the famous Porziuncola Indulgence. It is related that once, while Francis was praying at the Porziuncola, Christ appeared to him and offered him whatever favour he might desire.The salvation of souls was ever the burden of Francis's prayers, and wishing moreover, to make his beloved Porziuncola a sanctuary where many might be saved, he begged a plenary Indulgence for all who, having confessed their sins, should visit the little chapel. Our Lord acceded to this request on condition that the pope should ratify the Indulgence. Francis thereupon set out for Perugia, with Brother Masseo, to find Honorius III. The latter, notwithstanding some opposition from the Curia at such an unheard-of favour, granted the Indulgence, restricting it, however, to one day yearly. He subsequently fixed 2 August in perpetuity, as the day for gaining this Porziuncola Indulgence, commonly known in Italy as il perdono d'Assisi. Such is the traditional account. The fact that there is no record of this Indulgence in either the papal or diocesan archives and no allusion to it in the earliest biographies of Francis or other contemporary documents has led some writers to reject the whole story. This argumentum ex silentio has, however, been met by M. Paul Sabatier, who in his critical edition of the "Tractatus de Indulgentia" of Fra Bartholi has adduced all the really credible evidence in its favour. But even those who regard the granting of this Indulgence as traditionally believed to be an established fact of history, admit that its early history is uncertain. (See PORTIUNCULA.) The first general chapter of the Friars Minor was held in May, 1217, at Porziuncola, the order being divided into provinces, and an apportionment made of the Christian world into so many Franciscan missions. Tuscany, Lombardy, Provence, Spain, and Germany were assigned to five of Francis's principal followers; for himself the saint reserved France, and he actually set out for that kingdom, but on arriving at Florence, was dissuaded from going further by Cardinal Ugolino, who had been made protector of the order in 1216. He therefore sent in his stead Brother Pacificus, who in the world had been renowned as a poet, together with Brother Agnellus, who later on established the Friars Minor in England. Although success came indeed to Francis and his friars, with it came also opposition, and it was with a view to allaying any prejudices the Curia might have imbibed against their methods that Francis, at the instance of Cardinal Ugolino, went to Rome and preached before the pope and cardinals in the Lateran. This visit to the Eternal City, which took place 1217-18, was apparently the occasion of Francis's memorable meeting with St. Dominic. The year 1218 Francis devoted to missionary tours in Italy, which were a continual triumph for him. He usually preached out of doors, in the market-places, from church steps, from the walls of castle court- yards. Allured by the magic spell of his presence, admiring crowds, unused for the rest to anything like popular preaching in the vernacular, followed Francis from place to place hanging on his lips; church bells rang at his approach; processions of clergy and people advanced to meet him with music and singing; they brought the sick to him to bless and heal, and kissed the very ground on which he trod, and even sought to cut away pieces of his tunic. The extraordinary enthusiasm with which the saint was everywhere welcomed was equalled only by the immediate and visible result of his preaching. His exhortations of the people, for sermons they can hardly be called, short, homely, affectionate, and pathetic, touched even the hardest and most frivolous, and Francis became in sooth a very conqueror of souls. Thus it happened, on one occasion, while the saint was preaching at Camara, a small village near Assisi, that the whole congregation were so moved by his "words of spirit and life" that they presented themselves to him in a body and begged to be admitted into his order. It was to accede, so far as might be, to like requests that Francis devised his Third Order, as it is now called, of the Brothers and Sisters of Penance, which he intended as a sort of middle state between the world and the cloister for those who could not leave their home or desert their wonted avocations in order to enter either the First Order of Friars Minor or the Second Order of Poor Ladies. That Francis prescribed particular duties for these tertiaries is beyond question. They were not to carry arms, or take oaths, or engage in lawsuits, etc. It is also said that he drew up a formal rule for them, but it is clear that the rule, confirmed by Nicholas IV in 1289, does not, at least in the form in which it has come down to us, represent the original rule of the Brothers and Sisters of Penance. In any event, it is customary to assign 1221 as the year of the foundation of this third order, but the date is not certain. At the second general chapter (May, 1219) Francis, bent on realizing his project of evangelizing the infidels, assigned a separate mission to each of his foremost disciples, himself selecting the seat of war between the crusaders and the Saracens. With eleven companions, including Brother Illuminato and Peter of Cattaneo, Francis set sail from Ancona on 21 June, for Saint-Jean d'Acre, and he was present at the siege and taking of Damietta. After preaching there to the assembled Christian forces, Francis fearlessly passed over to the infidel camp, where he was taken prisoner and led before the sultan. According to the testimony of Jacques de Vitry, who was with the crusaders at Damietta, the sultan received Francis with courtesy, but beyond obtaining a promise from this ruler of more indulgent treatment for the Christian captives, the saint's preaching seems to have effected little. Before returning to Europe, the saint is believed to have visited Palestine and there obtained for the friars the foothold they still retain as guardians of the holy places. What is certain is that Francis was compelled to hasten back to Italy because of various troubles that had arisen there during his absence. News had reached him in the East that Matthew of Narni and Gregory of Naples, the two vicars-general whom he had left in charge of the order, had summoned a chapter which, among other innovations, sought to impose new fasts upon the friars, more severe than the rule required. Moreover, Cardinal Ugolino had conferred on the Poor Ladies a written rule which was practically that of the Benedictine nuns, and Brother Philip, whom Francis had charged with their interests, had accepted it. To make matters worse, John of Capella, one of the saint's first companions, had assembled a large number of lepers, both men and women, with a view to forming them into a new religious order, and had set out for Rome to seek approval for the rule he had drawn up for these unfortunates. Finally a rumour had been spread abroad that Francis was dead, so that when the saint returned to Italy with brother Elias -- he appeared to have arrived at Venice in July, 1220 -- a general feeling of unrest prevailed among the friars. Apart from these difficulties, the order was then passing through a period of transition. It had become evident that the simple, familiar, and unceremonious ways which had marked the Franciscan movement at its beginning were gradually disappearing, and that the heroic poverty practiced by Francis and his companions at the outset became less easy as the friars with amazing rapidity increased in number. And this Francis could not help seeing on his return. Cardinal Ugolino had already undertaken the task "of reconciling inspirations so unstudied and so free with an order of things they had outgrown." This remarkable man, who afterwards ascended the papal throne as Gregory IX, was deeply attached to Francis, whom he venerated as a saint and also, some writers tell us, managed as an enthusiast. That Cardinal Ugolino had no small share in bringing Francis's lofty ideals "within range and compass" seems beyond dispute, and it is not difficult to recognize his hand in the important changes made in the organization of the order in the so-called Chapter of Mats. At this famous assembly, held at Porziuncola at Whitsuntide, 1220 or 1221 (there is seemingly much room for doubt as to the exact date and number of the early chapters), about 5000 friars are said to have been present, besides some 500 applicants for admission to the order. Huts of wattle and mud afforded shelter for this multitude. Francis had purposely made no provision for them, but the charity of the neighbouring towns supplied them with food, while knights and nobles waited upon them gladly. It was on this occasion that Francis, harassed no doubt and disheartened at the tendency betrayed by a large number of the friars to relax the rigours of the rule, according to the promptings of human prudence, and feeling, perhaps unfitted for a place which now called largely for organizing abilities, relinquished his position as general of the order in favour of Peter of Cattaneo. But the latter died in less than a year, being succeeded as vicar-general by the unhappy Brother Elias, who continued in that office until the death of Francis. The saint, meanwhile, during the few years that remained in him, sought to impress on the friars by the silent teaching of personal example of what sort he would fain have them to be. Already, while passing through Bologna on his return from the East, Francis had refused to enter the convent there because he had heard it called the "House of the Friars" and because a studium had been instituted there. He moreover bade all the friars, even those who were ill, quit it at once, and it was only some time after, when Cardinal Ugolino had publicly declared the house to be his own property, that Francis suffered his brethren to re-enter it. Yet strong and definite as the saint's convictions were, and determinedly as his line was taken, he was never a slave to a theory in regard to the observances of poverty or anything else; about him indeed, there was nothing narrow or fanatical. As for his attitude towards study, Francis desiderated for his friars only such theological knowledge as was conformable to the mission of the order, which was before all else a mission of example. Hence he regarded the accumulation of books as being at variance with the poverty his friars professed, and he resisted the eager desire for mere book-learning, so prevalent in his time, in so far as it struck at the roots of that simplicity which entered so largely into the essence of his life and ideal and threatened to stifle the spirit of prayer, which he accounted preferable to all the rest. In 1221, so some writers tell us, Francis drew up a new rule for the Friars Minor. Others regard this so-called Rule of 1221 not as a new rule, but as the first one which Innocent had orally approved; not, indeed, its original form, which we do not possess, but with such additions and modifications as it has suffered during the course of twelve years. However this may be, the composition called by some the Rule of 1221 is very unlike any conventional rule ever made. It was too lengthy and unprecise to become a formal rule, and two years later Francis retired to Fonte Colombo, a hermitage near Rieti, and rewrote the rule in more compendious form. This revised draft he entrusted to Brother Elias, who not long after declared he had lost it through negligence. Francis thereupon returned to the solitude of Fonte Colombo, and recast the rule on the same lines as before, its twenty-three chapters being reduced to twelve and some of its precepts being modified in certain details at the instance of Cardinal Ugolino. In this form the rule was solemnly approved by Honorius III, 29 November, 1223 (Litt. "Solet annuere"). This Second Rule, as it is usually called or Regula Bullata of the Friars Minor, is the one ever since professed throughout the First Order of St. Francis (see RULE OF SAINT FRANCIS). It is based on the three vows of obedience, poverty, and chastity, special stress however being laid on poverty, which Francis sought to make the special characteristic of his order, and which became the sign to be contradicted. This vow of absolute poverty in the first and second orders and the reconciliation of the religious with the secular state in the Third Order of Penance are the chief novelties introduced by Francis in monastic regulation. It was during Christmastide of this year (1223) that the saint conceived the idea of celebrating the Nativity "in a new manner", by reproducing in a church at Greccio the praesepio of Bethlehem, and he has thus come to be regarded as having inaugurated the population devotion of the Crib. Christmas appears indeed to have been the favourite feast of Francis, and he wished to persuade the emperor to make a special law that men should then provide well for the birds and the beasts, as well as for the poor, so that all might have occasion to rejoice in the Lord. Early in August, 1224, Francis retired with three companions to "that rugged rock 'twixt Tiber and Arno", as Dante called La Verna, there to keep a forty days fast in preparation for Michaelmas. During this retreat the sufferings of Christ became more than ever the burden of his meditations; into few souls, perhaps, had the full meaning of the Passion so deeply entered. It was on or about the feast of the Exaltation of the Cross (14 September) while praying on the mountainside, that he beheld the marvellous vision of the seraph, as a sequel of which there appeared on his body the visible marks of the five wounds of the Crucified which, says an early writer, had long since been impressed upon his heart. Brother Leo, who was with St. Francis when he received the stigmata, has left us in his note to the saint's autograph blessing, preserved at Assisi, a clear and simple account of the miracle, which for the rest is better attested than many another historical fact. The saint's right side is described as bearing on open wound which looked as if made by a lance, while through his hands and feet were black nails of flesh, the points of which were bent backward. After the reception of the stigmata, Francis suffered increasing pains throughout his frail body, already broken by continual mortification. For, condescending as the saint always was to the weaknesses of others, he was ever so unsparing towards himself that at the last he felt constrained to ask pardon of "Brother Ass", as he called his body, for having treated it so harshly. Worn out, moreover, as Francis now was by eighteen years of unremitting toil, his strength gave way completely, and at times his eyesight so far failed him that he was almost wholly blind. During an access of anguish, Francis paid a last visit to St. Clare at St. Damian's, and it was in a little hut of reeds, made for him in the garden there, that the saint composed that "Canticle of the Sun", in which his poetic genius expands itself so gloriously. This was in September, 1225. Not long afterwards Francis, at the urgent instance of Brother Elias, underwent an unsuccessful operation for the eyes, at Rieti. He seems to have passed the winter 1225-26 at Siena, whither he had been taken for further medical treatment. In April, 1226, during an interval of improvement, Francis was moved