__________________________________________________________________ Title: The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 8: Infamy-Lapparent 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 8 Infamy to Lapparent New York: ROBERT APPLETON COMPANY Imprimatur JOHN M. FARLEY ARCHBISHOP OF NEW YORK __________________________________________________________________ Infamy Infamy (Lat. in, not, and fama, fame.) Infamy is loss of a good name. When this has been brought about by regular legal process, terminating in a conviction in a court of justice, no injury is done to the criminal by publishing the fact. The same thing can be said when the scandalous repute in which a person is held is matter of common knowledge. The canon law seems to require a pre-existing public opinion against an individual before the investigation in a judicial inquiry can be narrowed to any particular person. Infamy in the canonical sense is defined as the privation or lessening of one's good name as the result of the bad rating which he has, even among prudent men. It constitutes an irregularity, i.e. a canonical impediment which prevents one being ordained or exercising such orders as he may have already received. It is twofold in species, infamy of law (infamia juris) and infamy of fact (infamia facti). Infamy of law is contracted in one of three ways. Either the law itself attaches this juridical ineligibility and incapacity to the commission of certain crimes, or makes it contingent upon the decision of a judge, or finally connects it with the penalty imposed by him. This kind of infamy is incurred chiefly by those guilty of duelling (whether as principals or seconds), rape (as likewise those who co-operate in it), attempt to marry during the lifetime of the actual consort, heresy, real simony, etc. Infamy of law may be removed either by canonical purging or by application to the Holy See. Infamy of fact is the result of a widespread opinion, by which the community attributes some unusually serious delinquency, such as adultery or the like, to a person. This is more of an unfitness than an irregularity properly so called, unless sentence in court has been pronounced. It ceases therefore when one has shown by a change of life extending over a period of two or probably three years that his repentance is sincere. TAUNTON, The Law of the Church (London, 1906); SLATER, Manual of Moral Theology (New York, 1908); GASPARRI, De Sacra Ordinatione (Paris, 1893); WERNZ, Jus Decretalium (Rome, 1904). JOSEPH F. DELANY. Infanticide Infanticide Child-murder; the killing of an infant before or after birth. According to the French Criminal Code the word is limited to the murder of the new-born infant. In English it has been used for the deprivation of life from the moment of conception up to the age of two or three years. Except under Hebrew and Christian law, the killing of very young children by their parents has almost invariably been either legally permitted or at least practised with impunity. Economic reasons more than any others had led to the killing of infants before or after birth and have continued to exert an unfortunate influence even down to our own day. In Oriental countries certain poetic and religious traditions were appealed to in justification of the custom of killing infants, but as a rule the economic basis for it is clear. In many countries it was the custom to get rid of many of the female infants because they were unproductive, and generally expensive, members of the family. Sometimes usage required large dowries to be given with them. In India infanticide continued to be practised until far into the nineteenth century, notwithstanding the efforts of the British Government to put an end to it. In Greece and Rome, even at the height of their culture, the custom of exposing infants obtained, and in China and Japan delicate or deformed children were abandoned, or even healthy females, where there were male children in the family. Missionaries have done much to break up the custom and many children have been saved by them in the last few generations to be reared in the light of Christianity. Christianity first opposed a formal and effectual barrier to infanticide. Immediately after the Emperor Constantine's conversion he enacted two laws (about A. D. 320) directed against child-murder which are still found in the Theodosian Code (lib. XI, tit. xxvii). The first, to remove temptation, provided funds out of the imperial treasury for parents over-burdened with children; the second accorded all the rights of property of exposed infants to those who had had the charity to save and nurture them. In modern times even in Christian countries two causes have led to post-natal infanticide: one, the disgrace attendant upon illegitimacy; the other, an economic reason. Illegitimate children were sacrificed partly for the concealment of shame, but often to escape the burden of the child's support. The crime occurs most frequently where illegitimacy is most frequent and, according to statistics, is least common in Ireland. In countries where children are readily received without question into institutions, infanticide is rare. In France the law forbids inquiry into paternity, and arrangements are made for the state care of the children. In Russia even more liberal provision is made for the state care of any child whose parents cannot or will not care for it. The question of child-murder by mothers has always been a difficult legal problem. Under a statute of James I of England, the mother had to account for the death of her infant or be held responsible for it. In 1803 trials for infanticide were placed under the ordinary rules of evidence. The presumption now is that every new-born child found dead was born dead unless the contrary is proved. This rule of English law holds in the United States. Infanticide has been quite common in European countries during the nineteenth century for two sordid reasons: one was the neglect of infants in the process of what was known as baby-farming, the other was the desire to obtain insurance money. This abuse has been regulated in various ways, but baby-farming and child-insurance still seriously increase the death-rate among infants. PRE-NATAL INFANTICIDE The murder of an infant before birth. This is more properly called foeticide. Among the ancient philosophers and medieval theologians there was considerable discussion as to when the human embryo could be said to possess human life. This is no longer a question among modern biologists. At the very moment of conception a human being comes into existence. At any time after this the deprivation of life in this living matter, if done deliberately, is murder. The laws of most States in the Union are so framed that conditions may not be deliberately created which would put the life of the foetus in danger, or which would bring about an abortion before the foetus is viable, unless it has been decided in a consultation of physicians that the lives of both mother and child are in danger and only one of them can be saved. The comparative safety of the Caesarean section has also worked in the direction of safeguarding the life of the unborn child. The killing of a viable child because it is impossible to deliver it by the natural birth passages is now condemned by physicians all over the world. Craniotomy, that is, the crushing of the skull of a living child in order to facilitate its delivery, where great difficulty was encountered, was a common teaching in medical schools a generation ago, but the stand taken by the Church has had its effect in gradually bringing about a change of teaching and a recognition of the right of the child to life. Craniotomy on the living child is now never considered justifiable. When it is definitely known that the foetus is dead, crushing methods may be employed to extract it piecemeal, but this procedure is much more dangerous for the mother than Caesarean section. Many drugs are purchased by women with the idea that they will produce abortion without endangering the mother's life. No such drugs are known to modern medical science. There are drugs in the pharmacop ia which produce abortions, but only by affecting the mother very seriously. Abortion sometimes occurs after the taking of certain drugs supposed to produce it; but the premature birth is not due to the drug, it is caused by other influences. Twenty percent of all pregnancies end in premature births. The unfortunate woman who has had recourse to the drug then imagines that she has committed infanticide, and in intention she has; but the actual event has not been the result of the drug, unless that drug was one of the poisonous kind known as "abortifacients" and abortion took place in the convulsion which followed. It is absolutely certain that no known drug will produce abortion without producing very serious effects upon the mother, and even gravely endangering her life. (For the teaching of the Church on pre-natal infanticide, see ABORTION.) BROUARDEL, L'Infanticide (Paris, 1907); TARDIEU, L'Infanticide (Paris, 1868); RYAN, Infanticide, its Prevalence, Prevention and History (Fothergill Gold Medal S. A.), (London, 1862); BOURDON, L'Infanticide dans les legislations anciennes et modernes (Douai, 1896). -- All the standard works on medical jurisprudence have chapters on this subject. JAMES J. WALSH. Stefano Infessura Stefano Infessura Born at Rome about 1435; died about 1500. He devoted himself to the study of law, took the degree of Doctor of Laws, and acquired a solid legal knowledge. He was for a while judge in Orte, whence he came to the Roman University as professor of Roman law. Under Sixtus IV (1471-84) his office was affected by the financial measures of that pope, who frequently withheld the income of the Roman University, applied it to other uses, and reduced the salaries of the professors. Infessura was also for a long time secretary of the Roman Senate. He was entangled in the conspiracy of Stefano Porcaro against Nicholas V (1453), which aimed at overturning the papal Government and making Rome a republic (Pastor, Gesch. der Paepste, 4th ed., I, 550 sq.) Infessura also belonged to the antipapal faction, formed among the paganizing Humanists of the Roman Academy under Pomponio Leto (op. cit., II, 322 sqq.) He is particularly well known as the author of a work, partly Latin and partly Italian, the Diarium urbis Romae (Diario della Citt`a di Roma), a chronicle of the city from 1294 to 1494. The historical information is not of special value until the time of Martin V and Eugene IV, or rather until the pontificates of Paul II (1484-1492), Sixtus IV (1471-84), Innnocent VIII (1484-1492), and the first part of the reign of Alexander VI. The antipapal and republican temper of the author, also his partisan devotion to the Colonna, and his personal animosity, led him to indulge in very severe charges and violent acusations of the popes, especially Sixtus IV. He put down in his chronicle every fragment of the most preposterous and malevent gossip current in Roman society; even obvious falsehoods attributed to him. He is therefore not considered a reliable chronicler. It is only with the greatest caution and after very careful criticism that his work can be used for the papal history of his time. The Diarium was first edited by Eccard (Corpus historicum medii aevi, II, 1863-2016); afterwards, with omission of the most scandalous parts by Muratori (Scriptores rerum Italicarum, III, ii, 1111-1252); a critical edition of the text is owing to Tommasini, Diario della Citt`a di Roma di Stefano Infessura scribasenato (Fonti per la storia d'Italia, VI, Rome, 1890). TOMMASINI, Il diario do Stefano Infessuar in Archivia della Societa romana di storia patria, XI (Rome, 1888), 481-640; IDEM, Nuovi documenti illustrativi del Diario di Stef. Infessura, XII (Rome, 1889), 5-36; PASTOR, Geschichte der papste, 4th ed., II, passim, especially 646-649. J.P. KIRSCH Infidels Infidels (Latin in, privative, and fidelis.) As in ecclesiastical language those who by baptism have received faith in Jesus Christ and have pledged Him their fidelity and called the faithful, so the name infidel is given to those who have not been baptized. The term applies not only to all who are ignorant of the true God, such as pagans of various kinds, but also to those who adore Him but do not recognize Jesus Christ, as Jews, Mohammedans; strictly speaking it may be used of catechumens also, though in early ages they were called Christians; for it is only through baptism that one can enter into the ranks of the faithful. Those however who have been baptized but do not belong to the Catholic Church, heretics and schismatics of divers confessions are not called infidels but non-Catholics. The relation in which all these classes stand to the Catholic Church is not the same; in principle, those who have been baptized are subjects of the Church and her children even though they be rebellious children; they are under her laws or, at least, are exempt from them only so far as pleases the Church. Infidels, on the contrary, are not members of the ecclesiastical society, according to the words of St. Paul: Quid mihi de his qui fortis sunt, judicare? (I Cor., v, 12); they are entirely exempt from the canon law; they need to be enlightened and converted, not punished. Needless to say, infidels do not belong to the supernatural state; if they receive supernatural graces from God, it is not through the channels established by Jesus Christ for Christians, but by a direct personal inspiration, for instance, the grace of conversion. But their condition is not morally bad; negative infidelity, says St. Thomas (II-II, q. x, a. 1), does not partake of the nature of sin, but rather of punishment, in the sense that ignorance of the Faith is a consequence of original sin. That is why the condemnation by the Church of proposition lxviii of Baius: Infidelits pure negativa, in his quibus Christus non et praedicatus, peccatum est (purely negative infidelity in those to whom Christ has not been preached is a sin), was fully justified. But it is different with regard to positive infidelity, which is a sin against faith, the most grievous of all sins, apostasy. Being endowed with reason, and subject to natural law, infidels are not excluded from the moral order; they can perform acts of natural virtue; and so the ecclesiastical authorities had to condemn proposition xxv of Baius which declared that: Omnia infidelium opera peccata sunt, et philosophorum virtutes vitia (all works of infidels are sinful, and all the virtues of the philosophers are vices; cf. St. Thomas, loc. cit., a. 4; Hurter, Theol. dogm., III, thes. cxxvi and cxxvii). Daily experience moreover proves incontestably that there are infidels who really religious, charitable, just, true to their word, upright in their business, and faithful to their family duties. One can say of them, as the Scriptures say of Cornelius the centurion, that their prayers and their alms are acceptable to God (Acts, x, 4). It was especially among such well-meaning infidels that the Church of Jesus grew up, and it is from their ranks that she gains her recruits at the present day in missionary lands. The Church, mindful of the order of the Saviour: Go, teach all nations (Matt., xxviii, 12), has always considered the preaching of the Gospel among the infidels and their conversion by her apostolic missionaries to be one of her principal duties. This is not the place to recall the history of the missions, from the labours of St. Paul, the greatest of missionaries, and those who gave the light of faith to the Greek and Roman world, and those who converted the barbarian peoples, down through the ages when the phalanxes of religious men rushed to the conquest of the Orient, the Far East, and America, to the present-day pioneers of the religion of Jesus Christ; the multitude of heroes and martyrs and the harvest of souls that have been won to the true Faith. Doubtless, we still are far from having but one fold and one shepherd; nevertheless, there is not to-day a province or race of men so remote, but has not heard the name of Him by whom all men must be saved and has given children to the Church. The work of the missions is placed, as is well known, under the care and direction of the congregation of cardinals that bears the admirable name Da Propaganda Fide (for the propagation of the Faith), instituted by Gregory XV in 1622. Ever encouraged and developed by the popes, it is the directing body on whom the evangelical labourers in infidel lands depend. It sends them forth and grants them their powers, it established the prefectures Apostolic and the vicariates, and it is the tribunal to whose decision the missionaries submit their controversies, difficulties, and doubts. Thought there is a general obligation on the Church to toil for the conversion of infidels, yet it is not incumbent on any particular persons, unless on those priests charged with the care of souls who have infidels within their territory. For the distant fields of labour missionaries, priests, members of religious orders, both men and women, who voluntarily offer themselves for the apostolic work, are recruited in Catholic countries. Native Christians are not excluded from the ranks of the clergy, and it is a duty of the missionaries to provide themselves prudently with auxiliary workers in their missions. To draw the infidels to the Faith, the missionaries ought, like St. Paul, to make themselves all things to all men, adopt the customs of the country, acquire the native language, establish schools and charitable institutions, preach especially by their example, and show in their lives how the religion they have come to teach is to be practiced (cf. Instr. of the Prop. to the Vicars Apostolic of China, in the Collectanea S. C. de Prop. Fide, n. 328). They and their catechists are to instruct with zeal and patience to those who are anxious to know the true religion, admitting them to baptism after longer or shorter period of probation, as was done in the case of the catechumens in ancient times. But the conversion of infidels must be free and without compulsion, otherwise it will not be genuine and lasting (cap. 9, tit. vi, lib. V, de Judaeis). It cannot be denied that at various epochs, notably under Charlemagne and later in Spain, there were forced conversions, which may be explained, though not excused, by the custom of the age; but the Church was not responsible for them, as it has constantly taught that all conversions should be free. On several occasions it expressly forbade the baptism of Jews and infidels against their will, and even the baptism of children without their parents consent, unless they were in imminent danger of death (cf. Collect. cit., De subjecto baptismi). In the rite of administering baptism the Church still asks the questions: Quid petis ab Ecclesia Dei? Vis baptizari? Though ecclesiastical law does not affect the acts of infidels as such, yet the Church has to pass judgment on the validity of these acts and their juridical consequences when infidels come within the fold by baptism. No act of an infidel can have any value from the point of view of the spiritual society to which he does not belong; he is incapable by Divine law of receiving the sacraments, notably Holy orders (evidently we are not speaking here of a purely material reception); nor can he receive or exercise any ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The acts of infidels are to be considered in the light of natural law, to which they, like all men, are subject, and in accordance with the Divine law, in so far as it determines the secondary natural law. This applies principally to the case of matrimony. The marriage of infidels is valid as a contract under natural law, not as a sacrament, though at times this word has been applied to it (cf. Encycl. Arcanum); it is subject only to the impediments of natural law and, at times, to those of the civil law also, but it is not affected by the impediments of canon law. However the Church does not recognize polygamy as lawful among infidels; as to divorce strictly so called, it admits it only under the form of the Casus Apostoli, also known as the privilege of the Faith or the Pauline privilege; this consists in a convert being permitted to abandon his partner, who remains an infidel, if the latter refuse to continue the common life without endangering the faith of the convert (cf. DIVORCE, I, B, 1); under such circumstances the convert may marry a Catholic. As to acts which are prohibited or void in virtue of canon law alone, they are valid when performed by infidels; thus, the impediment of the remoter degrees of consanguinity and affinity, etc., does not affect the marriages of infidels. But the juridical consequences of the acts, performed by them when infidels, begin to exist at the moment of and in virtue of their baptism; consequently, a converted widower may not marry a relative of his late wife without dispensation; and again, a man who has had two wives before his conversion is a bigamist and therefore irregular. Most of the laws passed by the Church refer to the relations between its subjects and infidels in not only religious but also civil affairs. Speaking generally, the faithful are forbidden to take part in any religious rites, considered as such, of pagans, Mohammedans, or Jews, and all the more to practice them through a kind of survival of their primitive superstitions. If this prohibition is inspired not so much by a fear of the danger of perversion as by the law forbidding the faithful to communicate in sacris with non-Catholics, aversion to false religions and especially from idol worship justifies the rigor of the law. To mention but the principal acts, the faithful are forbidden to venerate idols, not only in their temples, but also in private houses, to contribute to the building or repairing of pagan temples or of mosques, to carve idols, to join in pagan sacrifices, to assist at Jewish circumcisions, to wear idolatrous images or objects having an acknowledged religious significance, so that the fact of wearing them is looked upon as an act of pagan worship, and finally to make use of superstitious and especially idolatrous practices in the acts of civil or domestic life. Some very delicate questions may arise in connection with the last prohibition; for instance, we may recall the celebrated controversy concerning the Chinese rites (see CHINA). On the other hand, it is not forbidden to enter temples and mosques out of mere curiosity if no act of religion be performed, or to eat food that has been offered to false gods, provided that this be not done in a temple or as a sacred repast, and that it be done without scandal; or to observe customs or perform acts which are not in themselves religious, even though pagans join superstitious practices to them. Not only is it not forbidden, but it is permissible and one might say obligatory to pray even publicly for infidel princes, in order that God may grant their subjects peace and prosperity; nothing is more conformable to the tradition of the Church; thus Catholics of the different rites in the Ottoman Empire pray for the sultan. In this place mention may be made of the ecclesiastical law forbidding the faithful to marry infidels, a prohibition which is now a diriment impediment, rendering a marriage null and void unless a dispensation has been obtained (see DISPARITY OF WORSHIP). It is easy to see that there is a real danger to the faith and religious life of the Catholic party in the intimacy of married life and in the difficulties in the way of a Christian education of the children; and, if that party be the wife, in the excessive authority of the husband and the inferior condition of the wife in infidel countries; consequently, this dispensation is granted only with difficulty and when the precautions dictated by prudence have been taken. The laws regulating the dealings between Catholics and infidels in civil life were inspired also by religious motives, the danger of perversion, and the high idea entertained in the ages of faith of the superiority of Christians to infidels. These regulations, of course, did not refer to all acts of civil life; moreover, they were not directed against all infidels indifferently, but only against Jews; at the present day they have fallen almost completely into desuetude. In the early Middle Ages, Jews were forbidden to have Christian slaves; the laws of the decretals forbade Christians to enter the service of Jews, or Christian women to act as their nurses or midwives; moreover, Christians when ill were not to have recourse to Jewish physicians. These measures may be useful in certain countries to-day and we find them renewed, at least as recommendations, by recent councils (Council of Gran, in 1858; Prague, in 1860; and Utrecht, in 1865). As for the Jews, they were ordinarily restricted to certain definite quarters of the towns into which they were admitted, and had to wear a dress by which they might be recognized. Modern legislation has given the Jews the same rights as other citizens and the intercourse between them and Catholics in civil life is no longer governed by ecclesiastical law. (See JEWS AND JUDAISM; MOHAMMED AND MOHAMMEDANISM.) A. BOUDINHON Infinity Infinity (Lat. infinitas; in, not, finis, the end, the boundary). Infinity is a concept of the utmost importance in Christian philosophy and theology. DEFINITION The infinite, as the word indicates, is that which has no end, no limit, no boundary, and therefore cannot be measured by a finite standard, however often applied; it is that which cannot be attained by successive addition, not exhausted by successive subtraction of finite quantities. Though in itself a negative term, infinity has a very positive meaning. Since it denies all bounds -- which are themselves negations -- it is a double negation, hence an affirmation, and expresses positively the highest unsurpassable reality. Like the concepts of quantity, limit, boundary, the term infinity applies primarily to space and time, but not exclusively, as Schopenhauer maintains. In a derived meaning it may be applied to every kind of perfection: wisdom, beauty, power, the fullness of being itself. The concept of infinity must be carefully distinguished from the concept of "all-being". Infinity implies that an infinite being cannot lack any reality in the line in which it is infinite, and that it cannot be surpassed by anything else in that particular perfection; but this does not necessarily mean that no other being can have perfections. "All-being", however, implies that there is no reality outside of itself, that beyond it there is nothing good, pure, and beautiful. The infinite is equivalent to all other things put together; it is the greatest and most beautiful; but besides it, other things both beautiful and good may exist (for further explanation, see below). It is objected that, if there were an infinite body, no other body could exist besides it; for the infinite body would occupy all space. But the fact that no other body could exist besides the infinite body would be the result of its impenetrability, not of its infinity. Spinoza defines: "Finite in its kind is that which can be limited by a thing of the same kind." (Ethics, I def. ii). If he intended only to say: "Finite is that from which another thing of the same kind, by its very existence, takes away perfection", no fault could be found with him. But what he means to say is this: "Finite is that, besides which something else can exist; infinite therefore is that only which includes all things in itself." This definition is false. Many confound the infinite with the indeterminate. Determination (determinatio) is negation, limitation (negatio, limitatio), says Spinoza. Generally speaking, this is false. Determination is limitation in those cases only where it excludes any further possible perfection, as for example, the determination of a surface by a geometrical figure; but it is no limitation, if it adds further reality, and does not exclude, but rather requires a new perfection, as for example, the determination of substance by rationality. The mere abstract being, so well known to metaphysicians, is the most indeterminate of all ideas, and nevertheless the poorest in content; the infinite, however, is in every way the most determinate idea, in which all possibilities are realized, and which is therefore the richest in content. According to Hobbs, we call a thing infinite if we cannot assign limits to it. This definition is also insufficient: infinite is not that whose limits we cannot perceive, but that which has no limit. DIVISION The different kinds of infinity must be carefully distinguished. The two principal divisions are: (1) the infinite in only one respect (secundum quid) or the partially infinite, and the infinite in every respect (simpliciter) or the absolutely infinite; (2) the actually infinite, and the potentially infinite, which is capable of an indefinite increase. Infinite in only one respect (viz. extension) is ideal space; infinite in only one respect (viz. duration) is the immortal soul; infinite in every respect is that being alone, which contains in itself all possible perfections and which is above every species and genus and order. Potentially infinite is (e.g.) the path of a body which moves in free space; potentially infinite is also the duration of matter and energy, according to the law of their conservation. For this motion and this duration will never cease, and in this sense will be without end; nevertheless, the path and the duration up to this instant can be measured at any given point and are therefore in this sense finite. Hence they are infinite not according to what they actually are at a given moment, but according to what they are not yet and never actually can be; they are infinite in this, that they are ever and forever progressing without bounds, that there is always the "and so forth". The actually infinite, however, is now and at every moment complete, absolute, entirely determined. The immeasurable omnipresent spirit does not advance from point to point without end, but is constantly everywhere, fills every "beyond" of every assignable point. Hegel calls potential infinity the improper (schlechte), actual infinity the true infinity. THE INFINITY OF GOD The actual infinity of God in every respect is Catholic dogma. In accordance with the Holy Bible (III Kings, viii, 27; Ps. cxliv, 3; cxlvi, 5; Ecclus., xliii, 29 sqq., Luke, i, 37, etc.) and unanimous tradition, the Vatican Council at its Third Session (cap. i) declared God to be almighty, eternal, immense, incomprehensible, infinite in intellect and will and every perfection, really and essentially distinct from the world, infinitely blessed in Himself and through Himself, and inexpressibly above all things that can exist and be thought of besides Him. The infinity of God can also be proved from philosophy. God is the self-existing, uncreated Being whose entire explanation must be in Himself, in Whom there can be no trace of chance; but it would be mere chance if God possessed only a finite degree of perfection, for however high that degree might be, everything in the uncreated Being -- His perfections, His individuality, His personality -- admit the possibility of His possessing a still higher degree of entirety. From outside Himself, God cannot be limited, because, being uncreated, He is absolutely independent of external causes and conditions. Limitation would be chance; the more so because we can maintain not only that any given finite degree of perfection may be surpassed, but also, in a positive way, that an infinite being is possible. Moreover, if God were finite, the existence of other gods, His equals or even His superiors in perfection would be possible, and it would be mere chance if the y did not exist. Of such gods, no trace can be found, while on the other hand, God's infinity is suggested by various data of experience, and in particular by our unbounded longing after knowledge and happiness. The more man a man is, and the more he follows his best thoughts and impulses, the less he is satisfied with merely finite cognitions and pleasures. That the essential cravings of our nature are not deceptive, is demonstrated at once by experience and speculation. From the infinity of God it is easy to deduce all His perfections: His unity, simplicity, immutability, etc., though these may be proved also by other means. Many of God's attributes are nothing else than His infinity in a particular respect, e.g. His omnipotence is but the infinity of His power; His omniscience, the infinity of His knowledge. Whatever is known to be a pure unalloyed perfection, must be an attribute of God on account of His infinity. We say a pure unalloyed perfection; for God, just because He is infinite does not possess all perfections in the same way. Only pure perfections -- i.e. those which include in their concept no trace of imperfection whatsoever -- are contained in Him formally. We must therefore ascribe to Him the attributes wise, powerful, amiable, etc., without any restriction, because these are all pure perfections. Of the so-called mixed perfections, which include besides the positive reality also some imperfections, as e.g., extension, contrition, courage, sound reasoning, and clear judgment, He possesses only the perfection without the connected imperfection. His is, for example, the all-pervading presence, without composition; love for the good without having committed sin; power without having to overcome fear; knowledge without formal reasoning or formal judgment. He possesses, therefore, the mixed perfections in a higher form -- eminently, i.e. in the only form which is worthy of the infinite. But even the pure perfections are contained in Him in a higher form than in the creature, in which they are dependent, derived, finite. God's perfection and that of the creature are the same analogically only, not univocally. The error of Anthropomorphism consists just in this, that it ascribes to God human perfections, without first refining them; whereas Agnosticism errs in its contention that, of all the pure and good qualities which are found in creatures, none can be ascribed to God. Those modern writers too are mistaken, who hold the best form of religious sentiment to be that which comprises the largest number of elements, and if needs be, of contradictions. According to them, we should call God both finite and infinite; finite to escape Agnosticism, infinite to escape Anthropomorphism. But it is evident that the highest and absolute truth cannot be a compound of contradictions. The dogma of God's infinity is not only of the greatest import for theology in the strictest sense of the term (i.e. the treatise on God), but it throws new light upon the malice of sin, which, on the account of Him Who is offended, becomes objectively infinite; upon the infinite majesty of the Incarnate Word and the boundless value of His merits and satisfaction; upon the necessity of the Incarnation, if God's justice required an adequate satisfaction for sin. INFINITY AND MONISM How imperatively thought demands that infinity be ascribed to the self-existent Being is best shown by the fact, that all those who have at any time identified, and especially those who nowadays identify God and the world -- in short, all Monists -- almost universally speak if the infinity of their God. But this is an error. One has but to open one's eyes to see that the world in imperfect, and therefore finite. It avails nothing for the Monists to assume that the world is infinite in extension; all that could be inferred from this supposition would be an infinitely extended imperfection and finiteness. Nor do they gain anything by staking their hopes on evolution, and predicting infinity for the future of the world; uncreated existence involves infinity at every moment, at this present instant as well as at any future time, and not only potential but real, actual infinity. Others therefore maintain that the world is not their God, but an emanation from God; they must consequently grant that God has parts -- else nothing could emanate from Him -- and that these parts are subject to imperfections, decay, and evil -- in short that their God is not infinite. Hence others assert that the things of this world are not parts of the Absolute, but its manifestations, representations, forms, qualities, activities, accidents, attributes, affections, phenomena, modifications. But if these are not mere words, if the things of this world are really modifications etc. of the Absolute, it follows again that, as much as it is in finite things, the Absolute is subject to limitation, evil and sin, and is therefore not infinite. This leads many to take the last step by asserting that the things of this world are nothing in them selves, but simply thoughts and conations of the Absolute. But why has not the Absolute grander and purer conceptions and volitions? Why has it contented itself for thousands of years with these realistic self-represent ations, and not even yet attained with certainty an idealistic conception of reality? Turn as one may, in spite of all efforts to evade the consequence, the god of Monism is not an infinite being. The Monists object that God as conceived by Theists is a finite thing, since He is not in Himself all reality, but has outside Himself, the reality of the world. However, it has been stated above that infinity and totality are two entirely different ideas, and that infinity does not, in every supposition, exclude the existence of other things besides itself. We say, not "in every supposition", for it may be that the infinite could not be infinite if certain beings existed. A being uncreated or independent of God, or a Manichfan principle of evil, cannot exist beside the infinite God, because it would limit His absolute perfections. This is the time-honored proof for the unity of God, the grand thought of Tertullian (Adv. Marcion., I, iii), "if God is not one, He is not at all." But that besides God there are creatures of His, reflections from His light, illuminated only by Him and in no way diminishing His light, does not limit God Himself. God, on the contrary, would be finite, if His creatures were identical with Him. For creatures are essentially of mixed perfection, because essentially dependent; infinite is only that which is pure perfection without any admixture of imperfection. If, therefore, one wants to form the equation: infinite = all, it must be interpreted: infinite = everything uncreated; or better still: infinite = all pure perfections in the highest and truest sense. Taken in the monistic view, viz. that there can be no reality besides the infinite, this equation is wrong. The identification, how ever, of "infinite" and "all" is very old, and served as a basis of Eleatic philosophy. Another very common objection of Monists against the theistic conception of God is, that being personal, He cannot be infinite. For personality, whether conceived as individuality or as self-consciousness or as subsistent being, cannot exist without something else as its opposite; but wherever there is something else, there is no infinity. Both premises of this argument are false. To assert that infinity is destroyed wherever something else exists, is but the repetition of the already rejected statement that infinity means totality. Equally unwarranted is the assertion that personality requires the existence of something else. Individuality means not hing more than that a thing is this one thing and not another thing, and it is just as much this one thing, whether anything else exists or not. The same is true of self-consciousness. I am aware of myself as Ego, even though nothing else exist, and I have no thought of any other being; for the Ego is something absolute, not relative. Only if I desire to know myself as not being the non-Ego, to use the expression of Fichte -- I necessarily must think of that non-Ego, i.e. of something as not-myself. The subsistence of intellectual beings, i.e. personality in the strictest sense of the term, implies only that I am a being in and for myself, separate from everything else and in no way part of anything else. This would be true, even though nothing else existed; in fact, it would then be truer than ever. Far from excluding personality God is personal in the deepest and truest meaning, because He is the most independent being, by Himself and in Himself in the most absolute sense (see PERSON). HISTORY Concerning the philosophers before Aristotle, Suarez pertinently remarks that they "scented" the infinity of God (subodorati sunt). In many of them we meet the infinity of God or of the First Cause, though in many cases it be only infinity in extension. Plato and Aristotle assert in substance the infinity of the Highest Being in a more adequate sense, though blended with errors and obscurities. The Stoics had various ideas that would have led them to admit the infinity of God, had not their Pantheism stood in the way. The conceptions of Philo's Jewish-Alexandrian philosophy were much purer; the same may be said to a certain degree of the neo-Platonism of Plotinus, who was largely influenced by Philo. Plotinus originated the terse and trenchant argument: God is not limited; for what should limit Him? ("Enn. V", lib. V, in "Opera omnia", Oxford, 1885, p. 979). Against Plotinus, however, it may be objected that true infinity is as little consistent with his doctrine of emanations as with the more or less pantheistic tendencies of the Indian philosophy. The Christian writers took their concepts of the infinity of God from the Bible; the speculative development of these ideas, however, needed time. St. Augustine, being well acquainted with Platonic philosophy, recognized that whatever could be greater, could not be the First Being. Candidus, a contemporary of Charlemagne, perceived that the limitations of all finite beings point towards a Creator, Who determines the degrees of their perfection. Abelard seems to teach that God, being superior to everything else in the reason of His existence, must also be greater in His perfections. A book, which is sometimes ascribed to Albert the Great, derives God's infinity from His pure actuality. All these reasons were collected, developed, and deepened by the Scholastics of the best period; and since then the speculative proof for the infinity of God has, in spite of some few objectors, been considered as secure. Even Moses Mendelssohn writes: "That the necessary Being contains every perfection which it has, in the highest possible degree and without any limitations, is developed in numberless text-books, and so far nobody has brought a serious objection against it" ("Gesammelte Schriften", II, Leipzig, 1893, p. 355). Kant's attempt to stigmatize the deduction of infinity from self-existence as a return to the ontological argument, was a failure; for our deduction starts from the actually existing God, not from mere ideas, as the ontological argument does. Among Christians, the dogma itself has rarely been denied, but the freer tendencies of modern Protestantism in the direction of Pantheism, and the views of some champions of Modernism in the Catholic Church, are in fact, although not always in expression, opposed to the infinity of God. INFINITY OF CREATURES The knowledge we have about the infinity of creatures leaves much to be desired. It is certain that no creature is infinite in every regard. However great it may be, it lacks the most essential perfection: self-existence, and whatever else is necessarily connected with it. Moreover, philosophers and theologians are practically unanimous in declaring that no creature can be infinite in an essential predicate. As to the questions whether an accident (e.g. quantity) is capable of infinity, whether the creation could be infinite in extension. Whether there can be an infinite number of actual beings, or whether an infinite number is at all possible -- as to these questions they are less in harmony, though the majority lean towards the negative answer, and in our time this number seems to have increased. At any rate the infinite world, of which the old Greek philosophers dreamt and the modern Materialists and Monists talk so much, lacks every proof, and, as to the infinite duration of the world, it is contradicted by the dogma of its temporal beginning. The mathematicians too occupy themselves with the infinite, both with the infinitely small and the infinitely large, in the treatises on infinite series, and infinitesimal calculus, and generally in all limit operations. The infinitely small is represented by the sign 0, the infinitely large by a character that looks like the number "8" turned on its side. Their relation is expressed by the ratio 1/0 = (infitely large) All mathematiians agree as to the method of operating with the two quantities; but there is much division amongst philosophers and philosophizing mathematicians as to their real meaning. The least subject to difficulties are perhaps the following two views. The infinite in mathematics may be take n as the potentially infinite, i.e. that which can be increased or diminished without end; in this view it is a real quantity, capable of existence. Or one may take it as the actually infinite, viz. that which by actual successive addition or division can never be reached. In this view it is something which can never exist in reality, or from the possibility of whose existence we at best abstract. It is a limit which exists only as a fiction of the mind (ens rationis). Or if the infinitely small is considered as an absolute zero, but connoting different values, it is really a limit, but as far as it connotes other values, only a logical being. Thus at times Leibniz calls both the infinitely small and the infinitely large fictions of the mind (mentis fictiones) and compares them to imaginary quantities. Carnot calls the differential an etre de raison; Gauss speaks of a fac,on de parler. OTTO ZIMMERMAN Infralapsarians Infralapsarians (Lat., infra lapsum, after the fall). The name given to a party of Dutch Calvinists in the seventeenth century, who sought to mitigate the rigour of Calvin's doctrine concerning absolute predestination. As already explained (see CALVINISM), the system evolved by Calvin is essentially supralapsarian. The fundamental principle once admitted, that all events in this world proceed from the eternal decrees of God, it seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that the fall of man was not merely foreseen and permitted, as the Catholic doctrine teaches, but postivitely decreed, as a necessary means to the Divine end in creating Man, the manifestation of God's power in condemning, as well as of His mercy in saving, souls. It was this corollary of Calvinism, viz., that God created some men for the express purpose of showing His power through their eternal damnation, that brought on the troubles associated with the name of Arminius (see ARMINIANISM). In their controversies with opponents, within and without the pale of Calvinism, the Infralapsarians had the advantage of being able to use, or abuse, for the purpose of argument, the texts of Scripture and the Fathers which establish the dogma of original sin. But since, to remain Calvinists at all, they were obliged to retain, even if they did not insist upon, the principle that God's decrees can in no wise be influenced or conditioned by anything outside of Himself, the difference between them and the more outspoken Supralapsarians seem to have consisted simply in a divergent phrasing of the same mystery. To the sould which is foreordained to eternal misery without any prevision of its personal demerits, it matters little whether the decree of condemnation date from all eternity or -- "Five thousand years 'fore its creation, Through Adam's cause. JAMES F. LOUGHLIN Giovanni Inghirami Giovanni Inghirami Italian astronomer, b. at Volterra, Tuscany, 16 April, 1779; d. at Florence, 15 August, 1851. He was of a noble family which produced two other distinguished scholars, Tommaso (1470-1516), humanist, and Francesco (1772-1846), archaeologist, brother of Giovanni. His education was received in is native cit at the College of Saint Michael, conducted by the Piarists, popularly called the "Scolopi". This order he joined at the age of seventeen, and later became professor of mathematics and philosophy at Volterra, where one of his pupils was the future Pius IX. In 1805 he travelled int he north of italy, and was engaged for some months in scientifice work at Milan. He was called to Florence to fill the twofold office of professor of mathematics and astronomy at the College of the Scolopi, known from the adjacent church as the College of San Giovannino, and of director of the college observatory established by the Jesuit, Leonard Ximenes. His first publications were articles on hydraulcis, statics, and astronomy, astronomical tables, and elementary text-books on mathematics and mathematical geography. In 1830 after observations extending over fourteen years, he published, with the patronage of the Grand Duke Ferdinand III, a "Carta topografica e geometica della Toscana" on the scale of 1:200,000 -- a work of high merit. When the Berlin Academy of Sciences undertook the construction of an exhaustive astronomical atlas, he was assigned a section. His performance of this task won great praise. he became successively provincial and general of his order, but is failing heath and his love for scientific work caused him to resign the latter office, which had required his taking up residence in Rome, and to accept the position of vicar-general. He returned to Florence and, although almost blind for some years, continued his teaching until afw months before his death. Simplicity and piety were dominant traits of his character. The scientific works of Inghirami include: numerous articles published in the "Astronomische Nachrichen", in Zach's "Monatliche Correspondenz zur Befoerderung der Erd-u. Himmelskunde" and in his own "collezione di opusculi e notizie di Scienze" (4 vols., Florence, 1820-30); "Tavole Astronomiche universali portatili" (ibid., 1811), and "Effemeridi di Venere e Giove ad uso di naviganti pel meridiano di Parigi" (ibid., 1821-24). ANTONELLI, Sulla vita e sulle opere di Giov. Inghirami (Florence, 1854); VON REUMONT, Beitrage sur italienischen Geschichle, VI) Berlin, 1857), 472 sq. PAUL H. LINEHAN Ingleby, Venerable Francis Venerable Francis Ingleby English martyr, born about 1551; suffered at York on Friday, 3 June, 1586 (old style). According to an early but inaccurate calendar he suffered 1 June (Cath. Rec.Soc. V, 192). Fourth son of Sir William Ingleby, knight, of Ripley, Yorkshire, by Anne, daughter of Sir William Malory, knight, of Studley, he was probably a scholar of Brasenose College, Oxford, in and before 1565, and was a student of the Inner Temple in 1576. On 18 August, 1582 he arrived at the English College, Reims, where he lived at his own expense. He was ordained subdeacon at Loan on Saturday, 28 May, deacon at Reims, Saturday, 24 September, and priest at Loan, Saturday 24 December, 1583 and left for England Thursday, 5 April 1584. (These four dates are all new style). He laboured with great zeal in the neighbourhood of York, where he was arrested in the spring of 1586, and lodged in the castle. He was the one of the priests for harbouring whom the Venerable Margaret Clitherow (q. v.) was arraigned. At the prison door, while fetters were being fastened on his legs he smilingly said, "I fear me I shall be overproud of my boots." He was condemned under 27 Eliz. c. 2 for being a priest. When sentence was pronounced he exclaimed, "Credo videre bona Domini in terra viventium". Fr. Warford says he was short but well-made, fair-complexioned, with a chestnut beard, and a slight cast in his eyes. JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT University of Ingolstadt University of Ingolstadt The University of Ingolstadt (1472-1800), was founded by Louis the Rich, Duke of Bavaria. The privileges of a studium generale with all four faculties had been granted by Pope Pius II, 7 April, 1458, but ovwing to the unsettled condition of the times, could not be put into effect. Ingolstadt, modelled on the University of Vienna, had as one of its principal aims the furtherance and spread of Christian belief. For its material equipment, an unusually large endowment was provided out of the holdings of the clergy and the religious orders. The Bishop of Eichstatt, to whom diocese Ingolstadt belongs, was appointed chancellor. The formal inauguration of the university took place on 26 June, 1472, and within the first semester 489 students matriculated. As in other universites prior to the sixteenth century, the faculty of philosophy comprised two sections, the Realists and the Nominalists, each under its own dean. In 1496 Duke George the Rich, son of Louis, established the Collegium Georgianum for poor students in the faculty of arts, and other foundations for similar purposes were subsequently made. Popes Adrian VI and Clement VII bestowed on the universit additional revenues from ecclesiastical property. At the height of the humanistic movement, Ingolstadt counted among its teachers a series of remarkable savatns and writers; Conrad Celtes, the first poet crowned by the German Emperor; his disciple Jacob Locher, surnamed Philomusos; Johann Turmair, known as Aventinus from his birthplace, Abensber, editor of the "Annales Boiorum" and of the Bavarian "Chronica", father of Bavarian history and founder (1507) of the"Sodalitas litteraria Angilostadensis". Johanees Reuchlin, restorer of the Hebrew language and literature, was also for a time at the university. Although Duke William IV (1508-50) and his chancellor, Leonhard von Eck, did their utmost during thirty years to keep Lutheranism out of Ingolstadt, and though the adherents of the new doctrine were obliged to retract or resign, some of the professors joined the Lutheran movement. Their influence, however, wa counteracted by the tireless and successful endeavours of the foremost opponent of the Reformation, Dr. Johann Maier, better known as Eck, from the name of his birth-place, Egg, on the Gunz. He taught and laboured (1510-43) to such good purpose that Ingolstadt, during the Counter-Reformation, did more than any other university for the defence of the Catholic Faith, and was for the church in Southern Germany what Wittenberg was for Protestantism in the north. In 1549, with the approval of Paul III, peter Canisus, Salmeron, Claude Lejay, and other Jesuits were appointed to professorships in theology and philosophy. About the same time a college and a boarding school for boys were established, though they were not actually opened until 1556, when the statutes of the university were revised. In 1568 the profession of faith in accordance with the Council of Trent was required of the rector and professors. In 1688 the teaching in the faculty of philosophy passed entirely in the hands of the Jesuits. Though the university after this change, in spite of vexations and conflicts regarding exemption from taxes and juridical autonomy, enjoyed a high degree of prosperity, its existence was frequently imperilled during the troubles of the Thirty Years War. But its fame as a home of earning was enhanced by men such as the theologian, Gregory of Valentia; the controversialist, Jacob Gretser (1558-1610); the moralist, Laymann (1603-1609); the mathematician and cartographer, Philip Apian; the astronomer, Christopher Scheiner (1610-1616), who, with the helioscope invented by him, discovered the sun spots and calculated the ime of the sun's rotation; and the poet, Jacob Balde, from Ensisheim in Alsacc, professor of rhetoric. Prominent among the jurists in the seventeenth century were Kaspar Manz and Christopher Berold. During the latter half of that century, and especially in the eighteenth, the courses of instruction were improved and adapted to the requirements of the age. After the founding of the Bavarian Academy of Science at Munich in 1759, an anti-ecclesiastical tendency sprang up at Ingolstadt and found an ardent supporter in Joseph Adam, Baron of Ickstatt, whom the elector had placed at the head of the university. Plans, moreover, were set on foot to have the university of the third centenary the Society of Jesus was suppressed, but some of the ex-Jesuits retained their professorships for a while longer. A movement was inaugurated in 1772 by Adam Weishaupt, professor of canon law, with a view to securing the triumph of the rationalistic "enlightment" in Church and State by means of the secret society of "Illuminati" (q.v.), which he founded. But this organization was suppressed in 1786 by the Elector Carl theodore, and Weishaupt was dismissed. On 25 November, 1799, the elector Maximilian IV, later King Maximilian I, decreed that the university, which was involved in financial difficulties, should be transferred to Landshut; and this was done in the following May. Among its leading professors towards the close were Winter the church historian, Schrank the naturalist, and Johann Michael Sailer, writer on moral philosophy and pedagogy, who later became Bishop of Ratisbon. ERMAN-HORN, Bibliographie d. deutschen Universitaten, II (Leipzig, 1904); ROTMAR, Annales Ingolstad. Academiae (Ingolstadt, 1580); MEDERER, Annales, Ingolstadienses Academiae (Ingolstadt, 1782); PRANTL, Geschichte der Ludwigs-Maximilians Universitat in Ingolstadt, Landshut, Munchen (Munich, 1872); ROMSTOCK, Die Jesuitennullen Prantls (Eichstatt, 1898) (a reply to Prantl's charges against the Jesuits); VERDIERE, Historie de l'universite d'Inglostadt (Paris, 1887); RASHDALL, Universities etc., II (Oxford, 1895), pt. 1; BAUCH, Die Anfange des Humanismus in Ingolstadt (1901). KARL HOEBER Ingram, Venerable John Venerable John Ingram English martyr, born at Stoke Edith, Herefordshire, in 1565; executed at Newcastle-on-Tyne, 26 July, 1594. He was probably the son of Anthony Ingram of Wolford, Warwickshire, by Dorothy, daughter of Sir John Hungerford. He was educated first in Worcestershire, then at the English College, Reims, at the Jesuit College, Pont-a-Mousson, and at the English College, Rome. Ordained at Rome in 1589, he went to Scotland early in 1592, and there frequented the company of Lords Huntly, Angus, and Erroll, the Abbot of Dumbries, and Sir Walter Lindsay of Balgavies. Captured on the Tyne, 25 November, 1593, he was imprisoned successively at Berwick, Durgam, York, and in the Tower of London, in which place he suffered the severest tortures with great constancy, and wrote twenty Latin epigrams which have survived. Sent north again, he was imprisoned at York, Newcastle, and Durgam, where he was tried in the company of John Bostle (q. v.) and George Swalwell, a converted minister. He was convicted under 27 Eliz. c. 2 (which made the mere presence in England of a priest ordained abroad high treason), though there was no evidence that he had ever exercised any priestly function in England. It appears that some one in Scotland in vain offered the English Government a thousand crowns for his life. JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT Jean-Auguste Dominique Ingres Jean-Auguste Dominique Ingres A French painter, b. at Montauban, 29 August, 1780; d. at Paris, 14 January, 1867. His father sent him to study at Toulouse. At the age of sixteen he entered into the famous studio of David, in Paris. Steeped in the theories of Mengs and Wincklemann, he had broken away from the conceits and libertinism of the eighteenth century and led art back to nature and the antique. In Davids view the antiques was but the highest expression of life, freed from all that is merely transitory, and removed from the caprices from whim and fashion. Ingres accepted his master's programme in its entirety. But what in David's case made up a homogenous system, answering the twin faculties of his vast and powerful organism, meant quite another matter for the pupil. The young artist was gifted with a wondrous sensitiveness for reality. No one has ever experienced such sharp, penetrating, clear cut impressions with an equal aptitude for transferring them in their entirety to paper or canvas. But these exceptional gifts were handicpped by an extreme lack of inventiveness and originality. Unfortunatley David's teaching filled him with the belief that high art consisted in imitating the antique, and that the dignity of a painter constrained him to paint historical subjects. Throughout his life Ingres did violence to himself to paint scenes of the order of his master's "Sabines", as he suceeded in doing in his "Achilles receiving the messengers of Agamemnon" (Pais, Ecole des Beaux-Arts), which in 1801 won the "Prix de Rome". but instead of being a living historical or poetical scene, this painting is but a collection of studies, stitched together with effort, and without any real unity of result. Thus it was that there was always in Ingres a curious contradiction between his temperament and his education, between his ability and his theories. And this secret struggle between his realistic longings and his idealistic convictions explains the discords of his work. In the beginning, however, his youth was the main factor. Perhaps, too, his obscurity, the dearth of important orders, and the necessity of earning his living were all in his favour. Never was he greater or more himself than during this period of his career (1800-1820). His absoulte realism and his intransigeance caused him to be looked on in David's school as an eccentric and revolutionary individual. Ingres had been friendly with a Florentine sculptor named Bartolini, and was strongly atracted by the works of the early Renaissance period, and by that art throbbing with life, and almost feverish in its manner of depicting nature, such as we find examples of in the works of Donatello and Filippo Lippi. He grew enthusiastic over archaic schools, over the weird poems of Ossian, over medieval costumes, in a word, over everything which by being unconventional seemed to him to draw nearer to reality, or at least gave him new thrills and sensations. He was put down as "Gotic", as an imitatior of Jean de Bruges (Jan van Eyck) and all the works he produced at this time bear the mark of oddity. This is especially true of his prtraits. Those of "Madame Riviere" (Louvre, 1804), "Granet" (Aix-en-Provence, 1806), "Madame Aymon "La Belle Zelie)" (Rouen, 1806), "Madame Devanc,ay" (Chantilly, 1807), and of "Madame Se Senones" (Nantes, 1810) are unrivalled in all the world, and take a place next to the immortal creations of Titian and Raphael. Never was there completer absence of "manner", forgetfulenss of set purpose, of systematic or poetical effort, never did a painter give himself up more fully torealism, or submit more absoultely to his model, to the object before him. No work brings home to us more clearly the expression of something definite unless it be those little portrait sketches drawn by this same artist in the days of his poverty and sold at twenty francs each, and which are now famous as the "Ingres crayons". The finest are to be seen at the Louvre and in the Bonnat Collection at Paris and Bayonne. In 1806 Ingres set out for Rome, and in the Vatican he saw the frescoes of the greatest of the decorators, the master of the "Parnassus" and the "School of Athens". He at once persuaded himself that this was absolute beauty, and that these paintings held within them formulae and concepts revealing a full definition of art and of its immutable laws. And it is to this mistake of his that we owe not a few of his finest works; for had he not wrongly thought himself a classicist, he would not have felt himself bound to adopt the essential constituent of the clasical language, namely, the nude figure. The nude, in modern realism, hints at the unusual, suggests something furtive and secret, and takes a place in the programme of the realists only as something exceptional. Whereas with Ingres, thanks to the classical idealism of his doctrine, the nude was always a most important and sacred object of study. And to this study he applied, as in all his undertakings, a delicacy and freshness of feeling, an accuracy of observation toned down by a slightly sensual touch of charm, which place these paintings among his most precious works. Never was the joy of drawing and painting a beautiful body, of reproducing it in all the glory and grace of tis youth, mastered by a Frenchman to such an extent, nor in a way so akin to the art of the great painters. "OEdipus" and the "Girl Bathing" (1808), the "Odalisque" (1814), the "Source" (1818) -- all these canvases are in the Louvre -- are among the most beautiful poems consecrated to setting forht the noblest meaning of the human figure. And yet they remain but incomparable "studies". The painter is all the whhile incapable of blending his sensations, of harmonizing them with one another so as to form a tableau. This same taste for what is quaint led Ingres at this period to produce a host of minor anecdotal or historical works such as "Raphael and the Fornarina", "Francesca da rimini" (1819, in the Angers Museum), etc., works that at times display the wit, the romance, and the caprice of a quattrocento miniature. here the style becomes a part of the reality, and the archaism of the one only serves to bring out more clearly the originality of the other. In work of this order nothing the artist has left us is more complete than his "Sixtine Chapel" (Louvre, 1814). This magnificent effort, small in size though it is, is perhaps the most complete, the best balanced, the soundest piece of work the master ever wrought. At this time David, exiled by the Restoration, left the French school without a head, while the Romantic school, with the "Medusa" of Gericault (1818) and the "Dante" of Delacroix (1822), was clamouring for recognition. Ingres, hitherto but little known in his solitude in Italy, resolved to return to France and strike a daring blow. As early as 1820 he sent to the Salon his "Christ conferring the keys on Peter" (Louvre), a cold and restrained work which won immense success among the classicists. The "Vow of Louis XIII" (Montauban, 1824), a homage to Raphael, appeared opportunely as a contrast to Delacrois's "Massacre of Scio". Henceforward Ingres was looked up to as the leader of the traditional School, and he proves his claim to the title by producing the famous "Apotheosis of Homer" (Louvre, 1827). This marks the beginning of a new period, in which Ingres, absorbed in decorative works, is nothing more than the upholder of the classical teaching. Over and over again he did himself violence in composing huge mechanical works like the "St. Symphorin" (Autun, 1835), "The Golden Age" (Dampierre, 1843-49), the "Apotheosis of Napoleon", "Jesus in the midst of the Doctors" (Montauban, 1862), works that entailed most persevering labour, and which after all are but groups of "Studies", mosaics carefully inset and lifeless. Some of Ingres most beautiful portraits, those of Armand Bertin (Louvre, 1831), of Cherubini (Louvre, 1842), and of Madame d'Haussonville (1845) belong to this period. But gradually he gave up portrait- painting, and wished only to be the painter of the ideal. yet he was less so now than ever before. In his latest works his deficiency of composition becomes more and more evident. His life was uneventful. In 1820 he left Rome for Florence, and in 1824 he settled in Paris, which he never left save for six years (1836-1842) which he spent in Rome as director of the Villa Medici. He died at the age of 87, having continued to work up to his last day. perhaps his prestige and his high authority counted for something in the renaissance of decorative painting that took place in the middle of the nineteenth century. But his undoubted legacy was a principle of quaintness or oddity and eccentricity, which was copied by artists like Signol and Jeanniot. Ingres was a naturalist who persisted in practising the most idealistic style of art which was ever attempted in the French School. Like his great rival delacrois, he may be said to have been a lonely phenomenon in the art of the nineteenth century. GAUTIER, Les Beaux-Arts en Europe (Paris, 1855); DELECLUZE, Louis David, son ecole et son temps (Paris, 1855); DELABORDE, Ingres, sa vie, sa doctrine (Paris, 1870); BLANCE, Ingres (Paris, 1870); DUVAL, L'Atelier d'Ingres (Paris, 1878); LAPAUZE, Les dessins d'Ingres (Paris, 1901): 7 vols.in folio. and 1 vol. of printed matter); DE WYZEWA, L'aervre peint de J.D. Ingres (Paris, 1907): D'AGEN, Ingres, d'apres une correspondance inedite (Paris, 1909). LOUIS GILLET Ingulf Ingulf Abbot of Croyland, Lincolnshire; d. there 17 December 1109. he is first heard of as secretary to William the Conqueror, in which capacity he visited England in 1051. After making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem he entered the Norman monastery of Fontenelle, or Saint-Wandrille, under Abbot Gerbert, who appointed him prior. The English Abbey of Croyland falling vacant, owing to the deposition by Lanfranc of Abbot Ulfeytel, Ingulf was nominated to the office in 1087 at the special instance of King William. he was not only an able but a kindly man, as was shown by his successful efforts to obtain his predecessor's release from Glastonbury, where he was confined, and his return to Peterborough (the house of his profession), where he died. Ingulf governed Croyland for twenty-four years, and with success, though in the face of many difficulties, not the least being his own bad health, for he suffered greatly from gout. Another of his troubles was the partial destruction by fire of the abbey church, with the sacristies, vestments, and books. An event of his abbacy was the interment in Croyland church of the Saxon Earl Walthe of Northumbria, who was executed by William's orders, and was a martyr as well as a national hero in the popular estimation. ORDERCIUS, VITALIS, Historia Ecclesiastica, pars II, lib. IV (ed. MIGNE, Paris, 1855), 364 [ORDERICUS is the onlly extant authority for the few fact known about Ingulf's life. the chronicle known as his Historia Anglicana, containing many autobiographical details, is a fourteenth-or fifteenth-century forgery]: see also FREEMAN, Conquest of England, IV (Oxford, 1871), 600, 601, 690. D.O. HUNTER-BLAIR Richard of Ingworth Richard of Ingworth (INGEWRTHE, INDEWURDE). A Franciscan preacher who flourished about 1225. he first appears among the friars who accompanied Agnellus to England in 1224, and is supposed to have been the first of the Franciscans to preach north of the Alps. He was already a priest and well on in years at the time of his arrival, and was responsible for the establishment of the first Franciscan house in London. The first convents at Oxford and Northampton were likewise indebted to his efforts, and he served for a time as custodian at Cambridge. In 1230 he acted as vicar of the English Province during the absence of Agnellus at a general chapter at Assisi, and was subsequently appointed provincial minister of Ireland by John Parens. In 1239, during the generalship of Albert of Pisa, he relinquished this position and set out as a missionary for the Holy Land, during which pilgrimage he died. ECCLESTON, De Adventu fratrum Minorum in Anglican; BREWER, ed., Mon. Franciscana, I, in Rolls Series; LITTLE in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v.; Eng. Hist. Rev., Oct., 1890. STANLEY J. QUINN Injustice Injustice (Lat. in, privative, and jus, right). Injustice, in the large sense, is a contradiction in any way of the virtue of justice. Here, however, it is taken to mean the violation of another's strict right against his reasonable will, and the value of the word right is determined to be the moral power of having or doing or exacting something in support or furtherance of one's own advantage. The goods whose acquisition or preservation is contemplated as the object of right belong to different categories. There are those which are bound up with the person, whether there is question of body or soul, such as life and limb, liberty, etc., as likewise that which is the product of one's deserts, such as good name; and there are those things which are extrinsic to the individual, such as property of whatever sort. The injury perpetrated by a trespass on a man's right in the first instance is said to be personal, in the second real. All injury, like every kind of moral delinquency, is either formal or material according as it is culpable or not. It is customary also to distinguish between that species of injurious action or attitude which involves loss to the one whose right is outraged, such as theft, and another which carries with it no such damage, such as an insult which has had no witnesses. The important thing is that in every kind of injury such as we are considering, the offense is against commutative justice. That is, it is against the virtue which, taking for granted the clear distinction of rights as between man and man, demands that those rights be conserved and respected even to the point of arithmetical equality. Consequently, whenever the equilibrium has been wrongfully upset, it is not enough to atone for the misdeed by repentance or interior change of heart. There is an unabatable claim of justice that the wronged one be put back in possession of his own. Otherwise the injury, despite all protestations of sorrow on the part of the offender, continues. Hence, for example, there must be apology for contumely, retraction for calumny, compensation for hurt to life and limb, restitution for theft, etc. No one therefore can receive absolution for the sin of injustice except in so far as he has a serious resolution to rehabilitate as soon as he can and in such measure as is possible the one whose right he has contemned. It is an axiom among moralists that "scienti et volenti non fit injuria", i.e., no injury is offered to one who knowing what is done consents to it. In other words, there are rights which a man may forego, and when he does so, he cannot complain that he has been deprived of them. Some limitations, however, are necessary to prevent the abuse of a principle which is sufficiently obvious. First of all a man must really know, that is, he must not be the victim of a purely subjective persuasion, which is in fact false and which is the reason of his renunciation. Secondly, the consent which he gives must not be forced such as might be yielded at the point of a pistol, or such as might be elicited under pressure of extreme necessity taken advantage of by another. Lastly, the right must be such as can be given up. There are some rights which as a result of either the natural or the positive law cannot be surrendered. Thus a husband cannot by his antecedent willingness legitimize the adultery of his wife. His right is inalienable. So also one could not accede to the request of a person who would not only agree to be killed, but would plead for death as a means of release from suffering. The right which a man has to life cannot be renounced, particularly if it be remembered that he has no direct dominion over it. This ownership resides with God alone. Hence the infliction of death by a private person, even in response to the entreaties of a sufferer to be put out of misery, would always be murder. JOSEPH F. DELANEY Pope Innocent I Pope Innocent I Date of birth unknown; died 12 March, 417. Before his elevation to the Chair of Peter, very little is known concerning the life of this energetic pope, so zealous for the welfare of the whole Church. According to the "Liber Pontificalis" he was a native of Albano; his father was called Innocentius. He grew up among the Roman clergy and in the service of the Roman Church. After the death of Anastasius (Dec., 401) he was unanimously chosen Bishop of Rome by the clergy and people. Not much has come down to us concerning his ecclesiastical activities in Rome. Nevertheless one or two instances of his zeal for the purity of the Catholic Faith and for church discipline are well attested. He took several churches in Rome from the Novatians (Socrates, Hist. Eccl., VII, ii) and caused the Photinian Marcus to be banished from the city. A drastic decree, which the Emperor Honorius issued from Rome (22 Feb., 407) against the Manicheans, the Montanists, and the Priscillianists (Codex Theodosianus, XVI, 5, 40), was very probably not issued without his concurrence. Through the munificence of Vestina, a rich Roman matron, Innocent was enabled to build and richly endow a church dedicated to Sts. Gervasius and Protasius; this was the old Titulus Vestinae which still stands under the name of San Vitale. The siege and capture of Rome by the Goths under Alaric (408-10) occurred in his pontificate. When, at the time of the first siege, the barbarian leader had declared that he would withdraw only on condition that the Romans should arrange a peace favourable to him, an embassy of the Romans went to Honorius, at Ravenna, to try, if possible, to make peace between him and the Goths. Pope Innocent also joined this embassy. But all his endeavours to bring about peace failed. The Goths then recommenced the siege of Rome, so that the pope and the envoys were not able to return to the city, which was taken and sacked in 410. From the beginning of his pontificate, Innocent often acted as head of the whole Church, both East and West. In his letter to Archbishop Anysius of Thessalonica, in which he informed the latter of his own election to the See of Rome, he also confirmed the privileges which had been bestowed upon the archbishop by previous popes. When Eastern Illyria fell to the Eastern Empire (379) Pope Damasus had asserted and preserved the ancient rights of the papacy in those parts, and his successor Siricius had bestowed on the Archbishop of Thessalonica the privilege of confirming and consecrating the bishops of Eastern Illyria. These prerogatives were renewed by Innocent (Ep. i), and by a later letter (Ep. xiii, 17 June, 412) the pope entrusted the supreme administration of the dioceses of Eastern Illyria to Archbishop Rufus of Thessalonica, as representative of the Holy See. By this means the papal vicariate of Illyria was put on a sound basis, and the archbishops of Thessalonica became vicars of the popes. On 15 Feb., 404, Innocent sent an important decretal to Bishop Victricius of Rouen (Ep. ii), who had laid before the pope a list of disciplinary matters for decision. The points at issue concerned the consecration of bishops, admissions into the ranks of the clergy, the disputes of clerics, whereby important matters (causae majores) were to be brought from the episcopal tribunal to the Apostolic See, also the ordinations of the clergy, celibacy, the reception of converted Novatians or Donatists into the Church, monks, and nuns. In general, the pope indicated the discipline of the Roman Church as being the norm for the other bishops to follow. Innocent directed a similar decretal to the Spanish bishops (Ep. iii) among whom difficulties had arisen, especially regarding the Priscillianist bishops. The pope regulated this matter and at the same time settled other questions of ecclesiastical discipline. Similar letters, disciplinary in content, or decisions of important cases, were sent to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse (Ep. vi), to the bishops of Macedonia (Ep. xvii), to Decentius, Bishop of Gubbio (Ep. xxv), to Felix, Bishop of Nocera (Ep. xxxviii). Innocent also addressed shorter letters to several other bishops, among them a letter to two British bishops, Maximus and Severus, in which he decided that those priests who, while priests, had begotten children should be dismissed from their sacred office (Ep. xxxix). Envoys were sent by the Synod of Carthage (404) to the Bishop of Rome, or the bishop of the city where the emperor was staying, in order to provide for severer treatment of the Montanists. The envoys came to Rome, and Pope Innocent obtained from the Emperor Honorius a strong decree against those African sectaries, by which many adherents of Montanism were induced to be reconciled with the Church. The Christian East also claimed a share of the pope's energy. St. John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople, who was persecuted by the Empress Eudoxia and the Alexandrian patriarch Theophilus, threw himself on the protection of Innocent. Theophilus had already informed the latter of the deposition of John, following on the illegal Synod of the Oak (ad quercum). But the pope did not recognize the sentence of the synod, summoned Theophilus to a new synod at Rome, consoled the exiled Patriarch of Byzantium, and wrote a letter to the clergy and people of Constantinople in which he animadverted severely on their conduct towards their bishop (John), and announced his intention of calling a general synod, at which the matter would be sifted and decided. Thessalonica was suggested as the place of assembly. The pope informed Honorius, Emperor of the West, of these proceedings, whereupon the latter wrote three letters to his brother, the Eastern Emperor Arcadius, and besought Arcadius to summon the Eastern bishops to a synod at Thessalonica, before which the Patriarch Theophilus was to appear. The messengers who brought these three letters were ill received, Arcadius being quite favourable to Theophilus. In spite of the efforts of the pope and the Western emperor, the synod never took place. Innocent remained in correspondence with the exiled John; when, from his place of banishment the latter thanked him for his kind solicitude, the pope answered with another comforting letter, which the exiled bishop received only a short time before his death (407) (Epp. xi, xii). The pope did not recognize Arsacius and Atticus, who had been raised to the See of Constantinople instead of the unlawfully deposed John. After John's death, Innocent desired that the name of the deceased patriarch should be restored to the diptychs, but it was not until after Theophilus was dead (412) that Atticus yielded. The pope obtained from many other Eastern bishops a similar recognition of the wrong done to St. John Chrysostom. The schism at Antioch, dating from the Arian conflicts, was finally settled in Innocent's time. Alexander, Patriarch of Antioch, succeeded, about 413-15, in gaining over to his cause the adherents of the former Bishop Eustathius; he also received into the ranks of his clergy the followers of Paulinus, who had fled to Italy and had been ordained there. Innocent informed Alexander of these proceedings, and as Alexander restored the name of John Chrysostom to the diptychs, the pope entered into communion with the Antiochene patriarch, and wrote him two letters, one in the name of a Roman synod of twenty Italian bishops, and one in his own name (Epp. xix and xx). Acacius, Bishop of Beraea, one of the most zealous opponents of Chrysostom, had sought to obtain re-admittance to communion with the Roman Church through the aforesaid Alexander of Antioch. The pope informed him, though Alexander, of the conditions under which he would resume communion with him (Ep. xxi). In a later letter Innocent decided several questions of church discipline (Ep. xxiv). The pope also informed the Macedonian bishop Maximian and the priest Bonifatius, who had interceded with him for the recognition of Atticus, Patriarch of Constantinople, of the conditions, which were similar to those required of the above-mentioned Patriarch of Antioch (Epp. xxii and xxiii). In the Origenist and Pelagian controversies, also, the pope's authority was invoked from several quarters. St. Jerome and the nuns of Bethlehem were attacked in their convents by brutal followers of Pelagius, a deacon was killed, and a part of the buildings was set on fire. John, Bishop of Jerusalem, who was on bad terms with Jerome, owing to the Origenist controversy, did nothing to prevent these outrages. Through Aurelius, Bishop of Carthage, Innocent sent St. Jerome a letter of condolence, in which he informed him that he would employ the influence of the Holy See to repress such crimes; and if Jerome would give the names of the guilty ones, he would proceed further in the matter. The pope at once wrote an earnest letter of exhortation to the Bishop of Jerusalem, and reproached him with negligence of his pastoral duty. The pope was also compelled to take part in the Pelagian controversy. In 415, on the proposal of Orosius, the Synod of Jerusalem brought the matter of the orthodoxy of Pelagius before the Holy See. The synod of Eastern bishops held at Diospolis (Dec., 415), which had been deceived by Pelagitis with regard to his actual teaching and had acquitted him, approached Innocent on behalf of the heretic. On the report of Orosius concerning the proceedings at Diospolis, the African bishops assembled in synod at Carthage, in 416, and confirmed the condemnation which had been pronounced in 411 against Caelestius, who shared the views of Pelagius. The bishops of Numidia did likewise in the same year in the Synod of Mileve. Both synods reported their transactions to the pope and asked him to confirm their decisions. Soon after this, five African bishops, among them St. Augustine, wrote a personal letter to Innocent regarding their own position in the matter of Pelagianism. Innocent in his reply praised the African bishops, because, mindful of the authority of the Apostolic See, they had appealed to the Chair of Peter; he rejected the teachings of Pelagius and confirmed the decisions drawn up by the African Synods (Epp. xxvii-xxxiii). The decisions of the Synod of Diospolis were rejected by the pope. Pelagius now sent a confession of faith to Innocent, which, however, was only delivered to his successor, for Innocent died before the document reached the Holy See. He was buried in a basilica above the catacomb of Pontianus, and was venerated as a saint. He was a very energetic and active man, and a highly gifted ruler, who fulfilled admirably the duties of his office. Epistolae Pontificum Romanorum, ed. COUSTANT, I (Paris, 1721); JAFFE, Regesta Rom. Pont., I (2nd ed.), 44-49; Liber Pontificalis, ed. DUCHESNE, I, 220-224; LANGEN, Geschichte der roemischen Kirche, I, 665-741; GRISAR, Geschichte Roms und der Paepste im Mittelalter, I, 59 sqq., 284 Sqq.; WITTIG, Studien zur Geschichte des Papstes Innocenz I. und der Papstwahlen des V. Jahrh. in Tuebinger Theol. Quartalschrift (1902), 388-439; GEBHARDT, Die Bedeutung Innocenz I. fuer die Entwicklung der paepstlichen Gewalt (Leipzig, 1901). J.P. KIRSCH Pope Innocent II Pope Innocent II (Gregorio Papereschi) Elected 14 Feb., 1130; died 24 Sept., 1143. He was a native of Rome and belonged to the ancient family of the Guidoni. His father's name is given as John. The youthful Gregory became canon of the Lateran and later Abbot of Sts. Nicholas and Primitivus. He was made Cardinal-Deacon of the Title of S. Angelo by Paschal II, and as such shared the exile of Gelasius II in France, together with his later rival, the Cardinal-Deacon Pierleone. Under Callistus II Gregory was sent to Germany (1119) with the legate Lambert, Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia. Both were engaged in drawing up the Concordat of Worms in 1122. In the following year he was sent to France. On 14 Feb., 1130, the morning following the death of Honorius II, the cardinal-bishops held an election and Gregory was chosen as his successor, taking the name of Innocent II; three hours later Pietro Pierleone was elected by the other cardinals and took the name of Anacletus II. Both received episcopal consecration 23 Feb.; Innocent at Santa Maria Nuova and Anacletus at St. Peter's. Finding the influential family of the Frangipani had deserted his cause, Innocent at first retired into the stronghold belonging to his family in Trastevere, then went to France by way of Pisa and Genoa. There he secured the support of Louis VI, and in a synod at Etampes the assembled bishops, influenced by the eloquence of Suger of St-Denis, acknowledged his authority. This was also done by other bishops gathered at Puy-en-Velay through St. Hugh of Grenoble. The pope went to the Abbey of Cluny, then attended another meeting of bishops, November, 1130, at Clermont; they also promised obedience and enacted a number of disciplinary canons. Through the activity of St. Norbert of Magdeburg, Conrad of Salzburg, and the papal legates, the election of Innocent was ratified at a synod assembled at Wuerzburg at the request of the German king, and here the king and his princes promised allegiance. A personal meeting of pope and king took place 22 March, 1131, at Liege, where a week later Innocent solemnly crowned King Lothair and Queen Richenza in the church of St. Lambert. He celebrated Easter, 1131, at St-Denis in Paris, and 18 October opened the great synod at Reims, and crowned the young prince of France, later Louis VII. At this synod England, Castile, and Aragon were represented; St. Bernard and St. Norbert attended and several salutary canons were enacted. Pentecost, 1132, the pope held a synod at Piacenza. The following year he again entered Rome, and on 4 June crowned Lothair emperor at the Lateran. In 1134 the pope, at the request of the emperor, ordered that Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and the island of Greenland should remain under the jurisdiction of Hamburg (Weiss, "Weltgeschichte", V, 21). On the departure of the emperor, innocent also left and