to Cortona, and it is believed to have been while resting at the hermitage of the Celle there, that the saint dictated his testament, which he describes as a "reminder, a warning, and an exhortation". In this touching document Francis, writing from the fullness of his heart, urges anew with the simple eloquence, the few, but clearly defined, principles that were to guide his followers, implicit obedience to superiors as holding the place of God, literal observance of the rule "without gloss", especially as regards poverty, and the duty of manual labor, being solemnly enjoined on all the friars. Meanwhile alarming dropsical symptoms had developed, and it was in a dying condition that Francis set out for Assisi. A roundabout route was taken by the little caravan that escorted him, for it was feared to follow the direct road lest the saucy Perugians should attempt to carry Francis off by force so that he might die in their city, which would thus enter into possession of his coveted relics. It was therefore under a strong guard that Francis, in July, 1226, was finally borne in safety to the bishop's palace in his native city amid the enthusiastic rejoicings of the entire populace. In the early autumn Francis, feeling the hand of death upon him, was carried to his beloved Porziuncola, that he might breathe his last sigh where his vocation had been revealed to him and whence his order had struggled into sight. On the way thither he asked to be set down, and with painful effort he invoked a beautiful blessing on Assisi, which, however, his eyes could no longer discern. The saint's last days were passed at the Porziuncola in a tiny hut, near the chapel, that served as an infirmary. The arrival there about this time of the Lady Jacoba of Settesoli, who had come with her two sons and a great retinue to bid Francis farewell, caused some consternation, since women were forbidden to enter the friary. But Francis in his tender gratitude to this Roman noblewoman, made an exception in her favour, and "Brother Jacoba", as Francis had named her on account of her fortitude, remained to the last. On the eve of his death, the saint, in imitation of his Divine Master, had bread brought to him and broken. This he distributed among those present, blessing Bernard of Quintaville, his first companion, Elias, his vicar, and all the others in order. "I have done my part," he said next, "may Christ teach you to do yours." Then wishing to give a last token of detachment and to show he no longer had anything in common with the world, Francis removed his poor habit and lay down on the bare ground, covered with a borrowed cloth, rejoicing that he was able to keep faith with his Lady Poverty to the end. After a while he asked to have read to him the Passion according to St. John, and then in faltering tones he himself intoned Psalm cxli. At the concluding verse, "Bring my soul out of prison", Francis was led away from earth by "Sister Death", in whose praise he had shortly before added a new strophe to his "Canticle of the Sun". It was Saturday evening, 3 October, 1226, Francis being then in the forty-fifth year of his age, and the twentieth from his perfect conversion to Christ. The saint had, in his humility, it is said, expressed a wish to be buried on the Colle d'Inferno, a despised hill without Assisi, where criminals were executed. However this may be, his body was, on 4 October, borne in triumphant procession to the city, a halt being made at St. Damian's, that St. Clare and her companions might venerate the sacred stigmata now visible to all, and it was placed provisionally in the church of St. George (now within the enclosure of the monastery of St. Clare), where the saint had learned to read and had first preached. Many miracles are recorded to have taken place at his tomb. Francis was canonized at St. George's by Gregory IX, 16 July, 1228. On that day following the pope laid the first stone of the great double church of St. Francis, erected in honour of the new saint, and thither on 25 May, 1230, Francis's remains were secretly transferred by Brother Elias and buried far down under the high altar in the lower church. Here, after lying hidden for six centuries, like that of St. Clare's, Francis's coffin was found, 12 December, 1818, as a result of a toilsome search lasting fifty-two nights. This discovery of the saint's body is commemorated in the order by a special office on 12 December, and that of his translation by another on 25 May. His feast is kept throughout the Church on 4 October, and the impression of the stigmata on his body is celebrated on 17 September. It has been said with pardonable warmth that Francis entered into glory in his lifetime, and that he is the one saint whom all succeeding generations have agreed in canonizing. Certain it is that those also who care little about the order he founded, and who have but scant sympathy with the Church to which he ever gave his devout allegiance, even those who know that Christianity to be Divine, find themselves, instinctively as it were, looking across the ages for guidance to the wonderful Umbrian Poverello, and invoking his name in grateful remembrance. This unique position Francis doubtless owes in no small measure to his singularly lovable and winsome personality. Few saints ever exhaled "the good odour of Christ" to such a degree as he. There was about Francis, moreover, a chivalry and a poetry which gave to his other- worldliness a quite romantic charm and beauty. Other saints have seemed entirely dead to the world around them, but Francis was ever thoroughly in touch with the spirit of the age. He delighted in the songs of Provence, rejoiced in the new-born freedom of his native city, and cherished what Dante calls the pleasant sound of his dear land. And this exquisite human element in Francis's character was the key to that far-reaching, all-embracing sympathy, which may be almost called his characteristic gift. In his heart, as an old chronicler puts it, the whole world found refuge, the poor, the sick and the fallen being the objects of his solicitude in a more special manner. Heedless as Francis ever was of the world's judgments in his own regard, it was always his constant care to respect the opinions of all and to wound the feelings of none. Wherefore he admonishes the friars to use only low and mean tables, so that "if a beggar were to come to sit down near them he might believe that he was but with his equals and need not blush on account of his poverty." One night, we are told, the friary was aroused by the cry "I am dying." "Who are you", exclaimed Francis arising, "and why are dying?" "I am dying of hunger", answered the voice of one who had been too prone to fasting. Whereupon Francis had a table laid out and sat down beside the famished friar, and lest the latter might be ashamed to eat alone, ordered all the other brethren to join in the repast. Francis's devotedness in consoling the afflicted made him so condescending that he shrank not from abiding with the lepers in their loathly lazar-houses and from eating with them out of the same platter. But above all it is his dealings with the erring that reveal the truly Christian spirit of his charity. "Saintlier than any of the saint", writes Celano, "among sinners he was as one of themselves". Writing to a certain minister in the order, Francis says: "Should there be a brother anywhere in the world who has sinned, no matter how great soever his fault may be, let him not go away after he has once seen thy face without showing pity towards him; and if he seek not mercy, ask him if he does not desire it. And by this I will know if you love God and me." Again, to medieval notions of justice the evil-doer was beyond the law and there was no need to keep faith with him. But according to Francis, not only was justice due even to evil-doers, but justice must be preceded by courtesy as by a herald. Courtesy, indeed, in the saint's quaint concept, was the younger sister of charity and one of the qualities of God Himself, Who "of His courtesy", he declares, "gives His sun and His rain to the just and the unjust". This habit of courtesy Francis ever sought to enjoin on his disciples. "Whoever may come to us", he writes, "whether a friend or a foe, a thief or a robber, let him be kindly received", and the feast which he spread for the starving brigands in the forest at Monte Casale sufficed to show that "as he taught so he wrought". The very animals found in Francis a tender friend and protector; thus we find him pleading with the people of Gubbio to feed the fierce wolf that had ravished their flocks, because through hunger "Brother Wolf" had done this wrong. And the early legends have left us many an idyllic picture of how beasts and birds alike susceptible to the charm of Francis's gentle ways, entered into loving companionship with him; how the hunted leveret sought to attract his notice; how the half-frozen bees crawled towards him in the winter to be fed; how the wild falcon fluttered around him; how the nightingale sang with him in sweetest content in the ilex grove at the Carceri, and how his "little brethren the birds" listened so devoutly to his sermon by the roadside near Bevagna that Francis chided himself for not having thought of preaching to them before. Francis's love of nature also stands out in bold relief in the world he moved in. He delighted to commune with the wild flowers, the crystal spring, and the friendly fire, and to greet the sun as it rose upon the fair Umbrian vale. In this respect, indeed, St. Francis's "gift of sympathy" seems to have been wider even than St.Paul's, for we find no evidence in the great Apostle of a love for nature or for animals. Hardly less engaging than his boundless sense of fellow-feeling was Francis's downright sincerity and artless simplicity. "Dearly beloved," he once began a sermon following upon a severe illness, "I have to confess to God and you that during this Lent I have eaten cakes made with lard." And when the guardian insisted for the sake of warmth upon Francis having a fox skin sewn under his worn-out tunic, the saint consented only upon condition that another skin of the same size be sewn outside. For it was his singular study never to hide from men that which known to God. "What a man is in the sight of God," he was wont to repeat, "so much he is and no more" -- a saying which passed into the "Imitation", and has been often quoted. Another winning trait of Francis which inspires the deepest affection was his unswerving directness of purpose and unfaltering following after an ideal. "His dearest desire so long as he lived", Celano tells us, "was ever to seek among wise and simple, perfect and imperfect, the means to walk in the way of truth." To Francis love was the truest of all truths; hence his deep sense of personal responsibility towards his fellows. The love of Christ and Him Crucified permeated the whole life and character of Francis, and he placed the chief hope of redemption and redress for a suffering humanity in the literal imitation of his Divine Master. The saint imitated the example of Christ as literally as it was in him to do so; barefoot, and in absolute poverty, he proclaimed the reign of love. This heroic imitation of Christ's poverty was perhaps the distinctive mark of Francis's vocation, and he was undoubtedly, as Bossuet expresses it, the most ardent, enthusiastic, and desperate lover of poverty the world has yet seen. After money Francis most detested discord and divisions. Peace, therefore, became his watchword, and the pathetic reconciliation he effected in his last days between the Bishop and Potesta of Assisi is bit one instance out of many of his power to quell the storms of passion and restore tranquility to hearts torn asunder by civil strife. The duty of a servant of God, Francis declared, was to lift up the hearts of men and move them to spiritual gladness. Hence it was not "from monastic stalls or with the careful irresponsibility of the enclosed student" that the saint and his followers addressed the people" "they dwelt among them and grappled with the evils of the system under which the people groaned". They worked in return for their fare, doing for the lowest the most menial labour, and speaking to the poorest words of hope such as the world had not heard for many a day. In this wise Francis bridged the chasm between an aristocratic clergy and the common people, and though he taught no new doctrine, he so far repopularized the old one given on the Mount that the Gospel took on a new life and called forth a new love. Such in briefest outline are some of the salient features which render the figure of Francis one of such supreme attraction that all manner of men feel themselves drawn towards him, with a sense of personal attachment. Few, however, of those who feel the charm of Francis's personality may follow the saint to his lonely height of rapt communion with God. For, however engaging a "minstrel of the Lord", Francis was none the less a profound mystic in the truest sense of the word. The whole world was to him one luminous ladder, mounting upon the rungs of which he approached and beheld God. It is very misleading, however, to portray Francis as living "at a height where dogma ceases to exist", and still further from the truth to represent the trend of his teaching as one in which orthodoxy is made subservient to "humanitarianism". A very cursory inquiry into Francis's religious belief suffices to show that it embraced the entire Catholic dogma, nothing more or less. If then the saint's sermons were on the whole moral rather than doctrinal, it was less because he preached to meet the wants of his day, and those whom he addressed had not strayed from dogmatic truth; they were still "hearers", if not "doers", of the Word. For this reason Francis set aside all questions more theoretical than practical, and returned to the Gospel. Again, to see in Francis only the loving friend of all God's creatures, the joyous singer of nature, is to overlook altogether that aspect of his work which is the explanation of all the rest -- its supernatural side. Few lives have been more wholly imbued with the supernatural, as even Renan admits. Nowhere, perhaps, can there be found a keener insight into the innermost world of spirit, yet so closely were the supernatural and the natural blended in Francis, that his very asceticism was often clothed in the guide of romance, as witness his wooing the Lady Poverty, in a sense that almost ceased to be figurative. For Francis's singularly vivid imagination was impregnate with the imagery of the chanson de geste, and owing to his markedly dramatic tendency, he delighted in suiting his action to his thought. So, too, the saint's native turn for the picturesque led him to unite religion and nature. He found in all created things, however trivial, some reflection of the Divine perfection, and he loved to admire in them the beauty, power, wisdom, and goodness of their Creator. And so it came to pass that he saw sermons even in stones, and good in everything. Moreover, Francis's simple, childlike nature fastened on the thought, that if all are from one Father then all are real kin. Hence his custom of claiming brotherhood with all manner of animate and inanimate objects. The personification, therefore, of the elements in the "Canticle of