went to Pisa, since the antipope still held sway in Rome. At Pisa a great synod was held in 1135 (Hefele, "Conciliengeschichte", V, 425) at which were present bishops of Spain, England, France, Germany, Hungary, etc. In the spring of 1137 Emperor Lothair, in answer to the repeated entreaties of the pope, began his march to Rome. The papal and imperial troops met at Bari, 30 May, 1137, and the pope was again conducted into Rome. Anacletus still held a part of the city, but died 25 Jan., 1138. Another antipope was chosen, who called himself Victor IV, but he, urged especially by the prayers of St. Bernard, soon submitted, and Innocent found himself in undisturbed possession of the city and of the papacy. To remove the remnants and evil consequences of the schism, Innocent II called the Tenth Ecumenical Council, the Second of the Lateran. It began its sessions on 4 April, 1139 (not 8 April, as Hefele writes, V, 438). One thousand bishops and other prelates are said to have been present. The official acts of Anacletus II were declared null and void, the bishops and priests ordained by him were with few exceptions deposed, the heretical tenets of Pierre de Bruys were condemned. Thirty canons were made against simony, incontinence, extravagance in dress among the clergy, etc. Sentence of excommunication was pronounced upon Roger, who styled himself King of Sicily, and who after the departure of the emperor had invaded the lands granted to Rainulph. In 1139 St. Malachy, Archbishop of Armagh, left Ireland to visit the shrine of the Apostles. Innocent received him with great honours and made him papal legate for all Ireland, but would not grant him permission to resign his see in order to join the community of St. Bernard at Clairvaux (Bellesheim, "Ireland", I, 356). In the East, Innocent II curbed the pretension to independence on the part of William, Patriarch of Jerusalem and of Raoul, Patriarch of Antioch (Hergenroether, II, 410). After the death of Alberic, Archbishop of Bourges, in 1141, Louis VII of France wanted to secure the nomination of a man of his own choice whom the chapter did not consider the fit person, and they chose Pierre de La Chatre, whereupon Louis refused to ratify the election. The bishop-elect in person brought the matter to Rome, and Innocent, finding after due examination that the election had been made according to the requirements of ecclesiastical law, Confirmed it and himself gave the episcopal consecration. When Pierre returned to France, Louis would not allow him to enter his diocese. After useless negotiations Innocent placed France under interdict. Only during the reign of the next pope was the interdict removed and peace restored. In the trouble between Alfonso of Spain and Alfonso Henriquez who was making Portugal an independent monarchy and had placed his kingdom under the protection of the Holy See, Innocent acted as mediator (Aschbach, "Gesch. Span. u. Port.", 1833, 304, 458). Ramiro II, a monk, had been elected King of Aragon. Innocent II is said to have given him dispensation from his vows, though others claim that this is a calumny spread by the enemies of the pope (Damberger, "Weltgeschichte ", VIII, 202). Several minor synods were held during the last few years of the life of Innocent, one at Sens in 1140, at Vienne in 1141 and in the same year at Vienne and Reims; in 1142 at Lagny, in which Ralph, the Duke of Vermandois is said to have been excommunicated by the legate Yvo of Chartres for having repudiated his lawful wife and married another (Hefele, V, 488). A synod was held under the presidency of the papal legate 7 April, 1141, at Winchester; and 7 Dec., 1141, at Westminster. During his pontificate Innocent II enrolled among the Canonized saints of the Church: at Reims in 1133, St. Godehard, Archbishop of Reims; at Pisa in 1134, St. Hugo, Bishop of Grenoble, who had died in 1132, and had been a zealous defender of the rights of Innocent; at the Lateran in 1139, St. Sturmius, Abbot of Fulda (Ann. Pont. Cath., 1903, 412). To St. Norbert, the founder of the Premonstratensians, he granted in 1131 a document authorizing him to introduce his rule at the cathedral of Magdeburg (Heimbucher, "Die Orden u. Congr.", II, Paderborn, 1907, 55); to St. Bernard he in 1140 gave the church of Sts. Vincent and Anastasius near Rome (ibid., 1, 428); he also granted many privileges to others. His letters and privileges are given in Migne (P. L., CLXXIX). According to the "Liber Pontificalis" (ed. Duchesne, II, 379) he ordained eighteen deacons, twenty priests, and seventy bishops. He was buried in St. John Lateran, but seven years later was transferred to Santa Maria in Trastevere. Innocent II is praised by all, especially by St. Bernard, as a man of irreproachable character. His motto was: "Adjuva nos, Deus salutaris noster". The policy of Innocent is characterized in one of his letters: "If the sacred authority of the popes and the imperial power are imbued with mutual love, we must thank God in all humility, since then only can peace and harmony exist among Christian peoples. For there is nothing so sublime as the papacy nor so exalted as the imperial throne" (Weiss, V, 25). BRISCHAR in Kirchenlex., s. v.; DENZINGER, Enchiridion (10th ed., Freiburg, 1907), 167. See also under ANACLETUS II. FRANCIS MERSHMAN Pope Innocent III Pope Innocent III (Lotario de' Conti) One of the greatest popes of the Middle Ages, son of Count Trasimund of Segni and nephew of Clement III, born 1160 or 1161 at Anagni, and died 16 June, 1216, at Perugia. He received his early education at Rome, studied theology at Paris, jurisprudence at Bologna, and became a learned theologian and one of the greatest jurists of his time. Shortly after the death of Alexander III (30 Aug., 1181) Lotario returned to Rome and held various ecclesiastical offices during the short reigns of Lucius III, Urban III, Gregory VIII, and Clement III. Pope Gregory VIII ordained him subdeacon, and Clement III created him Cardinal-Deacon of St. George in Velabro and Sts. Sergius and Bacchus, in 1190. Later he became Cardinal-Priest of St. Pudentiana. During the pontificate of Celestine III (1191-1198), a member of the House of the Orsini, enemies of the counts of Segni, he lived in retirement, probably at Anagni, devoting himself chiefly to meditation and literary pursuits. Celestine III died 8 January, 1198. Previous to his death he had urged the College of Cardinals to elect Giovanni di Colonna as his successor; but Lotario de' Conti was elected pope, at Rome, on the very day on which Celestine III died. He accepted the tiara with reluctance and took the name of Innocent III. At the time of his accession to the papacy he was only thirty-seven years of age. The imperial throne had become vacant by the death of Henry VI in 1197, and no successor had as yet been elected. The tactful and energetic pope made good use of the opportunity offered him by this vacancy for the restoration of the papal power in Rome and in the States of the Church. The Prefect of Rome, who reigned over the city as the emperor's representative, and the senator who stood for the communal rights and privileges of Rome, swore allegiance to Innocent. When he had thus re-established the papal authority in Rome, he availed himself of every opportunity to put in practice his grand concept of the papacy. Italy was tired of being ruled by a host of German adventurers, and the pope experienced little difficulty in extending his political power over the peninsula. First he sent two cardinal legates to Markwuld to demand the restoration of the Romagna and the March of Ancona to the Church. Upon his evasive answer he was excommunicated by the legates and driven away by the papal troops. In like manner the Duchy of Spoleto and the Districts of Assisi and Sora were wrested from the German knight, Conrad von Uerslingen. The league which had been formed among the cities of Tuscany was ratified by the pope after it acknowledged him as suzerain. The death of the Emperor Henry VI left his four-year old child, Frederick II, King of Sicily. The emperor's widow Constance, who ruled over Sicily for her little son, was unable to cope singly against the Norman barons of the Sicilian Kingdom, who resented the German rule and refused to acknowledge the child-king. She appealed to Innocent III to save the Sicilian throne for her child. The pope made use of this opportunity to reassert papal suzerainty over Sicily, and acknowledged Frederick II as king only after Constance had surrendered certain privileges contained in the so-called Four Chapters, which William I had previously extorted from Adrian IV. The pope then solemnly invested Frederick II as King of Sicily in a Bull issued about the middle of November, 1198. Before the Bull reached Sicily Constance had died, but before her death she had appointed Innocent as guardian of the orphan-king. With the greatest fidelity the pope watched over the welfare of his ward during the nine years of his minority. Even the enemies of the papacy admit that Innocent was an unselfish guardian of the young king and that no one else could have ruled for him more ably and conscientiously. To protect the inexperienced king against his enemies, he induced him in 1209 to marry Constance, the widow of King Emeric of Hungary. Conditions in Germany were extremely favourable for the application of Innocent's idea concerning the relation between the papacy and the empire. After the death of Henry VI a double election had ensued. The Ghibellines had elected Philip of Swabia on 6 March, 1198, while the Guelfs had elected Otto IV, son of Henry the Lion and nephew of King Richard of England, in April of the same year. The former was crowned at Mainz on 8 September, 1198, the latter at Aachen on 12 July, 1198. Immediately upon his accession to the papal throne Innocent had sent the Bishop of Sutri and the Abbot of Sant' Anastasio as legates to Germany, with instructions to free Philip of Swabia from the ban which he had incurred under Celestine III, on condition that he would bring about the liberation of the imprisoned Queen Sibyl of Sicily and restore the territory which he had taken from the Church when he was Duke of Tuscany. When the legates arrived in Germany, Philip had already been elected king. Yielding to the wishes of Philip, the Bishop of Sutri secretly freed him from the ban upon his mere promise to fulfil the proposed conditions. After the coronation Philip sent the legates back to Rome with letters requesting the pope's ratification of his election; but Innocent was dissatisfied with the action of the Bishop of Sutri and refused to ratify the election. Otto IV also sent legates to the pope after his coronation at Aachen, but before the pope took any action, the two claimants of the German throne began to assert their claims by force of arms. Though the pope did not openly side with either of them, it was apparent that his sympathy was with Otto IV. Offended at what they considered an unjust interference on the part of the pope, the adherents of Philip sent a letter to him in which they protested against his interference in the imperial affairs of Germany. In his answer Innocent stated that he had no intention of encroaching upon the rights of the princes, but insisted upon the rights of the Church in this matter. He emphasized especially that the conferring of the imperial crown belonged to the pope alone. In 1201 the pope openly espoused the side of Otto IV. On 3 July, 1201, the papal legate, Cardinal-Bishop Guido of Palestrina, announced to the people, in the cathedral of Cologne, that Otto IV had been approved by the pope as Roman king and threatened with excommunication all those who refused to acknowledge him. Innocent III made clear to the German princes by the Decree "Venerabilem" which he addressed to the Duke of Zaehringen in May, 1202, in what relation he considered the empire to stand to the papacy. This decretal, which has become famous, was afterwards embodied in the "Corpus Juris Canonici". It is found in Baluze, "Registrum Innocentii III super negotio Romani Imperii", no. lxii, and is reprinted in P. L., CCXVI, 1065-7. The following are the chief points of the decretal: + The German princes have the right to elect the king, who is afterwards to become emperor. + This right was given them by the Apostolic See when it transferred the imperial dignity from the Greeks to the Germans in the person of Charlemagne. + The right to investigate and decide whether a king thus elected is worthy of the imperial dignity belongs to the pope, whose office it is to anoint, consecrate, and crown him; otherwise it might happen that the pope would be obliged to anoint, consecrate, and Crown a king who was excommunicated, a heretic, or a pagan. + If the pope finds that the king who has been elected by the princes is unworthy of the imperial dignity, the princes must elect a new king or, if they refuse, the pope will confer the imperial dignity upon another king; for the Church stands in need of a patron and defender. + In case of a double election the pope must exhort the princes to come to an agreement. If after a due interval they have not reached an agreement they must ask the pope to arbitrate, failing which, he must of his own accord and by virtue of his office decide in favour of one of the claimants. The pope's decision need not be based on the greater or less legality of either election, but on the qualifications of the claimants. Innocent's exposition of his theory concerning the relation between the papacy and the empire was accepted by many princes, as is apparent from the sudden increase of Otto's adherents subsequent to the issue of the decretal. If after 1203 the majority of the princes began again to side with Philip, it was the fault of Otto himself, who was very irritable and often offended his best friends. Innocent, reversing his decision, declared in favour of Philip in 1207, and sent the Cardinals Ugolino of Ostia and Leo of Santa Croce to Germany with instructions to endeavour to induce Otto to renounce his claims to the throne and with powers to free Philip from the ban. The murder of King Philip by Otto of Wittelsbach, 21 June, 1208, entirely changed conditions in Germany. At the Diet of Frankfort, 11 November, 1208, Otto was acknowledged as king by all the princes, and the pope invited him to Rome to receive the imperial crown. He was crowned emperor in the Basilica of St. Peter at Rome, 4 October, 1209. Before his coronation he had solemnly promised to leave the Church in the peaceful possession of Spoleto, Ancona, and the gift of Countess Matilda; to assist the pope in the exercise of his suzerainty over Sicily; to grant freedom of ecclesiastical elections; unlimited right of appeal to the pope and the exclusive competency of the hierarchy in spiritual matters; he had, moreover renounced the "regalia" and the jus spolii, i. e., the right to the revenues of vacant sees and the seizure of the estates of intestate ecclesiastics. He also promised to assist the hierarchy in the extirpation of heresy. But scarcely had he been crowned emperor when he seized Ancons, Spoleto, the bequest of Matilda, and other property of the Church, giving it in vassalage to some of his friends. He also united with the enemies of Frederick II and invaded the Kingdom of Sicily with the purpose of wresting it from the youthful king and from the suzerainty of the pope. When Otto did not listen to the remonstrances of Innocent, the latter excommunicated him, 18 November, 1210, and solemnly proclaimed his excommunication at a Roman synod held on 31 March, 1211. The pope now began to treat with King Philip Augustus of France and with the German princes, with the result that most princes renounced the excommunicated emperor and elected in his place the youthful Frederick II of Sicily, at the Diet of Nuremberg in September, 1211. The election was repeated in presence of a representative of the pope and of Philip Augustus of France at the Diet of Frankfort, 2 December, 1212. After making practically the same promises to the pope which Otto IV had made previously, and, in addition, taking the solemn oath never to unite Sicily with the empire, his election was ratified by Innocent and he was crowned at Aachen on 12 July, 1215. The deposed emperor Otto IV hastened to Germany immediately upon the election of Frederick II, but received little support from the princes. In alliance with John of England he made war upon Philip of France, but was defeated in the battle of Bouvines, 27 July, 1214. Then he lost all influence in Germany and died on 19 May, 1218, leaving the pope's creature, Frederick II, the undisputed emperor. When Innocent ascended the papal throne a cruel war was being waged between Philip Augustus of France and Richard of England. The pope considered it his duty, as the supreme ruler of the Christian world, to put an end to all hostilities among Christian princes. Shortly after his accession he sent Cardinal Peter of Capua to France with instructions to threaten both kings with interdict if they would not within two months conclude peace or at least agree upon a truce of five years. In January, 1198, the two kings met between Vernon and Andely and a truce of five years was agreed upon. The same legate was instructed by the pope to threaten Philip Augustus with interdict over the whole of France if within a month he would not be reconciled with his lawful wife, Ingeburga of Denmark, whom he had rejected and in whose stead he had taken Agnes, daughter of the Duke of Meran. When Philip took no heed of the pope's warning Innocent carried out his threat and on 12 December, 1199, laid the whole of France under interdict. For nine months the king remained stubborn, but when the barons and the people began to rise in rebellion against him he finally discarded his concubine and the interdict was lifted on 7 September, 1200. It was not, however, until 1213 that the pope succeeded in bringing about a final reconciliation between the king and his lawful wife Ingeburga. Innocent also had an opportunity to assert the papal rights in England. After the death of Archbishop Hubert of Canterbury, in 1205, a number of the younger monks of Christ Church assembled secretly at night and elected their sub-prior, Reginald, as archbishop. This election was made without the concurrence of the bishop and without the authority of the king. Reginald was asked not to divulge his election until he had received the papal approbation. But on his way to Rome the vain monk assumed the title of archbishop-elect, and thus the episcopal body of the province of Canterbury was apprised of the secret election. The bishops at once sent Peter of Anglesham as their representative to Pope Innocent to protest against the uncanonical proceedings of the monks of Christ Church. The monks also were highly incensed at Reginald because, contrary to his promise, he had divulged his election. They proceeded to a second election, and on 11 December, 1205, cast their votes for the royal favourite, John de Grey, whom the king had recommended to their suffrages. The controversy between the monks of Christ Church and the bishops concerning the right of electing the Archbishop of Canterbury, Innocent decided in favour of the monks, but in the present case he pronounced both elections invalid; that of Reginald because it had been made uncanonically and clandestinely, that of John de Grey because it had occurred before the invalidity of the former was proclaimed by the pope. Not even King John, who offered Innocent 3000 marks if he would decide in favour of de Grey, could alter the pope's decision. Innocent summoned those monks of Canterbury who were in Rome to proceed to a new election and recommended to their choice Stephen Langton, an Englishman, whom the pope had called to Rome from the rectorship of the University of Paris, in order to create him cardinal. He was duly elected by the monks and the pope himself consecrated him archbishop at Viterbo on 17 June, 1207. Innocent informed King John of the election of Langton and asked him to accept the new archbishop. The king, however, had set his mind on his favourite, John de Grey, and flatly refused to allow Langton to come to England in the capacity of Archbishop of Canterbury. He, moreover, wreaked his vengeance on the monks of Christ Church by driving them from their monastery and taking possession of their property. Innocent now placed the entire kingdom under interdict which was proclaimed on 24 March, 1208. When this proved of no avail and the king committed acts of cruelty against the clergy, the pope declared him excommunicated in 1209, and formally deposed him in 1212. He entrusted King Philip of France with the execution of the sentence. When Philip threatened to invade England and the feudal lords and the clergy began to forsake King John, the latter made his submission to Pandulph, whom Innocent had sent as legate to England. He promised to acknowledge Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury, to allow the exiled bishops and priests to return to England and to make compensation for the losses which the clergy had sustained. He went still further, and on 13 May, 1213, probably of his own initiative, surrendered the English kingdom through Pandulph into the hands of the pope to be returned to him as a fief. The document of the surrender states that henceforth the kings of England were to rule as vassals of the pope and to pay an annual tribute of 1000 marks to the See of Rome. On 20 July, 1213, the king was solemnly freed from the ban at Winchester and after the clergy had been reimbursed for its losses the interdict was lifted from England on 29 June, 1214. It appears that many of the barons were not pleased with the surrender of England into the hands of the pope. They also resented the king's continuous trespasses upon their liberties and his many acts of injustice in the government of the people. They finally had recourse to violence and forced him to yield to their demands by affixing his seal to the Magna Charta. Innocent could not as suzerain of England allow a contract which imposed such serious obligations upon his vassal to be made without his consent. His legate Pandulph had repeatedly praised King John to the pope as a wise ruler and loyal vassal of the Holy See. The pope, therefore, declared the Great Charter null and void, not because it gave too many liberties to the barons and the people, but because it had been obtained by violence. There was scarcely a country in Europe over which Innocent III did not in some way or other assert the supremacy which he claimed for the papacy. He excommunicated Alfonso IX of Leon, for marrying a near relative, Berengaria, a daughter of Alfonso VIII, contrary to the laws of the Church, and effected their separation in 1204. For similar reasons he annulled, in 1208, the marriage of the crown-prince, Alfonso of Portugal, with Urraca, daughter of Alfonso of Castile. From Pedro II of Aragon he received that kingdom in vassalage and crowned him king at Rome in 1204. He prepared a crusade against the Moors and lived to see their power broken in Spain at the battle of Navas de Tolosa, in 1212. He protected the people of Norway against their tyrannical king, Sverri, and after the king's death arbitrated between the two claimants to the Norwegian throne. He mediated between King Emeric of Hungary and his rebellious brother Andrew, sent royal crown and sceptre to King Johannitius of Bulgaria and had his legate crown him king at Tirnovo, in 1204; he restored ecclesiastical discipline in Poland; arbitrated between the two claimants to the royal crown of Sweden; made partly successful attempts to reunite the Greek with the Latin Church and extended his beneficent influence practically over the whole Christian world. Like many preceding popes, Innocent had at heart the recovery of the Holy Land, and for this end undertook the Fourth Crusade. The Venetians had pledged themselves to transport the entire Christian army and to furnish the fleet with provisions for nine months, for 85,000 marks. When the crusaders were unable to pay the sum, the Venetians proposed to bear the financial expenses themselves on condition that the crusaders would first assist them in the conquest of the city of Zara. The crusaders yielded to their demands and the fleet started down the Adriatic on 8 October, 1202. Zara had scarcely been reduced when Alexius Comnenus arrived at the camp of the crusaders and pleaded for their help to replace his father, Isaac Angelus, on the throne of Constantinople from which he had been deposed by his cruel brother Alexius. In return he promised to reunite the Greek with the Latin Church, to add 10,000 soldiers to the ranks of the crusaders, and to contribute money and provisions to the crusade. The Venetians, who saw their own commercial advantage in the taking of Constantinople, induced the crusaders to yield to the prayers of Alexius, and Constantinople was taken by them in 1204. Isaac Angelus was restored to his throne but soon replaced by a usurper. The crusaders took Constantinople a second time on 12 April, 1204, and after a horrible pillage, Baldwin, Count of Flanders, was proclaimed emperor and the Greek Church was united with the Latin. The reunion, as well as the Latin empire in the East, did not last longer than two generations. When Pope Innocent learned that the Venetians had diverted the crusaders from their purpose of conquering the Holy Land he expressed his great dissatisfaction first at their conquest of Zara, and when they proceeded towards Constantinople he solemnly protested and finally excommunicated the Venetians who had caused the digression of the crusaders from their original purpose. Since, however, he could not undo what had been accomplished he did his utmost to destroy the Greek schism and latinize the Eastern Empire. Innocent was also a zealous protector of the true Faith and a strenuous opponent of heresy. His chief activity was turned against the Albigenses who had become so numerous and aggressive that they were no longer satisfied with being adherents of heretical doctrines but even endeavoured to spread their heresy by force. They were especially numerous in a few cities of Northern an in Southern France. During the first year of his pontificate Innocent sent the two Cistercian monks Rainer and Guido to the Albigenses in France to preach to them the true Faith and dispute with them on controverted topics of religion. The two Cistercian missionaries were soon followed by Diego, Bishop of Osma, then by St. Dominic and the two papal legates. Peter of Castelnau and Raoul. When, however, these peaceful missionaries were ridiculed and despised by the Albigenses, and the papal legate Castelnau was assassinated in 1208, Innocent resorted to force. He ordered the bishops of Southern France to put under interdict the participants in the murder and all the towns that gave shelter to them. He was especially incensed against Count Raymond of Toulouse who had previously been excommunicated by the murdered legate and whom, for good reasons, the pope suspected as the instigator of the murder. The count protested his innocence and submitted to the pope, probably out of cowardice, but the pope placed no further trust in him. He called upon France to raise an army for the suppression of the Albigenses. Under the leadership of Simon of Montfort a cruel campaign ensued against the Albigenses which, despite the protest of Innocent, soon turned into a war of conquest (see ALBIGENSES). The culminating point in the glorious reign of Innocent was his convocation of the Fourth Lateran Council, which he solemnly opened on 15 November, 1215. It was by far the most important council of the Middle Ages. Besides deciding on a general crusade to the Holy Land, it issued seventy reformatory decrees, the first of which was a creed (Firmiter credimus), against the Albigenses and Waldenses, in which the term "transubstantiation" received its first ecclesiastical sanction. The labours of Innocent in the inner government of the Church appear to be of a very subordinate character when they are put beside his great politico-ecclesiastical achievements which brought the papacy to the zenith of its power. Still they are worthy of memory and have contributed their share to the glory of his pontificate. During his reign the two great founders of the mendicant orders, St. Dominic and St. Francis, laid before him their scheme of reforming the world. Innocent was not blind to the vices of luxury and indolence which had infected many of the clergy and part of the laity. In Dominic and Francis he recognized two mighty adversaries of these vices and he sanctioned their projects with words of encouragement. The lesser religious orders which he approved are the Hospitallers of the Holy Ghost on 23 April, 1198, the Trinitarians on 17 December, 1198, and the Humiliati, in June, 1201. In 1209 he commissioned the Cistercian monk, Christian, afterwards bishop, with the conversion of the heathen Prussians. At Rome he built the famous hospital Santo Spirito in Sassia, which became the model of all future city hospitals and exists to the present time (see Walsh, "The Popes and Science", New York, 1908, p. 249-258; and the article HOSPITALS). The following saints were canonized by Innocent: Homobonus, a merchant of Cremona, on 12 January, 1199; the Empress Cunegond, on 3 March, 1200; William, Duke of Aquitaine in 1202; Wulstan, Bishop of York, on 14 May, 1203; Procopius, abbot at Prague, on 2 June, 1204; and Guibert, the founder of the monastery at Gembloux, in 1211. Innocent died at Perugia, while travelling through Italy in the interests of the crusade which had been decided upon at the Lateran Council. He was buried in the cathedral of Perugia where his body remained until Leo XIII, a great admirer of Innocent, had it transferred to the Lateran in December, 1891. Innocent is also the author of various literary works reprinted in P. L., CCXIV-CCXVIII, where may also be found his numerous extant epistles and decretals, and the historically important "Registrum Innocentii III super negotio imperii". His first work, "De contemptu mundi, sive de miseria conditionis humanae libri III" (P. L., CCXVII, 701-746) was written while he lived in retirement during the pontificate of Celestine III. It is an ascetical treatise and gives evidence of Innocent's deep piety and knowledge of men. Concerning it see Reinlein "Papst Innocenz der dritte und seine Schrift 'De contemptu mundi" (Erlangen, 1871). His treatise "De sacro altaris mysterio libri VI" (P. L., CCXVII, 773-916) is of great liturgical value, because it represents the Roman Mass as it was at the time of Innocent. See Franz, "Die Messe im deutschen Mittelalter" (Freiburg, 1902), 453-457. It was printed repeatedly, and translated into German by Hurter (Schaffhausen, 1845). He also wrote "De quadripartita specie nuptiarum" (P. L., CCXVII, 923-968), an exposition of the fourfold marriage bond, namely, 1. between man and wife, 2. between Christ and the Church, 3. between God and the just soul, 4. between the Word and human nature and is entirely based on passages from Holy Scripture. "Commentarius in septem psalmos poenitentiales" (P. L., CCXVII, 967-1130) is of doubtful authorship. Among his seventy-nine sermons (ibidem, 314-691) is the famous one on the text "Desiderio desideravi" (Luke, xxii, 15), which he delivered at the Fourth Lateran Council. Gesta Innocentii, written by an unknown contemporary, edited with valuable critical notes by BALUZE (Paris, 1686). The Gesta were also edited by MURATORI in Rerum ltalicarum Scriptores ab anna 500 ad 1500, III (Milan, 1723-51), i, 480 sq., and reprinted in P. L., CCXIV, cviii-ccxxxviii. Concerning their historical value see ELKAN, Die "Gesta Innocentii III." im Verhaeltniss zu den Regesten desselben Papstes (Heidelberg, 1876). The principal modern sources are: HURTER, Geschichte des Papstes Innocenz III. und seiner Zeitgenossen (4 vols., Hainburg, 1841-4); the following six studies by LUCHAIRE, all published at Paris: Innocent III, Rome et l'Italie (1904); Innocent III, la croisade des Albigeois (1905); Innocent III, to papaute et l'empire (1906); Innocent III, la question d'Orient (1907): Innocent III, les royautes vassales du Saint-Siege (1908); Innocent III, le concile de Latran et la reforme de l'eglise (1908); BARRY, The Papal Monarchy (New York, 1903), 282-332; JORRY, Histoire du Pape Innocent III (Paris, 1853); DELISLE, Memoire sur les actes d'Innocent III, suivi de l'itineraire de ce pontife (Paris, 1857); DEUTSCH, Papst Innocenz III. und sein Einfluss auf die Kirche (Breslau, 1876); GASPARLIN, Innocent III, le siege apostolique, Constantin (Paris, 1875); SCHWEMER, Innocenz III. und die deutsche Kirche waehrend des Thronstreites von 1198-1208 (Strasburg, 1882); LINDEMANN, Kritische Darstellung der Verhandlungen Innocenz III. mit den deutschen Gegenkoenigen (Magdeburg, 1885); ENGELMANN, Philipp von Schwaben und Innocenz III. waehrend des deutschen Thronstreites (Berlin, 1896); WINKELMANN, Philipp von Schwaben und Otto IV. (2 vols., Leipzig, 1873-8); MOLITOR, Die Decretale "Per venerabilem" von Innocenz III. und ihre Stellung im oeffentlichen Rechte der Kirche (Muenster, 1876); GUeTSCHOW, Innocenz III. und England (Munich, 1904); NORGATE, John Lackland (New York, 1902); GASQUET, Henry the Third and the Church (London, 1905), 1-26; LINGARD, History of England, II (Edinburgh, 1902), 312-376; PIRIE-GORDON, Innocent the Great (London, 1907), somewhat fantastic; NORDEN, Papsttum und Byzanz (Berlin, 1903), 133-238; HILL, A History of European Diplomacy, I (New York, 1905), 313-331; MULLANY, Innocent III in American Catholic Quarterly Review, XXXII (Philadelphia, 1907), 25-48; FEIERFEIL, Innocenz III. und seine Beziehungen zu Boehmen (Teplitz, 1905); BOeHMER, Regesta imperii, V.; Die Regesten des Kaiserreiches unter Philipp, Otto IV., Friedrich II., Heinrich (VII.), Konrad IV., Heinrich Raspe, Wilhelm und Richard, 1198-1272, newly edited by FICKER and WINKELMANN (Innsbruck, 1881-1901). MICHAEL OTT Pope Innocent IV Pope Innocent IV (Sinibaldo de' Fieschi) Count of Lavagna, born at Genoa, date unknown; died at Naples, 7 December, 1254. He was educated at Parma and Bologna. For some time he taught canon law at Bologna, then he became canon at Parma and in 1226 is mentioned as auditor of the Roman Curia. On 23 September,1227, he was created Cardinal-Priest of San Lorenzo in Lucina; on 28 July, 1228, vice-chancellor of Rome; and in 1235 Bishop of Albenga and legate in Northern Italy. When Celestine IV died after a short reign of sixteen days, the excommunicated emperor, Frederick II, was in possession of the States of the Church around Rome and attempted to intimidate the cardinals into electing a pope to his own liking. The cardinals fled to Anagni and cast their votes for Sinibaldo de Fiesehi, who ascended the papal throne as Innocent IV on 25 June, 1243, after an interregnum of 1 year, 7 months, and 15 days. Innocent IV had previously been a friend of Frederick II. Immediately after the election the emperor sent messengers with congratulations and overtures of peace. The pope was desirous of peace, but he knew from the experience of Gregory IX how little trust could be put in the emperor's promises. He refused to receive the latter's messengers, because, like the emperor himself, they were under the ban of the Church. But two months later he sent Peter, Archbishop of Rouen, William of Modena, who had resigned his episcopal office, and Abbot William of St. Facundus as legates to the emperor at Melfi with instructions to ask him to release the prelates whom he had captured while on their way to the council which Gregory IX had intended to hold at Rome. The legates were furthermore instructed to find out what satisfaction the emperor was willing to make for the injuries which he had inflicted upon the Church and which caused Gregory IX to put him under the ban. Should the emperor deny that he had done any wrong to the Church, or even assert that the injustice had been done on the side of the Church, the legates were to propose that the decision should be left to a council of kings, prelates, and temporal princes. Frederick entered into an agreement with Innocent on 31 March, 1244. He promised to yield to the demands of the Curia in all essential points, viz., to restore the States of the Church, to release the prelates, and to grant amnesty to the allies of the pope. His insincerity became apparent when he secretly incited various tumults in Rome and refused to release the imprisoned prelates. Feeling himself hindered in his freedom of action on account of the emperor's military preponderance, and fearing for his personal safety, the pope decided to leave Italy. At his request the Genoese sent him a fleet which arrived at Civitavecchia while the pope was in Sutri. As soon as he was notified of its arrival, he left Sutri in disguise during the night of 27-28 June and hastened over the mountains to Civitavecchia, whence the fleet brought him to Genoa. In October he went to Burgundy, and in December to Lyons, where he took up his abode during the following six years. He at once made preparations for a general council, which on 3 January, 1245, he proclaimed for 24 June of the same year. Innocent had nothing to fear in France and proceeded with great severity against the emperor. At the Council of Lyons the emperor was represented by Thaddeus of Suessa, who offered new concessions if his master were freed from the ban; but Innocent rejected them, and having brought new accusations against the emperor during the second session, on 5 July, solemnly deposed him at the third session, on 17 July. He now ordered the princes of Germany to proceed to the election of a new king, and sent Philip of Ferrara as legate to Germany to bring about the election of Henry Raspe, Landgrave of Thuringia. The pope's candidate was elected on 22 May, 1246, at Veitshochheim on the Main. Most of the princes, however, had abstained from voting and he never found general recognition. The same may be said of the incapable William of Holland, whom the papal party elected after Henry Raspe died on 17 February, 1247. But Innocent IV was determined upon the destruction of Frederick II and repeatedly asserted that no Hohenstaufen would ever again be emperor. All attempts of St. Louis IX of France to bring about peace were of no avail. In 1249 the pope ordered a crusade to be preached against Frederick II, and after the emperor's death (13 December, 1250), he continued the struggle against Conrad IV and Manfred with unrelenting severity. On 19 April, 1251, Innocent IV set out for Italy and entered Rome in October, 1253. The crown of Sicily devolved upon the Holy See at the deposition of Frederick II. Innocent had previously offered it to Richard of Cornwall, brother of Henry III of England. Upon his refusal, he tried Charles of Anjou and Edmund, son of Henry III of England. But after some negotiation they also refused owing to the difficulty of dislodging Conrad IV and Manfred who held Sicily by force of arms. After the death of Conrad IV, 20 May, 1264, the pope finally recognized the hereditary claims of Conrad's two-year-old son Conradin. Manfred also submitted, and Innocent made his solemn entry into Naples, 27 October, 1254, but Manfred soon revolted and defeated the papal troops at Foggia (2 Dec., 1254). In England, Innocent IV made his power felt by protecting Henry III against the lay as well as the ecclesiastical nobility. But here and in other countries many just complaints arose against him on account of the excessive taxes which he imposed upon the people. In Austria, he confirmed Ottocar, the son of King Wenzel, as duke, in 1252, and mediated between him and King Bela of Hungary in 1254. In Portugal, he appointed Alfonso III administrator of the kingdom, because the people were disgusted at the immorality and the tyranny of his father, Sancho III. He favoured the missions in Prussia, Russia, Armenia, and Mongolia, but owing to his continual warfare with Frederick II and his successors he neglected the internal affairs of the Church and allowed many abuses, provided they served to strengthen his position against the Hohenstaufen. He approved the rule of the Sylvestrines on 27 June, 1247, and that of the Poor Clares on 9 August, 1253. The following saints were canonized by him: Edmund Rich, Archbishop of Canterbury, on 16 December, 1246; William, Bishop of St-Brieuc, in 1247; Peter of Verona; Dominican inquisitor and martyr, in 1253; Stanislaus, Bishop of Cracow, in the same year. He is the author of "Apparatus in quinque libros decretalium", which was first published at Strasburg in 1477, and afterwards reprinted; it is considered the best commentary on the Decretals of Gregory IX. The registers of Innocent IV were edited by Elie Berger in four volumes (Paris, 1881-98) and his letters, 762 in number, by Rodenberg in "Mon. Germ. Epp. saeculi XIII", II (1887), 1-568. A Short biography of Innocent IV was written by his physician, NICOLAS DE CORBIA. It was published by MURATORI, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, III (Milan, 1723-51), 1, 589-593. The modern sources are: DESLANDRES, Innocent IV et la chute des Hohenstaufen (Paris, 1908); WEBER, Der Kampf zwischen Papst Innocenz IV. und Kaiser Friedrich II. bis zur Flucht des Papstes nach Lyon (Berlin, 1900); FOLZ, Kaiser Friedrich II. und Papst Innocenz IV., ihr Kampf in den Jahren 1243-1245 (Leipzig, 1886); RODENBERG, Innocenz IV. und das Koenigreich Sicilien (Halle, 1892); MAUBACH, Die Kardinaele und ihre Politik um die Mitte des 13. Jahrhunderts (Bonn, 1902); ALDINGER, Die Neubesetzung der deutschen Bistuemer unter Papst Innocenz IV. (Leipzig, 1900); HAUCK, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, IV (Leipzig, 1903), 808-851; BERGER, S. Louis et Innocent IV; etude sur les rapports de la France et du saint-siege (Paris, 1893); MASETTI, I pontefici Onorio III, Gregorio IX, ed Innocente IV a fronte dell' Imperatore Federico II (Rome, 1884); MICHAEL, Papst Innocenz IV. und Oesterreich in Zeitschrift fuer kath. Theologie, XIV (Innsbruck, 1890), 300-323; IDEM, Innocenz IV. und Konrad IV., ibidem, XVIII (1894), 457-472; GASQUET, Henry the Third and the Church (London, 1905), 205-353. MICHAEL OTT Pope Innocent V Pope Bl. Innocent V (PETRUS A TARENTASIA) Born in Tarentaise, towards 1225; elected at Arezzo, 21 January, 1276; died at Rome, 22 June, 1276. Tarentaise on the upper Isere in south-eastern France was certainly his native province, and the town of Champagny was in all probability his birthplace. At the age of sixteen he joined the Dominican Order. After completing his education, at the University of Paris, where he graduated as master in sacred theology in 1259, he won distinction as a professor in that institution, and is known as "the most famous doctor", "Doctor famosissimus" For some time provincial of his order in France, he became Archbishop of Lyons in 1272 and Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia in 1273. He played a prominent part at the Second =8Ccumenical Council of Lyons (1274), in which he delivered two discourses to the assembled fathers and also pronounced the funeral oration on St. Bonaventure. Elected as successor to Gregory X, whose intimate adviser he was, he assumed the name of Innocent V and was the first Dominican pope. His policy was peaceable. He sought to reconcile Guelphs and Ghibellines in Italy, restored peace between Pisa and Lucca, and mediated between Rudolph of Hapsburg and Charles of Anjou. He likewise endeavoured to consolidate the union of the Greeks with Rome concluded at the Council of Lyons. He is the author of several works dealing with philosophy, theology and canon law, some of which are still unpublished. The principal among them is his "Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard" (Toulouse, 1652). Four philosophical treatises: "De unitate formae", "De materia caeli", "De aeternitate mundi", "De intellectu et voluntate", are also due to his pen. A commentary on the Pauline Epistles frequently published under the name of Nicholas of Gorran (Cologne, 1478) is claimed for him by some critics. Liber Pontificalis, ed. DUCHESNE, II (Paris, 1892), 457; CIACONIUS-OLDOINUS, Vitae et res gestae Pontif. Rom., II (Rome, 1677), 203-206; MOTHON, Vie du bienheureux Innocent V (Rome, 1896); BOURGEOIS, Le Bienheureux Innocent V (Paris, 1899); TURINAZ, Un pape savoisien (Nancy, 1901); SCHULZ in the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, V (New York, 1909), 504. N.A. WEBER Pope Innocent VI Pope Innocent VI (ETIENNE AUBERT) Born at Mont in the Diocese of Limoges (France); elected at Avignon, 18 December 1352; died there, 12 September, 1362. He began his career as