the Sun" is something more than a mere literary figure. Francis's love of creatures was not simply the offspring of a soft or sentimental disposition; it arose rather from that deep and abiding sense of the presence of God, which underlay all he said and did. Even so, Francis's habitual cheerfulness was not that of a careless nature, or of one untouched by sorrow. None witnessed Francis's hidden struggles, his long agonies of tears, or his secret wrestlings in prayer. And if we meet him making dumb-show of music, by playing a couple of sticks like a violin to give vent to his glee, we also find him heart-sore with foreboding at the dire dissensions in the order which threatened to make shipwreck of his ideal. Nor were temptations or other weakening maladies of the soul wanting to the saint at any time. Francis's lightsomeness had its source in that entire surrender of everything present and passing, in which he had found the interior liberty of the children of God; it drew its strength from his intimate union with Jesus in the Holy Communion. The mystery of the Holy Eucharist, being an extension of the Passion, held a preponderant place in the life of Francis, and he had nothing more at heart than all that concerned the cultus of the Blessed Sacrament. Hence we not only hear of Francis conjuring the clergy to show befitting respect for everything connected with the Sacrifice of the Mass, but we also see him sweeping out poor churches, questing sacred vessels for them, and providing them with altar-breads made by himself. So great, indeed, was Francis's reverence for the priesthood, because of its relation to the Adorable Sacrament, that in his humility he never dared to aspire to that dignity. Humility was, no doubt, the saint's ruling virtue. The idol of an enthusiastic popular devotion, he ever truly believed himself less than the least. Equally admirable was Francis's prompt and docile obedience to the voice of grace within him, even in the early days of his ill-defined ambition, when the spirit of interpretation failed him. Later on, the saint, with as clear as a sense of his message as any prophet ever had, yielded ungrudging submission to what constituted ecclesiastical authority. No reformer, moreover, was ever, less aggressive than Francis. His apostolate embodied the very noblest spirit of reform; he strove to correct abuses by holding up an ideal. He stretched out his arms in yearning towards those who longed for the "better gifts". The others he left alone. And thus, without strife or schism, God's Poor Little Man of Assisi became the means of renewing the youth of the Church and of imitating the most potent and popular religious movement since the beginnings of Christianity. No doubt this movement had its social as well as its religious side. That the Third Order of St. Francis went far towards re-Christianizing medieval society is a matter of history. However, Francis's foremost aim was a religious one. To rekindle the love of God in the world and reanimate the life of the spirit in the hearts of men -- such was his mission. But because St. Francis sought first the Kingdom of God and His justice, many other things were added unto him. And his own exquisite Franciscan spirit, as it is called, passing out into the wide world, became an abiding source of inspiration. Perhaps it savours of exaggeration to say, as has been said, that "all the threads of civilization in the subsequent centuries seem to hark back to Francis", and that since his day "the character of the whole Roman Catholic Church is visibly Umbrian". It would be difficult, none the less, to overestimate the effect produced by Francis upon the mind of his time, or the quickening power he wielded on the generations which have succeeded him. To mention two aspects only of his all-pervading influence, Francis must surely be reckoned among those to whom the world of art and letters is deeply indebted. Prose, as Arnold observes, could not satisfy the saint's ardent soul, so he made poetry. He was, indeed, too little versed in the laws of composition to advance far in that direction. But his was the first cry of a nascent poetry which found its highest expression in the "Divine Comedy"; wherefore Francis has been styled the precursor of Dante. What the saint did was to teach a people "accustomed to the artificial versification of courtly Latin and Provencal poets, the use of their native tongue in simple spontaneous hymns, which became even more popular with the Laudi and Cantici of his poet-follower Jacopone of Todi". In so far, moreover, as Francis's repraesentatio, as Salimbene calls it, of the stable at Bethlehem is the first mystery-play we hear of in Italy, he is said to have borne a part in the revival of the drama. However this may be, if Francis's love of song called forth the beginnings of Italian verse, his life no less brought about the birth of Italian art. His story, says Ruskin, became a passionate tradition painted everywhere with delight. Full of colour, dramatic possibilities, and human interest, the early Franciscan legend afforded the most popular material for painters since the life of Christ. No sooner, indeed did Francis's figure make an appearance in art than it became at once a favourite subject, especially with the mystical Umbrian School. So true is this that it has been said we might by following his familiar figure "construct a history of Christian art, from the predecessors of Cimabue down to Guido Reni, Rubens, and Van Dyck". Probably the oldest likeness of Francis that has come down to us is that preserved in the Sacro Speco at Subiaco. It is said that it was painted by a Benedictine monk during the saint's visit there, which may have been in 1218. The absence of the stigmata, halo, and title of saint in this fresco form its chief claim to be considered a contemporary picture; it is not, however, a real portrait in the modern sense of the word, and we are dependent for the traditional presentment of Francis rather on artists' ideals, like the Della Robbia statue at the Porziuncola, which is surely the saint's vera effigies, as no Byzantine so-called portrait can ever be, and the graphic description of Francis given by Celano (Vita Prima, c.lxxxiii). Of less than middle height, we are told, and frail in form, Francis had a long yet cheerful face and soft but strong voice, small brilliant black eyes, dark brown hair, and a sparse beard. His person was in no way imposing, yet there was about the saint a delicacy, grace, and distinction which made him most attractive. The literary materials for the history of St. Francis are more than usually copious and authentic. There are indeed few if any medieval lives more thoroughly documented. We have in the first place the saint's own writings. These are not voluminous and were never written with a view to setting forth his ideas systematically, yet they bear the stamp of his personality and are marked by the same unvarying features of his preaching. A few leading thoughts taken "from the words of the Lord" seemed to him all sufficing, and these he repeats again and again, adapting them to the needs of the different persons whom he addresses. Short, simple, and informal, Francis's writings breathe the unstudied love of the Gospel and enforce the same practical morality, while they abound in allegories and personification and reveal an intimate interweaving of Biblical phraseology. Not all the saint's writings have come down to us, and not a few of these formerly attributed to him are now with greater likelihood ascribed to others. The extant and authentic opuscula of Francis comprise, besides the rule of the Friars Minor and some fragments of the other Seraphic legislation, several letters, including one addressed "to all the Christians who dwell in the whole world," a series of spiritual counsels addressed to his disciples, the "Laudes Creaturarum" or "Canticle of the Sun", and some lesser praises, an Office of the Passion compiled for his own use, and few other orisons which show us Francis even as Celano saw him, "not so much a man's praying as prayer itself". In addition to the saint's writings the sources of the history of Francis include a number of early papal bulls and some other diplomatic documents, as they are called, bearing upon his life and work. Then come the biographies properly so called. These include the lives written 1229-1247 by Thomas of Celano, one of Francis's followers; a joint narrative of his life compiled by Leo, Rufinus, and Angelus, intimate companions of the saint, in 1246; and the celebrated legend of St. Bonaventure, which appeared about 1263; besides a somewhat more polemic legend called the "Speculum Perfectionis", attributed to Brother Leo, the sate of which is a matter of controversy. There are also several important thirteenth- century chronicles of the order, like those of Jordan, Eccleston, and Bernard of Besse, and not a few later works, such as the "Chronica XXIV. Generalium" and the "Liber de Conformitate", which are in some sort a continuation of them. It is upon these works that all the later biographies of Francis's life are based. Recent years have witnessed a truly remarkable upgrowth of interest in the life and work of St. Francis, more especially among non-Catholics, and Assisi has become in consequence the goal of a new race of pilgrims. This interest, for the most part literary and academic, is centered mainly in the study of the primitive documents relating to the saint's history and the beginnings of the Franciscan Order. Although inaugurated some years earlier, this movement received its greatest impulse from the publication in 1894 of Paul Sabatier's "Vie de S. Franc,ois", a work which was almost simultaneously crowned by the French Academy and place upon the Index. In spite of the author's entire lack of sympathy with the saint's religious standpoint, his biography of Francis bespeaks vast erudition, deep research, and rare critical insight, and it has opened up a new era in the study of Franciscan resources. To further this study and International Society of Franciscan Studies was founded at Assisi in 1902, the aim of which is to collect a complete library of works on Franciscan history and to compile a catalogue of scattered Franciscan manuscripts; several periodicals, devoted to Franciscan documents and discussions exclusively, have moreover been established in different countries. Although a large literature has grown up around the figure of the Poverello within a short time, nothing new of essential value has been added to what was already known of the saint. The energetic research work of recent years has resulted in the recovery of several important early texts, and has called forth many really fine critical studies dealing with the sources, but the most welcome feature of the modern interest in Franciscan origins has been the careful re-editing and translating of Francis's own writings and of nearly all the contemporary manuscript authorities bearing on his life. Not a few of the controverted questions connected therewith are of considerable import, even to those not especially students of the Franciscan legend, but they could not be made intelligible within the limits of the present article. It must suffice, moreover, to indicate only some of the chief works on the life of St. Francis. The writings of St. Francis have been published in "Opuscula S. P. Francisci Assisiensis" (Quaracchi, 1904); Boehmer, "Analekten zur Geschichte des Franciscus von Assisi" (Tuebingen, 1904); U. d'Alenc,on, "Les Opuscules de S. Franc,ois d' Assise" (Paris, 1905); Robinson, "The Writings of St. Francis of Assisi" (Philadelphia, 1906). PASCHAL ROBINSON Bl. Francis of Fabriano Bl. Francis of Fabriano Priest of the Order of Friars Minor; b. 2 Sept., 1251; d. 22 April, 1322. His birth and childhood were remarkable for evident signs of future sanctity. He was also gifted with rare talents. Having successfully completed the study of humanities and of philosophy, he asked for admission at a neighboring Franciscan convent, in 1267. Under the guidance of able masters he made rapid porgress in religious perfection. Subsequently he applied himself to the study of theology, and devoted the remainder of his life to missionary labours in his native town and vicinity. As missionary Blessed Francis has become a shining example to the preachers of the Seraphic Order. He was a man of prayer and untiring study. In accordance with the words of the rule, "Ut sint examinate et casta eorum eloquia", he was deeply convinced that the friars must announce to the faithful only well-grounded and authentic doctrine, in unambiguous and carefully sifted language. Ever mindful of this principle, Francis logically took a further step which has signalized him as a far-sighted and truly progressive member of his order. As a consequence of the extensive proportions theological studies had assumed since the time of St. Francis, the humble collections of biblical and patristic works, which were found in the early Franciscan communities, no longer met the demands of the student and preacher. Hence, Francis, heedless of any disapproving voice, promptly purchased with his father's money a handsome library, the first on an extended scale established in the order. He loved to call it the "best workshop in the convent", and its catalogue, mentioned by Wadding, contains numerous works of the Fathers, the masters of theology, biblical commentators, philosophers, mathematicians, and preachers, which shows that Francis was indeed, in this respect, quite abreast of his time. No wonder, then that we find all his biographers in accord with Mark of Lisbon, who styles him a "most learned man and renowned preacher". Of the writings of Francis Venimbeni little has been published. His "Chronica Marchiae et Fabriani", his "De veritate et excellentia Indulgentiae S. Mariae de Portiuncula", and the "Opusculum de serie et gestis Ministrorum Generalium", all three probably forming one extensive chronicle, have unfortunately disappeared, save a few precious fragments bearing on the most salient questions of early Franciscan history. Besides several treatises of a philosophical, ascetical, and didactic character, he wrote an "Ars Praedicantium", numerous "Sermons", and a beautiful elegy on the death of St. Bonaventure. Despite his literary pursuits and manifold missionary occupations Francis found ample time for ascetical practices and works of an all-embracing charity. God testified to the sanctity of His servant by many signs and miracles. His cult was approved by Pius VI in 1775. The biography of Blessed Francis was written by his nephew, DOMINIC FESSI, and other contemporary wrriters. WADDING has collected and utilized their accounts for his Annals. PULIGNANI, Miscell. Francesc., X, 69 sq. enumerates the more recent biographers of F., and recommends especially two books by LUIGI TASSO: Discorso laudatorio del B. Francesco Venimbeni da Fabriano (Fabriano, 1881), and Vita del B. Francesco da Fabriano dell' ordine dei Minori (Fabriano, 1893). The latter contains a brief treatise by Francis, and his elegy on St. Bonaventure. Extracts from his Chronicle have been edited by PULIGNANI, op. cit., 69-72. Cf. DE CLARY, L Aureole Seraph., tr. Lives of the Saints and Blessed of the three Orders of St. Francis (Taunton, 1882) II, 171-175; WADDING, Annales (Rome, 1731), III, 244, 245, IV, 276-278, 400, VI, 377-385; IDEM, Scriptores (Rome, 1659), 115; SBARALEA, Supplementum (Rome, 1806), 252; Acta SS. (Venice, 1734-), April, III, 88-94. THOMAS PLASSMANN St. Francis of Paula St. Francis of Paula Founder of the Order of Minims; b. in 1416, at Paula, in Calabria, Italy; d. 2 April, 1507, at Plessis, France. His parents were remarkable for the holiness of their lives. Remaining childless for some years after their marriage they had recourse to prayer, especially commending themselves to the intercession of St. Francis of Assisi. Three children were eventually born to them, eldest of whom was Francis. When still in the cradle he suffered from a swelling which endangered the sight of one of his eyes. His parents again had recourse to Francis of Assisi, and made a vow that their son should pass an entire year in the "little habit" of St Francis in one of the convents of his order, a not uncommon practice in the Middle Ages. The child was immediately cured. From his early years Francis showed signs of extraordinary sanctity, and at the age of thirteen, being admonished by a vision of a Franciscan friar, he entered a convent of the Franciscan Order in order to fulfil the vow made by his parents. Here he gave great edification by his love of prayer and mortification, his profound humility, and his prompt obedience. At the completion of the year he went with his parents on a pilgrimage to Assisi, Rome, and other places of devotion. Returning to Paula he selected a retired spot on his father's estate, and there lived in solitude; but later on he found a more retired dwelling in a cave on the sea coast. Here he remained alone for about six years giving himself to prayer and mortification. In 1435 two companions joined him in his retreat, and to accommodate them Francis caused three cells and a chapel to be built: in this way the new order was begun. The number of his disciples gradually increased, and about 1454, with the permission of Pyrrhus, Archbishop of cosenza, Francis built a large monastery and church. The building of this monastery was the occasion of a great outburst of enthusiasm and devotion on the part of the people towards Francis: even the nobles carried stones and joined in the work. Their devotion was increased by the many miracles which the saint wrought in answer to their prayers. The rule of life adopted by Francis and his religious was one of extraordinary severity. They observed perpetual abstinence and lived in great poverty, but the distinguishing mark of the order was humility. They were to seek to live unknown and hidden from the world. To express this character which he would have his disciples cultivate, Francis eventually obtained from the Holy See that they should be styled Minims, the least of all religious. In 1474 Sixtus IV gave him permission to write a rule for his community, and to assume the title of Hermits of St. Francis: this rule was formally approved by Alexander VI, who, however, changed their title into that of Minims. After the approbation of the order, Francis founded several new monasteries in Calabria and Sicily. He also established convents of nuns, and a third order for people living in the world, after the example of St. Francis of Assisi. He had an extraordinary gift of prophecy: thus he foretold the capture of Otranto by the Turks in 1480, and its subsequent recovery by the King of Naples. Also he was gifted with discernment of consciences. He was no respecter of persons of whatever rank or position. He rebuked the King of Naples for his ill-doing and in consequence suffered much persecution. When Louis XI was in his last illness he sent an embassy to Calabria to beg the saint to visit him. Francis refused to come nor could he be prevailed upon until the pope ordered him to go. He then went to the king at Plessis-les-Tours and was with him at his death. Charles VIII, Louis's successor, much admired the saint and during his reign kept him near the court and frequently consulted him. This king built a monastery for Minims at Plessis and another at Rome on the Pincian Hill. The regard in which Charles VIII held the saint was shared by Louis XII, who succeeded to the throne in 1498. Francis was now anxious to return to Italy, but the king would not permit him, not wishing to lose his counsels and direction. The last three mouths of his life he spent in entire solitude, preparing for death. On Maundy Thursday he gathered his community around him and exhorted them especially to have mutual charity amongst themselves and to maintain the rigour of their life and in particular perpetual abstinence. The next day, Good Friday, he again called them together and gave them his last instructions and appointed a vicar-general. He then received the last sacraments and asked to have the Passion according to St. John read out to him, and whilst this was being read, his soul passed away. Leo X canonized him in 1019. In 1562 the Huguenots broke open his tomb and found his body incorrupt. They dragged it forth and burnt it, but some of the bones were preserved by the Catholics and enshrined in various churches of his order. The Order of Minims does not seem at any time to have been very extensive, but they had houses in many countries. The definitive rule was approved in 1506 by Julius II, who also approved a rule for the nuns of the order. The feast of St. Francis of Paula is kept by the universal Church on 2 April, the day on which he died. FATHER CUTHBERT Francis of Vittoria Francis of Vittoria A Spanish theologian; b. about 1480, at Vittoria, province of Avila, in Old Castile; d. 12 August, 1546. While still young, he moved with his parents from their native city to Burgos, at that time the ordinary sojourn of the sovereigns of Castile. He received his early education in the schools of that place, and, on the completion of his academic studies, entered the Order of St. Dominic. While he devoted his energies to the study of the sacred sciences, the mastery of which made him an ornament to the Church, to his order, and to the Universities of Spain, he was assiduous in the practice of piety. After his religious profession he was sent to the convent of St. James in Paris then the chief house of studies of the order and affiliated with the University of Paris, where he made the best use of the advantages held out to him for the prosecution of his philosophical and theological studies. In 1516, he was appointed to teach in this convent, and it was here, in all probability that he had for his pupil Dominic de Soto. In 1522, he returned to Spain and taught theology in the Dominican College of St. Gregory at Valladolid till 1524, when he was appointed to the principal chair of theology in the University of Salamanca which he held till 1544. The influence which Francis exerted directly in the University of Salamanca and indirectly in the universities of Alcala, Coimbra, Evora, Seville, Vailadolid, and others, forms an interesting chapter in the history of theology. More than any other then theologian of his time, he ministered to the actual intellectual needs of the Church. Scholasticism had lost its former prestige, and was passing through the most critical period in its history. The times had changed, and it required a master to adapt speculative thought to the new condition. The revival of theological activity in the Catholic universities of this period, consequent upon the doctrines of the reformers, and the development of theological speculation inspired Francis to inaugurate a movement for the restoration of scholastic philosophy, and to give to theological science a purer diction and an improved literary form. With foresight and ability he devoted all his energies to the undertaking, and his success is attested by the many excellent theological works that were produced in Spain during the sixteenth century. Among his disciples were Melchior Cano, Bartholomew Medina, Dominic de Soto, and Martin de Ledesma, by whose efforts and that of the great Carmelite teachers a new zest was given to the study of St. Thomas, and by whose aid Francis was able to extend his influence to the other universities of Spain. He is justly styled the father of the Salmantacensis School, and especially of the new Scholasticism. His style, simple and unrhetorical, is the more noteworthy for having attained its simplicity in the golden age of Humanism. He left a large number of valuable manuscripts, but his only published work is the "Relectiones XII Theologicae in duo libros distinctae" (Antwerp, 1604). The most important of his unpublished works is his "commentaria in universam summam S. Thomae". JOSEPH SCHROEDER Bl. Francis Regis Clet Blessed Francis Regis Clet A Lazarist missionary in China; b. 1748, martyred, 18 Feb., 1820. His father was a merchant of Grenoble in France, his mother's name was Claudine Bourquy. He was the tenth of fifteen children. The family was deeply religious, several members of it having consecrated themselves to God. Francis attended the Jesuit college at Grenoble and afterwards entered the diocesan seminary which was in charge of the Oratorians. His extant letters in French and Latin show a cultivated mind. On 6 Mar., 1769, he entered the novitiate of the Congregation of the Mission or Lazarists, at Lyons. There he made his vows in 1771 and was ordained priest in 1773. The same year he went as professor of moral theology to the diocesian seminary at Annecy. His zeal and learning produced excellent fruits. In the sixteenth year of his stay at Annecy he was sent to Paris for the election of a superior general of the congregation. He did not return, for the new superior general appointed him director of the internal seminary, at the motherhouse in Paris. Scarcely a year had elapsed when the sacking of St. Lazare, on the eve of the taking of the Bastille, scattered his flock. Many of the young men returned to the dismantled house the next day and gathered around their director, but the fury of the revolution prevented their remaining. It was at this period that his ambition to become missionary was manifested. His superior yielded to his desires, and he was sent to China in 1791. The first post assigned him was in Kiang-Si, one of the most destitute Christian settlements in China. He had great difficulty in acquiring the language, which he never fully mastered. The next year he was sent to Hou-Kouang where he laboured for 27 years. Death soon deprived him of his two brother-priests and for several years he ministered alone to a vast district. In spite of difficulties, he succeeded in keeping up the fervour of the Christians and bringing many pagans to fold. In July, 1812, his church and schoolhouse were destroyed, but he escaped. In 1818 the persecution broke out again with renewed fury. After several remarkable escapes from the seaching parties, he was bestrayed by a Chinese Christian, for the 1500 dollars set on his head, and was taken, 16 June, 1819. He had to undergo the greatest cruelty for five weeks, but not a word of complaint escaped him. Being transferred to another prison, he was treated more humanely and found there Father Chen, a Chinese Lazarist, from whom he could receive the sacraments. On 1 Jan., 1820, however, sentence of death was passed on him. The execution took place, 18 Feb., 1820. He was tied to a stake erected like a cross, and was strangled to death, the rope having been relaxed twice to give him a three-fold death agony. He was beautified by Pope Leo XIII, 27 May, 1900, and his feast day is on the 17 February. His remains rest in the chapel of the mother house of the Lazarists, in Paris. His holy life and death were the inspiration of Blessed John Gabriel Perboyre, also a Lazarist, who was martyred in China in 1840. Lives by VAURIS (Paris, 1853); DEMINUID (2 vols., Paris, 1893); RONGEST (Paris, 1900); DE MONGESTY (Paris, 1906). B. RANDOLPH St. Francis Solanus St. Francis Solanus South American missionary of the Order of Friars Minor; b. at Montilla, in the Diocese of Cordova, Spain, 10 March, 1549; d. at Lima, Peru, 14 July, 1610. His parents, Matthew Sanchez Solanus and Anna Ximenes, were distinguished no less for their noble birth than for their virtue and piety. When Francis was twenty years old, he was received into the Franciscan Order at Montilla, and after his ordination, several years later, he was sent by his superiors to the convent of Arifazza as master of novices. In 1589 he sailed from Spain to the New World, and having landed at Panama, crossed the isthmus and embarked on a vessel that was to convey him to Peru. His missionary labours in South America extended over a period of twenty years, during which time he spared no fatigue, shrank from no sacrifice however great, and feared no danger that stood in the way of evangelizing the vast and savage regions of Tucuman and Paraguay. So successful, indeed, was his apostolate that he has been aptly styled the Thaumaturgus of the New World. Notwithstanding the number and difficulty of the dialects spoken by the Indians, he learned them all in a very short time, and it is said that he often addressed tribes of different tongues in one language and was understood by them all. Besides being engaged in active missionary work, he filled the office of custos of the convents of his order in Tucuman and Paraguay, and later was elected guardian of the Franciscan convent in Lima, Peru. In 1610, while preaching at Truxillo he foretold the calamities that were to befall that city, which was destroyed by an earthquake eight years later, most of the inhabitants perishing in the ruins. The death of St. Francis, which he himself had foretold, was the cause of general grief throughout Peru. In his funeral sermon at the burial of the saint, Father Sebastiani, S.J., said that "Divine Providence had chosen Father Francis Solanus to be the hope and edification of all Peru, the example and glory of Lima and the splendour of the Seraphic Order". St. Francis was beatified by Clement X, in 1675, and canonized by Benedict XIII, in 1726. His feast is kept throughout the Franciscan Order on the twenty-fourth of July. "Life of St. Francis Solanus" (New York, 1888); LEO, "Lives of the Saints and Blessed of the Three Orders of St. Francis" (Taunton, 1886), II 509-522; Acta SS., July, V, 847-901. STEPHEN M. DONOVAN St. Francis Xavier St. Francis Xavier Born in the Castle of Xavier near Sanguesa, in Navarre, 7 April, 1506; died on the Island of Sancian near the coast of China, 2 December, 1552. In 1525, having completed a preliminary course of studies in his own country, Francis Xavier went to Paris, where he entered the college de Sainte-Barbe. Here he met the Savoyard, Pierre Favre, and a warm personal friendship sprang up between them. It was at this same college that St. Ignatius Loyola, who was already planning the foundation of the Society of Jesus, resided for a time as a guest in 1529. He soon won the confidence of the two young men; first Favre and later Xavier offered themselves with him in the formation of the Society. Four others, Lainez, Salmeron, Rodriguez, and Bobadilla, having joined them, the seven made the famous vow of Montmartre, 15 Aug., 1534. After completing his studies in Paris and filling the post of teacher there for some time, Xavier left the city with his companions 15 November, 1536, and turned his steps to