professor of civil law at Toulouse where he subsequently rose to the highest judicial position. Having entered the ecclesiastical state he became successively Bishop of Noyon (1338), of Clermont (1340), cardinal-priest (1342), Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia, and Grand Penitentiary (1352). The conclave which elected him to the papacy is remarkable for the fact that the first certain election capitulation was framed by the cardinals present, each of whom bound himself to divide, in case of election, his power and revenues with the College of Cardinals. Aubert took this engagement but with the restriction; "in so far as it was not contrary to church law". When the choice fell on him, one of his first pontifical acts declared the pact illegal and null, because it contained a limitation of the Divinely conferred papal power. The new pope also gave immediate proofs of the thoroughly ecclesiastical spirit which was to animate his policy. Shortly after his coronation the numerous ecclesiastics who had flocked to Avignon in search of preferment received a peremptory order to repair, under penalty of excommunication, to their respective places of residence. Some appointments to benefices made by his predecessor were repealed, numerous reservations abolished, and pluralities disapproved. Luxury was banished from the papal court and the obligation of following this example set by the pope imposed upon the cardinals. To the auditors of the Rota, whose services were gratuitous, a fixed income was assigned in the interest of a more impartial administration of justice. As the territory of the Papal States had been usurped by petty princes, Innocent VI sent Cardinal Gil de Albornoz (q. v.) to Italy with unlimited power. Success on the battle-field and diplomatic skill enabled this legate to restore papal authority in the States of the Church. Pope Innocent viewed favourably the imperial coronation of the German king, Charles IV, at Rome, but at the same time exacted from him a solemn pledge that be would leave Rome the very day on which the ceremony would take place. Charles was crowned on Easter Sunday, 1355, by the Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia and faithfully observed his promise. The following year he issued the celebrated "Golden Bull", against which the pope protested because it silently passed over the papal claims to confirm the German kings and to administer the empire during a vacancy. Objection was also made in 1359 to the emperor's resolution to undertake a reform of the German clergy independently of the pope; Charles's reformatory plans, however, subsequently received ecclesiastical approbation. The mutual peaceful dispositions prevented any conflict of a serious character. Innocent VI sought to terminate the war between France and England, and finally through his intervention the Peace of Bretigny was concluded in 1360. To protect the papal residence against the bands of freebooters that were then devastating France, Innocent increased the fortifications of Avignon; but before these were completed he was attacked and constrained to buy off his assailants by an enormous ransom. He used with but little success the severest ecclesiastical penalties against Peter I of Castile (1350-69), who had repudiated and poisoned his wife and is deservedly known as "the Cruel". His efforts to restore peace between Castile and Aragon were fruitless, so also his plans for a crusade and for the reunion of the Eastern Church with Rome. At the request of Emperor Charles IV he instituted (1354) for Germany and Bohemia the feast of the Holy Lance and Nails (Lanceae et Clavorum). He renewed the previous privileges of the mendicant orders, then in conflict with Richard Fitzralph, Archbishop of Armagh. Although tainted with nepotism he ranks among the best of the Avignon popes. His patronage of arts and his moral integrity are generally recognized. For his Bulls consult Bullarium Rom., ed. COCQUELINES, III. pt. II (Rome, 1741), 314-324; BALUZIUS, Vitae pap. Avenion., I (Paris, 1693), 321-62, 918-74, 1433-36; Liber Pontificalis, ed. DUCHESNE, II (Paris, 1892), 487, 491-93; MARTENE, Thesaurus novus anecdotarum, II (Paris, 1717), 843-1072. BOeHMER, Regesta imperii, VIII (Innsbruck, 1889), 782-93; DEPREZ, Innocent VI, lettres closes, patentes et curiales se rapportant `a la France (Paris, 1909); BERLIERE, Suppliques d'Innocent VI in Anal. Vatic. belg., V (Namur, 1910); CERRI, Innocenzo papa VI (Turin, 1873); WERUNSKY, Italienische Politik Papst Innocenz VI. und Koenig Karl IV. (Vienna, 1878); DAUMET, Innocent VI et Blanche de Bourbon (Paris, 1899); MOLLAT, Innocent VI et les tentatives de paix entre la France et l'Angleterre (1353-55) in Rev. d'hist. eccles., XI (1909), 729-43; PASTOR, Geschichte der Paepste, tr. ANTROBUS, I (London, 1891), 93-95; CREIGHTON, History of the Papacy, I (New York, 1901), 54-55; CHEVALIER, Bio-bibliog. N.A. WEBER Pope Innocent VII Pope Innocent VII (Cosimo de' Migliorati) Born of humble parents at Sulmona, in the Abruzzi, about 1336; died 6 November, 1406. He studied at Perugia, Padua, and finally at Bologna, where he graduated under the famous jurist Lignano. After teaching jurisprudence at Perugia and Padua for some time, he accompanied his former professor, Lignano, to Rome, where he was received into the Curia by Urban VI (1378-89). Shortly after his arrival in Rome, Urban sent him as papal collector to England, where he remained about ten years. Upon his return to Rome he became Bishop of Bologna in 1386, and on 5 December, 1387, Archbishop of Ravenna. The latter see he held until 15 September, 1400. In 1389, Boniface IX created him Cardinal-Priest of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, and sent him as legate to Lombardy and Tuscany in 1390. He was universally esteemed for his piety and learning, and was an able manager of financial affairs. On 17 October, 1404, he was elected and took the name of Innocent VII. His reign fell in the time of the Western Schism; the rival pope was Benedict XIII (1394-1423). Previous to his election, Innocent VII, like the other cardinals, had taken the oath to leave nothing undone, if needs be even to lay down the tiara, in order to terminate the schism. Shortly after his accession he took steps to keep his oath by proclaiming a council, but the disturbances which occurred in Rome brought the pope's good intentions to naught. The revolutionary element among the Romans rose up against the temporal authority of the pope, and King Ladislaus of Naples hastened to Rome to assist the pope in suppressing the insurrection. For his services the king extorted various concessions from Innocent, among them the promise that he would not make any agreement with the rival pope without stipulating that the king's rights over Naples should remain intact. Not content with these concessions, which Innocent made for the sake of peace, Ladislaus desired to extend his rule over Rome and the ecclesiastical territory. To attain his end he aided the Ghibelline faction in Rome in their revolutionary attempts in 1405. Innocent had made the great mistake of elevating his unworthy nephew, Ludovico Migliorati, to the cardinalate. This act of nepotism is the one blemish in the short reign of the otherwise virtuous pope. But it cost him dear. The cardinal, angered because the Romans rebelled against his uncle, waylaid a few of the most influential among them on their return from a conference with the pope, and had them brought to his house in order to murder them. The people were highly incensed at this cruel deed, and the pope had to flee for his life, although he was in no way responsible for his nephew's crime. He took up his abode in Viterbo until the Romans requested him to return in 1406. They again acknowledged his authority, but a squad of troops which King Ladislaus of Naples had sent to the aid of Colonna was still occupying the Castle of Sant' Angelo and made frequent sorties upon Rome and the neighbouring territory. Only after Ladislaus was excommunicated did he yield to the demands of the pope and withdraw his troops. In the midst of these political disturbances Innocent neglected what was then most essential for the well-being of the Church, the suppression of the schism. His rival, Benedict XIII, made it appear that the only obstacle to the termination of the schism was the unwillingness of Innocent VII. The reasons why Innocent did practically nothing for the suppression of the schism were: the troubled state of affairs in Rome, his mistrust in the sincerity of Benedict XIII, and the hostile attitude of King Ladislaus of Naples. Shortly before his death he planned the restoration of the Roman University, but his death brought the movement to a standstill. Vita Innocentii VII in Liber Pontificalis, ed. DUCHESNE, II (Paris, 1892), 508-10, 531-3, 552-4; and in MURATORI, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores ab anno 500 ad 1500, III (Milan, 1723-51), ii, 832 sq.; BRAND, Innocenzo VII ed il delitto di suo nipote Ludovico Migliorati in Studi e Documenti di Storia e Diritto, XXI (Rome, 1900); BLIEMETZRIEDER, Das Generalkonzil im grossen abendlandischen Schisma (Paderborn, 1904); IDEM, Die Konzilsidee unter Innocenz VII. und Koenig Ruprecht von der Pfalz in Studien und Mitteilungen aus dem Benediktiner und dem Cistercienser Orden, XXVII (Bruenn, 1906), 355-68; VERNET, Le Pape Innocent VII et les Juifs in L'Universite Catholique, XV (Lyons. 1894), 399-408; KNEER, Zur Vorgeschichte Papst Innocenz VII. in Historisches Jahrbuch, XII (Munich, 1891), 347-351. MICHAEL OTT Pope Innocent VIII Pope Innocent VIII (Giovanni Battista Cibo) Born at Genoa, 1432; elected 29 August, 1484; died at Rome, 25 July, 1492. He was the son of the Roman senator, Aran Cibo, and Teodorina de' Mari. After a licentious youth, during which he had two illegitimate children, Franceschetto and Teodorina, he took orders and entered the service of Cardinal Calandrini. He was made Bishop of Savona in 1467, but exchanged this see in 1472 for that of Molfetta in south-eastern Italy and was raised to the cardinalate the following year. At the conclave of 1484, he signed, like all the other cardinals present, the election capitulation which was to bind the future pope. Its primary object was to safeguard the personal interests of the electors. The choice fell on Cibo himself who, in honour of his countryman, Innocent IV, assumed the name of Innocent VIII. His success in the conclave, as well as his promotion to the cardinalate, was largely due to Giuliano della Rovere. The chief concern of the new pope, whose kindliness is universally praised, was the promotion of peace among Christian princes, though he himself became involved in difficulties with King Ferrante of Naples. The protracted conflict with Naples was the principal obstacle to a crusade against the Turks; Innocent VIII earnestly endeavoured to unite Christendom against the common enemy. The circumstances appeared particularly favourable, as Prince Djem, the Sultan's brother and pretender to the Turkish throne, was held prisoner at Rome and promised co-operation in war and withdrawal of the Turks from Europe in case of success. A congress of Christian princes met in 1490 at Rome, but led to no result. On the other hand, the pope had the satisfaction of witnessing the fall of Granada (1491) which crowned the reconquest of Spain from the Moors and earned for the King of Spain the title of "Catholic Majesty". In England he proclaimed the right of King Henry VII and his descendants to the English throne and also agreed to some modifications affecting the privilege of "sanctuary". The only canonization which he proclaimed was that of Margrave Leopold of Austria (6 Jan., 1485). He issued an appeal for a crusade against the Waldenses, actively opposed the Hussite heresy in Bohemia, and forbade (Dec., 1486) under penalty of excommunication the reading of the nine hundred theses which Pico della Mirandola had publicly posted in Rome. On 5 Dec., 1484, he issued his much-abused Bull against witchcraft, and 31 May, 1492, he solemnly received at Rome the Holy Lance which the Sultan surrendered to the Christians. Constantly confronted with a depleted treasury, he resorted to the objectionable expedient of creating new offices and granting them to the highest bidders. Insecurity reigned at Rome during his rule owing to insufficient punishment of crime. However, he dealt mercilessly with a band of unscrupulous officials who forged and sold papal Bulls; capital punishment was meted out to two of the culprits in 1489. Among these forgeries must be relegated the alleged permission granted the Norwegians to celebrate Mass without wine. See "Bullarium Romanum", III, iii (Rome, 1743), 190-225. BURCHARD, Diarium, ed. THUASNE, I (Paris, 1883); INFESSURA, Diario della Citt`a di Roma, ed. TOMMASINI in Fonti per la Storia d'Italia, V (Rome, 1890); CIACONIUS-OLDOINUS, Vitae et Res gestae Pontif. Rom., III (Rome, 1677), 89-146; SERDONATI, Vita d' Innocenzo VIII (Milan, 1829); PASTOR, Geschichte der Paepste (4tb ed., Freiburg, 1899), 175-285: bibliog. XXXVII-LXIX; tr. ANTROBUS, (2nd ed., St. Louis, 1901), V, 229-372; CREIGHTON, A History of the Papacy, new ed., IV (London and New York, 1903), 135-182; GARNETT in The Renaissance Cambridge Modern History, I (New York, 1903), 221-225; ROSCOE, Lorenzo de' Medici (London, 1865), 214-229, 362; KRUeGER, The Papacy (tr., New York, 1909), 146, 151-153. N.A. WEBER Pope Innocent IX Pope Innocent IX (Giovanni Antonio Facchinetti) Born at Bologna, 22 July, 1519; elected, 29 October, 1591; died at Rome, 30 December, 1591. After successful studies in jurisprudence in his native city he was graduated as doctor of law in 1544, and proceeded to Rome, where Cardinal Nicolo Ardinghelli chose him as his secretary. Later he entered the service of Cardinal Alessandro Farnese, who appointed him his ecclesiastical representative at the head of the Archdiocese of Avignon and subsequently called him to the management of his affairs at Parma. In 1560 he was named Bishop of Nicastro in Calabria, and in 1562 was present at the Council of Trent. Sent as papal nuncio to Venice by Pius V in 1566, he greatly furthered the conclusion of that alliance (Pope, Venice, Spain) against the Turks which ultimately resulted in the victory of Lepanto (1571). In 1572 he returned to his diocese, but resigning his see he removed to Rome. In 1575 he was named Patriarch of Jerusalem, and on 12 December, 1583, created Cardinal-Priest of the Title of the Four Crowned Martyrs -- whence the frequent designation "Cardinal of Santiquattro". During the reign of the sickly Gregory XIV the burden of the papal administration rested on his shoulders, and on this pontiff's death the Spanish party raised Facchinetti to the papal chair. Mindful of the origin of his success, he supported, during his two months' pontificate, the cause of Philip II of Spain and the League against Henry IV of France. He prohibited the alienation of church property, and in a consistory held on 3 November, 1591, informed the cardinals of his intention of constituting a reserve fund to meet extraordinary expenses. Death, however, did not permit the realization of his vast schemes. He left numerous, though still unpublished, writings on theological and philosophical subjects: "Moralia quaedam theologica", "Adversus Machiavellem", "De recta gubernandi ratione", etc. His bulls are printed in the "Bullarium Romanum", ed. Cocquelines, V, pt. I (Rome, 1751), 324-32. CIACONIUS-OLDOINUS, Vitae et res gesta Pontif. Rom., IV (Rome, 1677), 235-48; MOTTA, Otto Pontificati del Cinquecento (1555-1591) in Arch. stor. Lombard., 3rd series, XIX (1903), 372-373; RANKE, Die roemischen Paepste, II (9th ed., Leipzig, 1889), 150, tr. FOWLER, II (London, 1901), 157; BRISCHAR in Kirchenlexikon, s. v. N.A. WEBER Pope Innocent X Pope Innocent X (Giambattista Pamfili) Born at Rome, 6 May, 1574; died there, 7 January, 1655. His parents were Camillo Pamfili and Flaminia de Bubalis. The Pamfili resided originally at Gubbio, in Umbria, but came to Rome during the pontificate of Innocent VIII. The young man studied jurisprudence at the Collegio Romano and graduated as bachelor of laws at the age of twenty. Soon afterwards Clement VIII appointed him consistorial advocate and auditor of the Rota. Gregory XV made him nuncio at Naples. Urban VIII sent him as datary with the cardinal legate, Francesco Barberini, to France and Spain, then appointed him titular Latin Patriarch of Antioch, and nuncio at Madrid. He was created Cardinal-Priest of Sant' Eusebio on 30 August, 1626, though he did not assume the purple until 19 November, 1629. He was a member of the congregations of the Council of Trent, the Inquisition, and Jurisdiction and Immunity. On 9 August, 1644, a conclave was held at Rome for the election of a successor to Urban VIII. The conclave was a stormy one. The French faction had agreed to give their vote to no candidate who was friendly towards Spain. Cardinal Firenzola, the Spanish candidate was, therefore, rejected, being a known enemy of Cardinal Mazarin, prime minister of France. Fearing the election of an avowed enemy of France, the French party finally agreed with the Spanish party upon Pamfili, although his sympathy for Spain was well known. On 15 September he was elected, and ascended the papal throne as Innocent X. Soon after his accession, Innocent found it necessary to take legal action against the Barberini for misappropriation of public moneys. To escape punishment Antonio and Francesco Barberini fled to Paris, where they found a powerful protector in Mazarin. Innocent confiscated their property, and on 19 February, 1646, issued a Bull ordaining that all cardinals who had left or should leave the Ecclesiastical States without papal permission and should not return within six months, should be deprived of their ecclesiastical benefices and eventually of the cardinalate itself. The French Parliament declared the papal ordinances null and void, but the pope did not yield until Mazarin prepared to send troops to Italy to invade the Ecclesiastical States. Henceforth the papal policy towards France became more friendly, and somewhat later the Barberini were rehabilitated. But when in 1652 Cardinal Retz was arrested by Mazarin, Innocent solemnly protested against this act of violence committed against a cardinal, and protected Retz after his escape in 1654. In Italy Innocent had occasion to assert his authority as suzerain over Duke Ranuccio II of Parma who refused to redeem the bonds (monti) of the Farnesi from the Roman creditors, as had been stipulated in the Treaty of Venice on 31 March, 1644. The duke, moreover, refused to recognize Cristoforo Guarda, whom the pope had appointed Bishop of Castro. When, therefore, the new bishop was murdered while on his way to take possession of his see, Innocent held Ranuccio responsible for the crime. The pope took possession of Castro, razed it to the ground and transferred the episcopal see to Acquapendente. The duke was forced to resign the administration of his district to the pope, who undertook to satisfy the creditors. The papal relations with Venice, which had been highly strained during the pontificate of Urban VIII, became very friendly during Innocent's reign. Innocent aided the Venetians financially against the Turks in the struggle for Candia, while the Venetians on their part allowed Innocent free scope in filling the vacant episcopal sees in their territory, a right which they had previously claimed for themselves. In Portugal the popular insurrection of 1640 had led to the secession of that country from Spain, and to the election of Juan IV of Braganza as King of Portugal. Both Urban VIII and Innocent X, in deference to Spain, refused to acknowledge the new king and withheld their approbation from the bishops nominated by him. Thus it happened that towards the end of Innocent's pontificate there was only one bishop in the whole of Portugal. On 26 November, 1648, Innocent issued the famous Bull "Zelo domus Dei", in which he declares as null and void those articles of the Peace of Westphalia which were detrimental to the Catholic religion. In his Bull "Cum occasione", issued on 31 May, 1653. he condemned five propositions taken from the "Augustinus" of Jansenius, thus giving the impulse to the great Jansenist controversy in France. Innocent X was a lover of justice and his life was blameless; he was, however, often irresolute and suspicious. The great blemish in his pontificate was his dependence on Donna Olimpia Maidalchini, the wife of his deceased brother. For a short time her influence had to yield to that of the youthful Camillo Astalli, a distant relative of the pope, whom Innocent raised to the cardinalate. But the pope seemed to be unable to get along without her, and at her instance Astalli was deprived of the purple and removed from the Vatican. The accusation, made by Gualdus (Leti) in his "Vita di Donna Olimpia Maidalchini" (1666), that Innocent's relation to her was immoral, has been rejected as slanderous by all reputable historians. CIAMPI, Innocenzo X Pamfili e la sua corte (Imola, 1878); FRIEDENSBURG, Regesten zur deutschen Geschichte aus der Zeit des Pontifikats Innocenz X in Quellen und Forschungen, edited by the Prussian Historical Institute in Rome, V (1902), VI (1903); RANKE, Die roemischen Paepste, tr. FOSTER, II (London, 1906), 321-9; BAROZZI E BERCHET, Relazioni degli stati Europei lette al senato dagli Ambasciatori Veneti nel secolo decimosettimo, Serie III: Italia, Relazioni di Roma, II (Venice, 1878), 43-161; PALATIUS, Gesta Pontificum Romanorum, IV (Venice. 1688), 571-94. MICHAEL OTT Pope Innocent XI Pope Innocent XI (Benedetto Odescalchi) Born at Como, 16 May, 1611; died at Rome, 11 August, 1689. He was educated by the Jesuits at Como, and studied jurisprudence at Rome and Naples. Urban VIII appointed him successively prothonotary, president of the Apostolic Camera, commissary at Ancona, administrator of Macerata, and Governor of Picena. Innocent X made him Cardinal-Deacon of Santi Cosma e Damiano on 6 March, 1645, and, somewhat later, Cardinal-Priest of Sant' Onofrio. As cardinal he was beloved by all on account of his deep piety, charity, and unselfish devotion to duty. When he was sent as legate to Ferrara in order to assist the people stricken with a severe famine, the pope introduced him to the people of Ferrara as the "father of the poor", "Mittimus patrem pauperum". In 1650 he became Bishop of Novara, in which capacity he spent all the revenues of his see to relieve the poor and sick in his diocese. With the permission of the pope he resigned as Bishop of Novara in favour of his brother Giulio in 1656 and went to Rome, where he took a prominent part in the consultations of the various congregations of which he was a member. He was a strong candidate for the papacy after the death of Clement IX on 9 December, 1669, but the French Government rejected him. After the death of Clement X, King Louis XIV of France again intended to use his royal influence against the election of Odescalchi, but, seeing that the cardinals as well as the Roman people were of one mind in their desire to have Odescalchi as their pope, he reluctantly instructed the cardinals of the French party to acquiesce in his candidacy. After an interregnum of two months, Odescalchi was unanimously elected pope on 21 September, 1676, and took the name of Innocent XI. Immediately upon his accession he turned all his efforts towards reducing the expenses of the Curia. He passed strict ordinances against nepotism among the cardinals. He lived very parsimoniously and exhorted the cardinals to do the same. In this manner he not only squared the annual deficit which at his accession had reached the sum of 170,000 scudi, but within a few years the papal income was even in excess of the expenditures. The whole pontificate of Innocent XI is marked by a continuous struggle with the absolutism of King Louis XIV of France. As early as 1673 the king had by his own power extended the right of the regale over the provinces of Languedoc, Guyenne, Provence, and Dauphine, where it had previously not been exercised, although the Council of Lyons in 1274 had forbidden under pain of excommunication to extend the regale beyond those districts where it was then in force. Bishops Pavillon of Alet and Caulet of Pamiers protested against this royal encroachment and in consequence they were persecuted by the king. All the efforts of Innocent XI to induce King Louis to respect the rights of the Church were useless. In 1682, Louis XIV convoked an Assembly of the French Clergy which, on 19 March, adopted the four famous articles, known as "Declaration du clerge franc,ais" (see GALLICANISM). Innocent annulled the four articles in his rescript of 11 April, 1682, and refused his approbation to all future episcopal candidates who had taken part in the assembly. To appease the pope, Louis XIV began to pose as a zealot of Catholicism. In 1685 he revoked the Edict of Nantes and inaugurated a cruel persecution of the Protestants. Innocent XI expressed his displeasure at these drastic measures and continued to withhold his approbation from the episcopal candidates as he had done heretofore. He irritated the king still more by abolishing the much abused "right of asylum" in a decree dated 7 May, 1685. By force of this right the foreign ambassadors at Rome had been able to harbour in their palaces and the immediate neighbourhood any criminal that was wanted by the papal court of justice. Innocent XI notified the new French ambassador, Marquis de Lavardin, that he would not be recognized as ambassador in Rome unless he renounced this right. But Louis XIV would not give it up. At the head of an armed force of about 800 men Lavardin entered Rome in November, 1687, and took forcible possession of his palace. Innocent XI treated him as excommunicated and placed under interdict the church of St. Louis at Rome where he attended services on 24 December, 1687. The tension between the pope and the king was still increased by the pope's procedure in filling the vacant archiepiscopal See of Cologne. The two candidates for the see were Cardinal Wilhelm Fuerstenberg, then Bishop of Strasburg, and Joseph Clement, a brother of Max Emanuel, Elector of Bavaria. The former was a willing tool in the hands of Louis XIV, and his appointment as Archbishop and Elector of Cologne would have implied French preponderance in north-western Germany. Joseph Clement was not only the candidate of Emperor Leopold I of Austria but of all European rulers, with the exception of the King of France and his servile supporter, King James II of England. At the election, which took place on 19 July, 1688, neither of the candidates received the required number of votes. The decision, therefore, fell to the pope, who designated Joseph Clement as Archbishop and Elector of Cologne. Louis XIV retaliated by taking possession of the papal territory of Avignon, imprisoning the papal nuncio and appealing to a general council. Nor did he conceal his intention to separate the French Church entirely from Rome. But the pope remained firm. The subsequent fall of James II of England destroyed French preponderance in Europe and soon after Innocent's death the struggle between Louis XIV and the papacy was settled in favour of the Church. Innocent XI did not approve the imprudent manner in which James II attempted to restore Catholicism in England. He also repeatedly expressed his displeasure at the support which James II gave to the autocratic King Louis XIV in his measures hostile to the Church. It is, therefore, not surprising that Innocent XI had little sympathy for the Catholic King of England, and that he did not assist him in his hour of trial. There is, however, no ground for the accusation that Innocent XI was informed of the designs which William of Orange had upon England, much less that he supported him in the overthrow of James II. It was due to Innocent's earnest and incessant exhortations that the German Estates and King John Sobieski of Poland in 1683 hastened to the relief of Vienna which was being besieged by the Turks. After the siege was raised, Innocent again spared no efforts to induce the Christian princes to lend a helping hand for the expulsion of the Turks from Hungary. He contributed millions of scudi to the Turkish war fund in Austria and Hungary and had the satisfaction of surviving the capture of Belgrade, 6 Sept., 1688. Innocent XI was no less intent on preserving the purity of faith and morals among the clergy and the faithful. He insisted on a thorough education and an exemplary life of the clergy, reformed the monasteries of Rome, passed strict ordinances concerning the modesty of dress among Roman ladies, put an end to the ever increasing passion for gambling by suppressing the gambling houses at Rome and by a decree of 12 February, 1679, encouraged frequent and even daily Communion. In his Bull "Sanctissimnus Dominus", issued on 2 March, 1679, he condemned sixty-five propositions which favoured laxism in moral theology, and in a decree, dated 26 June, 1680, he defended the Probabiliorism of Thyrsus Gonzalez, S.J. This decree (see authentic text in "Etudes religieuses", XCI, Paris, 1902, 847 sq.) gave rise to the controversy, whether Innocent XI intended it as a condemnation of Probabilism. The Redemptorist Francis Ter Haar, in his work: "Ben. Innocentii PP. XI de probabilismo decreti historia" (Tournai, 1904), holds that the decree is opposed to Probabilism, while August Lehmkuhl, S.J., in his treatise: "Probabilismus vindicatus" (Freiburg, 1906), 78-111, defends the opposite opinion. In a decree of 28 August, 1687, and in the Constitution "Coelestis Pastor" of 19 November, 1687, Innocent XI condemned sixty-eight Quietistic propositions (see QUIETISM) of Miguel de Molinos. Towards the Jansenists Innocent XI was lenient, though he by no means espoused their doctrines. The process of his beatification was introduced by Benedict XIV and continued by Clement XI and Clement XII, but French influence and the accusation of Jansenism caused it to be dropped. His "Epistolae ad Principes" were published by Berthier (2 vols., Rome, 1891-5), and his "Epistolae ad Pontifices", by Bonamico (Rome, 1891). IMMICH, Papst Innocenz XI. (Berlin, 1900); MICHAUD, Louis XIV et Innocent XI (4 vols., Paris, 1882 --) written from Gallican standpoint; GERIN, Le Pape Innocent XI et la revolution anglaise de 1688 in Revue des questions historiques, XX (Paris, 1876); IDEM, Le Pape Innocent XI et la Revocation de l'Edit de Nantes, ibidem, XXIV (1878); IDEM, Le pape Innocent XI et l'Election de Cologne en 1688, ibidem, XXXIII (1883); IDEM, Le Pape Innocent XI et le siege de Vienne en 1683, ibidem, XXXIX (1886); FRAKNOI, Papst Innocenz XI. und Ungarns Befreiung von der Tuerkenherrschaft, translated into German from the Hungarian by JEKEL (Freiburg im Br., 1902); GIUSSANI, Il conclave di Innocenzo XI (Como, 1901). A contemporary biography by LIPPI was newly edited by BERTHIER (Rome, 1889). Sea also HORVARTH in Catholic University Bulletin, XV (Washington, 1909), 42-64; cf. ibid., IX 1903, 281. MICHAEL OTT Pope Innocent XII Pope Innocent XII (ANTONIO PIGNATELLI) Born at Spinazzolo near Naples, 13 March, 1615; died at Rome, 27 September, 1700. Re entered the Roman Curia at the age of twenty and was successively made vice-legate at Urbino, inquisitor in Malta, and Governor of Perugia. Under Innocent X he became nuncio in Tuscany, and Alexander VII sent him as nuncio to Poland, where he regulated the disturbed ecclesiastical affairs and united the Armenians with Rome. In 1668 he became nuncio at Vienna. Innocent XI created him Cardinal-Priest of San Pancrazio fuori le mura and Bishop of Faenza on 1 September, 1682, then Archbishop of Naples in 1687. After the death of Alexander VIII the cardinals entered the conclave at Rome on 11 February, 1691, but neither the French nor the Spanish-Hapsburg faction among the cardinals could carry its candidate. A compromise resulted in the election of Cardinal Pignatelli on 12 July, 1691. In his Bull "Romanum decet Pontificem" (22 June, 1692), which was subscribed and sworn to by the cardinals, he decreed that in the future no pope should be permitted to bestow the cardinalate on more than one of his kinsmen. Towards the poor, whom he called his nephews, he was extremely charitable; he turned part of the Lateran into a hospital for the needy, erected numerous charitable and educational institutions, and completed the large court-house "Curia Innocenziana", which now serves as the Italian House of Commons (Camera dei Deputati). In 1693 he induced King Louis XIV of France to repeal the "Declaration of the French Clergy", which had been adopted in 1682. The bishops who had taken part in the "Declaration" sent a written recantation to Rome, whereupon the pope sent his Bull of confirmation to those bishops from whom it had been withheld. In 1696 he repeated his predecessor's condemnation of Jansenism and in his Brief "Cum alias" (12 March, 1699) he condemned twenty-three semi-Quietistic propositions contained in Fenelon's "Maximes". Towards the end of his pontificate his relations with Emperor Leopold I became somewhat strained, owing especially to Count Martinitz, the imperial ambassador at Rome, who still insisted on the "right of asylum", which had been abolished by Innocent XI. It was greatly due to the arrogance of Martinitz that Innocent XII advised King Charles II of Spain to make a Frenchman, the Duke of Anjou, his testamentary successor, an act which led to the "War of the Spanish Succession". Bullarium Innocentii XII (Rome, 1697); RANKE, Die roemischen Paepste, tr. FOSTER, History of the Popes, II (London, 1906), 425-7; KLOPP, Hat der Papst Innocenz XII im Jahre 1700 dem Koenige Karl II von Spanien gerathen, durch ein Testament den Herzog von Anjou zum Erben der spanischen Monarchie zu ernennen in Historisch-Politische Blaetter, LXXXIII (Munich, 1879), 25-46 and 125-150; BRISCHAR in Kirchenlex., s. v. MICHAEL OTT Pope Innocent XIII Pope Innocent XIII (Michelangelo Dei Conti) Born at Rome, 13 May, 1655; died at the same place, 7 March, 1724. He was the son of Carlo II, Duke of Poli. After studying at the Roman College he was introduced into the Curia by Alexander VIII, who in 1690 commissioned him to bear the blessed hat (berettone) and sword (stocco) to Doge Morosini of Venice. In 1695 he was made Titular Archbishop of Tarsus and nuncio at Lucerne, and in 1697, nuncio at Lisbon. Clement XI created him Cardinal-Priest of Santi Quirico e Giulitta on 17 May, 1706, conferred on him the Diocese of Osimo in 1709, and that of Viterbo in 1712. Sickness compelled him to resign his see in 1719. After the death of Clement XI he was elected pope in a stormy conclave on 8 May, 1721. In memory of Innocent III, to whose lineage he belonged, he chose the name of Innocent XIII. Soon after his succession he invested Emperor Charles VI with the Kingdom of Sicily and received his oath of allegiance in 1722. When, a year later, the emperor invested the Spanish prince Don Carlos, with Parma and Piacenza, the pope protested on the ground that these two duchies were under papal suzerainty. His protests, however, remained unheeded. Like his predecessor, be gave an annual pension to the English Pretender, James III, the son of the dethroned Catholic King, James II, and even promised to aid him with 100,000 ducats, in case an opportunity should offer itself to regain the English Crown by force of arms. He also assisted the Venetians and especially the Island of Malta in their struggle against the Turks. In the dispute of the Jesuits with the Dominicans and others, concerning the retention of various Chinese Rites among the Catholic converts of China, Innocent XIII sided with the opponents of the Jesuits. When in 1721 seven French bishops sent a document to Rome containing a petition to suppress the Constitution "Unigenitus" in which Clement XI had condemned the errors of Quesnel, Innocent XIII not only condemned the writing of the bishops, but also demanded unconditional submission to the Constitution. He was, however, weak enough to yield to French pressure and raise the unworthy Prime Minister Dubois to the cardinalate. He, indeed, exhorted the minister to change his wicked life, but his exhortations remained useless. (For a milder view of Dubois see Bliard, "Dubois, cardinal et premier ministre", Paris, 1901.) In a Bull of March, 1723, he regulated numerous abuses in Spain and was assisted in the execution of this Bull by King Philip V of Spain. The fears which were raised in the beginning of his pontificate that he would yield to nepotism were entirely groundless. He elevated his brother to the cardinalate, but did not allow his revenues to exceed 12,000 scudi as had been stipulated by Pope Innocent XII. MAYER, Papstwahl Innocenz' XIII (Vienna. 1874); Leben Papst Innocentii XIII (Cologne. 1724); MICHAUD, La fin de Clement XI et le commencement du pontificat d'Innocent XIII in Internationale theologische Zeitschrift, V, 42-60, 304-331. MICHAEL OTT University of Innsbruck Innsbruck University Innsbruck University, officially the ROYAL IMPERIAL LEOPOLD FRANCIS UNIVERSITY IN INNSBRUCK, originated in the college opened at Innsbruck in 1562 by Blessed Peter Canisius, at the request and on the foundation of the Emperor Ferdinand I of Austria, who in this way made effective his long-cherished plans for an institute of higher learning for the people of Tyrol. The imperial edict of foundation was read from every pulpit in Tyrol on 12 May, 1562, and the school opened under the direction of the Fathers of the newly founded Society of Jesus on 24 June of the same year as a gymnasium with four classes, in which elements, grammar, and syntax were taught. A fifth and lowest class of elements was added in 1566. In 1599 Ferdinand expressed the wish that the programme of studies be widened so as to include a studium universale. This was done, however, only in 1606, when a new building for the gymnasium was completed, whereupon courses in philosophy (dialectics) and theology (casuistry and controversies) were begun, the other subjects being rhetoric, humanities, syntax, and upper and lower grammar. Logic was added in 1619. Until 1670 the erecting of the gymnasium into a university had been repeatedly discussed and planned, but without result. In 1670-71 the course in philosophy was extended to three years; in 1671-72 two chairs of scholastic theology were founded, as well as one of law (institutiones) and in the following year two of jurisprudence and one of canon law. In 1672 also the gymnasium was raised to the rank of an academy, and in 1673 this academy received the name and rank of a university, although lectures in medicine did not begin until 1674. The Emperor Leopold I of Austria promulgated the imperial decree of foundation in 1677, and it was in the same year that Pope Innocent XI granted the new university the customary rights and privileges. The faculty then consisted of fifteen professors: five for theology, four each for philosophy and law, and two for medicine. Of these, three of the professors of theology, all of those of philosophy and the professor of canon law in the law faculty were Jesuits; two members of the secular clergy lectured in the first-named faculty, and the rest were laymen. The complete organization of these four faculties followed ten years later. The chancellor of the university was the Prince-Bishop of Brixen, in the Tyrol, who was usually represented in Innsbruck by a vice-chancellor. Until 1730 the university remained essentially unchanged. The number of professors rose to eighteen. The eighteen years following, however, witnessed a widening of the study plan; the Government of Maria Theresa began to interfere more directly in the inner work of the university. During the next period, from 1748 to 1773, this state domination increased, reaching a maximum under Joseph II. In 1773 when, upon the suppression of the Society of Jesus, the Jesuits, who up to this had made up one-half of the professors and under whom the theological faculty became the most eminent of the four, ceased to lecture, the university numbered 911 students, distributed as follows: 325 in theology, 116 in law, 43 in medicine and 437 in philosophy. Joseph II published an order for the suppression of the university on 29 November, 1781, but on 14 September, 1782 issued a decree allowing it to he continued as a lyceum with two university faculties, philosophy and theology, and facilities for the study of law and medicine. In 1783 the Government established at Innsbruck a general theological seminary for the whole of Tyrol, only to close it again in 1790. The university was recalled to life by Joseph's successor, Leopold II, to be again suppressed by the Bavarian Government in 1810, leaving a lyceum with merely philosophical and theological courses. This condition of affairs lasted until 1817, when courses in law and medicine were added. From the departure of the Jesuits in 1773 until 1822, when it was completely suppressed, the theological faculty, in which the principles of Josephinism and Gallicanism reigned almost supreme, ad been in continual conflict with the Bishop of Brixen, who had no right of supervision, not even over purity of doctrine, which suffered grievously in the interval. At one time even the "Imitation of Christ" was a forbidden book. In 1826 the university was again restored, this time by the Emperor Francis II of Austria. It consisted at first of only two full faculties, philosophy and law. In 1857, mainly through the efforts of Vincent Gasser, Prince-Bishop of Brixen, the theological faculty was added and entrusted once more to the Jesuits, who have since, with two exceptions, been the sole professors. The complete organization of the restored university was reached when the medical faculty was reconstituted in 1869. The most illustrious teachers of the university have been and are mainly in the theological faculty. Since the restoration of the latter in 1857 the best known of these have been: in dogmatic theology, Cardinal Steinhuber (died 1907), Stentrup (died 1898), Kern (died 1907), and Hurter, the latter still lecturing since 1858; in moral theology, Noldin (retired 1909); in sacred eloquence, Jungmann (died 1885), the author of a well-known work on aesthetics; in moral theology and sociology, Biederlack; in canon law and ecclesiastical history, Nilles (died 1907); in Scripture, Fonck (called to Rome, 1908); in ecclesiastical history, Grisar (professor honorarius since 1898). Dr. Ludwig von Pastor, author of the well-known "History of the Popes", is professor of history in the faculty of philosophy, in which the eminent Austrian meteorologist Pernter (died 1909) was at one time professor. To this faculty belongs also the cartographer von Wieser. The theological faculty has frequently suffered the attacks of "liberal" professors, who form the large majority in the faculties of the profane sciences in the Austrian universities. These professors have several times endeavoured to have the theological faculty suppressed, but it has ever found a faithful protector in the Emperor Francis Joseph I. This faculty also took the leading part in the controversy following upon the blasphemous attack on the Church in 1908 by Dr. Ludwig Wahrmund, professor of canon law in the law faculty. Intimately connected with the theological faculty, though no official part of it, is the seminary (Theologisches Konvikt), where the majority of the students of theology reside. This institution, called the "Nikolaihaus", was first opened for poor students in 1569, closed in 1783, and reopened for the theologians in 1858. It is almost exclusively through the theological faculty and the "Nikolaihaus" that Innsbruck is known outside of Austria-Hungary, especially among Catholics. In the fifty years since the restoration of the faculty, 5898 students, from nearly every civilized country, have frequented the lectures in theology, of whom 2983 are alumni of the "Nikolaihaus". Of these students, 4209 belonged to the secular and 1689 to the regular clergy; they represeated 202 dioceses and Apostolic vicariates, and 73 provinces, cloisters, etc., of the regulars. North America has contributed 443 students, with few exceptions all from the United States; England is represented among the alumni by 10, and Ireland by 15 students. The "Nikolaihaus" is governed by a regens who is a member of the Society of Jesus. A Jesuit father also is always university preacher, and the university sodality is under the direction of another Jesuit. Innsbruck is the theologate of the Austrian and Hungarian provinces of the Society of Jesus. The influence of the university since its restoration, as in its