Venice, where he displayed zeal and charity in attending the sick in the hospitals. On 24 June, 1537, he received Holy orders with St. Ignatius. The following year he went to Rome, and after doing apostolic work there for some months, during the spring of 1539 he took part in the conferences which St. Ignatius held with his companions to prepare for the definitive foundation of the Society of Jesus. The order was approved verbally 3 September, and before the written approbation was secured, which was not until a year later, Xavier was appointed, at the earnest solicitation of the John III, King of Portugal, to evangelize the people of the East Indies. He left Rome 16 March, 1540, and reached Lisbon about June. Here he remained nine months, giving many admirable examples of apostolic zeal. On 7 April, 1541, he embarked in a sailing vessel for India, and after a tedious and dangerous voyage landed at Goa, 6 May, 1542. The first five months he spent in preaching and ministering to the sick in the hospitals. He would go through the streets ringing a little bell and inviting the children to hear the word of God. When he had gathered a number, he would take them to a certain church and would there explain the catechism to them. About October, 1542, he started for the pearl fisheries of the extreme southern coast of the peninsula, desirous of restoring Christanity which, although introduced years before, had almost disappeared on account of the lack of priests. He devoted almost three years to the work of preaching to the people of Western India, converting many, and reaching in his journeys even the Island of Ceylon. Many were the difficulties and hardships which Xavier had to encounter at this time, sometimes on account of the cruel persecutions which some of the petty kings of the country carried on against the neophytes, and again because the Portuguese soldiers, far from seconding the work of the saint, retarded it by their bad example and vicious habits. In the spring of 1545 Xavier started for Malacca. He laboured there for the last months of that year, and although he reaped an abundant spiritual harvest, he was not able to root out certain abuses, and was conscious that many sinners had resisted his efforts to bring them back to God. About January, 1546, Xavier left Malacca and went to Molucca Islands, where the Portuguese had some settlements, and for a year and a half he preached the Gospel to the inhabitants of Amboyna, Ternate, Baranura, and other lesser islands which it has been difficult to identify. It is claimed by some that during this expedition he landed on the island of Mindanao, and for this reason St. Francis Xavier has been called the first Apostle of the Philippines. But although this statement is made by some writers of the seventeenth century, and in the Bull of canonization issued in 1623, it is said that he preached the Gospel in Mindanao, up to the present time it has not been proved absolutely that St. Francis Xavier ever landed in the Philippines. By July, 1547, he was again in Malacca. Here he met a Japanese called Anger (Han-Sir), from whom he obtained much information about Japan. His zeal was at once aroused by the idea of introducing Christanity into Japan, but for the time being the affairs of the Society demanded his presence at goa, whither he went, taking Anger with him. During the six years that Xavier had been working among the infidels, other Jesuit missionaries had arrived at Goa, sent from Europe by St. Ignatius; moreover some who had been born in the country had been received into the Society. In 1548 Xavier sent these missionaries to the principal centres of India, where he had established missions, so that the work might be preserved and continued. He also established a novitiate and house of studies, and having received into the Society Father Cosme de Torres, a spanish priest whom he had met in the Maluccas, he started with him and Brother Juan Fernandez for Japan towards the end of June, 1549. The Japanese Anger, who had been baptized at Goa and given the name of Pablo de Santa Fe, accompanied them. They landed at the city of Kagoshima in Japan, 15 Aug., 1549. The entire first year was devoted to learning the Japanese language and translating into Japanese, with the help of Pablo de Santa Fe, the principal articles of faith and short treatises which were to be employed in preaching and catechizing. When he was able to express himself, Xavier began preaching and made some converts, but these aroused the ill will of the bonzes, who had him banished from the city. Leaving Kagoshima about August, 1550, he penetrated to the centre of Japan, and preached the Gospel in some of the cities of southern Japan. Towards the end of that year he reached Meaco, then the principal city of Japan, but he was unable to make any headway here because of the dissensions the rending the country. He retraced his steps to the centre of Japan, and during 1551 preached in some important cities, forming the nucleus of several Christian communities, which in time increased with extraordinary rapidity. After working about two years and a half in Japan he left this mission in charge of Father Cosme de Torres and Brother Juan Fernandez, and returned to Goa, arriving there at the beginning of 1552. Here domestic troubles awaited him. Certain disagreements between the superior who had been left in charge of the missions, and the rector of the college, had to be adjusted. This, however, being arranged, Xavier turned his thoughts to China, and began to plan an expedition there. During his stay in Japan he had heard much of the Celestial Empire, and though he probably had not formed a proper estimate of his extent and greatness, he nevertheless understood how wide a field it afforded for the spread of the light of the Gospel. With the help of friends he arranged a commission or embassy the Sovereign of China, obtained from the Viceroy of India the appointment of ambassador, and in April, 1552, he left Goa. At Malacca the party encountered difficulties because the influential Portuguese disapproved of the expedition, but Xavier knew how to overcome this opposition, and in the autumn he arrived in a Portuguese vessel at the small island of Sancian near the coast of China. While planning the best means for reaching the mainland, he was taken ill, and as the movement of the vessel seemed to aggravate his condition, he was removed to the land, where a rude hut had been built to shelter him. In these wretched surroundings he breathed his last. It is truly a matter of wonder that one man in the short space of ten years (6 May, 1542 - 2 December, 1552) could have visited so many countries, traversed so many seas, preached the Gospel to so many nations, and converted so many infidels. The incomparable apostolic zeal which animated him, and the stupendous miracles which God wrought through him, explain this marvel, which has no equal elsewhere. The list of the principal miracles may be found in the Bull of canonization. St. Francis Xavier is considered the greatest missionary since the time of the Apostles, and the zeal he displayed, the wonderful miracles he performed, and the great number of souls he brought to the light of true Faith, entitle him to this distinction. He was canonized with St. Ignatius in 1622, although on account of the death of Gregory XV, the Bull of canonization was not published until the following year. The body of the saint is still enshrined at Goa in the church which formerly belonged to the Society. In 1614 by order of Claudius Acquaviva, General of the Society of Jesus, the right arm was severed at the elbow and conveyed to Rome, where the present altar was erected to receive it in the church of the Gesu. ANTONIO ASTRAIN Kasper Franck Kasper Franck A theologian and controversialist; b. at Ortrand, Saxony, 2 Nov., 1543; d. at Ingolstadt, 12 March, 1584. His parents were Lutherans and his early religious instruction filled him with enthusiasm for the new doctrine. His earnest desire for the conversion of his country led him to choose the ministry as his field of labour, and such was his zeal and success as a preacher that Count Ladislaus of Haag, who had but recently introduced the reformed faith into his province, invited him to his court. The premature death, however, of Ladislaus prevented Franck from carrying out the proposed plans of reform. Duke Albert, the successor of Ladislaus, resolved to restore the Catholic religion, and to that end called to his assistance the famous convert and preacher, Martin Eisengrein. His intercourse with Eisengrein soon led Franck to see the errors of the new creed. In 1506, he matriculated at the University of Ingolstadt, devoted himself to the study of the Fathers and the early Christian Church, and on 25 Jan., 1568, made a formal profession of the Catholic Faith. Albert, recognizing him as a man of great usefulness in reclaiming to the Faith many strayed souls, obtained from Pius V a dispensation to have him ordained a priest. Before beginning his missionary labours, he published a work setting forth the reasons and justification of his return to the ancient faith; "Klare vnd Grundtliche vrsachen Warumb M. Caspar Franck Von der Sect, zu der allgemainen Christlichen vnd Roemischen Kirchen getreten" (Ingolstadt, 1568); the same in Latin, "Dilucida exposito justissimarum causarum", etc. His apostolic labours in Haag and Kraiburg were crowned with success. In 1572, he was again in the University of Ingolstadt, pursuing his theological studies and the following year he was appointed its rector, which office he again held later for several consecutive terms. On the occasion of the General Jubilee in 1575, he set out for Rome, won at Siena the doctorate in theology and shortly afterwards Gregory XIII conferred on him the title of Prothonotary Apostolic and Comes Lateranensis. His vast erudition, zeal, and power of penetration place him on the long list of learned men who directed the destiny of the University of Ingolstadt during the sixteenth century. His polemical writings manifest earnest and painstaking labour and an intimate familiarity with patristic literature. Among his more important works may be mentioned: "Brevis et Pia Institutio de puro verbo Dei et clara S. Evangelii luce" (Ingolstadt, 1571); "Tractatus de ordinaria, legitima et apostolica vocatione sacerdotem et concionatorum", etc. (Inglolstat, 1571); "Casperis Franci de externo, visibili et hiearchico, Ecclesiae Catholicae sacerdotio", (Cologne, 1575); "Catalogus haereticorum" (Inglolstadt, 1576); "Explicatio totius historiae Passionis et Mortis Domini", etc. (Inglolstat, 1572); "Fundamentum Catholicae Fidei contra Schmidelin" (Inglolstadt, 1578). JOSEPH SCHROEDER Giovanni Battista Franco Giovanni Battista Franco (Frequently known as IL SEMOLIE) Italian historical painter and etcher, b. at Udine in 1510; d. at Venice in 1580. He studied in Rome, giving special attention to the works of Michelangelo, and taking great interest in designing allegorical decorations on a large scale. He worked with Vasari in carrying out some decorative work in a palace for Ottaviano de' Medici, but is better known for his portraits of the Medici family, which were, however, to a great extent copies from the works of other men. His designs for majolica were of importance and were executed for the Duke of Urbino; but perhaps he is better remembered for his etchings, of which there are over a hundred, than for any other works. He is said to have been instructed in the art of etching by Marc' Antonio, and his plates are marked B.F.V.F. (Battista Franco Venetus Fecit). They are not particularly attractive, as their execution is somewhat mechanical, but there is a certain light and easy spirit about them by which they can be recognized. About half the number are original works, the others being derived from paintings by Raphael, Titian, and others. GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON Michael Sigismund Frank Michael Sigismund Frank Catholic artist and rediscoverer of the lost art of glass-painting; b. 1 June, 1770, at Nuremberg; d. at Munich, 16 January, 1847. His father was a dealer in provisions, living in comfortable circumstances, who destined his boy to become his successor in business. But these plans were thwarted by Sigismund's passionate fondness for art. The mother, without her hustand's knowledge, had him instructed in drawing in the local academy, an institution of moderate merit. Young Frank's progress was so marked as to astonish his friends. Having lost his father in early youth, Frank was apprenticed to his godfather Neubert, who carried on at Nuremberg the business of lacquering and decorating wooden boxes and caskets. His progress in this work was rapid, but he stayed less than a year with Neubert. After returning to the house of his mother, who had married a second time, he once more enthusiastically devoted himself to the study of drawing, meantime painting boxes for other manufacturers at Nuremberg and earning enough to pay his expenses. On completing his twenty- first year his parents induced him against his inclination to wed Marie H. Blechkoll, the daughter of an hotel-keeper who brought him as her dowry the inn Zur Himmelsleiter which exists to this day. But Frank was not born to be an innkeeper. He continued his art studies while his wife managed the hotel. However, he now turned his attention to painting porcelain, to which art one of his guests, the skilful porcelain-painter Trost, had introduced him. His success was immediate, and when, after a married life of five years, his wife died, he sold the hotel and established a porcelain factory. The undertaking, which brought him a good income, led him to travel in Austria, Hungary, and Turkey; at Vienna he made the acquaintance of several prominent artists, under whose instruction he perfected himself as a colourist. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, however, when Western Germany repeatedly became the scene of French invasions, Frank's business interests suffered severely. It was then that his attention was turned in a wholly new direction. At the shop of a business friend named Wirth he met an Englishman to whom Wirth sold some fragments of ancient coloured glass for what seemed to Frank a large sum. On inquiry he found that the high price paid was due to the fact that the art of painting in glass which had been coloured while molten-an art which had produced so many of the magnificent church and palace windows during the Middle Ages and the early Renaissance-had been entirely lost during the eighteenth century. Frank determined to recover the lost secret of this art. Unaided and untaught, he toiled for several years to accomplish his purpose; his savings fast disappeared, and his success seemed more and more doubtful. His friends expressed fears that he would become a financial and mental wreck, and urged him to give up his fruitless efforts. But Frank persevered, and in 1804 there came a turn in his fortunes. He had found at last the method of producing coloured glass which he had so long sought. His first commission was to paint the coat of arms of the Rhenish Count Schenk, for his chapel at Greifenstein in Franconia. When this glass-painting was seen by the travelling agent of a London art house named Rauh, a Nuremberger like Frank himself, he recognized at once that Frank's work was practically the same as the ancient glass-painting the secret of which had been lost. He hastened to Nuremberg, saw Frank, and made business arrangements with him. Frank now made several hundred pieces for the Englsih market, some of which made their way to Philadelphia and Baltimore. But the diappearance of Rauh in 1807 put an end to Frank's prosperity and might have had serious consequences had not King Maximilian I of Bavaria become the artist's patron (1808). So favourable was the impression made on the king by Frank's execution of the royal Bavarian coat of arms that the monarch not only paid him generously, but turned over to him for factory purposes the building called the Zwinger, in Nuremberg. Henceforth Frank produced many works for King Maximilian, such as the "Circumcision", after Heinrich Goltzius; the "Nativity", after Bolzwerth; the "Passion", six parts after Lucas van Leyden; the Mosque of Cordova; "St. Barbara", after Holbein; the "Judgment of Solomon", after Raphael; the "Magi", after Rubens. For King Louis I, also, Frank executed many commissions, especially the glass decorations of the cathedral of Ratisbon. In 1818 Maximilian appointed Frank painter in glass at the royal porcelain factory in Munich, with a salary of 800 florins annually. When, in 1827, Maximilian's successor established the royal institute for glass-painting, Frank was entrusted with all the arrangements and with the technical management, particularly with the preparation of the colours to be used and the manufacture of the coloured glass plates. He was also charged with instructing assistants in the secrets of his craft. Here he worked until 1840 when he retired with an annual pension of 1200 florins. He was the father of many children, of whom the most prominent is the well-known historical painter Julius Frank. Among his friends were the great physicist Fraunhofer and the Viennese glass-painter Molin, who bore enthusiastic testimony to the excellence of Frank's colouring, especially his reds and his flesh colour. Mitteilungen des Verbandes deutscher Glasmalerei (Munich, 1907); da Schaden in his Skizzen (Munich, 1829). Charles G. Herbermann Graf von Frankenberg Graf von Frankenberg JOHANN HEINRICH, GRAF VON FRANKENBERG. Archbishop of Mechlin (Malines), Primate of Belgium, and cardinal; b. 18 September, 1726, at Gross-Glogau, Silesia; d. at Breda, 11 June, 1804. He belonged to an ancient family devotedly attached to the House of Hapsburg, and which remained so after the conquest of Silesia by Frederick II (1740). Although he was the sole male heir of his family and assured of the protection of the Empress Maria Theresa, he decided, when quite young, to become a priest. He attended the Jesuit college of his native city, went later to the University of Breslau, and thence to the German College at Rome, where he obtained the degrees of Doctor of Theology, and of Canon Law, and was ordained priest 10 August, 1749. On his return to Austria, he was made coadjutor to the Bishop of Goerz in Carniola (1750-54), dean of the collegiate church of All Saints at Prague (1754), later of that of Sts. Cosmas and Damian at Alt-Bunzlau in Bohemia (1756), an finally Archbishop of Mechlin and primate of the Austrian Low Countries on 27 May, 1759. In this exalted post, as in those which he had previously occupied, his life was an example of every private and public virtue. It was not long before he was called on to defend the dignity and independence of his office against the Austrian Government, which, even under Maria Theresa, was foreshadowing the petty tyranny of Joseph II. Despite his great devotion to Maria Theresa, he more than once resisted the improper exactions of her ministers, who wished him to grant Lenten dispensations according to their pleasure, and interfered in the most annoying manner in matters that pertained exclusively to ecclesiastical jurisdiction. He enjoyed, however, the personal favour of Maria Theresa, who sought to have him made Archbishop of Vienna, and in 1778 exerted herself to the uttermost to obtain for him the cardinal's hat. The situation changed with the accession of Joseph II, a disciple of the "philosophers" and imbued with the principles of an "enlightened despotism". This emperor began that politico-ecclesiastical system, known as Josephinism, which meant substantially the absolute supremacy of the State. Each imperial encroachment on the inalienable rights of the Church was opposed by Frankenberg with commendable fortitude, and yet in a gentle manner and with such respect for the civil authority that the cardinal brought upon himself the bitter reproaches of such unflinching zealots as the ex-Jesuits, Feller and Dedoyar. His protests, however, were met by the Government in an ill-humoured and disdainful way. It affected, indeed, to pay no attention to them. The most serious of the conflicts was that which broke out with regard to the General Seminary, founded at Louvain in 1786 by the emperor, and to which he ordered the bishops to send their students, closing at the same time their diocesan seminaries. The heretical teaching of the professors in this new institution, and the avowed purpose of using it as an instrument of ecclesiastical reform and a weapon against "ultramontanism", soon provoked among the students an agitation that ended in a general dispersion. The irritated emperor, forthwith, summoned the cardinal to Vienna to intimidate him by means, as he wrote to Kaunitz, "of those vigorous and unanswerable arguments of which you know so well how to make use". Ill, bereft of his advisers, threatened with indefinite detention at a great distance from his diocese; reared, moreover, in those principles of respect for the sovereign power, which to us seem so exaggerated, the cardinal consented to sign a rather equivocal declaration, in which he stated that he was convinced of his obligation to conform to the imperial decrees "relative to the General Seminary", but reserved to himself the right to appeal to the emperor in cases where the eternal salvation of souls appeared to him to be imperilled. On his return to Belgium, Frankenberg regained his former energy. He felt himself upheld by the ardent Catholic spirit of the nation, and announced to the Government that his conscience would not permit of him to concur in the establishment of the General Seminary. Despite all threats, he thenceforth remained firm. The emperor called on him to express on his opinion on the doctrines then taught at the General Seminary, whereupon the cardinal condemned that teaching in his "Declaration " -- a document which created a profound impression throughout Belgium. The country was already disturbed by insurrectionary movements, and the Government was obliged to close the General Seminary. It was too late, however, to repress the rebellious agitation. The Government sought, therefore, to make the cardinal responsible for it, and wished to place him under arrest. From his place of refuge, the cardinal protested against the accusation: "I take heaven and earth to witness", said he, "that I have had no share or influence whatever in this insurrection. The entire Netherlands will bear witness to this fact and do me justice in this respect." The Government, finding it to necessary to abandon the criminal process it had begun against the cardinal, exhibited a conciliatory temper. In the meantime, however, the revolution broke out. The new administration found him friendly, and he was henceforth officially a member of the States-General. At the same time he held aloof from purely political discussions and confined himself to recommending political union. He received with submission and respect the re-establishment of the Austrian Government, to which he had always been attached. On the arrival of the French he had to undergo new trials. He refused the pension which the Government wished to grant him in compensation for the suppression of his revenue, declared his opposition to the oath exacted of the clergy, and was finally brutally expelled from Belgium (1797). He retired to Emmerich in Prussia, where, aged, sick, and poor, he lived on the charity of his flock, and continued to warn them against those ecclesiastics who had taken the oath. His apostolic courage and his constancy in these trials elicited solemn eulogies from both Pius VI and Pius VII. In deference to the pope's request and to render possible the execution of the concordat, he resigned, 20 November, 1801, the Archbishopric of Mechlin. Driven from Emmerich by the King of Prussia at the instance of the French Government, which affected to regard him as a conspirator, he retired to Borken in the territory of Muenster (1801), and, after the suppression of this principality, to Breda, where he died. His courage, self-abnegation, and patience in the face of persecution and adversity make him one of the noblest figures of the Catholic episcopate during the eighteenth century. CLAESSENS, Histoire des Archeveques de Malines (Louvain, 1881); VERHAEGEN, Le Cardinal de Frankenberg, archeveque de Malines (Bruges, Lille, 1890). GODEFROID KURTH Council of Frankfort Council of Frankfort Convened in the summer of 794, by the grace of God, authority of the pope, and command of Charlemagne (can. 1), and attended by the bishops of the Frankish kingdom, Italy, and the province of Aquitania, and even by ecclesiastics from England. The council was summoned primarily for the condemnation of Adoptionism (q.v.). According to the testimony of contemporaries two papal legates were present, Theophylact and Stephen, representing Pope Adrian I. After an allocution by Charlemagne, the bishops drew up two memorials against the Adoptionists, one containing arguments from patristic writings; the other arguments from Scripture. The first was the Libellus sacrosyllabus, written by Paulinus, Patriarch of Aquileia, in the name of the Italian bishops; the second was the Epistola Synodica, addressed to the bishops of Spain by those of Germany, Gaul, and Aquitania. In the first of its fifty-six canons the council condemned Adoptionism, and in the second repudiated the Second Council of Nicaea (787), which, according to the faulty Latin translation of its Acts (see CAROLINE BOOKS), seemed to decree that the same kind of worship should be paid to images as to the Blessed Trinity, though the Greek text clearly distinguishes between latreia and proskynesis. The remaining fifty-four canons dealt with metropolitan jurisdiction, monastic discipline, superstition, etc. LEO A. KELLY Frankfort-on-the-Main Frankfort-on-the-Main Frankfort-on-the-Main, formerly the scene of the election and coronation of the German emperors, is situated in the administrative district of Wiesbaden, in the Prussian province of Hesse-Nassau; it lies on both sides of the Main, twenty-four miles above its confluence with the Rhine at Mainz. On 1 December, 1905, the city had a population of 334, 978, of whom 105,814 were Catholics, and 23,476 Jews. Frankfort is partly under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Diocese of Limburg, and partly under that of Fulda. For the care of souls, the city is divided into six parishes; of these the city-parish proper is subdivided into six independent ecclesiastical districts, and one curacy; the Catholic soldiers have a military church of their own. Of the twenty-five Catholic churches and chapels in Frankfort, the most important is the cathedral of St. Bartholomew, in which the elections and coronations of the German emperors were held; it stands on the site formerly occupied by the church of the Saviour (Salv*atorkirche), which was built by Louis the German (850-75), and rebuilt in 1239, in Gothic style, and the name changed to St. Bartholomew. Between 1315 and 1338 the choir was remodelled, and the transept in 1346; the famous tower (Pfarrturm) was added between 1415 and 1512. After the conflagration of 1867, the whole church was restored by Denzinger, the architect of the Ratisbon cathedral (1869-80), and the tower completed. (See "Der Kaiserdom zu Frankfurt a. M.", Frankfort, 1907.) Noteworthy also are the church of St. Leonard, a Gothic hall church (i. e. with aisles, but without clerestories), with five naves, erected between the thirteenth and the sixteenth century; the church of the Teutonic Knights (Deutschordenskirche), dedicated in 1309, rebuilt 1748-50, and restored 1883; and the Gothic church of Our Lady (Liebfrauenkirche), built 1325-1509. The care of souls is in charge of 31 secular priests. The religious orders and congregations represented in the city are: Capuchins (5 fathers and 3 brothers), Brothers of Mercy, Ursulines, Handmaids of Christ, and Sisters of the Poor of St. Francis from the mother-house at Aachen. The Catholic schools include 1 high school for boys, 2 high schools for girls, 1 institute for teachers, 8 elementary schools, 3 homes for children, 5 knitting- and sewing-schools. Of the 10 Catholic benevolent institutions and foundations, mention may be made of the almshouse (founded 1593), the Catholic home for girls, the working-women's home, and the children's home; among the hospitals under Catholic direction are that of the Brothers of Mercy, the hospice of the Brothers of Mercy, and the hospital of St. Elizabeth, under the Sisters of Mercy. The most important of the numerous Catholic associations (about 70) are: the Boniface Association, the Catholic Charity Association, the Elizabeth Society, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, the Catholic Journeymen's Union, the Merchants' Union, the Workmen's Union, the People's Union of Catholic Germany (Volksverein), the Congregation of Mary for Girls, etc. (See "Handbuch fuer die Katholiken von Frankfurt a. M.", Frankfort, 1903.) Recent excavations have confirmed the belief that the present cathedral stands on the site of a Roman fort, built during the reign of Domitian by the Fourteenth Legion, and that a Roman settlement grew up about it. During the reign of Hadrian the fortress was abandoned, but the settlement continued to grow, and towards the end of the third century was seized by the Germans, first by the Alamanni, and later by the Franks. The earliest mention of this colony occurs in Einhard's annals for 793, where it is called Villa Franconofurt. In 794 an important imperial and ecclesiastical council was convened here in the royal palace. Of the German kings, Louis the Pious (814-40) and more especially Louis the German often used Frankfort a the royal residence; in the year of the latter's death, it is designated as principalis sedes orientalis regni. Louis the German built the church of the Saviour, later the cathedral, and founded the chapter of St. Bartholomew, consisting of one abbot and twelve priests. During the tenth century Frankfort declined in importance; in the year 1007 it was a public village of the empire without fortifications, a villa dominica or indominicata, which, however, was inhabited by freemen, as well as by serfs. During the twelfth century it rose to the rank of a city; between 1127 and 1142 the first city wall was built; by 1150 Frankfort had a tribunal of its own; in 1172 it was made a municipality (municipium); and in 1219 was removed from the jurisdiction of the king. Trade and industry received a powerful impetus; the Frankfort fair became one of the most