earlier periods, has been important. Naturally this influence has been felt most of all in the Tyrol, which to a large extent owes to the university its culture, especially among the clergy and in the medical and legal professions. In particular, the presence of theological students from all parts of the world has made the influence of the faculty of theology of great weight in the education of the clergy, and in the development of theological science during the last fifty years, an influence which has been spread and augmented by the faculty organ, the "Zeitschrift fuer Katholische Theologie", a quarterly now in its thirty-third year. Innsbruck is one of the eight Austrian state universities. The university buildings number about 40 (including institutes clinics etc.). There is also a university church in charge of the Jesuits. This church was erected during the years 1620-40 by Archduke Leopold V of Austria and his wife Claudia de' Medici. The buildings for the medical, chemical, and physical sciences are new and well equipped. The library contains over 225,000 volumes, including many valuable manuscripts. The number of students averages about 1000, that of the professors and privat dozenten over 90. In 1908-09 the number of students registered in the winter semester was 1154, thus distributed: theology, 355; law, 293; medicine, 213; philosophy, 293. In the summer semester (1909) the total was 1062. In this same year there were 105 professors and privat dozenten. PROBST, Geschichte der Universitaet in Innsbruck seit ihrer Entstehung bis zum Jahre 1860 (Innsbruck, 1869); PROBST, Beitraege zur Geschichte der Gymnasien in Tirol (Innsbruck, 1858); HOFMANN, Das Nikolaihaus zu Innsbruck einst und jetzt (Innsbruck, 1908); AHERN in The Messenger (December, 1908). M.J. AHERN In Partibus Infidelium In Partibus Infidelium (Often shortened to in partibus, or abbreviated as i.p.i.). A term meaning "in the lands of the unbelievers," words added to the name of the see conferred on non-residential or titular Latin bishops, for example: "John Doe, Bishop of Tyre in partibus infidelium. Formerly, when bishops were forced to flee before the invading infidel hordes, they were welcomed by other Churches, while preserving their titles and their rights to their own dioceses. They were even entrusted with the administration of vacant sees. Thus we find St. Gregory appointing John, Bishop of Alessio, who had been expelled by his enemies, to the See of Squilace (cap. "Pastoralis," xliii, caus. vii, q. 1). In later days it was deemed fitting to preserve the memory of ancient Christian Churches that had fallen into the hands of the unbelievers; this was done by giving their names to auxiliary bishops or bishops in missionary countries. Fagnani (in cap. "Episcopalia," i, "De privilegiis") says that the regular appointment of titular bishops dates back only to the time of the Twelfth Lateran Council under Leo X (Session IX); cardinals alone were authorized to ask for them for the dioceses. St. Pius V extended the privilege to the sees in which it was customary to have auxiliary bishops. Since then the practice became more widespread. The Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda, by its circular letter of 3 March, 1882, abolished the expression in partibus infidelium; the present custom is to join to the name of the see that of the district to which it formerly belonged, e.g. "John Doe, Archiepiscopus Corinthius in Achaia," or else merely to say "titular bishop". A. BOUDINHON In Petto In Petto An Italian translation of the Latin in pectore, "in the breast", i.e. in the secret of the heart. It happens, at times, that the pope, after creating some cardinals in consistory, adds that he has appointed one or more additional cardinals, whom he reserves in petto, and whom he will make known later: "alios autem [v.g. duos] in pectore reservamus, arbitrio nostro quandoque declarandos." Until they have been publicly announced these cardinals acquire no rights, and if the pope dies before having declared their names they do not become members of the Sacred College; but when he has proclaimed their elevation at a subsequent consistory, they take rank from the date of their first nomination and receive from that date all the emoluments accruing to their office. This is a method that the popes have sometimes adopted to ensure poor ecclesiastics a competency to meet all the expenses incident to their promotion. At the consistory of 15 March, 1875, Pius IX announced that he was creating and reserving in petto five cardinals, whose names would be found, in case of his death, in a letter annexed to his will. But the canonists having raised serious doubts as to the validity of such a posthumous publication, Pius IX published their names in the consistory of the following 17 September (See CARDINAL.). Santi-Leitner, Praellections juris canonici, I, tit xxxi, n. 23. A. BOUDINHON Inquisition Inquisition (Lat. inquirere, to look to). By this term is usually meant a special ecclesiastical institutional for combating or suppressing heresy. Its characteristic mark seems to be the bestowal on special judges of judicial powers in matters of faith, and this by supreme ecclesiastical authority, not temporal or for individual cases, but as a universal and permanent office. Moderns experience difficulty in understanding this institution, because they have, to no small extent, lost sight of two facts. On the one hand they have ceased to grasp religious belief as something objective, as the gift of God, and therefore outside the realm of free private judgment; on the other they no longer see in the Church a society perfect and sovereign, based substantially on a pure and authentic Revelation, whose first most important duty must naturally be to retain unsullied this original deposit of faith. Before the religious revolution of the sixteenth century these views were still common to all Christians; that orthodoxy should be maintained at any cost seemed self-evident. However, while the positive suppression of heresy by ecclesiastical and civil authority in Christian society is as old as the Church, the Inquisition as a distinct ecclesiastical tribunal is of much later origin. Historically it is a phase in the growth of ecclesiastical legislation, whose distinctive traits can be fully understood only by a careful study of the conditions amid which it grew up. Our subject may, therefore, be conveniently treated as follows: I. The Suppression of Heresy during the first twelve Christian centuries; II. The Suppression of Heresy by the Institution known as the Inquisition under its several forms: (A) The Inquisition of the Middle Ages; (B) The Inquisition in Spain; (C) The Holy Office at Rome. I. THE SUPPRESSION OF HERESY DURING THE FIRST TWELVE CENTURIES (1) Though the Apostles were deeply imbued with the conviction that they must transmit the deposit of the Faith to posterity undefiled, and that any teaching at variance with their own, even if proclaimed by an angel of Heaven, would be a culpable offense, yet St. Paul did not, in the case of the heretics Alexander and Hymeneus, go back to the Old Covenant penalties of death or scourging (Deut., xiii, 6 sqq.; xvii, 1 sqq.), but deemed exclusion from the communion of the Church sufficient (1 Tim., i, 20; Tit., iii, 10). In fact to the Christians of the first three centuries it could scarcely have occurred to assume any other attitude towards those who erred in matters of faith. Tertullian (Ad. Scapulam, c. ii) lays down the rule: Humani iuris et naturalis potestatis, unicuique quod putaverit colere, nec alii obest aut prodest alterius religio. Sed nec religionis est religionem colere, quae sponte suscipi debeat, non vi. In other words, he tells us that the natural law authorized man to follow only the voice of individual conscience in the practice of religion, since the acceptance of religion was a matter of free will, not of compulsion. Replying to the accusation of Celsus, based on the Old Testament, that the Christians persecuted dissidents with death, burning, and torture, Origen (C. Cels., VII, 26) is satisfied with explaining that one must distinguish between the law which the Jews received from Moses and that given to the Christians by Jesus; the former was binding on the Jews, the latter on the Christians. Jewish Christians, if sincere, could no longer conform to all of the Mosaic law; hence they were no longer at liberty to kill their enemies or to burn and stone violators of the Christian Law. St. Cyprian of Carthage, surrounded as he was by countless schismatics and undutiful Christians, also put aside the material sanction of the Old Testament, which punished with death rebellion against priesthood and the Judges. "Nunc autem, quia circumcisio spiritalis esse apud fideles servos Dei coepit, spiritali gladio superbi et contumaces necantur, dum de Ecclesia ejiciuntur" (Ep. lxxii, ad Pompon., n. 4) religion being now spiritual, its sanctions take on the same character, and excommunication replaces the death of the body. Lactantius was yet smarting under the scourge of bloody persecutions, when he wrote this Divine Institutes in A.D. 308. Naturally, therefore, he stood for the most absolute freedom of religion. He writes: Religion being a matter of the will, it cannot be forced on anyone; in this matter it is better to employ words than blows [verbis melius quam verberibus res agenda est]. Of what use is cruelty? What has the rack to do with piety? Surely there is no connection between truth and violence, between justice and cruelty . . . . It is true that nothing is so important as religion, and one must defend it at any cost [summa vi] . . . It is true that it must be protected, but by dying for it, not by killing others; by long-suffering, not by violence; by faith, not by crime. If you attempt to defend religion with bloodshed and torture, what you do is not defense, but desecration and insult. For nothing is so intrinsically a matter of free will as religion. (Divine Institutes V:20) The Christian teachers of the first three centuries insisted, as was natural for them, on complete religious liberty; furthermore, they not only urged the principle that religion could not be forced on others -- a principle always adhered to by the Church in her dealings with the unbaptised -- but, when comparing the Mosaic Law and the Christian religion, they taught that the latter was content with a, spiritual punishment of heretics (i.e. with excommunication), while Judaism necessarily proceeded against its dissidents with torture and death. (2) However, the imperial successors of Constantine soon began to see in themselves Divinely appointed "bishops of the exterior", i.e. masters of the temporal and material conditions of the Church. At the same time they retained the traditional authority of "Pontifex Maximus", and in this way the civil authority inclined, frequently in league with prelates of Arian tendencies, to persecute the orthodox bishops by imprisonment and exile. But the latter, particularly St. Hilary of Poltiers (Liber contra Auxentium, c. iv), protested vigorously against any use of force in the province of religion, whether for the spread of Christianity or for preservation of the Faith. They repeatedly urged that in this respect the severe decrees of the Old Testament were abrogated by the mild and gentle laws of Christ. However, the successors of Constantine were ever persuaded that the first concern of imperial authority (Theodosius II, "Novellae", tit. III, A.D. 438) was the protection of religion and so, with terrible regularity, issued many penal edicts against heretics. In the space of fifty seven years sixty-eight enactments were thus promulgated. All manner of heretics were affected by this legislation, and in various ways, by exile, confiscation of property, or death. A law of 407, aimed at the traitorous Donatists, asserts for the first time that these heretics ought to be put on the same plane as transgressors against the sacred majesty of the emperor, a concept to which was reserved in later times a very momentous role. The death penalty however, was only imposed for certain kinds of heresy; in their persecution of heretics the Christian emperors fell far short of the severity of Diocletian, who in 287 sentenced to the stake the leaders of the Manichaeans, and inflicted on their followers partly the death penalty by beheading, and partly forced labor in the government mines. So far we have been dealing with the legislation of the Christianized State. In the attitude of the representatives of the Church towards this legislation some uncertainty is already noticeable. At the close of the forth century, and during the fifth, Manichaeism, Donatism, and Priscillianism were the heresies most in view. Expelled from Rome and Milan, the Manichaeism sought refuge in Africa. Though they were found guilty of abominable teachings and misdeeds (St. Augustine, De haeresibus", no. 46), the Church refused to invoke the civil power against them; indeed, the great Bishop of Hippo explicitly rejected the use force. He sought their return only through public and private acts of submission, and his efforts seem to have met with success. Indeed, we learn from him that the Donatists themselves were the first to appeal to the civil power for protection against the Church. However, they fared like Daniels accusers: the lions turned upon them. State intervention not answering to their wishes, and the violent excesses of the Circumcellions being condignly punished, the Donatists complained bitterly of administrative cruelty. St. Optatus of Mileve defended the civil authority (De Schismate Donntistarum, III, cc. 6-7) as follows: . . . as though it were not permitted to come forward as avengers of God, and to pronounce sentence of death! . . . But, say you, the State cannot punish in the name of God. Yet was it not in the name of God that Moses and Phineas consigned to death the worshippers of the Golden calf and those who despised the true religion? This was the first time that a Catholic bishop championed a decisive cooperation of the State in religious questions, and its right to inflict death on heretics. For the first time, also, the Old Testament was appealed to, though such appeals had been previously rejected by Christian teachers. St. Augustine, on the contrary, was still opposed to the use of force, and tried to lead back the erring by means of instruction; at most he admitted the imposition of a moderate fine for refractory persons. Finally, however, he changed his views, whether moved thereto by the incredible excesses of the Circumcellions or by the good results achieved by the use of force, or favoring force through the persuasions of other bishops. Apropos of his apparent inconsistency it is well to note carefully whom he is addressing. He appears to speak in one way to government officials, who wanted the existing laws carried out to their fullest extent, and in another to the Donntists, who denied to the State any right of punishing dissenters. In his correspondence with state officials he dwells on Christian charity and toleration, and represents the heretics as straying lambs, to be sought out and perhaps, if recalcitrant chastised with rods and frightened with threats of severer but not to be driven back to the fold by means of rack and sword . On the other hand, in his writings against the Donatists he upholds the rights of the State: sometimes, he says, a salutary severity would be to the interest of the erring ones themselves and likewise protective of true believers and the community at large (Vacandard, 1. c., pp. 17-26) As to Priscillianism, not a few points remain yet obscure, despite recent valuable researches. It seems certain, however, that Priscillian, Bishop of Avilia in Spain, was accused of heresy and sorcery, and found guilty by several councils. St. Ambrose at Milanand St. Damascus at Rome seem to have refused him a hearing. At length he appealed to Emperor Maximus at Trier, but to his detriment, for he was there condemned to death. Priscillian himself, no doubt in full consciousness of his own innocence, had formerly called for repression of the Manichaeans by the sword. But the foremost Christian teachers did not share these sentiments, and his own execution gave them occasion for a solemn protest against the cruel treatment meted out to him by the imperial government. St. Martin of Tours, then at Trier, exerted himself to obtain from the ecclesiastical authority the abandonment of the accusation, and induced the emperor to promise that on no account would he shed the blood of Priscillian, since ecclesiastical deposition by the bishops would be punishment enough, and bloodshed would be opposed to the Divine Law (Sulp. Serverus "Chron.", II, in P.L., XX, 155 sqq.; and ibid., "Dialogi", III, col.217). After the execution he strongly blamed both the accusers and the emperor, and for a long time refused to hold communion with such bishops as had been in any way responsible for Priscillians death. The great Bishop of Milan, St. Ambrose, described that execution as a crime. Priscillianism, however, did not disappear with the death of its originator; on the contrary, it spread with extraordinary rapidly, and, through its open adoption of Manichaeism, became more of a public menace than ever. In this way the severe judgments of St. Augustine and St. Jerome against Priscillianism become intelligible. In 447 Leo the Great had to reproach the Priscillianists with loosening the holy bonds of marriage, treading all decency under foot, and deriding all law, human and Divine. It seemed to him natural that temporal rulers should punish such sacrilegious madness, and should put to death the founder of the sect and some of his followers. He goes on to say that this redounded to the advantage of the Church: "quae etsi sacerdotali contenta iudicio, cruentas refugit ultiones, severis tamen christianorum principum constitutionibus adiuratur, dum ad spiritale recurrunt remedium, qui timent corporale supplicium" -though the Church was content with a spiritual sentence on the part of its bishops and was averse to the shedding of blood, nevertheless it was aided by the imperial severity, inasmuch as the fear of corporal punishment drove the guilty to seek a spiritual remedy (Ep. xv ad Turribium; P. L., LIV, 679 sq.). The ecclesiastical ideas of the first five centuries may be summarized as follows: + the Church should for no cause shed blood (St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Leo I, and others); + other teachers, however, like Optatus of Mileve and Priscillian, believed that the State could pronounce the death penalty on heretics in case the public welfare demanded it; + the majority held that the death penalty for heresy, when not civilly criminal, was irreconcilable with the spirit of Christianity. St. Augustine (Ep. c, n. 1), almost in the name of the western Church, says: "Corrigi eos volumus, non necari, nec disciplinam circa eos negligi volumus, nec suppliciis quibus digni sunt exerceri" -- we wish them corrected, not put to death; we desire the triumph of (ecclesiastical) discipline, not the death penalties that they deserve. St. John Chrysostom says substantially the same in the name of the Eastern Church (Hom., XLVI, c. i): "To consign a heretic to death is to commit an offence beyond atonement"; and in the next chapter he says that God forbids their execution, even as He forbids us to uproot cockle, but He does not forbid us to repel them, to deprive them of free speech, or to prohibit their assemblies. The help of the "secular arm" was therefore not entirely rejected; on the contrary, as often as the Christian welfare, general or domestic, required it, Christian rulers sought to stem the evil by appropriate measures. As late the seventh century St. Isidore of Seville expresses similar sentiments (Sententiarum, III, iv, nn. 4-6). How little we are to trust the vaunted impartiality of Henry Charles Lea, the American historian of the Inquisition, we may here illustrate by an example. In his "History of the Inquisition in the Middle Ages" (New York, 1888, I, 215), He closes this period with these words: It was only sixty-two years after the slaughter of Priscillian and his followers had excited so much horror, that Leo I, when the heresy seemed to be reviving in 447, not only justified the act, but declared that, if the followers of a heresy so damnable were allowed to live, there would be an end to human and Divine law. The final step had been taken and the church was definitely pledged to the suppression of heresy at any cost. It is impossible not to attribute to ecclesiastical influence the successive edicts by which, from the time of Theodosius the Great, persistence in heresy was punished with death. In these lines Lee has transferred to the pope words employed by the emperor. Moreover, it is simply the exact opposite of historical truth to assert that the imperial edicts punishing heresy with death were due to ecclesiastical influence, since we have shown that in this period the more influential ecclesiastical authorities declared that the death penalty was contrary to the spirit of the Gospel, and themselves opposed its execution. For centuries this was the ecclesiastical attitude both in theory and in practice. Thus, in keeping with the civil law, some Manichaeans were executed at Ravenna in 556. On the other hand. Elipandus of Toledo and Felix of Urgel, the chiefs of Adoptionism anti Predestinationism, were condemned by and councils, but were otherwise left unmolested. We may note, however, that the monk Gothescalch, after the condemnation of his false doctrine that Christ had not died for all mankind, was by the Synods of Mainz in 848 and Quiercy in 849 sentenced to flogging and imprisonment, punishments then common in monasteries for various infractions of the rule. (3) About the year 1000 Manichaeans from Bulgaria, under various names, spread over Western Europe. They were numerous in Italy, Spain, Gaul and Germany. Christian popular sentiment soon showed itself adverse to these dangerous sectaries, and resulted in occasional local persecutions, naturally in forms expressive of the spirit of the age. In 1122 King Robert the Pious (regis iussu et universae plebis consensu), "because he feared for the safety of the kingdom and the salvation of souls" had thirteen distinguished citizens, ecclesiastic and lay, burnt alive at Orleans. Elsewhere similar acts were due to popular outbursts. A few years later the Bishop of Chalons observed that the sect was spreading in his diocese, and asked of Wazo, Bishop of Liege, advice as to the use of force: "An terrenae potestatis gladio in eos sit animadvertendum necne" ("Vita Wasonis", cc. xxv, xxvi, in P. L., CXLII, 752; "Wazo ad Roger. II, episc. Catalaunens", and "Anselmi Gesta episc. Leod." in "Mon. Germ. SS.", VII, 227 sq.). Wazo replied that this was contrary to the spirit of the Church and the words of its Founder, Who ordained that the tares should be allowed to grow with the wheat until the day of the harvest, lest the wheat be uprooted with the tares; those who today were tares might to-morrow be converted, and turn into wheat; let them therefore live, and let mere excommunication suffice St. Chrysostom, as we have seen, had taught similar doctrine. This principle could not be always followed. Thus at Goslar, in the Christmas season of 1051, and in 1052, several heretics were hanged because Emperor Henry III wanted to prevent the further spread of "the heretical leprosy." A few years later, In 1076 or 1077, a Catharist was condemned to the stake by the Bishop of Cambrai and his chapter. Other Catharists, in spite of the archbishops intervention, were given their choice by the magistrates of Milan between doing homage to the Cross and mounting the pyre. By far the greater number chose the latter. In 1114 the Bishop of Soissons kept sundry heretics in durance in his episcopal city. But while he was gone to Beauvais, to ask advice of the bishops assembled there for a synod the "believing folk, fearing the habitual soft-heartedness of ecclesiatics (clericalem verens mollitiem), stormed the prison took the accused outside of town, and burned them. The people disliked what to them was the extreme dilatoriness of the clergy in pursuing heretics. In 1144 Adalerbo II of Liege hoped to bring some imprisoned Catharists to better knowledge through the grace of God, but the people, less indulgent, assailed the unhappy creatures and only with the greatest trouble did the bishop succeed in rescuing some of them from death by fire. A like drama was enacted about the same time at Cologne. while the archbishop and the priests earnestly sought to lead the misguided back into the Church, the latter. were violently taken by the mob (a populis nimio zelo abreptis) from the custody of the clergy and burned at the stake. The best-known heresiarchs of that time, Peter of Bruys and Arnold of Brescia, met a similar fate -- the first on the pyre as a victim of popular fury, and the latter under the henchmans axe as a victim of his political enemies. In short, no blame attaches to the Church for her behavior towards heresy in those rude days. Among all the bishops of the period, so far as can be ascertained, Theodwin of Liege, successor of the aforesaid Wazo and predecessor of Adalbero II, alone appealed to the civil power for the punishment of heretics, and even he did not call for the death penalty, which was rejected by all. who were more highly respected in the twelfth century than Peter Canter, the most learned man of his time, and St. Bernard of Clairvaux? The former says ("Verbum abbreviatum", c. lxxviii, in P.L., CCV, 231): Whether they be convicted of error, or freely confess their guilt, Catharists are not to be put to death, at least not when they refrain from armed assaults upon the Church. For although the Apostle said, A man that is a heretic after the third admonition, avoid, he certainly did not say, Kill him. Throw them into prison, if you will, but do not put them to death (cf. Geroch von Reichersberg, "De investigatione Antichristi III", 42). So far was St. Bernard from agreeing with the methods of the people of Cologne, that he laid down the axiom: Fides suadenda, non imponenda (By persuasion, not by violence, are men to be won to the Faith). And if he censures the carelessness of the princes, who were to blame because little foxes devastated the vineyard, yet he adds that the latter must not be captured by force but by arguments (capiantur non armis, sed argumentis); the obstinate were to be excommunicated, and if necessary kept in confinement for the safety of others (aut corrigendi sunt ne pereant, aut, ne perimant, coercendi). (See Vacandard, 1. c., 53 sqq.) The synods of the period employ substantially the same terms, e.g. the synod at Reims in 1049 under Leo IX, that at Toulouse in 1119, at which Callistus II presided, and finally the Lateran Council of 1139. Hence, the occasional executions of heretics during this period must be ascribed partly to the arbitrary action of individual rulers, partly to the fanatic outbreaks of the overzealous populace, and in no wise to ecclesiastical law or the ecclesiastical authorities. There were already, it is true, canonists who conceded to the Church the right to pronounce sentence of death on heretics; but the question was treated as a purely academic one, and the theory exercised virtually no influence on real life. Excommunication, proscription, imprisonment, etc., were indeed inflicted, being intended rather as forms of atonement than of real punishment, but never the capital sentence. The maxim of Peter Cantor was still adhered to: "Catharists, even though divinely convicted in an ordeal, must not be punished by death." In the second half of the twelfth century, however, heresy in the form of Catharism spread in truly alarming fashion, and not only menaced the Churchs existence, but undermined the very foundations of Christian society. In opposition to this propaganda there grew up a kind of prescriptive law -- at least throughout Germany, France, and Spain -- which visited heresy with death by the flames. England on the whole remained untainted by heresy. When, in 1166, about thirty sectaries made their way thither, Henry II ordered that they be burnt on their foreheads with red-hot iron, be beaten with rods in the public square, and then driven off. Moreover, he forbade anyone to give them shelter or otherwise assist them, so that they died partly from hunger and partly from the cold of winter. Duke Philip of Flanders, aided by William of the White Hand, Archbishop of Reims, was particularly severe towards heretics. They caused many citizens in their domains, nobles and commoners, clerics, knights, peasants, spinsters, widows, anti married women, to be burnt alive, confiscated their property, and divided it between them. This happened in 1183. Between 1183 and 1206 Bishop Hugo of Auxerre acted similarly towards the neo-Mainchaeans. Some he despoiled; the others he either exiled or sent to the stake. King Philip Augustus of France had eight Catharists burnt at Troyes in 1200 one at Nevers in 1201, several at Braisne-sur-Vesle in 1204, and many at Paris -- "priests, clerics, laymen, and women belonging to the sect". Raymund V of Toulouse (1148-94) promulgated a law which punished with death the followers of the sect and their favourers. Simon de Montfort's men-at-arms believed in 1211 that they were carrying out this law when they boasted how they had burned alive many, and would continue to do so (unde multos combussimus et adhuc cum invenimus idem facere non cessamus). In 1197 Peter II, King of Aragon and Count of Barcelona, issued an edict in obedience to which the Waldensians and all other schismatics were expelled from the land; whoever of this sect was still found in his kingdom or his county after Palm Sunday of the next year was to suffer death by fire, also confiscation of goods. Ecclesiastical legislation was far from this severity. Alexander III at the Lateran Council of 1179 renewed the decisions already made as to schismatics in Southern France, and requested secular sovereigns to silence those disturbers of public order if necessary by force, to achieve which object they were at liberty to imprison the guilty (servituti subicere, subdere) and to appropriate their possessions, According to the agreement made by Lucius III and Emperor Frederick Barbarossa at Verona (1148), the heretics of every community were to be sought out, brought before the episcopal court, excommunicated, and given up to the civil power to he suitably punished (debita animadversione puniendus). The suitable punishment (debita animadversio, ultio) did not, however, as yet mean capital punishment, hut the proscriptive ban, though even this, it is true, entailed exile, expropriation, destruction of the culprits dwelling, infamy, debarment from public office, and the like. The "Continuatio Zwellensis altera, ad ann. 1184" (Mon. Germ. Hist.: SS., IX, 542) accurately describes the condition of heretics at this time when it says that the pope excommunicated them, and the emperor put them under the civil ban, while he confiscated their goods (papa eos excomunicavit imperator vero tam res quam personas ipsorum imperiali banno subiecit). Under Innocent III nothing was done to intensify or add to the extant statutes against heresy, though this pope gave them a wider range by the action of his legates and through the Forth Lateran Council (1215). But this act was indeed a relative service to the heretics, for the regular canonical procedure thus introduced did much to abrogate the arbitrariness, passion, and injustice of the Civil courts in Spain, France and Germany. In so far as, and so long as, his prescriptions remained in force, no summary condemnations or executions en masse occurred, neither stake nor rack were set up; and, if, on one occasion during the first year of his pontificate, to justify confiscation, he appealed to the Roman Law and its penalties for crimes against the sovereign power, yet he did not draw the extreme conclusion that heretics deserved to be burnt. His reign affords many examples showing how much of the vigour he took away in practice from the existing penal code. II. THE SUPPRESSION OF HERESY BY THE INSTITUTION KNOWN AS THE INQUISITION A. The Inquisition of The Middle Ages (1) Origin During the first three decades of the thirteenth century the Inquisition, as the institution, did not exist. But eventually Christian Europe was so endangered by heresy, and penal legislation concerning Catharism had gone so far, that the Inquisition seemed to be a political necessity. That these sects were a menace to Christian society had been long recognized by the Byzantine rulers. As early as the tenth century Empress Theodora had put to death a multitude of Paulicians, and in 1118 Emperor Alexius Comnenus treated the Bogomili with equal severity, but this did not prevent them from pouring over all Western Europe. Moreover these sects were in the highest degree aggressive, hostile to Christianity itself, to the Mass, the sacraments, the ecclesiastical hierarchy and organization; hostile also to feudal government by their attitude towards oaths, which they declared under no circumstances allowable. Nor were their views less fatal to the continuance of human society, for on the one hand they forbade marriage and the propagation of the human race. and on the other hand they made a duty of suicide through the institution of the Endura (see CATHARI). It has been said that more perished through the Endura (the Catharist suicide code) than through the Inquisition. It was, therefore, natural enough for the custodians of the existing order in Europe, especially of the Christian religion, to adopt repressive measures against such revolutionary teachings. In France Louis VIII decreed in 1226 that persons excommunicated by the diocesan bishop, or his delegate, should receive "meet punishment" (debita animadversio). In 1249 Louis IX ordered barons to deal with heretics according to the dictates of duty (de ipsis faciant quod debebant). A decree of the Council of Toulouse (1229) makes it appear probable that in France death at the stake was already comprehended as in keeping with the aforesaid debita animadversio. To seek to trace in these measures the influence of imperial or papal ordinances is vain, since the burning of heretics had already come to be regarded as prescriptive. It is said in the "Etablissements de St. Louis et coutumes de Beauvaisis", ch. cxiii (Ordonnances des Roys de France, I, 211): "Quand le juge [ecclesiastique] laurait examine [le suspect] se il trouvait, quil feust bougres, si le devrait faire envoier `a la justice laie, et la justice laie le dolt fere ardoir. "The "Coutumes de Beauvaisis" correspond to the German "Sachsenspiegel", or "Mirror of Saxon Laws", compiled about 1235, which also embodies as a law sanctioned by custom the execution of unbelievers at the stake (sal man uf der hurt burnen). In Italy Emperor Frederick II, as early as 22 November, 1220 (Mon. Germ., II, 243), issued a rescript against heretics, conceived, however quite in the spirit of Innocent III, and Honorius III commissioned his legates to see to the enforcement in Italian cities of both the canonical decrees of 1215 and the imperial legislation of 1220. From the foregoing it cannot be doubted that up to 1224 there was no imperial law ordering, or presupposing as legal, the burning of heretics. The rescript for Lombardy of 1224 (Mon. Germ., II, 252; cf. ibid., 288) is accordingly the first law in which death by fire is contemplated (cf. Ficker, op. cit., 196). That Honorius III was in any way concerned in the drafting of this ordinance cannot be maintained; indeed the emperor was all the less in need of papal inspiration as the burning of heretics in Germany was then no longer rare; his legists, moreover, would certainly have directed the emperors attention to the ancient Roman Law that punished high treason with death, and Manichaeism in particular with the stake. The imperial rescripts of 1220 and 1224 were adopted into ecclesiastical criminal law in 1231, and were soon applied at Rome. It was then that the Inquisition of the Middle Ages came into being. What was the immediate provocation? Contemporary sources afford no positive answer. Bishop Douais, who perhaps commands the original contemporary material better than anyone, has attempted in his latest work (LInquisition. Ses Origines. Sa Procedure, Paris, 1906) to explain its appearance by a supposed anxiety of Gregory IX to forestall the encroachments of Frederick II in the strictly ecclesiastical province of doctrine. For this purpose it would seem necessary for the pope to establish a distinct and specifically ecclesiastical court. From this point of view, though the hypothesis cannot be fully proved, much is intelligible that otherwise remains obscure. There was doubtless reason to fear such imperial encroachments in an age yet filled with the angry contentions of the Imperium and the Sacerdotium. We need only recall the trickery of the emperor and his Pretended eagerness for the purity of the Faith, his Increasingly rigorous legislation against heretics, the numerous executions of his personal rivals on the pretext of heresy, the hereditary passion of the Hohenstaufen for supreme control over Church and State, their claim of God-given authority over both, of responsibility in both domains to God and God only etc. What was more natural than that the Church should strictly reserve to herself her own sphere, while at the same time endeavouring to avoid giving offence to the emperor? A purely spiritual or papal religious tribunal would secure ecclesiastical liberty and authority for this court could be confided to men of expert knowledge and blameless reputation, and above all to independent men in whose hands the Church could safely trust the decision as to the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of a given teaching. On the other hand, to meet the emperors wishes as far as allowable, the penal code of the empire could be taken over as it stood (cf. Audray, "Regist. de Gregoire IX", n. 535). (2) The New Tribunal (a) Its essential characteristic The pope did not establish the Inquisition as a distinct and separate tribunal; what he did was to appoint special but permanent judges, who executed their doctrinal functions In the name of the pope. Where they sat, there was the Inquisition. It must he carefully noted that the characteristic feature of the Inquisition was not its peculiar procedure, nor the secret examination of witnesses and consequent official indictment: this procedure was common to all courts from the time of Innocent III. Nor was it the pursuit of heretics in all places: this had been the rule since the Imperial Synod of Verona under Lucius III and Frederick Barbarossa. Nor again was it the torture, which was not prescribed or even allowed for decades after the beginning of the Inquisition, nor, finally, the various sanctions, imprisonment, confiscation, the stake, etc., all of which punishments were usual long before the Inquisition. The Inquisitor, strictly speaking, was a special but permanent judge, acting in the name of the pope and clothed by him with the right and the duty to deal legally with offences against the Faith; he had, however, to adhere to the established rules of canonical procedure and pronounce the customary penalties. Many regarded it, as providential that just at this time sprang up two new orders, the Dominicans and the Franciscans, whose members, by their superior theological training and other characteristics, seemed eminently fitted to perform the inquisitorial task with entire success. It was safe to assume that they were not merely endowed with the requisite knowledge, but that they would also, quite unselfishly and uninfluenced by worldly motives, do solely what seemed their duty for the Good of the Church. In addition, there was reason to hope that, because of their great popularity, they would not encounter too much opposition. It seems, therefore, not unnatural that the inquisitors should have been chosen by the popes prevailingly from these orders, especially from that of the Dominicans. It is to he noted, however, that the inquisitors were not chosen exclusively from the mendicant orders, though the Senator of Rome no doubt meant such when in his oath of office (1231) he spoke of inquisitores datos ab ecclesia. In his decree of 1232 Frederick II calls them inquisitores ab apostolica sede datos. The Dominican Alberic, in November of 1232, went through Lombardy as inquisitor haereticae pravitatis. The prior and sub-prior of the Dominicans at Friesbach were given a similar commission as early as 27 November, 1231; on 2 December, 1232, the convent of Strasburg, and a little later the convents of Wuerzburg, Ratisbon, and Bremen, also received the commission. In 1233 a rescript of Gregory IX, touching these matters, was sent simultaneously to the bishops of Southern France and to the priors of the Dominican Order. We know that Dominicans were sent as inquisitors in 1232 to Germany along the Rhine, to the Diocese of Tarragona in Spain and to Lombardy; in 1233 to France, to the territory of Auxerre, the ecclesiastical provinces of Bourges, Bordeaux, Narbonne, and Auch, and to Burgundy; in 1235 to the ecclesiastical province of Sens. In fine, about 1255 we find the Inquisition in full activity in all the countries of Central and Western Europe in the county of Toulouse, in Sicily, Aragon, Lombardy, France, Burgundy, Brabant, and Germany (cf. Douais, op. cit., p. 36, and Fredericq, "Corpus documentorum inquisitionis haereticae pravitatis Neerlandicae, 1025-1520", 2 vols., Ghent, 1884-96). That Gregory IX, through his appointment of Dominicans and Franciscans as inquisitors, withdrew the suppression of heresy from the proper courts (i.e. from the bishops), is a reproach that in so general a form cannot be sustained. So little did he think of displacing episcopal authority that, on the contrary he provided explicitly that no inquisitional tribunal was to work anywhere without the diocesan bishops co-operation. And if, on the strength of their papal jurisdiction, inquisitors occasionally manifested too great an inclination to act independently of episcopal authority it was precisely the popes who kept them within right bounds. As early as 1254 Innocent IV prohibited anew perpetual imprisonment or death at the stake without the episcopal consent. Similar orders were issued by Urban IV in 1262, Clement IV in 1265, and Gregory X in 1273, until at last Boniface VIII and Clement V solemnly declared null and void all judgments issued in trials concerning faith, unless delivered with the approval anti co-operation of the bishops. The popes always upheld with earnestness the episcopal authority, and sought to free the inquisitional tribunals from every kind of arbitrariness and caprice. It was a heavy burden of responsibility -- almost too heavy for a common mortal -- which fell upon the shoulders of an inquisitor, who was obliged, at least indirectly, to decide between life and death. The Church was bound to insist that he should possess, in a pre-eminant degree, the qualities of a good judge; that he should be animated with a glowing zeal for the Faith, the salvation of souls, and the extirpation of heresy; that amid all difficulties and dangers he should never yield to anger or passion; that he should meet hostility fearlessly, but should not court it; that he should yield to no inducement or threat, and yet not be heartless; that, when circumstances permitted, he should observe mercy in allotting penalties; that he should listen to the counsel of others, and not trust too much to his own opinion or to appearances, since often the probable is untrue, and the truth improbable. Somewhat thus did Bernard Gui (or Guldonis) and Eymeric, both of them inquisitors for years, describe the ideal inquisitor. Of such an inquisitor also was Gregory IX doubtlessly thinking when he urged Conrad of Marburg: "ut puniatur sic temeritas perversorum quod innocentiae puritas non laedatur" -- i.e., "not to punish the wicked so as to hurt the innocent". History shows us how far the inquisitors answered to this ideal. Far from being inhuman, they were, as a rule, men of spotless character and sometimes of truly admirable sanctity, and not a few of them have been canonized by the Church. There is absolutely no reason to look on the medieval ecclesiastical judge as intellectually and morally inferior to the modern judge. No one would deny that the judges of today, despite occasional harsh decisions and the errors of a, few, pursue a highly honourable profession. Similarly, the