important of Germany; the city gradually acquired control of the territory round about, and played an important role in the political struggles, particularly as a member of the Confederation of the Rhine. Louis the Bavarian (1314-47), whom Frankfort supported in his conflicts with the Holy See, notwithstanding a papal interdict, granted the city important prerogatives. The Golden Bull of Charles IV (1346-78) constituted Frankfort the legal electoral city of the German emperors; the city had already been the scene of the election of ten monarchs, between 1147 and 1300. After 1356 thirty-seven German emperors were elected at Frankfort, where, after Maximilian II, the coronation ceremony also took place, instead of at Aachen. A celebrated description of this ceremony is to be found in Goethe's "Warheit und Dichtung". The unfortunate difficulties between Frankfort and the electoral princes of the Palatinate and the nobles of the vicinity, in 1389, reduced the city to great straits, but could not shatter its power. Internal dissensions, like the insurrection of the guilds (1358-66) and the uprisings between 1389 and 1408, were finally brought to an end by the victory of the ruling families. The Reformation found speedy acceptance among the majority of the city council and the middle classes, chiefly owing to the strained relations which the unjust distribution of taxes had brought about between the clergy and the people. In 1525 the doctrines of Luther were preached in Frankfort for the first time; in 1533, by command of the council, Catholic services were entirely suspended for some time; finally, after 1548, of the three Catholic chapters only that of St. Bartholomew, with the cathedral, remained in possession of the Catholics. On the defeat of the Smalkaldic League (1546), which Frankfort had joined in 1536, the city was forced to surrender to an imperial army and pay 80,000 gold gulden. During the revolt of Maurice of Saxony (1552) against Charles V, Frankfort supported the emperor and withstood a siege by his enemies. During the succeeding decades the city gained in prosperity what it lost in political prestige. A serious danger, however, menaced it in the revolt of the middle classes against the misrule of the patricians (1612-16), headed by the pastry-cook and gingerbread-baker, Vincenz Fettmilch. This shook the city government to its very foundations, and only ended with the decapitation of seven of the leaders, and the victory of the ruling families who retained their supremacy until the dissolution of the German Empire. During the Thirty Years War the citizens were decimated by famine and plague, particularly in 1635, and the city suffered severely from Louis XIV's wars of conquest. Frankfort was invested by the French (1759-62) during the Seven Years War, and likewise during the Revolutionary period (1792 and 1795). By the Imperial Delegates Enactment (1803) Frankfort was declared a free neutral city of the empire, and at the same time all monasteries, with the exception of the property of the Teutonic Knights, were secularized. After the dissolution of the German Empire, the city was granted to Karl Dalberg, previously Elector of Mainz, and in 1810 was made the capital of the Grand Duchy of Frankfort. Under Dalberg's mild rule, Christians of all denominations were granted equal recognition, and the year 1811 was marked by the emancipation of the Jews. The Vienna Congress made Frankfort a free imperial city of the new German Confederation and the seat of the Federal Diet, which meant for the city great political prestige and brilliant possibilities from a social point of view. Beginning in 1818 various conferences were held at Frankfort to make some arrangements with the Holy See for the ecclesiastical reorganization of the states represented; these were Baden, W"rtemberg, Hesse-Cassel, Hesse-Darmstadt, Nassau, Frankfort, Hohenzollern-Heckingen, Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, and others. Negotiations covering several years finally resulted in the erection of the province of the Upper Rhine (Oberrheinische Kirchenprovinz). The Frankfort Riot of 1833 presented some serious aspects for the city; the proceedings of the Federal Diet against the press and the whole system of unions and associations gave rise to a revolutionary movement, which the Diet undertook to suppress. After the attempted insurrection had been easily put down, the city had to maintain, at its own expense, a Prusso-Austrian garrison from 1833 to 1842. In 1848-49 Frankfort was the seat of the Vorparlament (a provisional assembly preparatory to the National Assembly) and the German National Assembly, and in 1863 of the German Fuerstentag (Diet of Princes). Frankfort having voted in the Federal Diet against Prussia (14 June, 1866), on 16 July the city was invested by the Prussians and condemned to pay a heavy fine, and on 8 October was annexed to the Prussian Monarchy. At Frankfort the peace between France and Germany was signed, 10 May, 1871. Under Prussian rule the city has attained a high commercial and industrial importance. RITTER, Evangelisches Denkmal der Stadt Frankfurt am Mayn (Frankfort, 1726); KIRCHNER, Gesch. der Stadt Frankfurt (Frankfort, 1807-10); VON FICHARD, Entstehung der Reichsstadt Frankfurt (Frankfort, 1819); KRIEGK, Frankfurter B*rgerzwiste und Zust*nde im M. A. (Frankfort, 1862); IDEM, Gesch. von Frankfurt a. M. (Frankfort, 1871); FANSSEN, Frankfurts Reichscorrespondent, 1376-1519, part III (Freiburg, 1863-73); Frankfurt und seine Bauten herausgegeben vom Architekten- und Ingenieurverein (Frankfort, 1886); B*CHER, Die Bev*lkerung von Frankfurt a. M. im 14. und 15. Jahrh. (Tuebingen, 1886); WEBER AND DIEFENBACH, Zur Reformationsgesch. der Reichsstadt Frankfurt a. M. (Frankfort, 1895); HORNE, Geschichte von Frankfurt a. M. (Frankfort, 1902); BOEHMER-LAU, Codex diplomaticus M*nofrancofurtanus (2 vols., 1901, 1905); Neues Archiv fuer Frankfurts Gesch. und Kunst (Frankfort); Mitteilungen des Vereins fuer Gesch. und Altertumskunde in Frankfurt a. M. (Frankfort, 1860*). JOSEPH LINS The Franks The Franks The Franks were a confederation formed in Western Germany of a certain number of ancient barbarian tribes who occupied the right shore of the Rhine from Mainz to the sea. Their name is first mentioned by Roman historians in connection with a battle fought against this people about the year 241. In the third century some of them crossed the Rhine and settled in Belgic Gaul on the banks of the Meuse and the Scheldt, and the Romans had endeavoured to expel them from the territory. Constantius Chlorus and his descendants continued the struggle, and, although Julian the Apostate inflicted a serious defeat on them in 359, he did not succeed in exterminating them, and eventually Rome was satisfied to make them her more or less faithful allies. After their overthrow by Julian the Apostate, the Franks of Belgium, becoming peaceful settlers, appear to have given the empire no further trouble, satisfied with having found shelter and sustenance on Roman soil. They even espoused Rome's cause during the great invasion of 406, but were overpowered by the ruthless hordes who devastated Belgium and overran Gaul and a part of Italy and Spain. Thenceforth the Belgian provinces ceased to be under the control of Rome and passed under the rule of the Franks. When they first attracted attention in history the Franks were established in the northern part of Belgic Gaul, in the districts where their Germanic dialect is still spoken. Gregory of Tours tells us that their chief town was Dispargum, which is perhaps Tongres and that they were under a family of kings distinguished by their long hair, which they allowed to flow over their shoulders, while the other Frankish warriors had the back of the head shaved. This family was known as the Merovingians, from the name of one of its members, to whom national tradition had ascribed a sea-god as ancestor. Clodion, the first king of this dynasty known to history, began his series of conquests in Northern Gaul about the year 430. He penetrated as far as Artois, but was driven back by Aetius, who seems to have succeeded in keeping him on friendly terms with Rome. In fact, it seems that his son Merovaeus fought with the Romans against Attila on the Mauriac plains. Childeric, son of Merovaeus, also served the empire under Count Aegidius and subsequently under Count Paul, whom he assisted in repelling the Saxons from Angers. Childeric died at Tournai, his capital, where his tomb was found in 1653 (Cochet, Le tombeau de Childeric, Paris, 1859). But Childeric did not transmit to his son Clovis, who succeeded him in 481, the entire inheritance left by Clodion. The latter seems to have reigned over all the Cis-Rhenish Franks, and the monarchy was divided among his descendants, although the exact time of the division is not known. There were now two Frankish groups: the Ripuarians, who occupied the banks of the Rhine and whose kings resided in Cologne, and the Salians who had established themselves in the Low Countries. The Salians did not form a single kingdom; besides the Kingdom of Tournai there were kingdoms with centres at Cambrai and Tongres. Their sovereigns, both Salian and Ripuarian, belonged to the Merovingian family and seem to have been descended from Clodion. When Clovis began to reign in 481, he was, like his father, King of Tournai only, but at an early date he began his career of conquest. In 486 he over threw the monarchy that Syagrius, son of Aegidius, had carved out for himself in Northern Gaul, and set up his court at Soissons; in 490 and 491 he took possession of the Salian Kingdoms of Cambrai and Tongres; in 496 he triumphantly repelled an invasion of the Alamanni; in 500 he interposed in the war of the Burgundian kings; in 506 he conquered Aquitaine; and at length he annexed the Ripuarian Kingdom of Cologne. Henceforth Gaul, from the Pyrenees to the Rhine, was subject to Clovis, with the exception of the territory in the southeast, i.e. the kingdom of the Burgundians and Provence. Established at Paris, Clovis governed this kingdom by virtue of an agreement concluded with the bishops of Gaul, according to which natives and barbarians were to be on terms of equality, and all cause of friction between the two races was removed when, in 496, the king was converted to Catholicism. The Frankish kingdom thereupon took its place in history under more promising conditions than were to be found in any other state founded upon the ruins of the Roman Empire. All free men bore the title of Frank, had the same political status, and were eligible to the same offices. Besides, each individual observed the law of the people among whom he belonged; the Gallo-Roman lived according to the code, the barbarian according to the Salian or Ripuarian law; in other words, the law was personal, not territorial. If there were any privileges they belonged to the Gallo-Romans, who, in the beginning were the only ones on whom the episcopal dignity was conferred. The king governed the provinces through his counts, and had a considerable voice in the selection of the clergy. The drawing up of the Salian Law (Lex Salica), which seems to date from the early part of the reign of Clovis, and the Council of Orleans, convoked by him and held in the last year of his reign, prove that the legislative activity of this king was not eclipsed by his military energy (see CLOVIS). Although founder of a kingdom destined to such a brilliant future, Clovis did not know how to shield it against a custom in vogue among the barbarians, i.e. the division of power among the sons of the king. This custom originated in the pagan idea that all kings were intended to reign because they were descended from the gods. Divine blood flowed in the veins of all the king's sons, each of whom, therefore, being a king by birth, must have his share of the kingdom. This view, incompatible with the formation of a powerful, durable monarchy, had been vigorously rejected by Genseric the Vandal, who, to secure the indivisibility of his kingdom, had established in his family a certain order of succession. Either because he died suddenly or for some other reason, Clovis took no measures to abolish this custom, which continued among the Franks until the middle of the ninth century and, more than once, endangered their nationality. After the death of Clovis, therefore, his four sons divided his kingdom, each reigning from a different centre: Thierry at Metz, Clodomir at Orleans, Childebert at Paris, and Clotaire at Soissons. They continued the career of conquest inaugurated by their father, and, in spite of the frequent discords that divided them, augmented the estates he had left them. The principal events of their reign were: + The destruction of the Kingdom of Thuringia by Thierry in 531, which extended Frankish power into the heart of what is now Germany; + the conquest of the Kingdom of the Burgundians by Childebert and Clotaire in 532, after their brother Clodomir had perished in a previous attempt to overthrow it in 524; + the cession of Provence to the Franks by the Ostrogoths in 536, on condition that the former would assist them in the war just declared against them by Emperor Justinian. But instead of helping the Ostrogoths, the Franks under Theudebert, son of Thierry, taking shameful advantage of this oppressed people, cruelly pillaged Italy until the bands under the command of Leuthar and Butilin were exterminated by Narses in 553. The death of Theudebert, in 548, was soon followed by that of his son Theobald, in 555, and by the death of Childebert in 558, Clotaire I, the last of the four brothers, becoming sole heir to the estate of his father, Clovis. Clotaire reduced the Saxons and Bavarians to a state of vassalage, and died in 561 leaving four sons; once more the monarchy was divided, being partitioned in about the same way as on the death of Clovis in 511: Gontran reigned at Orleans, Charibert at Paris, Sigebert at Reims, and Chilperic at Soissons. Charibert's death in 567 and the division of his estate occasioned quarrels between Chilperic and Sigebert, already at odds on account of their wives. Unlike his brothers, who had been satisfied to marry serving-women, Sigebert had won the hand of the beautiful Brunehilde, daughter of Athanagild, King of the Visigoths. Chilperic had followed Sigebert's example by marrying Galeswintha, Brunehilde's sister, but at the instigation of his mistress, Fredegonda, he soon had Galeswintha assassinated and placed Fredegonda upon the throne. Brunehilde's determination to avenge the death of her sister involved in bitter strife not only the two women but their husbands. In 575 Sigebert, who was repeatedly provoked by Chilperic, took the field, resolved to bring the quarrel to a conclusion. Chilperic, already banished from his kingdom, had taken refuge behind the walls of Tournai, whence he had no hope of escape, when, just as Sigebert's soldiers were about to raise him to the throne, he was felled by assassins sent by Fredegonda. Immediately the aspect of affairs changed: Brunehilde, humiliated and taken prisoner, escaped only with the greatest difficulty and after the most thrilling adventures, while Fredegonda and Chilperic exulted in their triumph. The rivalry between the two kingdoms, henceforth known respectively as Austrasia (Kingdom of the