medieval inquisitors should be judged as a whole Moreover, history does not justify the hypothesis that the medieval heretics were prodigies of virtue, deserving our sympathy in advance. (b) Procedure This regularly began with a months "term of grace", proclaimed by the inquisitor whenever he came to a heresy-ridden district. The inhabitants mere summoned to appear before the inquisitor. On those who confessed of their own accord a suitable penance (e.g. a pilgrimage) was imposed, but never a severe punishment like incarceration or surrender to the civil power. However, these relations with the residents of a, place often furnished important indications, pointed out the proper quarter for investigation, and sometimes much evidence was thus obtained against individuals. These mere then cited before the judges -- usually by the parish priest, although occasionally by the secular authorities -- and the trial began. If the accused at once made full and free confession, the affair was soon concluded, and not to the disadvantage of the accused. But in most instances the accused entered denial even after swearing on the Four Gospels, and this denial was stubborn in the measure that the testimony was incriminating. David of Augsburg (cf. Preger, "Der Traktat des David von Augshurg uber die Waldenser", Munich, 1878 pp. 43 sqq.) pointed out to the inquisitor four methods of extracting open acknowledgment: + fear of death, i.e. by giving the accused to understand that the stake awaited him if he would not confess; + more or less close confinement, possibly emphasized by curtailment of food; + visits of tried men, who would attempt to induce free confession through friendly persuasion; + torture, which will be discussed below. (c) The Witnesses When no voluntary admission was made, evidence was adduced. Legally, there had to be at least two witnesses, although conscientious judges rarely contended themselves with that number. The principle had hitherto been held by the Church that the testimony of a heretic, an excommunicated person, a perjurer, in short, of an "infamous", was worthless before the courts. But in its destination of unbelief the Church took the further step of abolishing this long established practice, and of accepting a heretics evidence at nearly full value in trials concerning faith. This appears as early as the twelfth century in the "Decretum Gratiani". While Frederick II readily assented to this new departure, the inquisitors seemed at first uncertain as to the value of the evidence of an "infamous" person. It was only in 1261, after Alexander IV had silenced their scruples, that the new principle was generally adopted both in theory and in practice. This grave modification seems to have been defended on the ground that the heretical conventicles took place secretly, and were shrouded in great obscurity, so that reliable information could be obtained from none but themselves. Even prior to the establishment of the Inquisition the names of the witnesses were sometimes withheld from the accused person, and this usage was legalized by Gregory IX, Innocent IV, and Alexander IV. Boniface VIII, however, set it aside by his Bull "Ut commissi vobis officii" (Sext. Decret., 1. V, tit. ii); and commanded that at all trials, even inquisitorial, the witnesses must be named to the accused. There was no personal confrontation of witnesses, neither was there any cross-examination. Witnesses for the defence hardly ever appeared, as they would almost infallibly be suspected of being heretics or favourable to heresy. For the same reason those impeached rarely secured legal advisers, and mere therefore obliged to make personal response to the main points of a charge. This, however, was also no innovation, for in 1205 Innocent III, by the Bull "Si adversus vos" forbade any legal help for heretics: "We strictly prohibit you, lawyers and notaries, from assisting in any way, by council or support, all heretics and such as believe In them, adhere to them, render them any assistance or defend them in any way. But this severity soon relaxed, and even in Eymerics day it seems to have been the universal custom to grant heretics a legal adviser, who, however, had to be in every way beyond suspicion, "upright, of undoubted loyalty, skilled in civil and canon law, and zealous for the faith." Meanwhile, even in those hard times, such legal severities were felt to be excessive, and attempts were made to mitigate them in various ways, so as to protect the natural rights of the accused. First he could make known to the judge the names of his enemies: should the charge originate with them, they would be quashed without further ado. Furthermore, it was undoubtedly to the advantage of the accused that false witnesses were punished without mercy. The aforesaid inquisitor, Bernard Gui, relates an instance of a father falsely accusing his son of heresy. The sons innocence quickly coming to light, the false accuser was apprehended, and sentenced to prison for life (solam vitam ei ex misericordia relinquentes). In addition he was pilloried for five consecutive Sundays before the church during service, with bare head and bound hands. Perjury in those days was accounted an enormous offence, particularly when committed by a false witness. Moreover, the accused had a considerable advantage in the fact that the inquisitor had to conduct the trial in co-operation with the diocesan bishop or his representatives, to whom all documents relating to the trial had to he remitted. Both together, inquisitor and bishop, were also made to summon and consult a number of upright and experienced men (boni viri), and to decide in agreement with their decision (vota). Innocent IV (11 July. 1254), Alexander IV (15 April, 1255, and 27 April, 1260), and Urban IV (2 August, 1264) strictly prescribed this institution of the boni viri -- i.e. the consultation in difficult cases of experienced men, well versed in theology and canon law, and in every way irreproachable. The documents of the trial were either in their entirety handed to them, or a least an abstract drawn up by a public notary was furnished; they were also made acquainted with the witnesses names, and their first duty was to decide whether or not the witnesses were credible. The boni viri were very frequently called on. Thirty, fifty, eighty, or more persons -- laymen and priests; secular and regular -- would be summoned, all highly respected and independent men, and singly sworn to give verdict upon the cases before them accordingly to the best of their knowledge and belief. Substantially they were always called upon to decide two questions: whether and what guilt lay at hand, and what punishment was to be inflicted. That they might be influenced by no personal considerations, the case would be submitted to them somewhat in the abstract, i.e., the name of the person inculpated was not given. Although, strictly speaking, the boni viri were entitled only to an advisory vote, the final ruling was usually in accordance with their views, and, whether their decision was revised, it was always in the direction of clemency, the mitigation of the findings being indeed of frequent occurrence. The judges were also assisted by a consilium permanens, or standing council, composed of other sworn judges. In these dispositions surely lay the most valuable guarantees for all objective, impartial, and just operation of the inquisition courts. Apart from the conduct of his own defence the accused disposed of other legal means for safeguarding his rights: he could reject a judge who had shown prejudice, and at any stage of the trial could appeal to Rome. Eymeric leads one to infer that in Aragon appeals to the Holy See were not rare. He himself as inquisitor had on one occasion to go to Rome to defend in person his own position, but he advises other inquisitors against that step, as it simply meant the loss of much time and money; it were wiser, he says, to try a case in such a manner that no fault could be found. In the event of an appeal the documents of the case were to be sent to Rome under seal, and Rome not only scrutinized them, but itself gave the final verdict. Seemingly, appeals to Rome were in great favour; a milder sentence, it was hoped, would be forthcoming, or at least some time would be gained. (d) Punishments The present writer can find nothing to suggest that the accused were imprisoned during the period of inquiry. It was certainly customary to grant the accused person his freedom until the sermo generalis, were he ever so strongly inculpated through witnesses or confession; he was not yet supposed guilty, though he was compelled to promise under oath always to be ready to come before the inquisitor, and in the end to accept with good grace his sentence, whatever its tenor. The oath was assuredly a terrible weapon in the hands of the medieval judge. If the accused person kept it, the judge was favourably inclined; on the other hand, if the accused violated it, his credit grew worse. Many sects, it was known, repudiated oaths on principle; hence the violation of an oath caused the guilty party easily to incur suspicion of heresy. Besides the oath, the inquisitor might secure himself by demanding a sum of money as bail, or reliable bondsmen who would stand surety for the accused. It happened, too, that bondsmen undertook upon oath to deliver the accused "dead or alive" It was perhaps unpleasant to live under the burden of such an obligation, but, at any rate, it was more endurable than to await a final verdict in rigid confinement for months or longer. Curiously enough torture was not regarded as a mode of punishment, but purely as a means of eliciting the truth. It was not of ecclesiastical origin, and was long prohibited in the ecclesiastical courts. Nor was it originally an important factor in the inquisitional procedure, being unauthorized until twenty years after the Inquisition had begun. It was first authorized by Innocent IV in his Bull "Ad exstirpanda" of 15 May, 1252, which was confirmed by Alexander IV on 30 November, 1259, and by Clement IV on 3 November, 1265. The limit placed upon torture was citra membri diminutionem et mortis periculum -- i.e, it was not to cause the loss of life or limb or imperil life. Torture was to applied only once, and not then unless the accused were uncertain in his statements, and seemed already virtually convicted by manifold and weighty proofs. In general, this violent testimony (quaestio) was to be deferred as long as possible, and recourse to it was permitted in only when all other expedients were exhausted. Conscientiousness and sensible judges quite properly attached no great importance to confessions extracted by torture. After long experience Eymeric declared: Quaestiones sunt fallaces et inefficaces -- i.e the torture is deceptive and ineffectual. Had this papal legislation been adhered to in practice, the historian of the Inquisition would have fewer difficulties to satisfy. In the beginning, torture was held to be so odious that clerics were forbidden to be present under pain of irregularity. Sometimes it had to be interrupted so as to enable the inquisitor to continue his examination, which, of course, was attended by numerous inconveniences. Therefore on 27 April, 1260, Alexander IV authorized inquisitors to absolve one another of this irregularity. Urban IV on 2 August, 1262, renewed the permission, and this was soon interpreted as formal licence to continue the examination in the torture chamber itself. The inquisitors manuals faithfully noted and approved this usage. The general rule ran that torture was to be resorted to only once. But this was sometimes circumvented -- first, by assuming that with every new piece of evidence the rack could be utilized afresh, and secondly, by imposing fresh torments on the poor victim (often on different days), not by way of repetition, but as a continuation (non ad modum iterationis sed continuationis), as defended by Eymeric; "quia, iterari non debent [tormenta], nisi novis supervenitibus indiciis, continuari non prohibentur." But what was to be done when the accused, released from the rack, denied what he had just confessed? Some held with Eymeric that the accused should be set at liberty; others, however, like the author of the "Sacro Arsenale" held that the torture should be continued. because the accused had too seriously incriminated himself by his previous confession. When Clement V formulated his regulations for the employment of torture, he never imagined that eventually even witnesses would be put on the rack, although not their guilt, but that of the accused, was in question. From the popes silence it was concluded that a witness might be put upon the rack at the discretion of the inquisitor. Moreover, if the accused was convicted through witnesses, or had pleaded guilty, the torture might still he used to compel him to testify against his friends and fellow-culprits. It would be opposed to all Divine and human equity -- so one reads in the "SacroArsenale, ovvero Pratica dell Officio della Santa Inquisizione" (Bologna, 1665) -- to inflict torture unless the judge were personally persuaded of the guilt of the accused. But one of the difficulties of the procedure is why torture was used as a means of learning the truth. On the one hand, the torture was continued until the accused confessed or intimated that he was willing to confess, On the other hand, it was not desired, as in fact it was not possible, to regard as freely made a confession wrung by torture. It is at once apparent how little reliance may be placed upon the assertion so often repeated in the minutes of trials, "confessionem esse veram, non factam vi tormentorum" (the confession was true and free), even though one had not occasionally read in the preceding pages that, after being taken down from the rack (postquam depositus fuit de tormento), he freely confessed this or that. However, it is not of greater importance to say that torture is seldom mentioned in the records of inquisition trials -- but once, for example in 636 condemnations between 1309 and 1323; this does not prove that torture was rarely applied. Since torture was originally inflicted outside the court room by lay officials, and since only the voluntary confession was valid before the judges, there was no occasion to mention in the records the fact of torture. On the other hand it, is historically true that the popes not only always held that torture must not imperil life or but also tried to abolish particularly grievous abuses, when such became known to them. Thus Clement V ordained that inquisitors should not apply the torture without the consent of the diocesan bishop. From the middle of the thirteenth century, they did not disavow the principle itself, and, as their restrictions to its use were not always heeded, its severity, though of tell exaggerated, was in many cases extreme. The consuls of Carcassonne in 1286 complained to the pope, the King of France, and the vicars of the local bishop against the inquisitor Jean Garland, whom they charged with inflicting torture in an absolutely inhuman manner, and this charge was no isolated one. The case of Savonarola has never been altogether cleared up in this respect. The official report says he had to suffer three and a half tratti da fune (a sort of strappado). When Alexander VI showed discontent with the delays of the trial, the Florentine government excused itself by urging that Savonarola was a man of extraordinary sturdiness and endurance, and that he had been vigorously tortured on many days (assidua quaestione multis diebus, the papal prothonotary, Burchard, says seven times) but with little effect. It is to be noted that torture was most cruelly used, where the inquisitors were most exposed to the pressure of civil authority. Frederick II, though always boasting of his zeal for the purity of the Faith, abused both rack and Inquisition to put out of the way his personal enemies. The tragical ruin of the Templars is ascribed to the abuse of torture by Philip the Fair and his henchmen. At Paris, for instance, thirty-six, and at Sens twenty-five, Templars died as the result of torture. Blessed Joan of Are could not have been sent to the stake as a heretic and a recalcitrant, if her judges had not been tools of English policy. And the excesses of the Spanish Inquisition are largely due to the fact that in its administration civil purposes overshadowed the ecclesiastical. Every reader of the "Cautio criminalis" of the Jesuit Father Friedrich Spee knows to whose account chiefly must be set down the horrors of the witchcraft trials. Most of the punishments that were properly speaking inquisitional were not inhuman, either by their nature or by the manner of their infliction. Most frequently certain good works were ordered, e.g. the building of a church, the visitation of a church, a pilgrimage more or less distant, the offering of a candle or a chalice, participation in a crusade, and the like. Other works partook more of the character of real and to some extent degrading punishments, e.g. fines, whose proceeds were devoted to such public purposes as church-building, road-making, and the like; whipping with rods during religious service; the pillory; the wearing of coloured crosses, and so on. The hardest penalties were imprisonment in its various degrees exclusion from the communion of the Church, and the usually consequent surrender to the civil power. "Cum ecclesia" ran the regular expression, "ultra non habeat quod faciat pro suis demeritis contra ipsum, idcirco, eundum reliquimus brachio et iudicio saeculari" -- i.e. since the Church can no farther punish his misdeeds, she leaves him to the civil authority. Naturally enough, punishment as a legal sanction is always a hard and painful thing, whether decreed by civil of ecclesiastical justice. There is, however, always an essential distinction between civil and ecclesiastical punishment. While chastisement inflicted by secular authority aims chiefly at punishment violation of the law, the Church seeks primarily the correction of the delinquent; indeed his spiritual welfare frequently so much in view that the element of punishment is almost entirely lost sight of. Commands to hear Holy Mass on Sundays and holidays, to frequent religious services, to abstain from manual labour, to receive Communion at the chief festivals of the year, to forbear from soothsaying and usury, etc., can efficacious as helps toward the fulfillment of Christian duties. It being furthermore incumbent on the inquisitor to consider not merely the external sanction, but also the inner change of heart, his sentence lost the quasi-mechanical stiffness so often characteristic of civil condemnation. Moreover, the penalties incurred were on numberless occasions remitted, mitigated, or commuted. In the records of the Inquisition we very frequently read that because of old age, sickness, or poverty in the family, the in the family, the due punishment was materially reduced owing to the inquisitor sheer pity, or the petition of a good Catholic. Imprisonment for life was altered to a fine, and this to an alms; participation in a crusade was commuted into a pilgrimage, while a distant and costly pilgrimage became a visit to a neighboring shrine or church, and so on. If the inquisitors leniency were abused, he was authorized to revive in full the original punishment. On the whole, the Inquisition was humanely conducted. Thus we read that a son obtained his fathers release by merely asking for it, without putting forward any special reasons. Licence to leave risen for three weeks, three months, or an unlimited period-say until the recovery or decease of sick parents was not infrequent. Rome itself censured inquisitioners or deposed them because they were too harsh, but never because they mere too merciful. Imprisonment was not always accounted punishment in the proper sense: it was rather looked on as an opportunity for repentance, a preventive against backsliding or the infection of others. It was known as immuration (from the Latin murus, a wall), or incarceration, and was inflicted for a definite time or for life. Immuration for life was the lot of those who had failed to profit by the aforesaid term of grace, or had perhaps recanted only from fear of death, or had once before abjured heresy. The murus strictus seu arctus, or carcer strictissimus, implied close and solitary confinement, occasionally aggravated by fasting or chains. In practice, however, these regulations were not always enforced literally. We read of immured persons receiving visits rather freely, playing games, or dining with their jailors. On the other hand, solitary confinement was at times deemed insufficient, and then the immured were put in irons or chained to the prison wall. Members of a religious order, when condemned for life, were immured in their own convent nor ever allowed to speak with any of their fraternity. The dungeon or cell was euphemistically called "In Pace" it was, indeed, the tomb of a man buried alive. It was looked upon as a remarkable favour when, in 1330, through the good offices of the Archbishop of Toulouse, the French king permitted a dignitary of a certain order to visit the "In Pace" twice a month and comfort his imprisoned brethren, against which favour the Dominicans lodged with Clement VI a fruitless protest. Though the prison cells were directed to be kept in such a way as to endanger neither the life nor the health of occupants, their true condition was sometimes deplorable, as we see from a document published by J. B. Vidal (Annales de St-Louis des Francais, 1905 P. 362): In some cells the unfortunates were bound in stocks or chains, unable to move about, and forced to sleep on the ground . . . . There was little regard for cleanliness. In some cases there was no light or ventilation, and the food was meagre and very poor. Occasionally the popes had to put an end through their legates to similarly atrocious conditions. After inspecting the Carcassonne and Albi prisons in 1306, the legates Pierre de la Chapelle and Beranger de Fredol dismissed the warden, removed the chains from the captives, and rescued some from their underground dungeons. The local bishop was expected to provide food from the confiscated property of the prisoner. For those doomed to close confinement, it was meagre enough, scarcely more than bread and water. It was, not long, however, before prisoners were allowed other victuals, wine and money also from outside, and this was soon generally tolerated. Officially it was not the Church that sentenced unrepenting heretics to death, more particularly to the stake. As legate of the Roman Church even Gregory IV never went further than the penal ordinances of Innocent III required, nor ever inflicted a punishment more severe than excommunication. Not until four years after the commencement of his pontificate did he admit the opinion, then prevalent among legists, that heresy should be punished with death, seeing that it was confessedly no less serious an offence than high treason. Nevertheless he continued to insist on the exclusive right of the Church to decide in authentic manner in matters of heresy; at the same time it was not her office to pronounce sentence of death. The Church, thenceforth, expelled from her bosom the impenitent heretic, whereupon the state took over the duty of his temporal punishment. Frederick II was of the same opinion; in his Constitution of 1224 he says that heretics convicted by an ecclesiastical court shall, on imperial authority, suffer death by fire (auctoritate nostra ignis iudicio concremandos), and similarly in 1233 "praesentis nostrae legis edicto damnatos mortem pati decernimus." In this way Gregory IX may be regarded as having had no share either directly or indirectly in the death of condemned heretics. Not so the succeeding popes. In the Bull "Ad exstirpanda" (1252) Innocent IV says: When those adjudged guilty of heresy have been given up to the civil power by the bishop or his representative, or the Inquisition, the podest`a or chief magistrate of the city shall take them at once, and shall, within five days at the most, execute the laws made against them. Moreover, he directs that this Bull and the corresponding regulations of Frederick II be entered in every city among the municipal statutes under pain of excommunication, which was also visited on those who failed to execute both the papal and the imperial decrees. Nor could any doubt remain as to what civil regulations were meant, for the passages which ordered the burning of impenitent heretics were inserted in the papal decretals from the imperial constitutions "Commissis nobis" and "Inconsutibilem tunicam". The aforesaid Bull "Ad exstirpanda" remained thenceforth a fundamental document of the Inquisition, renewed or reinforced by several popes, Alexander IV (1254-61), Clement IV (1265-68), Nicholas IV (1288-02), Boniface VIII (1294-1303), and others. The civil authorities, therefore, were enjoined by the popes, under pain of excommunication to execute the legal sentences that condemned impenitent heretics to the stake. It is to he noted that excommunication itself was no trifle, for, if the person excommunicated did not free himself from excommunication within a year, he was held by the legislation of that period to be a heretic, and incurred all the penalties that affected heresy. The Number of Victims. How many victims were handed over to the civil power cannot be stated with even approximate accuracy. We have nevertheless some valuable information about a few of the Inquisition tribunals, and their statistics are not without interest. At Pamiers, from 1318 to 1324, out of twenty-four persons convicted but five were delivered to the civil power, and at Toulouse from 1308 to 1323, only forty-two out of nine hundred and thirty bear the ominous note "relictus culiae saeculari". Thus, at Pamiers one in thirteen, and at Toulouse one in forty-two seem to have been burnt for heresy although these places were hotbeds of heresy and therefore principal centres of the Inquisition. We may add, also, that this was the most active period of the institution. These data and others of the same nature bear out the assertion that the Inquisition marks a substantial advance in the contemporary administration of justice, and therefore in the general civilization of mankind. A more terrible fate awaited the heretic when judged by a secular court. In 1249 Count Raylmund VII of Toulouse caused eighty confessed heretics to be burned in his presence without permitting them to recant. It is impossible to imagine any such trials before the Inquisition courts. The large numbers of burnings detailed in various histories are completely unauthenticated, and are either the deliberate invention of pamphleteers, or are based on materials that pertain to the Spanish Inquisition of later times or the German witchcraft trials (Vacandard, op. cit., 237 sqq.). Once the Roman Law touching the crimen laesae majestatis had been made to cover the case of heresy, it was only natural that the royal or imperial treasury should imitate the Roman fiscus, and lay claim to the property of persons condemned. was fortunate, though inconsistent and certainly not strict justice, that this penalty did not affect every condemned person, but only those sentenced to perpetual confinement or the stake. Even so, this circumstance added not a little to the penalty, especially as in this respect innocent people, the culprits wife and children, were the chief sufferers. Confiscation was also decreed against persons deceased, and there is a relatively high number of such judgments. Of the six hundred and thirty-six cases that came before the inquisitor Bernard Gui, eighty-eight pertained to dead people. (e) The Final Verdict The ultimate decision was usually pronounced with solemn ceremonial at the sermo generalis -- or auto-da-fe (act of faith), as it was later called. One or two days prior to this sermo everyone concerned had the charges read to him again briefly, and in the vernacular; the evening before he was told where and when to appear to hear the verdict. The sermo, a short discourse or exhortation, began very early in the morning; then followed the swearing in of the secular officials, who were made to vow obedience to the inquisitor in all things pertaining to the suppression of heresy. Then regularly followed the so-called "decrees of mercy" (i.e. commutations, mitigations, and remission of previously imposed penalties), and finally due punishments were assigned to the guilty, after their offences had been again enumerated. This announcement began with the minor punishments, and went on to the most severe, i.e., perpetual imprisonment or death. Thereupon the guilty were turned over to the civil power, and with this act the sermo generalis closed, and the inquisitional proceedings were at an end. (3) The chief scene of the Inquisitions activity was Central and Southern Europe. The Scandinavian countries were spared altogether. It appears in England only on the occasion of the trial of the Templars, nor was it known in Castile and Portugal until the accession of Ferdinand and Isabella. It was introduced into the Netherlands with the Spanish domination, while in Northern France it was relatively little known. On the other hand, the Inquisition, whether because of the particularly perilous sectarianism there prevalent or of the greater severity of ecclesiastical and civil rulers, weighed heavily on Italy (especially Lombardy), on Southern France (in particular the country of Toulouse and on Languedoc) and finally on the Kingdom of Aragon and on Germany. Honorius IV (1285-87) introduced it into Sardinia, and in the fifteenth century it displayed excessive zeal in Flanders and Bohemia. The inquisitors were, as a rule, irreproachable, not merely in personal conduct, but in the administration of their office. Some, however, like Robert le Bougre, a Bulgarian (Catharist) convert to Christianity and subsequently a Dominican, seem to have yielded to a blind fanaticism and deliberately to have provoked executions en masse. On 29 May, 1239, at Montwimer in Champagne, Robert consigned to the flames at one time about a hundred and eighty persons, whose trial had begun and ended within one week. Later, when Rome found that the complaints against him were justified, he was first deposed and then incarcerated for life. (4) How are we to explain the Inquisition in the light of its own period? For the true office of the historian is not to defend facts and conditions, but to study and understand them in their natural course and connection. It is indisputable that in the past scarcely any community or nation vouchsafed perfect toleration to those who set up a creed different from that of the generality. A kind of iron law would seem to dispose mankind to religious intolerance. Even long before the Roman State tried to check with violence the rapid encroachments of Christianity, Plate had declared it one of the supreme duties of the governmental authority in his ideal state to show no toleration towards the "godless" -- that is, towards those who denied the state religion -- even though they were content to live quietly and without proselytizing; their very example, he said would be dangerous. They were to be kept in custody; "in a place where one grew wise" (sophronisterion), as the place of incarceration was euphemistically called; they should be relegated thither for five years, and during this time listen to religious instruction every day. The more active and proselytizing opponents of the state religion were to be imprisoned for life in dreadful dungeons, and after death to be deprived of burial. It is thus evident what little justification there is for regarding intolerance as a product of the Middle Ages. Everywhere and always in the past men believed that nothing disturbed the common weal and public peace so much as religious dissensions and conflicts, and that, on the other hand, a uniform public faith was the surest guarantee for the States stability and prosperity. The more thoroughly religion had become part of the national life, and the stronger the general conviction of its inviolability and Divine origin, the more disposed would men be to consider every attack on it as an intolerable crime against the Deity and a highly criminal menace to the public peace. The first Christian emperors believed that one of the chief duties of an imperial ruler was to place his sword at the service of the Church and orthodoxy, especially as their titles of "Pontifex Maximus" and "Bishop of the Exterior" seemed to argue in them Divinely appointed agents of Heaven. Nevertheless the principal teachers of the Church held back for centuries from accepting in these matters the practice of the civil rulers; they shrank particularly from such stern measures against heresy as punishment, both of which they deemed inconsistent with the spirit of Christianity. But, in the Middle Ages, the Catholic Faith became alone dominant, and the welfare of the Commonwealth came to be closely bound up with the cause of religious unity. King Peter of Aragon, therefore, but voiced the universal conviction when he said: "The enemies of the Cross of Christ and violators of the Christian law are likewise our enemies and the enemies of our kingdom, and ought therefore to be dealt with as such." Emperor Frederick II emphasized this view more vigorously than any other prince, and enforced it in his Draconian enactments against heretics. The representative of the Church were also children of their own time, and in their conflict with heresy accepted the help that their age freely offered them, and indeed often forced upon them. Theologians and canonists, the highest and the saintliest, stood by the code of their day, and sought to explain and to justify it. The learned and holy Raymund of Pennafort, highly esteemed by Gregory IX, was content with the penalties that dated from Innocent III, viz.. the ban of the empire, confiscation of property-, confinement in prison, etc. But before the end of the century, St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theol., II-II:11:3 and II-II:11:4>) already advocated capital punishment for heresy though it cannot be said that his arguments altogether compel conviction. The Angelic Doctor, however speaks only in a general way of punishment by death, and does not specify more nearly the manner of its infliction. This the jurists did in a positive way that was truly terrible. The celebrated Henry of Segusia (Susa), named Hostiensis after his episcopal See of Ostia (d. 1271), and the no less eminent Joannes Andreae (d. 1345), when interpreting the Decree "Ad abolendam" of Lucius III, take debita animadversio (due punishment) as synonymous with ignis crematio (death by fire), a meaning which certainly did not attach to the original expression of 1184. Theologians and jurists based their attitude to some extent on the similarity between heresy and high treason (crimen laesae maiestatis), a suggestion that they owed to the Law of Ancient Rome. They argued, moreover, that if the death penalty could be rightly inflicted on thieves and forgers, who rob us only of worldly goods, how much more righteously on those who cheat us out of supernatural goods -- out of faith, the sacraments, the life of the soul. In the severe legislation of the Old Testament (Deut., xiii, 6-9; xvii, 1-6) they found another argument. And lest some should urge that those ordinances were abrogated by Christianity, the words of Christ were recalled: "I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill" (Matt., v. 17); also His other saying (John, xv 6): "If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and cast him into the fire, and he burneth" (in ignem mittent, et ardet). It is well known that belief in the justice of punishing heresy with death was so common among the sixteenth century reformers -- Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and their adherents -- that we may say their toleration began where their power ended. The Reformed theologian, Hieronymus Zanchi, declared in a lecture delivered at the University of Heidlelberg: We do not now ask if the authorities may pronounce sentence of death upon heretics; of that there can be no doubt, and all learned and right-minded men acknowledge it. The only question is whether the authorities are bound to perform this duty. And Zanchi answers this second question in the affirmative, especially on the authority of "all pious and learned men who have written on the subject in our day" [Historisch-politische Blatter, CXL, (1907), p. 364]. It may be that in modern times men judge more leniency the views of others, but does this forthwith make their opinions objectively more correct than those of their predecessors? Is there no longer any inclination to persecution? As late as 1871 Professor Friedberg wrote in Holtzendorffs "Jahrbuch fur Gesetzebung": "If a new religious society were to be established today with such principles as those which, according to the Vatican Council, the Catholic Church declares a matter of faith, we would undoubtedly consider it a duty of the state to suppress, destroy, and uproot it by force" (Koelnische Volkszeitung, no. 782, 15 Sept., 1909). Do these sentiments indicate an ability to appraise justly the institutions and opinions of former centuries, not according to modern feelings, but to the standards of their age? In forming an estimate of the Inquisition, it is necessary to distinguish clearly between principles and historical fact on the one hand, and on the other those exaggerations or rhetorical descriptions which reveal bins and an obvious determination to injure Catholicism, rather than to encourage the spirit of tolerance and further its exercise. It is also essential to note that the Inquisition, in its establishment and procedure, pertained not to the sphere of belief, but to that of discipline. The dogmatic teaching of the Church is in no way affected by the question as to whether the Inquisition was justified in its scope, or wise in its methods, or extreme in its practice. The Church established by Christ, as a perfect society, is empowered to make laws and inflict penalties for their violation. Heresy not only violates her law but strikes at her very life, unity of belief; and from the beginning the heretic had incurred all the penalties of the ecclesiastical courts. When Christianity became the religion of the Empire, and still more when the peoples of Northern Europe became Christian nations, the close alliance of Church and State made unity of faith essential not only to the ecclesiastical organization, but also to civil society. Heresy, in consequence, was & crime which secular rulers were bound in duty to punish. It was regarded as worse than any other crime, even that of high treason; it was for society in those times what we call anarchy. Hence the severity with which heretics were treated by the secular power long before the Inquisition was established. As regards the character of these punishments, it should be considered that they were the natural expression not only of the legislative power, but also of the popular hatred for heresy in an age that dealt both vigorously and roughly with criminals of every type. The heretic, in a word, was simply an outlaw whose offence, in the popular mind, deserved and sometimes received a punishment as summary as that which is often dealt out in our own day by an infuriated populace to the authors of justly detested crimes. That such intolerance was not peculiar to Catholicism, but was the natural accompaniment of deep religious conviction in those, also, who abandoned the Church, is evident from the measures taken by some of the Reformers against those who differed from them in matters of belief. As the learned Dr. Schaff declares in his "History of the Christian Church" (vol. V, New York, 1907, p. 524), To the great humiliation of the Protestant churches, religious intolerance and even persecution unto death were continued long alter the Reformation. In Geneva the pernicious theory was put into practice by state and church, even to the use of torture and the admission of the testimony of children against their parents, and with the sanction of Calvin. Bullinger, in the second Helvetic Confession, announced the principle that heresy could be punished like murder or treason. Moreover, the whole history of the Penal Laws against Catholics in England and Ireland, and the spirit of intolerance prevalent in many of the American colonies during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries may be cited in proof thereof. It would obviously be absurd to make the Protestant religion as such responsible for these practices. But having set up the principle of private judgment, which, logically applied, made heresy impossible, the early Reformers proceeded to treat dissidents as the medieval heretics had been treated. To suggest that this was inconsistent is trivial in view of the deeper insight it affords into the meaning of a tolerance which is often only theoretical and the source of that intolerance which men rightly show towards error, and which they naturally though not rightly, transfer to the erring. B. The Inquisition in Spain (1) Historical Facts Religious conditions similar to those in Southern France occasioned the establishment of the Inquisition in the neighboring Kingdom of Aragon. As early as 1226 King James I had forbidden the Catharists his kingdom, and in 1228 had outlawed both them and their friends. A little later, on the advice of his confessor, Raymond of Pennafort, he asked Gregory IX to establish the Inquisition in Aragon. By the Bull "Declinante jam mundi" of 26 May, 1232, Archbishop Esparrago and his suffragans were instructed to search, either personally or by enlisting the services of the Dominicans or other suitable agents, and condignly punish the heretics in their dioceses. At the Council of Lerida in 1237 the Inquisition was formally confided to the Dominicans and the Franciscans. At the Synod of Tarragona in 1242, Raymund of Pennafort defined the terms haereticus, receptor, fautor, defensor, etc., and outlined the penalties to be inflicted. Although the ordinances of Innocent IV, Urban IV, and Clement VI were also adopted and executed with strictness by the Dominican Order, no striking success resulted. The Inquisitor Fray Pence de Planes was poisoned, and Bernardo Travasser earned the crown of martyrdom at the hands of the heretics. Aragons best-known inquisitor is the Dominican Nicolas Eymeric (Quetif-Echard, "Scriptores Ord. Pr.", I, 709 sqq.). His "Directorium Inquisitionis" (written in Aragon 1376; printed at Rome 1587, Venice 1595 and 1607), based on forty-four years experience, is an original source and a document of the highest historical value. The Spanish Inquisition, however, properly begins with the reign of Ferdinand the Catholic and Isabella. The Catholic faith was then endangered by pseudo converts from Judaism (Marranos) and Mohammedanism (Moriscos). On 1 November, 1478, Sixtus IV empowered the Catholic sovereigns to set up the Inquisition. The judges were to be at least forty years old, of unimpeachable reputation, distinguished for virtue and wisdom, masters of theology, or doctors or licentiates of canon law, and they must follow the usual ecclesiastical rules and regulations. On 17 September, 1480, Their Catholic Majesties appointed, at first for Seville, the two Dominicans Miguel de Morillo and Juan de San Martin as inquisitors, with two of the secular clergy assistants. Before long complaints of grievous abuses reached Rome, and were only too well founded. In a Brief of Sixtus IV of 29 January 1482, they were blamed for having, upon the alleged authority of papal Briefs, unjustly imprisoned many people, subjected them to cruel tortures, declared them false believers, and sequestrated the property of the executed. They were at first admonished to act only in conjunction with, the bishops, and finally were threatened with deposition, and would indeed have been deposed had not Their Majesties interceded for them. Fray Tomas Torquemada (b. at Valladolid In 1420, d. at Avila, 16 September, 1498) was the true organizer of the Spanish Inquisition. At the solicitation of their Spanish Majesties (Paramo, II, tit. ii, c, iii, n. 9) Sixtus IV bestowed on Torquemada the office of grand inquisitor, the institution of which indicates a decided advance in the development of the Spanish Inquisition. Innocent VIII approved the act of his predecessor, and under date of 11 February, 1486, and 6 February, 1487, Torquemada was given dignity of grand inquisitor for the kingdoms of Castile, Leon, Aragon, Valencia, etc. The institution speedily ramified from Seville to Cordova, Jaen, Villareal, and Toledo, About 1538 there were nineteen courts, to which three were afterwards added in Spanish America (Mexico, Lima, and Cartagena). Attempts at introducing it into Italy failed, and the efforts to establish it in the Netherlands entailed disastrous consequences for the mother country. In Spain, however, it remained operative into the nineteenth century. Originally called into being against secret Judaism and secret Islam, it served to repel Protestantism in the sixteenth century, but was unable to expel French Rationalism and immorality of the eighteenth. King Joseph Bonaparte abrogated it in 1808, but it was reintroduced by Ferdinand VII in 1814 and approved by Pius VII on certain conditions, among others the abolition of torture. It was definitely abolished by the Revolution of 1820. (2) Organization At the head of the Inquisition, known as the Holy Office, stood the grand inquisitor, nominated by the king and confirmed by the pope. By virtue of his papal credentials he enjoyed authority to delegate his powers to other suitable persons, and to receive appeals from all Spanish courts. He was aided by a High Council (Consejo Supremo) consisting of five members -- the so-called Apostolic inquisitors, two secretaries, two relatores, one advocatus fiscalis -- and several consulters and qualificators. The officials of the supreme tribunal were appointed by the grand inquisitor after consultation with the king. The former could also freely appoint, transfer, remove from office, visit, and inspect or call to account all inquisitors and officials of the lower courts. Philip III, on 16 December, 1618, gave the Dominicans the privilege of having one of their order permanently a member of the Consejo Supremo. All power was really concentrated in this supreme tribunal. It decided important or disputed questions, and heard appeals; without its approval no priest, knight, or noble could be imprisoned, and no auto-da-fe held; an annual report was made to it concerning the entire Inquisition, and once a month a financial report. Everyone was subject to it, not excepting priests, bishops, or even the sovereign. The Spanish Inquisition is distinguished from the medieval its monarchical constitution and and a greater consequent centralization, as also by the constant and legally provided-for influence of the crown on all official appointments and the progress of trials. (3) Procedure The procedure, on the other hand, was substantially the same as that already described. Here, too, a "term of grace" of thirty to forty days was invariably granted, and was often prolonged. Imprisonment resulted only when unanimity had been arrived at, or the offence had been proved. Examination of the accused could take place only in the presence of two disinterested priests, whose obligation it was to restrain any arbitrary act in their presence the protocol had to be read out twice to the accused. The defence lay always in the hands of a lawyer. The witnesses although unknown to the accused, were sworn, and very severe punishment, even death, awaited false witnesses, (cf. Brief of Leo X of 14 December, 1518). Torture was applied only too frequently and to cruelly, but certainly not more cruelly than under Charles V's system of judicial torture in Germany. (4) Historical Analysis The Spanish Inquisition deserves neither the exaggerated praise nor the equally exaggerated vilification often bestowed on it. The number of victims cannot be calculated with even approximate accuracy; the much maligned autos-da-fe were in reality but a religious ceremony (actus fidei); the San Benito has its counterpart in similar garbs elsewhere; the cruelty of St. Peter Arbues, to whom not a single sentence of death can be traced with certainty, belongs to the realms of fable. However, the predominant ecclesiastical nature of the institution can hardly be doubted. The Holy See sanctioned the institution, accorded to the grand inquisitor canonical installation and therewith judicial authority concerning matters of faith, while from the grand inquisitor jurisdiction passed down to the subsidiary tribunals under his control. Joseph de Maistre introduced the thesis that the Spanish Inquisition was mostly a civil tribunal; formerly, however, theologians never questioned its ecclesiastical nature. Only thus, indeed, can one explain how the Popes always admitted appeals from it to the Holy See, called to themselves entire trials and that at any stage of the proceedings, exempted whole classes of believers from its jurisdiction, intervened in the legislation, deposed grand inquisitors, and so on. (See TOMAS DE TORQUEMADA.) C. The Holy Office at Rome The great apostasy of the sixteenth century, the filtration of heresy into Catholic lands, and the progress of heterodox teachings everywhere, prompted Paul III to establish the "Sacra Congregatio Romanae et universalis Inquisitionis seu sancti officii" by the Constitution "Licet ab initio" of 21 July, 1542. This inquisitional tribunal, composed of six cardinals, was to be at once the final court of appeal for trials concerning faith, and the court of first instance for cases reserved to the pope. The succeeding popes -- especially Pius IV (by the Constitutions "Pastoralis Oficii " of 14 October, 1562, "Romanus Pontifex" of 7 April, 1563, "Cum nos per" of 1564, "Cum inter crimina" of 27 August, 1562) and Pius V (by a Decree of 1566, the Constitution "Inter multiplices" of 21 December, 1566, and "Cum felicis record." of 1566) -- made further provision for the procedure and competency of this court. By his Constitution "Immensa aeterni" of 23 January, 1587, Sixtus V became the real organizer, or rather reorganizer of this congregation. The Holy Office is first among the Roman congregations. Its personnel includes judges, officials, consulters, and qualificators. The real judges are cardinals nominated by the pope, whose original number of six was raised by Pius IV to eight and by Sixtus V to thirteen. Their actual number depends on the reigning pope (Benedict XIV, Const. "Sollicita et Provida", 1733). This congregation differs from the others, inasmuch as it has no cardinal-prefect: the pope always presides in person when momentous decisions are to be announced (coram Sanctissimo). The solemn plenary session on Thursdays is always preceded by a session of the cardinals on Wednesdays, at the church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva, and a meeting of the consultors on Mondays at the palace of the Holy Office. The highest official is the commissarius sancti oficii, a Dominican of the Lombard province, to whom two coadjutors are given from the same order. He acts as the proper judge throughout the whole case until the plenary session exclusive, thus conducting it up to the verdict. The assessor sancti officii, always one of the secular clergy, presides at the plenary sessions. The promotor fiscalis is at once prosecutor and fiscal representative, while the advocatus reorum undertakes the defence of the accused. The duty of the consultors is to afford the cardinals expert advice. They may come from the secular clergy or the religious orders, but the General of the Dominicans, the magister sacri palatii, and a third member of the same order are always ex-officio consultors (consultores nati). The qualificators are appointed for life, but give their opinions only when called upon. The Holy Office has jurisdiction over all Christians and, according to Pius IV, even over cardinals. In practice, however, the latter are held exempt. For its authority, see the aforesaid Constitution of Sixtus V "Immensa aeterni" (see ROMAN CONGREGATIONS). JOSEPH BLOeTZER Canonical Inquisition Canonical Inquisition Canonical Inquisition is either extra-judicial or judicial: the former might be likened to a coroner's inquest in our civil law; while the latter is similar to an investigation by the grand jury. An extra-judicial inquiry, which is recommended in civil cases, is absolutely necessary in criminal matters, except the case be notorious. A bishop may not even admonish canonically a cleric supposedly delinquent without having first instituted a summary inquest -- "summaria facti cognitio"; "informatio pro informatione curiae" -- into the truth of the rumours, denunciations, or accusations against said cleric. This examination is conducted by the bishop personally, or by another ecclesiastic, prudent, trustworthy, and impartial, deputed by the bishop, as secretly and discreetly as possible, without judicial form. This, however, does not preclude the examination of witnesses or experts, for example, to discover irregularities in the records or accounts of the Church. Great caution is to be observed in this preliminary inquiry, lest the reputation of the cleric in question suffer unnecessarily, in which case the bishop might be sued for damages. The acts with the result of the inquisition, if any evidence has been found, should be preserved in the archives; if evidence is wanting or is only slight, the acts should be destroyed. The outcome of the preliminary investigation will be to leave matters as they are; or to proceed to extra-judicial corrective measures; or to begin a public action, when the evil cannot be otherwise remedied. The bishop's judgment in this matter is paramount; for, even when a crime may he satisfactorily proven, it may be more beneficial to religion and the interests at stake not to prosecute. In matters of correction proper, in which medicinal penalties are employed, judicial action is barred by limitation in five years. The second inquisition is for the information of the auditor or judge, a judicial inquiry, being the beginning of the strictly judicial procedure -- "processus informativus"; "inquisitio pro informando judice". If sufficient warrant for a judicial trial exist, the bishop will order his public prosecutor (procurator fiscalis) to draw up and present the charge. Having received the charge, the bishop will appoint an auditor to conduct the informative procedure, in which all the evidence bearing on the case, for the defence as well as for the prosecution, is to be obtained. This inquest consequently comprises offensive and defensive proceedings, for the auditor is to arrive at the truth, and not conduct the inquiry on the supposition that the defendant is guilty. When the auditor, assisted by the diocesan prosecutor, has procured all the evidence available for the prosecution, he will open the defensive proceedings with the citation (q. v.) of the accused. The accused must appear in person (see CONTUMACY) for examination by the auditor: the fiscal prosecutor may be present. He is not put under oath, and is granted perfect freedom in defending himself, proving his innocence, justifying his conduct, alleging mitigating or extenuating circumstances. All declarations, allegations, exceptions, pleas etc., of the defendant are recorded by the clerk in the acts. They are read to the defendant and corrected, if necessary, or additions made. Finally, the accused, if willing, the auditor, and the secretary should sign the acts. A stay must be granted the accused if he demand it, to present a defence in writing. This inquiry may open up new features, to investigate which stays may be necessary. The accused must be heard in his own defence after this new inquiry. When satisfied that the investigation is complete, the auditor will declare the inquest closed, and make out an abstract of the results of same. This abstract together with all the acts in the case are given to the diocesan prosecutor. Thus ends the judicial inquisition. Instructio S. C. EE. RR., 1880; Instructio S. C. de Prop. Fide pro Statibus Foederatis Americoe Septentrionalis, 1884; MEEHAN, Compendium juris canonici (Rochester, 1899), p. 241 sqq.; DROSTE-MESSMER, Canonical Procedure in Disciplinary and Criminal Cases of Clerics (New York, 1886). ANDREW B. MEEHAN. Asylums and Care For the Insane Asylums and Care for the Insane During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries hospital care of the sick of all kinds and nursing fell to the lowest ebb in history (see HOSPITALS). Institutions and care for the insane, not only shared in this decadence, but were its worst feature. Because of this, many writers have declared that proper care for the insane and suitable institutions developed only in recent generations. As the Church had much to do with humanitarian efforts of all kinds in the past, it has been made a subject of reproach to her. As a matter of fact the Church, from the earliest times, arranged for the care of the insane, and some of the arrangements anticipated some of the most important advances in modern times. It was after the religious revolt in Germany, whose influence was felt in other countries, that the Church's charitable institutions suffered in many ways, and hospitals and asylums of all kinds deteriorated. Insanity has been known for as long as our record of human history runs. Pinel, the great French psychiatrist, in his "Nosographie philosophique", II (Paris, 1798), 28, gives the details of the treatment of the insane by the priests of Saturn, the god of medicine in Egypt, in special parts of the temples. According to this, those suffering from melancholia were treated by suggestion, by diversion of mind, and recreations of all kinds, by a careful regimen, by hydropathy, by pilgrimages to the holy places. In Greece we know of the existence of insanity from its occurrence in the various myths. Ulysses counterfeited insanity in order to escape going on the Trojan expedition, and ploughed up the seashore, sowing salt in the furrows. When Nestor, however, placed his infant son in front of the plough, Ulysses moved the boy aside, and Nestor said there was too much method in his madness. Evidently at this time (1200 B.C.) the Greeks were quite familiar with insanity, since they could even detect malingering. The stories of Ajax killing a flock of sheep which by illusion he thought a crowd of his enemies, of Orestes and the Furies, of the Bacchae, all show familiarity with insanity. As in Egypt, the insane in Greece were cared for in certain portions of the temple of the god of medicine, AEsculapius. In the famous temple at Epidaurus, part shrine and part hospital, there was a well-known spring, and hydro-pathy was the main portion of the treatment, though every form of favourable suggestion was employed. Interesting diversions were planned for patients, and they had the distinct advantage of the journey necessary to reach Epidaurus. Insanity was looked upon as a disease and treated as such. The delirium of acute disease had not yet been differentiated from mania, and melancholy was considered an exaggeration of the depression so often associated with digestive disturbance. The first hospital for insane patients of which there is mention was the Piraeus. Among the Romans we have abundant evidence, in their laws, of care for the insane, but we know little of their medical treatment until about the beginning of the Christian Era. In the Twelve Tables curators are assigned the insane even after their majority. They could transact no business legally, but during lucid intervals could make binding contracts. When parents were insane, children could marry without their consent, but this had to be explicitly stated. The insane could make no wills, nor be witnesses of wills except during lucid intervals, but the lucidity had to be proved. With all these careful legal provisions it seems incredible that medical care should not have been given, but all records of it are wanting. At Rome, a series of writers on insanity made excellent studies in the subject, which could only have been made under circumstances that allowed of such careful study of the insane as we have opportunities for in modern times (Celcus, first century: Caelius Aurelianus, about A.D. 200, mostly a translation of Soranus; Alexander Trallianus, 560). Among the Greek writers, Hippocrates (about 400 B.C.), Asclepiades, who wrote shortly before Christ, as well as Aretaeus of Cappadocia, Soranus, and Galen, who wrote in the first century after Christ, show a considerable knowledge of insanity. The great Roman student of the subject, however, was Paulus AEgineta (630), whose writings show such a thorough familiarity with certain phases of insanity as could only have been obtained by actual observation, not of a few patients, but of many. With the beginning of Christianity more definite information as to asylums for the insane is available. Ducange, in his "Commentary on Byzantine History", states that among the thirty-five charitable institutions in Constantinople at the beginning of the fourth century there was a morotrophium, or home for lunatics. This seems to have been connected with the general hospital of the city. In the next century we have the records of a hospital for the insane at Jerusalem, and it is probable that they existed in other cities throughout the East. Nimesius, a Christian bishop of the fourth century, collected much of what had been written by older authors with regard to the insane, adding some observations of his own, and showing that Christianity was caring for these unfortunates. With the foundation of the monasteries the insane were cared for in connection with these. The Rule of St.Jerome enjoined the duty of making careful provision for the proper treatment of the sick, and Burdett, in his "Hospitals and Asylums of the World", considers that this applied also to those suffering from mental disease. He adds: "It is beyond question that in earlier times, commencing with provision for the sick, including those mentally ill, by the early bishops in their own houses, the Church gradually developed an organization which provided for the insane, first in morotrophia (i.e., places for lunatics) and then in the monasteries. Evidence of the existence of this system is to be met with in France, Italy, Russia, Spain, Germany, and in some of the northern countries of Europe" (op. cit., I). With the foundation of the monasteries of the Benedictines and the Irish monks, hospitals were opened in connection with them (see HOSPITALS). The insane were cared for with other patients in these institutions, and we have any prescriptions from the olden times that are supposed to be cures of lunacy. The cleric author of "Leechdom, Wortcunning and Star Craft of Early England", a collection of herbal prescriptions made about A.D. 900, gives remedies for melancholia, hallucinations, mental vacancy, dementia, and folly. There are records of many institutions for the insane. Desmaisons declared that "the origin of the first establishment devoted for the insane in Europe dates back only to A.D. 1409; it was founded in Valencia in Spain under Mohammedan influence" (Des Asiles d'Alienes en Espagene, Paris, 1859). This statement has been often quoted, but is entirely erroneous. We know for instance that there was an asylum exclusively for sufferers from mental diseases at Mets in 1100 and another at Elbing near Danzig in 1320. According to Sir William Dugdale (Monasticon Anglicanum, London, 1655-73), there was an ancient English asylum known as Berking Church Hospital, situated near the Tower of London, for which Robert Denton, chaplain, obtained a licence from King Edward III in 1371. Denton paid forty shillings for this licence to found a hospital in a house of his own in the parish of Berking Church, London, "for the poor priests and for the men and women in the sad city who suddenly fall into a frenzy and lose their memory, who were to reside there until cured; with an oratory to the said hospital to the invocation of the Blessed Virgin Mary". About this same time there is a tradition of the existence of a pazzarella, or place for mad people, in Rome, the conditions of entrance being rather interesting. Lunatics were cared for, moreover, in special departments of general hospitals. At Bedlam, the London hospital founded in the thirteenth century, this was true. (see BEDLAM). Evidently the same thing was true at many other places. At first glance this might seem open to many objections. Psychopaths in modern times, however, have been trying to arrange to have wards for acute mental cases in connection with general hospitals, for patients thus come under observation sooner; they are more willing to go to such hospitals and their friends are more ready to send them. Serious developments are often thus prevented. In this system of psychopathic wards in general hospitals of the Middle Ages anticipated our modern views. In another phase of the care of the insane there is a similar anticipation. At Gheel in Belgium the harmless insane are cared for by the people of the village and the neighbouring country who provide them with board, and treat them as members of the family. This system has attracted much attention in recent years, and articles on Gheel have appeared in every language. It has its defects, but these are probably not so great as those that are likely to occur in the institutional care of such patients. This method of caring for the insane has been practised at Gheel for over a thousand years. Originally the patients were brought to the shrine of St. Dympna, where, according to tradition, they were often healed. The custom of leaving chronic sufferers near the shrine, under the care of the villagers, gradually arose and has continued ever since. Nearly ever country in Europe had such shrines where the insane were cured; we have records of them in Ireland, Scotland, England, and Germany, and it is evident that this must be considered an important portion of the provision for these patients. In France the shrines of Sts. Menou, or Menulphe, and Dizier were visited from very early times by the insane in search of relief. The shrine of St. Menou at Mailly-sur-Rose was especially well-known and a house was erected for the accommodation of the mentally diseased. At St. Dizier a state of affairs very like that at Gheel developed, and the patients were cared for by the families of the neighbourhood. All of this interesting and valuable provision for the care of the insane, as well as the monastic establishments in which they were received, disappeared with the Reformation. Spain, though not the first country to organize special institutions for the insane, did more for them than perhaps any other country. The asylum at Valencia already mentioned was founded in 1409 by a monk named Joffre, out of pity for the lunatics whom he founded hooted by the crowds. The movement thus begun spread throughout Spain, and asylums were founded at Saragossa in 1425, at Seville in 1435, at Valladolid in 1436, and at Toledo before the end of the century. This movement was not due, as has been claimed, to Mohammedanism, for Mohammedans in other parts of the world took no special care of the insane. Lecky, in his "History of European Morals", has rejected the assertion of Desmaisons in this matter, which is entirely without proof. Spain continued to be the country in which lunatics were best cared for in Europe down to the beginning of the nineteenth century. Pinel, the great French psychiatrist, who took the manacles from the insane of France, declared Spain to be the country in which lunatics were treated with most wisdom and most humanity. He has described an asylum at Saragossa "open to the diseased in mind of all nations, governments, and religions, with this simple inscription: Urbis et Orbis (Traite Med.-philos. sur l'alienation mentale, Paris, 1809). He gives some details of the treatment, which show a very modern recognition of the need to be gentle and careful with the insane rather than harsh and forceful. The pazzarella at Rome already mentioned was founded during the sixteenth century by Ferrantez Ruiz and the Bruni, father and son, all three Navarrese. This hospital for insane "received crazed persons of whatever nation they be, and care is taken to restore them to their right mind; but if the madness prove incurable, they are kept during life, have food and raiment necessary to the condition they are in. A Venetian lady was moved to such great pity of these poor creatures upon sight of them that on her death she left them heirs to her whole estate." This enabled the management, with the approbation of Pope Pius IV, to open a new house in 1561, in the Via Lata. In France and Italy the custom continued during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries of placing lunatics, particularly those of the better class - though also of the other classes when they had patrons who asked the privilege - in male or female monasteries according to their sex. This practice also prevailed in Russia. In 1641 the Charenton Asylum was founded in one of the suburbs of Paris, near the Park of Vincennes, and was placed under monastic rule. After the foundation of the Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul, the charge of this institution was given to them. During this century the French established a system of colonies by which the insane were transferred to country places for work during intermissions in their condition, and were returned to the central asylum whenever they were restless. During the eighteenth century there was an awakening of humanitarian purpose with regard to the insane in nearly every country in Europe. St. Peter's Hospital at Bristol, England, was opened in 1696; the Manchester Royal Lunatic Hospital in 1706; Bethel Hospital at Norwich in 1713; Dean Swift's Dublin Hospital in 1745; while the Pennsylvania Hospital of Philadelphia (1751) and the New York Hospital (1771) each contained wards for lunatics. In 1773 the first asylum exclusively for the care of the insane in the United States was opened at Williamsburg, VA. After this, asylums for the insane multiplied, though the system under which the inmates were cared for involved many abuses. Burdett's third chapter is entitled "The Period of Brutal Suppression in Treatment and Cruelty: 1750 to 1850". In 1792 what has been called the humane period in the treatment of the insane began, when Pinel, against the advice of all those in authority and with the disapprobation of his medical colleagues, removed the chains and manacles and other severer forms of restraint at the great asylum of Bicetre, near Paris, and gave the inmates all the liberty compatible with reasonable safety for themselves and others. At the same time William Tuke was engaged in establishing the retreat near York, which came into full operation in 1795. In this institution very enlightened principles of treatment were carried into effect. Early in the nineteenth century, Dr. Charles Worth and Mr. Gardner Hill, in the Lincoln Asylum, did away with all forms of mechanical restraint. The non-restraint system was fully developed by Dr. John Conolly in the Middlesex County Asylum at Hanwell. In the mean time, at the second institution solely for the insane in the United States, the Friends' Asylum at Frankfort, Pennsylvania (1817), the principles of gentle, intelligent care for the insane were being thoroughly applied and developed. The treatment of the insane was first systematized by Dr. S.B. Woodward, at Worcester, Massachusetts. Dr. Kirkbride of Philadelphia did much to remove the evils of restraint. Miss Dix must bear an honoured name for the successful philanthropy in doing away with many abuses in England and her native America. In recent years the care of the insane has to a great extent come entirely under the control of the State. This was apparently rendered necessary by the abuses that crept into private institutions for the insane. Even in the State institutions, however, until the last twenty-five years, there was many customs to be deprecated. Mechanical restraints of all kinds were used very commonly in America; within a generation patients were fastened to chairs, or to their beds, or secured by means of chains. The "open door" is, however, now becoming the policy of most institutions. Modes of restraint are very limited and used only with proper safeguard. Most American institutions are overcrowded, because it seems impossible to increase accommodations in proportion to the increasing numbers of the insane. There are two reasons for this increase. One is an actual increase in the proportion of the insane to the total population because of the strenuous life. Another is that in our busy modern life there is less inclination to keep even the mildly insane at home. Apart from the State institutions, there is a reaction to the old monastic system of care for the insane, and there are many large and well-known insane asylums in America under the charge of religious. The tradition established by Madame Gras at the foundation of the Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul has borne fruit. In America they have large asylums for the insane in Baltimore, New Orleans, Madison, N.J., and New York. BURDETT, Hospitals and Asylums of the World (London, 1891); TUKE, History of the Insane in the British Isles (London, 1882); CLARK, Memoir of Dr. Conolly with Sketch of the Treatment of the Insane in Europe and America (London, 1869); KIRCHOFF, Grundriss einer Geschichte der deutschen Irrenpflege (Berlin, 1890); bigoted; ESQUIROL, Memoire historique sur Charenton (Paris, 1835). JAMES J. WALSH Insanity Insanity All writers on this subject confess their inability to frame a strictly logical or a completely satisfactory definition. The dividing line between sanity and insanity, like the line that distinguishes a man of average height from a tall man, can be described only in terms of a moral estimate. There is a borderland between the two states which is not easily identified as belonging certainly to either. Hence a definition that aims at rigorous comprehensiveness is liable to include such non-insane conditions as hysteria, febrile delirium, or perverted passions. The definition given by the "Century Dictionary" is probably as satisfactory as any: "A seriously impaired condition of the mental functions, involving the intellect, emotions, and will, or one or more of these faculties, exclusive of temporary states produced by and accompanying intoxications or acute febrile diseases." Not less difficult is the problem of classification. No classification based on a single principle is entirely satisfactory. Anatomical changes are an inadequate basis because they are absent from many forms of insanity; the causes are so numerous and so frequently combined in a single case that it is impossible to say which is predominant; and the symptoms are so manifold that the accidental cannot always be distinguished from the essential. Indeed, the nervous system and the mental functions are so complex and so inadequately known that any attempt at an accurate classification of their abnormal states must of necessity be a failure. In this article only the most important forms will be enumerated, namely, those which are most prevalent and those which are clearly distinguished from one another. One of the oldest divisions of mental disorders is into melancholia and mania. In the former the dominant mood is depression; in the latter, exaltation. The former differs from sane melancholy only in degree, and its chief characteristics are mental anguish and impulses to suicide. It includes probably one-half of all the cases of insanity, and is more frequently cured than any other form. In mania the morbidly elated mood may vary from excessive cheerfulness to violent rage. Monomania, which may exhibit characteristics of both melancholia and mania, is a perversion of the intellective rather than the affective faculties. Its chief manifestation is delusions, very frequently delusions of persecution. Monomania corresponds roughly to the later and more precise term paranoia. In this form the delusions are systematized and persistent, while the general intellectual processes may remain substantially unimpaired. When the attacks of melancholia or mania occur at regular intervals they are frequently named periodical insanity. The term partial insanity comprises chiefly those varieties known as impulsive, emotional, and moral. These are characterized by a loss of self-control, on account of which the patient performs acts that are at variance with his prevailing disposition, ideas, and desires--for example, murder and suicide. Somewhat akin to these forms are those associated with such general diseases of the nervous system as epilepsy, hysteria, and neurasthenia. When insanity takes the form of a general enfeeblement of the mental faculties as a consequence of disease, it is called dementia. It is usually permanent. Its principal varieties are senile, paralytic, and syphilitic. Paresis is one kind of paralytic dementia. All the above-mentioned forms of insanity are acquired, in the sense that they occur in normally developed brains. Congenital insanity, or feeble-mindedness, is divided chiefly, according to its degrees, into imbecility, idiocy, and cretinism. That insanity is on the increase, seems to be the general verdict of authorities, although the absence of reliable and comprehensive statistics makes any satisfactory estimate impossible. Whatever be its extent, the increase is undoubtedly due in some measure to our more complex civilization, especially as seen in city life. In general, the causes of insanity may be reduced to two: predisposing causes and exciting causes. The most important of the former are insane, neurotic, epileptic, drunken, or consumptive ancestors; great stress and strain, and a neuropathic constitution. Among the exciting causes must be mentioned shock, intense emotion, worry, intellectual overwork, diseases of the nervous system, exhausting diseases, alcoholic and sexual excesses, paralysis, sunstroke, and accidental injuries. It has been estimated that the physical causes, whether predisposing or exciting, stand to the moral causes, such as affliction and losses, in the ratio of four to one. Of 2476 cases due to physical causes which were admitted to the asylums of New York during the twelve months preceding 30 September 1900, alcoholic and sexual excesses and diseases had brought on 684. The majority of cases of insanity, however, are traceable to more than one cause. Inasmuch as insanity almost always involves some perversion of the will, either direct or indirect, it raises interesting and important questions concerning moral responsibility. Every impairment of mental function must impede the freedom of the will, either by restricting its scope, or by diminishing or destroying it outright. Ignorance, error, blinding passion, and paralysing fear all render a person morally irresponsible for those actions which take place under their influence. This is true even of the sane; obviously it happens much more frequently among the insane, owing to delirium, delusions, loss of memory, and many other mental disorders. Is it, however, only in this general way, that is, through defective action of the intellect, that freedom and responsibility are lessened or destroyed in persons who are of unsound mind? May not the disease act directly upon the will, compelling the patient to do things that his intellect assures him are wrong? The English courts and almost all the courts of the United States answer this question in the negative. Their practice is to regard a defendant in a criminal case as responsible and punishable if at the time of the crime he knew the difference between right and wrong, or at least knew that his act was contrary to the civil or moral law. For example, a man who, labouring under the insane delusion that another has injured his reputation, kills the latter is presumed to be morally accountable if he realized that the killing was immoral or illegal. In a word, the rule of the courts is that knowledge of wrong implies freedom to avoid it. Medical authorities on insanity are practically unanimous in rejecting this judicial test. Experience, they maintain, shows that many insane persons who can think and reason correctly on every topic except that which forms the subject of their delusion are unable to determine their wills and direct their actions accordingly. In an unsound mind normal intellection is not always accompanied by normal volition. We should expect to find this true from the very nature of the case. For if a diseased brain can interfere with normal thinking it can undoubtedly interfere likewise with normal willing. And there is in the nature of the situation no reason why this deranged condition of the will may not manifest itself in connexion with normal, as well as with abnormal, intellectual action. To assume that the victim of an insane delusion has perfect control over those actions that are apparently not affected by the delusion--actions that he clearly perceives to be wrong, for example--is to assume that the operations of intellect and will are as perfectly harmonized in an unsound as in a sound mind. As a matter of fact, the presumption would seem to lead the other way, that is, to the conclusion that the action of the will as well as that of the intellect will be abnormal. Insanity experts do not, indeed, contend that all the consciously immoral acts of a partially insane person are unfree. They merely insist that these acts cannot be presumed to be free on the simple ground that the patient is aware of their immorality. In their view, the question of freedom and responsibility can be answered only through an examination of all the circumstances of the particular case. The laws of one American state, and of some foreign countries, are in substantial harmony with this doctrine. According to the laws of New York, "No act done by a person in a state of insanity can be punished as an offence." The French law is slightly more specific: "There can be no crime nor offence if the accused was in a state of madness at the time of the act." More specific still is the law of Germany, yet it does not introduce knowledge or advertence as a criterion of responsibility: "An act is not punishable when the person at the time of doing it was in a state of unconsciousness or disease of mind by which a free determination of the will was excluded".In passing it may be observed that the laws of all countries assume that freedom of the will and moral responsibility are realities, and declare that punishment is to be inflicted only when the will has acted freely. The discussion in the last two paragraphs refers especially to delusive insanity, or to what is sometimes called partial intellectual insanity. There is another variety which is even more important as regards the question of moral responsibility. Inasmuch as it involves the will and the emotions rather than the intellect, it is called affective insanity, and it is subdivided into impulsive and moral. According to medical authorities, impulsive insanity may occur without delusions or any other apparent derangement of the intelligence. Those suffering from it are sometimes driven irresistibly to commit actions which they know to be wrong, actions which are contrary to their character, dispositions, and desires. Many suicides and homicides have in consequence of such uncontrollable impulses been committed by persons who were apparently sane in all other respects. Obviously, they were not morally responsible for these crimes. Although this theory runs counter not only to English and American legal procedure, but also to the opinions of the average man, it seems to be established by the history of numerous carefully observed cases, and to provide an explanation for many suicides and murders that are otherwise inexplicable. Moreover, it is inherently probable. Since insanity is a disease of the brain which may affect any of the mental faculties, there seems to be no good reason to deny that it can affect the emotions and the will almost exclusively, leaving the intellectual processes apparently unimpaired. The theory does, indeed, seem to disagree with the doctrine of our textbooks of moral philosophy and theology, which maintains that freedom of the will can be diminished or destroyed only through defective or confused action of the intellect. There is, however, no real opposition except on the assumption that the will and intellect in a diseased mind co-operate and harmonize as perfectly as in a mind that is sane. In the latter the will has power to determine itself in accordance with the ideas and motives presented by the intellect; in the former this power may sometimes be lacking. The inference from intellectual advertence to volitional freedom may, as noted above, be valid in the one case, and quite invalid in the other. This consideration is manifestly of great importance in determining whether a suicide is worthy of Christian burial. If he is afflicted with ideational or impulsive insanity, the mere fact that his intelligence seemed to be normal, and all his acts deliberate, at the time of his self-destruction, is not always conclusive proof of volitional freedom and moral guilt. In what is called moral insanity there is sometimes the same lack of self-control as in impulsive insanity, together with a perversion of the feelings, passions, and moral notions. It constitutes, therefore, an additional obstacle to freedom in so far as it interferes with normal intellectual action through abnormally strong passions and false ideas of right and wrong. Obviously, however, the mere fact that the affections, passions, or moral notions are perverted, for example, with regard to sexual matters, is not always evidence of true insanity, still less of that variety of insanity that directly hampers freedom of the will. Adults who have always been insane can receive baptism, since, as in the case of infants, the Church's intention supplies what is lacking. If they have ever been sane, they can be baptized when in danger of death or or if incurable, provided they had when sane a desire for the sacrament. The insane cannot be sponsors at baptism. They may receive confirmation. Communion should not be given to those who have always been insane. Those who, before becoming insane, were pious and religious, should be given Communion when in danger of death. When there are lucid intervals, Communion may then be administered. The same applies to extreme unction. In Holy orders, insanity is an irregularity under the head of defect. A candidate temporarily insane through some transient and accidental cause may, after recovery, be ordained. One deranged after ordination may exercise his orders, if he regains his sanity. The perpetually insane cannot marry. But "if the patient has lucid intervals, the marriage contracted during such an interval is valid, though it is not safe for him to marry on account of his inability to rear children." (St. Thomas In IV Sent., dist. xxxiv, q. i, art. 4.) Conolly, Construction and Government of Lunatic Asylums (London, 1847); Bucknill and Tuke, Psychological Medicine (London, 1879); Hammond, Treatise on Insanity (New York, 1893); Maudsley, Responsibility in Mental Disease (New York, 1899); Church and Peterson, Nervous and Metal Diseases (Philadelphia, 1901); Walsh, The Popes and Science (New York, 1908); Esquirol, Des maladies mentales (Paris, 1838); Gaupp, Die Entwickelung der Psychiatrie im 19. Jahrhundert(Berlin, 1900); Brockhaus in Konversationslexikon, s. v. Irrenanstalten. JOHN A. RYAN Early Christian Inscriptions Early Christian Inscriptions Inscriptions of Christian origin form, as non-literary remains, a valuable source of information on the development of Christian thought and life in the early Church. They may be divided into three main classes: sepulchral inscriptions, epigraphic records, and inscriptions concerning private life. The material on which they were written was the same as that used for heathen inscriptions. For the first two and most important classes the substance commonly employed was stone of different kinds, native or preferably imported. The use of metal was not so common. When the inscription is properly cut into the stone, it is called a titulus or marble; if merely scratched on the stone, the Italian word graffito is used; a painted inscription is called dipinto, and a mosaic inscription -- such as are found largely in North Africa, Spain, and the East -- bears the name of opus musivum. It was a common practice in Greek and Latin lands to make use of slabs already inscribed, i. e. to take the reverse of a slab containing a heathen inscription for the inscribing of a Christian one; such a slab is called an opisthograph. The form of the Christian inscriptions does not differ from that of the contemporary pagan inscriptions, except when sepulchral in character, and then only in the case of the tituli of the catacombs. The most common form in the East was the upright "stele" (Gk. stele, a