East) and Neustria (Kingdom of the West), only grew fiercer. Gontran's kingdom continued to be called Burgundy. First the nobles of Austrasia and then Brunehilde who had become regent, led the campaign against Chilperic, who perished in 584 at the hand of an assassin. The murderer could not be ascertained. During this period of intestine strife, King Gontran was vainly endeavouring to wrest Septimania from the Visigoths, as well as defend himself against the pretender Gondowald, the natural son of Clotaire I, who, aided by the nobles, tried to seize part of the kingdom, but fell in the attempt. When Gontran died in 592, his inheritance passed to Childebert II, son of Sigebert and Brunehilde, and after this king's death in 595 his states were divided between his two sons, Theudebert II taking and Thierry II Burgundy. In 600 and 604 the two brothers united their forces against Clotaire II, son of Chilperic and Fredegonda, and reduced him to the condition of a petty king. Soon, however, jealousy sprang up between the two brothers, they waged war on each other, and Theudebert, twice defeated, was killed. The victorious Thierry was about inflict a like fate on Clotaire II, but died in 613, being still young and undoubtedly the victim of the excesses that had shortened the careers of most of the Merovingian princes. Brunehilde, who, throughout the reigns of her son and grandsons, had been very influential, now assumed the guardianship of her great-grandson, Sigebert II, and the government of the two kingdoms. But the earlier struggle between monarchical absolutism and the independence of the Frankish nobility now broke out with tragic violence. It had long been latent, but the sight of a woman exercising absolute power caused it to break forth with boundless fury. The Austrasian nobles, eager to avenge the sad fate of Thierry, joined with Clotaire II, King of Neustria, who took possession of the Kingdoms of Burgundy and Austrasia. The children of Thierry II were slain. Brunehilde, who fell into the hands of the victor, was tied to the tail of a wild horse and perished (613). She had erred in imposing a despotic government on a people who chafed under government of any kind. Her punishment was a frightful death and the cruel calumnies with which her conquerors blackened her memory. The nobles had triumphed. They dictated to Clotaire II the terms of victory and he accepted them in the celebrated edict of 614, at least a partial capitulation of Frankish royalty to the nobility. The king promised to withdraw his counts from the provinces under his rule, i.e. he was virtually to abandon these parts to the nobles, who were also to have a voice in the selection of the prime minister or "mayor of the palace", as he was then called. He likewise promised to abolish the new taxes and to respect the immunity of the clergy, and not to interfere in the elections of bishops. He had also to continue Austrasia and Neustria as separate governments. Thus ended the conflict between the Frankish aristocracy and the monarchical power; with its close began a new period in the history of the Merovingian monarchy. As time went on royalty had to reckon more and more with the aristocracy. The Merovingian dynasty, traditionally accustomed to absolutism, and incapable of altering its point of view, was gradually deprived of all exercise of authority. In the shadow of the throne the new power continued to grow rapidly, become the successful rival of the royal house, and finally supplanted it. The great power of the aristocracy was vested in the mayor of the palace (major domus), originally the chief of the royal household. During the minority of the Frankish kings he acquired steadily greater importance until he came to share the royal prerogative, and eventually reached the exalted position of prime minister to the sovereign. The indifference of the latter, usually more absorbed in his pleasures than in public affairs, favoured the encroachments of the mayor of the palace", and this office finally became the hereditary right of one family, which was destined to replace the Merovingians and become the national dynasty of the Franks. Such then were the transformations which occurred in the political life of the Franks after the downfall of Brunehilde and during the reign of Clotaire II (614-29). While this king governed Neustria he was obliged, as has been said, to give Austrasia a separate government, his son Dagobert becoming its king, with Arnulf of Metz as councillor and Pepin of Landen as mayor of the palace (623). These two men were the ancestors of the Carolingian family. Arnulf was Bishop of Metz, though resident at court, but in 627 he resigned his episcopal see and retired into monastic solitude at Remiremont, where he died in the odour of sanctity. Pepin, incorrectly called of Landen (since it was only in the twelfth century that the chroniclers of Brabant began to associate him with that locality), was a great lord from Eastern Belgium. With Arnulf he had been at the head of the Austrasian opposition to Brunehilde. On the death of Clotaire II, Dagobert I, his only heir, reestablished the unity of the Frankish monarchy and took up his residence in Paris, as Clovis had done in the past. He too was soon forced to give Austrasia a separate government, which he confided to his son Sigebert III, with Cunibert of Cologne as his Councillor and Adalgisil, son of Arnulf of Metz and son-in-law of Pepin, as mayor of the palace. Pepin, who had lost royal favour, was temporarily deprived of any voice in the government. The reign of Dagobert I was one of such great pomp and outward show, that contemporaries compared it to that of Solomon; however, it marked a decline in the military prowess of the Franks. They subdued, it is true, the small nations of the Bretons and Basques, but were themselves beaten by the Frankish merchant Samo, who had created a Slavonic kingdom on their eastern confines. Dagobert relieved the situation only by exterminating the Bulgars who had taken refuge in Bavaria. Like most of his race, Dagobert was subject to the females of his family. He died young and was buried in the celebrated Abbey of Saint-Denis which he had founded and which subsequently became the burial-place of the kings of France. After his death Austrasia and Neustria (the latter united with Burgundy) had the same destiny under their respective kings and mayors of the palace. In Neustria the young king, Clovis II, reigned under the guardianship of his mother, Nanthilde, with Aega, and later Erkinoald, as mayor of the palace. Sigebert III reigned in Austrasia with Pepin of Landen, who had returned and was installed as mayor of the palace after the death of Dagobert. The history of Austrasia is better known to us as far as 657 because, at that time, it had a chronicler. On the death of Pepin of Landen in 639, Otto, mayor of the palace, took the reins of power, but was overthrown and replaced by Grimoald, son of Pepin. Grimoald went even further; when, in 656, Sigebert III died, he conceived the bold plan of seizing the crown for the benefit of his family: He banished young Dagobert II, son of Sigebert, to an Irish monastery. Not daring to ascend the throne himself, he followed the example of Odoacer and gave it to his son Childebert. But this attempt, as bold as it was premature, caused his downfall. He was delivered up to Clovis II by the Austrasian nobles and, so far as can be ascertained, seems to have perished in prison. Clovis II remained sole master of the entire Frankish monarchy, but died the following year, 657. Clotaire III (657-70), son of Clovis, succeeded his father as head of the entire monarchy under the guardianship of his mother, Bathilde, with Erkinoald as mayor of the palace. But like Clotaire II, in 614, Clovis was constrained in 660 to grant Austrasia a separate rule, and appointed his brother Childeric II its king, with Wulfoald as mayor of the palace. Austrasia was now overshadowed by Neustria owing to the strong personality of Ebroin, Erkinoald's successor as mayor of the palace. Like Brunehilde, Ebroin sought to establish a strong government and, like her, drew upon himself the passionate opposition of the aristocracy. The latter, under the leadership of St. Leger (Leodegarius), Bishop of Autun, succeeded in overthrowing Ebroin. He and King Thierry III who, in 670, had succeeded his brother Clotaire III, were consigned to a convent, Childeric II, King of Austrasia, being, summoned to replace him. Once again monarchical unity was re-established, but it was not destined to last long. Wulfoald, mayor of Austrasia, was banished, also St. Leger. Childeric II was assassinated and for a short time general anarchy reigned. However, Wulfoald, who managed to return, proclaimed King of Austrasia young Dagobert II, who had come back from exile in Ireland, while St. Leger, reinstated in Neustria, upheld King Thierry III. But Ebroin, who meanwhile had been forgotten, escaped from prison. He invaded Neustria, defeated the mayor Leudesius, Erkinoald's son, who, with the approval of St. Leger was governing this kingdom, reassumed the power, and maltreated the Bishop of Autun, whom he caused to be slain by hired assassins (678). He afterwards attacked Austrasia, banished Wulfoald, and had King Thierry III acknowledged. The opposition shown Ebroin by the Austrasian nobles under the leadership of Pippin II and Martin was broken at Laffaux (Latofao), where Martin perished, and Pepin disappeared for a while. Ebroin was then for some years real sovereign of the Frankish monarchy and exercised a degree of power that none save Clovis I and Clotaire I had possessed. There are few characters of whom it is as difficult to form a just estimate as of this powerful political genius who, without any legal authority, and solely by dint of his indomitable will, acquired supreme control of the Frankish monarchy and warded off for a time the reforms of the aristocracy. The friendship professed for Ebroin by Saint Ouen, the great Bishop of Rouen, seems to indicate that he was better than his reputation, which, like that of Brunehilde, was intentionally blackened by chroniclers who sympathized with the Frankish nobles. Ebroin's disappearance afforded full scope to the power of the family which was now called on to give a new dynasty to the Franks. Forced to remain in obscurity for over twenty years. consequence of Grimoald's crime and downfall, this family finally reappeared at the head of Austrasia under Pepin II, inappropriately called Pepin of Heristal. There flowed in the veins of Pepin II, son of Adalgisil and of St. Begga daughter of Pepin I, the blood of the two illustrious men who, by the overthrow of Brunehilde, had established a moderate monarchy in Austrasia. Despite the defeat inflicted on him by Ebroin, Pepin remained the leader and the hope of the Austrasians, and, after the death of his adversary, vigorously resumed the kingdom which was then disturbed by the rivalry between Waratton, mayor of the palace, and his son Gislemar. From 681 to 686 the functions of mayor of the palace were alternately discharged by Waratton and Gislemar, again by Waratton, and finally, at his death, by his son-in-law Berthar. Pepin, who seems to have had amicable relations with Waratton, would not acknowledge Berthar, whom he overthrew in the battle of Testri near Soissons (687); in this way Austrasia avenged the above-mentioned defeat at Laffaux. The death of Berthar, assassinated in 688, removed the last obstacle to the authority of Pepin in Neustria, who was thenceforth simultaneously mayor of the palace for all three kingdoms. So vast was his power that from that date history merely mentions the names of the Merovingian kings whom he kept on the throne: Thierry III (d. 691), Clovis III (d. 695), Childebert III (d. 711), and Dagobert III (d. 715). Indeed, it is only for a traditional fiction of history that Pepin II is not put down as the first sovereign of the Carolingian dynasty. The direction of the destinies of the Frankish monarchy now passed from the hands of the Salian into those of the Ripuarian Franks. These constituted the Germanic element of the nation which took the place of the Roman party in the government. Their policy was better adapted to the spirit of the times inasmuch as it abolished the traditional absolutism of the Merovingians. Finally the Carolingians had the merit and the satisfaction (for it was both) of re- establishing unity in the Frankish monarchy which had been so frequently divided; from 687 to 843, that is, for over a century and a half, all the Franks were united under the same government. But Pepin II did not confine himself to restoring Frankish unity; he extended the frontiers of the monarchy by subduing the Frisians, his neighbours on the north. These restless barbarians, who occupied a large portion of the present Kingdom of the Netherlands, were fanatical pagans; Ratbod, their duke, was a bitter enemy of Christianity. Pepin forced him to surrender Western Frisia, which nearly corresponded to the present provinces of South and North Holland, and obliged him to keep the peace for the rest of his life. Pepin could now consider the Kingdom of the Franks as an hereditary patrimony, and he conferred the mayoralty of Neustria on his son Grimoald. At his death in 714, which was subsequent to that of his two sons Grimoald and Drogon, he bequeathed the entire monarchy, as a family heritage, to his grandson Theodoald, Grimoald's son, still a minor. This act was a political blunder suggested to the clear- minded Pepin on his death-bed by his wife Plectrude. Pepin had a son Charles by a mistress named Alpaide, who at his father's death was twenty-six years of age and quite capable, as events showed, of vigorously defending the paternal inheritance. It cannot be said that the stigma of illegitimacy caused him to be put aside, for Thedoald was also a natural son, but the blood of the ambitious Plectrude coursed through the latter's veins, and she reigned in his name. The people, however, would not now submit to the regency of a woman any more than in the time of Brunehilde. There was a universal uprising among the Neustrians, Aquitainians, and Frisians. Elsewhere may be found an account of these struggles. (See CHARLES MARTEL.) Here it suffices to say that Plectrude was soon cast aside and Charles Martel, whom she had thrown into prison, escaped and placed himself at the head of the national Austrasian party. Defeated at first, but soon victorious over all his enemies, Charles reduced nearly all the rebellious tribes to obedience, not only those just named, but also the Bavarians and Alamanni. His greatest service to civilization was the glorious victory over the Arabs between Tours and Poitiers (732), which earned him the name of Martel, the hammer. This conquest saved Christianity and preserved Europe from the power of the Mussulmans. It was not, however, Charles's last encounter with the Arabs; he banished them from Provence and in 739 defeated them again on the banks of the Berre near Narbonne. This sovereign, whose exclusively military career consisted in restoring, by dint of force, an empire that was crumbling away, could not escape the accusation of having abetted violence in others and resorted to it himself. He has especially been charged with secularizing many ecclesiastical estates, which he