block or slab of stone), frequently ornamented with a fillet or a projecting curved moulding; in the West a slab for the closing of the grave was often used. Thus the greater number of the graves (loculi) in the catacombs were closed with thin, rectangular slabs of terra-cotta or marble; the graves called arcosolia were covered with heavy, fiat slabs, while on the sarcophagi a panel (tabula) or a disk (discus) was frequently reserved on the front wall for an inscription. The majority of the early Christian inscriptions, viewed from a technical and palaeographical standpoint, give evidence of artistic decay: this remark applies especially to the tituli of the catacombs, which are, as a rule, less finely executed than the heathen work of the same time. A striking exception is formed by the Damasine letters introduced in the fourth century by Furius Dionysius Filocalus, the calligraphist of Pope Damasus I (q. v.). The other forms of letters did not vary essentially from those employed by the ancients. The most important was the classical capital writing, customary from the time of Augustus; from the fourth century on it was gradually replaced by the uncial writing, the cursive characters being more or less confined to the graffito inscriptions. As to the language, Latin inscriptions are the most numerous, in the East Greek was commonly employed, interesting dialects being occasionally found (e.g. in the recently deciphered Christian inscriptions from Nubia in Southern Egypt). Special mention should also be made of the Coptic inscriptions. The text is very often shortened by means of signs and abbreviations. Specifically Christian abbreviations were found side by side with the usual pagan contractions at an early date. One of the most common of the latter, "D. M." (i. e. Diis Manibus, to the protecting Deities of the Lower World), was stripped of its pagan meaning, and adopted in a rather mechanical way among the formulae of the early Christians. In many cases the dates of Christian inscriptions must be judged from circumstances; when the date is given, it is the consular year. The method of chronological computation varied in different countries. Our present Dionysian chronology (see CHRONOLOGY; DIONYSIUS EXIGUUS) does not appear in the early Christian inscriptions. SEPULCHRAL INSCRIPTIONS The earliest of these epitaphs are characterized by their brevity, only the name of the dead being given. Later a short acclamation was added (e. g. "in God", "in Peace"); from the end of the second century the formulae were enlarged by the addition of family names and the date of burial. In the third and fourth centuries the text of the epitaphs was made more complete by the statement of the age of the deceased, the date (reckoned according to the consuls in office), and laudatory epithets. For these particulars each of the lands comprising the Roman empire had its own distinct expressions, contractions, and acclamations. Large use was made of symbolism (q. v.). Thus the open cross is found in the epitaphs of the catacombs as early as the second century, and from the third to the sixth century the monogrammatic cross in its various forms appears as a regular part of the epitaphs. The cryptic emblems of primitive Christianity are also used in the epitaphs, e.g. the fish (Christ), the anchor (hope), the palm (victory) and the representation of the soul in the other world as a female figure (orante) with arms extended in prayer. Beginning with the fourth century, after the victory of the Church over paganism, the language of the epitaphs was more frank and open. Emphasis was laid upon a life according to the dictates of Christian faith, and prayers for the dead were added to the inscription. The prayers inscribed thus early on the sepulchral slabs reproduce in large measure the primitive liturgy of the funeral service. They implore for the dead eternal peace (see PAX) and a place of refreshment (refrigerium), invite to the heavenly love-feast (Agape), and wish the departed the speedy enjoyment of the light of Paradise, and the fellowship of God and the saints. A Perfect example of this kind of epitaph is that of the Egyptian monk Schenute; it is taken verbally from e ancient Greek liturgy. It begins with the doxology, "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen", and continues: "May the God of the spirit and of all flesh, Who has overcome death and trodden Hades under foot, and has graciously bestowed life on the world, permit this soul of Father Schenute to attain to rest in the bosom of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the place of light and of refreshment, where affliction, pain, and grief are no more. O gracious God, the lover of men, forgive him all the errors which he has committed by word, act, or thought. There is indeed no earthly pilgrim who has not sinned, for Thou alone, O God, art free from every sin." The epitaph repeats the doxology at the close, and adds the petition of the scribe: "O Saviour, give peace also to the scribe." When the secure position of the Church assured greater freedom of expression, the non-religious part of the sepulchral inscriptions was also enlarged. In Western Europe and in the East it was not unusual to note, both in the catacombs and in the cemeteries above ground, the purchase or gift of the grave and its dimensions. Commonly admitted also into the early Christian inscriptions are the pagan minatory formulae against desecration of the grave or its illegal use as a place of further burial. HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL INSCRIPTIONS To many of the early Christian sepulchral inscriptions we are indebted for much information concerning the original development of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, besides which they are of great value as a confirmation of Catholic truths. Thus, for example, from the earliest times we meet in them all the hierarchical grades from the door-keeper (ostiarius) and lector up to the pope (see ORDERS, HOLY). A number of epitaphs of the early popes (Pontianus, Anterus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Eutychianus. Caius) were found in the so-called "Papal Crypt" in the Catacomb of St. Callistus on the Via Appia, rediscovered by De Rossi and well known to every pilgrim to Rome (see CEMETERY, sub-title Early Roman Christian Cemeteries). Numbers of early epitaphs of bishops have been found from Germany to Nubia. Priests are frequently mentioned, and reference is often made to deacons, subdeacons, exorcists, lectors, acolytes, fossores or grave-diggers, alumni or adopted children. The Greek inscriptions of Western Europe and the East yield especially interesting material; in them is found, in addition to other information, mention of archdeacons, archpriests, deaconesses, and monks. Besides catechumens and neophytes, reference is also made to virgins consecrated to God, nuns, abbesses, holy widows, one of the last-named being the mother of Pope St. Damasus I (q. v.), the celebrated restorer of the catacombs. Epitaphs of martyrs and tituli mentioning the martyrs are not found as frequently as one would expect, especially in the Roman catacombs. This, however, is easily explained by recalling the circumstances of burial in the periods of persecution, when Christians must have been contented to save and to give even secret burial to the remains of their martyrs. Many a nameless grave among the five million estimated to exist in the Roman catacombs held the remains of early Christians who witnessed to the Faith with their blood. Another valuable repertory of Catholic theology is found in the dogmatic inscriptions in which all important dogmas of the Church meet (incidentally) with monumental confirmation. The monotheism of the worshippers of the Word -- or Cultores Verbi, as the early Christians loved to style themselves -- and their belief in Christ are well expressed even in the early inscriptions. Very ancient inscriptions emphasize, and with detail the most profound of Catholic dogmas, the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. In this connexion we may mention the epitaph of Abercius (q. v.), Bishop of Hieropolis in Phrygia (second century), and the somewhat later epitaph of Pectorius (q. v.) at Autun in Gaul. The inscription of Abercius speaks of the fish (Christ) caught by a holy virgin, which serves as food under the species of bread and wine; it speaks, further, of Rome, where Abercius visited the chosen people, the Church par excellence. This important inscription aroused at first no little controversy among scholars, and some non-Catholic archaeologists sought to find in it a tendency to pagan syncretism. Now, however, its purely Christian character is almost universally acknowledged. The original was presented by Sultan Abdul Hamid to Leo XIII, and is preserved in the Apostolic Museum at the Lateran. Early Christian inscriptions confirm the Catholic doctrine of the Resurrection, the sacraments, the veneration of the Blessed Virgin, and the primacy of the Apostolic See. It would be difficult to over-estimate the importance of these evidences, for they are always entirely incidental elements of the sepulchral inscriptions, all of which were pre-eminently eschatological in their purpose. POETICAL AND OFFICIAL INSCRIPTIONS While the copious material obtained from the early Christian epitaphs, especially the inscriptions of the Roman (Latin) and the Greek-Oriental groups, is equivalent to a book in stone on the faith and life of our Christian forefathers, the purely literary side of these monuments is not insignificant. Many inscriptions have the character of public documents; others are in verse, either taken from well-known poets, or at times the work of the person erecting the memorial. Fragments of classical poetry, especially quotations from Virgil, are occasionally found. The most famous composer of poetical epitaphs in Christian antiquity was Pope Damasus I (366-384), mentioned above. He repaired the neglected tombs of the martyrs and the graves of distinguished persons who had lived before the Constantinian epoch, and adorned these burial places with metrical epitaphs in a peculiarly beautiful lettering. Nearly all the larger cemeteries of Rome owe to this pope large stone tablets of this character, several of which have been preserved in their original form or in fragments. Besides verses on his mother Laurentia and his sister Irene, he wrote an autobiographical poem in which the Saviour is addressed: "Thou Who stillest the waves of the deep, Whose power giveth life to the seed slumbering in the earth, who didst awaken Lazarus from the dead and give back the brother on the third day to the sister Martha; Thou wilt, so I believe, awake Damasus from death."Eulogies in honour of the Roman martyrs form the most important division of the Damasine inscriptions. They are written in hexameters, a few in pentameters. The best known celebrate the temporary burial of the two chief Apostles in the Platonia under the basilica of St. Sebastian on the Via Appia, the martyrs Protus and Hyacinth in the Via Salaria Antiqua, Pope Marcellus in the Via Salaria Nova, St. Agnes in the Via Nomentana, also Saints Laurence, Hippolytus, Gorgonius, Peter and Marcellinus, Eusebius, Tarsicius, Cornelius, Eutychius, Nereus and Achilleus, Felix and Adauctus. Damasus also placed a metrical inscription in the baptistery of the Vatican, and set up others in connexion with various restorations, e. g. an inscription on a stairway of the cemetery of St. Hermes. Altogether there have been preserved as the work of Damasus more than one hundred epigrammata, some of them originals and others written copies. More than one half are probably correctly ascribed to him, even though it is necessary to remember that after his death Damasine inscriptions continued to be set up, i. e. inscriptions in the beautiful lettering invented by Damasus or rather by his calligrapher Furius Dionysius Filocalus. Some of the inscriptions, which imitate the lettering of Filocalus, make special and laudatory mention of the pope who had done so much for the catacombs. Among these are the inscriptions of Pope Vigilius (537-55), a restorer animated by the spirit of Damasus. Some of his inscriptions are preserved in the Lateran Museum. The inscriptions just mentioned possess as a rule a public and official character. Other inscriptions served as official records of the erection of Christian edifices (churches, baptisteries, etc.). Ancient Roman examples of this kind are the inscribed tablet dedicated by Boniface I at the beginning of the fifth century to St. Felicitas, to whom the pope ascribed the settlement of the schism of Eulalius, and the inscription (still visible) of Pope Pope Sixtus III in the Lateran baptistery, etc. The Roman custom was soon copied in all parts of the empire. At Thebessa in Northern Africa there were found fragments of a metrical inscription once set up over a door, and in almost exact verbal agreement with the text of an inscription in a Roman church. Both the basilica of Nola and the church at Primuliacum in Gaul bore the same distich: Pax tibi sit quicunque Dei penetralia Christi, pectore pacifico candidus ingrederis. (Peace be to thee whoever enterest with pure and gentle heart into the sanctuary of Christ God.) In such inscriptions the church building is generally referred to as domus Dei, domus orationis (the house of God, the house of prayer). The present writer found an inscription with the customary Greek term Kyriou (House of the Lord) in the basilica of the Holy Baths, one of the basilicas of the ancient Egyptian town of Menas. In Northern Africa, especially, passages from the psalms frequently occur in Christian inscriptions. The preference in the East was for inscriptions executed in mosaic; such inscriptions were also frequent in Rome, where, it is well known, the art of mosaic reached very high perfection in Christian edifices. An excellent and well-known example is the still extant original inscription of the fifth century on the wall of the interior of the Roman basilica of Santa Sabina on the Aventine over the entrance to the nave. This monumental record in mosaic contains seven lines in hexameters. On each side of the inscription is a mosaic figure: one is the Ecclesia ex gentibus (Church of the Gentiles), the other the Ecclesia ex circumcisione (Church of the Circumcision). The text refers to the pontificate of Celestine I, during which period an Illyrian priest named Peter founded the church. Other parts of the early Christian churches were also occasionally decorated with inscriptions, e. g. the titles of roofs and walls. It was also customary to decorate with inscriptions the lengthy cycles of frescoes depicted on the walls of churches. Fine examples of such inscriptions have reached us in the "Dittochaeon" of Prudentius, in the Ambrosian tituli, and in the writings of Paulinus of Nola. It should be added that many dedicatory inscriptions belong to the eighth and ninth centuries, especially in Rome, where in the eighth century numerous bodies of saints were transferred from the catacombs to the churches of the city (see CATACOMBS). GRAFFITI Although apparently of little value and devoid of all monumental character, the graffiti (i. e. writings scratched on walls or other surfaces) are of great importance historically and otherwise. Many such are preserved in the catacombs and on various early Christian monuments. Of special importance in this respect are the ruins of the fine edifices of the town of Menas in the Egyptian Mareotis (cf. "Proceedings of Society for Bibl. Archaeology", 1907, pp. 25, 51, 112). The graffiti help in turn to illustrate the literary sources of the life of the early Christians. (See also OSTRAKA.) DE ROSSI, Inscriptiones christian urbis Rom septimo s culo antiquiores (Rome, 1861); LE BLANT, Manuel d'epigraphie chretienne (Paris, 1869); RITTER, De compositione titulorum christianorum sepulcralium (Berlin, 1877); M'CAUL, Christian Epitaphs of the First Six Centuries (London, 1869); NORTHCOTE AND BROWNLOW, Epitaphs of the Catacombs (London, 1879); KAUFMANN, Handbuch der christlichen Archaeologie, pt. III, Epigraphische Denkmaeler (Paderborn, 1905); SYSTUS, Notiones archaeologiae christian, vol. III, pt. I, Epigraphia (Rome, 1909). C. M. KAUFMANN Inspiration of the Bible Inspiration of the Bible The subject will be treated in this article under the four heads: I. Belief in Inspired books; II. Nature of Inspiration; III. Extent of Inspiration; IV. Protestant Views on the Inspiration of the Bible. I. BELIEF IN INSPIRED BOOKS A. Among the Jews The belief in the sacred character of certain books is as old as the Hebrew literature. Moses and the prophets had committed to writing a part of the message they were to deliver to Israel from God. Now the naby (prophet), whether he spoke or wrote, was considered by the Hebrews thw authorized interpreter of the thoughts and wishes of Yahweh. He was called, likewise, "the man of God," "the man of the Spirit" (Osee, ix, 7). It was around the Temple and the Book that the religious and national restoratiion of the Jewish people was effected after their exile (see II Mach., ii, 13, 14, and the prologue of Ecclesiasticus in the Septuagint). Philo (from 20 B.C. to A.D. 40) speaks of the "sacred books", "sacred word", and of "most holy scripture" (De vita Moysis, iii, no. 23). The testimony of Flavius Josephus (A.D. 37-95) is still more characteristic; it is in his writings that the word inspiration (epipnoia) is met for the first time. He speaks of twenty-two books which the Jews with good reason consider Divine, and for which, in case of need, they are ready to die (Contra Apion., I, 8). The belief of the Jews is the inspiration of the Scriptures did not diminsh from the time in which they were dispersed throughout the world, without temple, without altar, without priests; on the contrary this faith increased so much that it took the place of everything else. B. Among the Christians The gospel contains no express declaration about the origin and value of the Scriptures, but in it we see that Jesus Christ used them in conformity with the general belief, i.e. as the Word of God. The most decisive texts in this respect are found in the Fourth Gospel, v, 39; x, 35. The words scripture, Word of God, Spirit of God, God, in the sayings and writings of the Apostles are used indifferently (Rom., iv, 3; ix, 17). St. Paul alone appeals expressly more than eighty times to those Divine oracles of which Israel was made the guardian (cf. Rom., iii, 2). This persuasion of the early Christians was not merely the effect of a Jewish tradition blindly accepted and never understood. St. Peter and St. Paul give the reason why it was accepted: it is that all Scripture is inspired of God (theopneustos) (II Tim., ii, 16; cf. II Pet., i, 20 21). It would be superfluous to spend any time in proving that Tradition has faithfully kept the Apostolic belief in the inspiratiion of Scripture. Moreover, this demonstaration forms the subject-matter of a great number of works (see especially Chr. pesch, "De inspiratione Sacrae Scripturae", 1906, p. 40-379). It is enough for us to add that on several occasions the Church has defined the inspiration of the canonical books as an article of faith (see Denzinger, Enchiridion, 10th ed., n. 1787, 1809). Every Christian sect still deserving that name believes in the inspiration of the Scriptures, although several have more or less altered the idea of inspiration. C. Value of this Belief History alone allows us to establish the fact that Jews and Christians have always believed in the inspiration of the Bible. But what is this belief worth? Proofs of the rational as well as of the dogmatic order unite in justifying it. Those who first recognized in the Bible a superhuman work had as foundation of thier opinion the testimony of the Prophets, of Christ, and of the Apostles, whose Divine mission was sufficiently established by immediate experience or by history. To this purely rational argument can be added the authentic teaching of the Church. A Catholic may claim this additional certitude without falling into a vicious circle, because the infallibility of the Church in its teaching is proved independently of the inspiration of Scripture; the historical value, belonging to Scripture in common with every other authentic and truthful writing, is enough to prove this. II. NATURE OF INSPIRATION A. Method to be followed (1) To determine the nature of Biblical inspiration the theologian has at his disposal a three fold source of information: the data of tradition, the concept of inspiration, and the concrete state of the inspired text. If he wishes to obtain acceptable results he will take into account all of these elements of solution. Pure speculation might easily end in a theory incompatible with the texts. On the other hand, the literary or historical analysis of these same texts, if left to its own resources, ignores their Divine origin. Finally, if the data of tradition attest the fact of inspiration, they do not furnish us with a complete analysis of its nature. Hence, theology, philosophy, and exegesis have each a word to say on this subject. Positive theology furnishes a starting point in its traditional formulae: viz., God is the author of Scripture, the inspired writer is the organ of the Holy Ghost, Scripture is the Word of God. Speculative theology takes these formula, analyses their contents and from them draws its conclusions. In this way St. Thomas, starting from the traditional concept which makes the sacred writer an organ of the Holy Ghost, explains the subordination of his faculties to the action of the Inspirer by the philosophical theory of the instrumental cause (Quodl., VII, Q. vi, a. 14, ad 5um). However, to avoid all risk of going astray, speculation must pay constant attention to the indications furnished by exegesis. (2) The Catholic who wishes to make a correct analysis of Biblical inspiration maust have before his eyes the following ecclesiastical documents: (a) "These books are held by the Church as sacred and canonical, not as having been composed by merely human labour and afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error, but because, written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author, and have been transmitted to the Church as such." (Concil. Vatic., Sess. III, const. dogm, de Fide, cap. ii, in Denz., 1787). (b) "The Holy Ghost Himself, by His supernatural power, stirred up and impelled the Biblical writers to write, and assisted them while writing in such a manner that they conceived in their minds exactly, and determined to commit to writing faithfully, and render in exact language, with infallible truth, all that God commanded and nothing else; without that, God would not be the author of Scripture in its entirety" (Encycl. Provid. Deus, in Dena., 1952). B. Catholic View Inspiration can be considered in God, who produces it; in man, who is its object; and in the text, which is its term. (1) In God inspiration is one of those actions which are ad extra as theologians say; and thus it is common to the three Divine Persons. However, it is attributed by appropriation to the Holy Ghost. it is not one of those graces which have for their immediate and essential object the sanctification of the man who received them, but one of those called antonomastically charismata, or gratis datae, because they are given primarily for the good of thers. Besides, inspiration has this in common with every actual grace, that it si a transitory participation of the Divine power; the inspired wirter finding himself invested with it only at the very moment of writing or when thinking about writing. (2) Considered in the man on whom is bestowed this favour, inspiration affects the will, the intelligence and all the executive faculties of the writer. (a) Without an impulsion given to the will of the writer, it cannot be conceived how God could still remain the principal cause of Scripture, for, in that case, the man would have taken the initiative. Besides that the text of St. Peter is peremptory: "For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost" (II Pet., i, 21). The context shows that there is question of all Scripture, which is a prophecy in the broad sense of the the word (pasa propheteia graphes). According to the Encyclical Prov. Deus, "God stirred up and impelled the sacred writers to determine to write all that God meant them to write" (Denz., 1952). Theologians discuss the question whether, in order to impart this motion, God moves the will of the writer directly or decides it by proposing maotvies of an intellectual order. At any rate, everybody admits that the Holy Ghost can arouse or simply utilize external influences capable of acting on the will of the sacred writer. According to an ancient tradition, St. Mark and St. John wrote their Gospels at the instance of the faithful. What becomes of human liberty under the influence of Divine inspiration? In principle, it is agreed that the Inspirer can take away from man the power of refusal. In point of fact, it is commonly admitted that the Inspirer, Who does not lack means of obtaining our consent, has respected the freedom of His instruments. An inspiration which is not accompanied by a revelation, which is adapted to the normal play of the faculties of the human soul, which can determine the will of the inspired writer by motives of a human order, does not necessarily suppose that he who is its object is himself conscious of it. If the prophet and the author of the Apcoalypse know and say that their pen is guided by the Spirit of God, other Biblical authors seem rather to have been led by "some mysterious influence whose origin was either unknown or not clearly discerned by them." (St. Aug., De Gen. ad litt., II, xvii, 37; St. Thomas II-II, Q. clxxi, a. 5; Q. cixxiii, a.4). However, most theologians admit that ordinarily the writer was conscious of his ow inspiration. From waht we have just said it follows that inspiration does not necessarily imply exstasy, as Philo and, later, the Montanists thought. It is true that some of the orthodox apologists of the second century (Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, St. Justin) have, in the description which they give of Biblical inspiration, been somehat influenced by the ideas of divination then current amongst the pagans. They are too prone to represent the Biblical writer as a purely passive intermediary, something after the style of the Pythia. Nevertheless, they did not make him out to be an energumen for all that. The Divine intervention, if one is conscious of it, can certainly fill the human soul with a certain awe; but it does not throw it into a state of delirum. (b) To induce a person to write is not to take on oneself the responsibility of that writing, more especially it is not to become the author of that writing. If God can claim the Scripture as His own work, it is because He has brought even the intellect of the inspired writer under His command. However, we must not represent the Inspirer as putting a ready amde book in the mind of the inspired person. Nor has He necessarily to reveal the contens of the work to be produced. No matter where the knowledge of the writer on this point comes from, whether it be acquired naturally or due to Divine revelation, inspiration has not essentially for its object to teach somethin new to the sacred writer, but to render him capable of writing with Divine authority. Thus the author of the Acts of the Apostles narrates events in which he himself took part, or which were related to him. It is highly probable that most of the sayings of the Book of Proverbs were familiar to the sages of the East, before being set down in an inspired writing. God, inasmuch as he is the principal cause, when he inspires a writer, subordinates all that writer's cognitive faculties so as to make him accomplish the different actions which would be naturally gone through by a man who, first of all, has the design of composing a book, then gets together his materials, subjects them to a critical examination, arranges them, makes them enter into his plan, and finally brands them with the mark of his personality -- i.e. his own pecualiar style. The grace of inspiration does not exempt the writer from personal effort, nor does it insure the perfection of his work from an artistic point of view. The author of the the Second Book of Machabeees and St. Luke tell the reader of the pains they took to document their work (II mach., ii, 24-33; Luke, i, 1-4). The imperfections of the work are to be attributed to the instrument. God can, of course, prepare this instrument beforehand, but, a the time of using it, He does not ordinarily make any change in its conditions. When the Creator applies His power to the faculties of a creature outside of the ordinary way, he does so in a manner in keeping with the natural activity of these faculties. Now, in all languages recourse is had to the comparison of light to explain the nature of the human intelligence. That is why St. Thomas (II-II, Q. clxxi, a. 2; Q. clxxiv, a. 2, ad 3um) gives the name of light or illumination to the intellectual motion communicated by God to the sacred wirter. After him, then, we may say that this motion is a pecualir supernatural participation of the Divine light, in virtue of which the writer conceives exactly the work that the Holy Ghost wants him to write. Thanks to this help given to his intellect, the inspired writer judges, with a certitude of Divene order, not only of the opportuneness of the book to be written, but also of the truth of the details and of the whole. However, all theologians do not analyse exactly in the same manner the influence of this light of inspiration. (c) The influence of the Holy Ghost had to extend also to all the executive faculties of the sacred writer -- to his memory, his imagination, and even to the hand with which he formed the letters. Whether this influence proceed immediatley from the action of the Inspirer or be a simple assistance, and, again, whether this assistance be positive or merely negative, in any case everyone admits that its object is to remove all error from the inspired text. Those who hold that even the words are inspired believe that it also forms an integral part of the grace of inspiration itself. However that may be, there is no denying that the inspiration extends, in one way or aother, and as far as needful, to all those who have really cooperated in the composition of the sacred test, especially to the secretaries, if the inspired person had any. Seen in this light, the hagiographer no longer appears a passive and inert instrument, abased as it were, by an exterior impulsion; on the contrary, his faculties are elevated to the service of a superior power, whihc, although distinct, is none the less intimately present and interior. Without losing anything of his personal life, or of his liberty, or even of his spontaneity (since it may happen that he is not conscious of the power which leads him on), man becomes thus the interpreter of God. Such, then is the most comprehensive notion of Divine inspiration. St. Thomas (II-II, Q., cixxi) reduces it to the grace of prophecy, in the broad sense of the word. (3) Considered in its term, inspiration is nothing else but the biblical text itself. This text was destined by God, Who inspired it, for the universal Church, in order that it might be authentically recognized as His written word. This destination is essential. Without it a book, even if it had been inspired by God, could not become canonical; it would have no more value than a private revelation. That is why any writing dated from a later period than the Apostolical age is condemned ipso facto to be excluded from the canon. The reason of this is that the deposit of the public revelation was complete in the time of the Apostles. they alone had the mission to give to the teaching of Christ the development which was to be opportunely suggested to them by the Paraclete, John xiv, 26 (see Franzelin, De divina Traditione et Scriptura (Rome, 1870), thesis xxii). Since the Bible is the Word of God, it can be said that every canonical text is for us a Divine lesson, a revelation, even though it may have been written with the aid of inspiration only, and without a revelation properly so called. For this cause, also, it is clear that an inspired text cannot err. That the Bible is free from error is beyond all doubt, the the teaching of Tradition. The whole of Scriptural apologetics consists precisley in accounting for this exceptional prerogative. Exegetes and apologists have recourse here to considerations which may be reduced to the following heads: + the original unchanged text, as it left the pen of the sacred writers, is alone in question. + As truth and error are properties of judgment, only the assertiions of the sacred writer have to be dealt with. If he makes any affirmation, it is the exegete s duty to discover its meaning and extent; whether he expresses his own views or those of others; whether in quoting another he approves, disapproves, or keeps a silent reserve, etc. + The intention of the writer is to be found out according to the laws of the language in which he writes, and consequently we must take into account the style of literatur he wished to use. All styles are compatible with inspiration, because they are all legitimate expressions of human thought, and also, as St. Augustine says (De Trinitate, I, 12), "God, getting books written by men, did not wish them to be composed in a form differing from that used by them." Therefore, a distinciton is to be made between the assertion and the expression; it is by means of the latter that we arrive at the former. + These general principles are to be applied to the different books of the Bible, mutatis mutandis, according to the nature of the matter contained in them, the special purpose for which their author wrote them, the traditional explanation which is given of them, the traditional explanation which is given of them, and also according to the decisions of the Church. C. Erroneous Views Proposed by Catholic Authors (1) Those which are wrong because insufficient. (a) The approbation given by the Church to a merely human writing cannot, by itself, make it inspired Scripture. The contrary opinion hazarded by Sixtus of Siena (1566), renewed by Movers and Haneberg, in the nineteenth centruy, was condemned by the Vatican Council. (See Denz., 1787). (b) Biblical inspiration even where it seems to be at its minimum -- e.g., in the historical books -- is not a simple assistance given to the inspired writers to prevent him from erring, as was thought by Jahn (1793), who followed Holden and perhaps Richard Simon. In order that a text may be Scripture, it is not enough "that it contain revelation without error" (Conc. Vatic., Denz., 1787). (c) A book composed from merely human resources would not become an inspired text, even if approved of, afterwards, by the Holy Ghost. This subsequent approbation might make the truth contained in the book as credible as if it were an article of the Divine Faith, but it would not give a Divine origin to the book itself. Every inspiration properly so called is antecedent, so much so that it is a contradiciton in terms to speak of a subsequent inspiration. This truth seems to have been lost sight of by those moderns who thought they could revive-at the same time making it still less acceptable -- a vague hypothesis of Lessius (1585) and of his disciple Bonfrere. (1) Those which err by excess A view which errs by excess confounds inspiration with revelation. We have just said that these two Divine operations are not only distinct but may take place separately, although they may also be found together. As a matter of fact, this is what happens whenever God moves the sacred writer to express thoughts or sentiments of which he cannot have acquired knowledge in the ordinary way. There has been some exaggeration in the accusation brought against early writers of having confounded inspiration with revelation; however, it must be admitted that the explicit distinction between these two graces has become more and more emphasized since the time of St. Thomas. This is a very real progress and allows us to make a more exact psychological analysis of inspiration. III. EXTENT OF INSPIRATION The question now is not whether all the Biblical books are inspired in every part, even in the fragments called deuterocanonical: this point, which concerns the integrity of the Canon, has been solved by the Council of Tent (Denz., 784). but are we bound to admit that, in the books or parts of books which are canonical, there is absolutely nothing, either as regards the matter or the form, which does not fall under the Divine inspiration? A. Inspiration of the Whole Subject Matter For the last three centuries there have been author-theologians, exegetes, and especially aplogists -- such as Holden, Rohling, Lenormant, di Bartolo, and others -- who maintained, with more or less confidence, that inspiration was limited to moral and dogmatic teaching, excluding everything in the Bible relating to history and the natural sciences. They think that, in this way, a whole mass of difficulties against the inerrancy of the bible would be removed. but the Church has never ceased to protest against this attempt to restrict the inspiration of the sacred books. This is what took place when Mgr d Hulst, Rector of the Institut Catholique of paris, gave a sympathetic account of this opinion in "Le Correspondant" of 25 Jan., 1893. The reply was quickly forthcoming in the Encyclical Providentissimus Deus of the same year. In that Encyclical Leo XIII said: It will never be lawful to restrict inspiration merely to certain parts of the Holy Scriptures, or to grant that the sacred writer could have made a mistake. Nor may the opinion of those be tolerated, who, in order to get out of these difficulties, do not hesitate to suppose that Divine inspiration extends only to what touches faith and morals, on the false plea that the true meaning is sought for less in what God has said than in the motive for which He has said it. (Denz., 1950) In fact, a limited inspiration contradicts Christian tradition and theological teaching. B. Verbal Inspiration Theologians discuss the question, whether inspiration controlled the choice of the words used or operated only in what concerned the sense of the assertions made in the Bible. In the sixteenth century verbal inspiratiion was the current teaching. The Jesuits of Louvain were the first to react against this opinion. They held "that it is not necessary in order that a text be Holy Scripture, for the Holy Ghost to have inspired the very material words used." The protests against this new opinion were so violent that Bellarmine and Suarez thought it their duty to tone down the formula by declaring "that all the words of the text have been dictated by the Holy Ghost in what concerns the substance, but differently according to the diverse conditiions of the instruments." This opinion went on gaining in precision, and little by little it disentangled itself from the terminology which it had borrowed from the the adverse opinion, notably from the word "dictation." Its progress was so rapid that at the beginning of the nineteenth century it was more commonly taught than the theory of verbal inspiration. Cardinal Franzelin seems to have given it its definite form. During the last quarter of a century verbal inspiration has again found partisans, and they become more numerous every day. However, the theologians of today, whilst retaining the terminology of the older school, have profoundly modified the theory itself. They no longer speak of a material dictation of words to the ear of the writer, nor of an interior revelation of the term to be employed, but of a Divine motion extending to every faculty and even to the powers of execution to the writer, and in consequence influencing the whole work, even its editing. Thus the sacred text is wholly the work of God and wholly the work of man, of the latter, by way of instrument, of the former by way of principal cause. Under this rejuvenated form the theory of verbal inspiration shows a marked advance towards reconcilation with the rival opinion. From an exegetical and apologetical point of view it is indifferent which of these two opinions we adopt. All agree that the characteristics of style as well as the imperfections affecting the subject matter itself, belong to the inspired writer. As for the inerrancy of the inspired text it is to the Inspirer that it must be finally attributed, and it matters little if God has insured the truth of His Scripture by the grace of inspiration itself, as the adherents of verbal inspiration teach, rather than by a providential assistance. IV. PROTESTANT VIEWS ON THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE A. At the Beginning of the Reformation (1) As a necessary consequence of their attitude towards the Bible, which they had taken as their only rule of Faith, the Protestants were led at the very outset to go beyond the ideas of a merely passive inspiration, which was commonly received in the first half of the sixteenth century. Not only did they make no distinction between inspiration and revelation, but Scripture, both in its matter and style, was considered as revelation itself. In it God spoke to the reader just as He did to the Israelites of old from the mercy-seat. Hence that kind of cult which some protestants of today call "Bibliolatry." In the midst of the incertitude, vagueness, and antinomies of those early times, when the Reformation like Luther himself, was trying to find a way and a symbol, one can discern a constant preoccupation, that of indissolubly joining religious belief to the very truth of God by means of His written Word. The Lutherans who devoted themselves to composing the Protestant theory of inspiration were Melanchthon, Chemzitz, Quenstedt, Calov. Soon, to the inspiration of the words was added that of the vowel points of the present Hebrew text. This was not a mere opinion held by the two Buxtorfs, but a doctrine defined, and imposed under pain of imprisonment, and exile, by the Confession of the Swiss Churches, promulgated in 1675. These dispositions were abrogated in 1724. The Purists held that in the Bible there are neither barbarisms nor solecisms; that the Greek of the New Testament is as pure as that of the classical authors. It was said, with a certain amount of truth, that the Bible had become a sacrament for the Reformers. (2) In the seventeenth century began the controversies which, in course of time, were to end in the theory of inspiration now generally accepted by Protestants. The two principles which brought about the Reformation were precisely the instruments of this revolution; on the one side, the claim for every human soul of a teaching of the the Holy Ghost, which was immediate and independent of of every exterior rule; on the other, the right of private judgment, or autonomy of individual reasoning, in reading and studying the Bible. In the name of the first principle, on which Zwingli had insisted more than Luther and Calvin, the Pietists thought to free themselves from the letter of the Bible which fettered the action of the Spirit. A French Huguenot, Seb. Castellion (d. 1563), had already been bold enough to distinguish between the letter and the spirit; according to him the spirit only came from God, the letter was no more than a "case, husk, or shell of the spirit." The Quakers, the followers of Swedenborg, and the Irvingites were to force this theory to its utmost limits; real revealation -- the only one which instructs and sanctifies -- was that produced under the immediate influence of the Holy Ghost. While the Pietists read their Bible with the help of interior illumination alone, others, in even greater numbers, tried to get some light from philological and historical researches which had received their decisive impulse from the Renaissance. Every facility was assured to their investigations by the principle of freedom of private judgment; and of this they took advantage. The conclusions obtained by this method could not be fatal to the theory of inspiration by revelation. In vain did its partisans say that God's will had been to reveal to the Evangelists in four different ways the words which, in reality, Christ had uattered only once; that the Holy Ghost varied His style accoring as he was dictation to Isaias or to Amos -- such an explanation was nothing short of an avowal of the ability to meet the facts alleged against them. As a matter of fact, Faustus Socinus (d. 1562) had already held that the words and, in general, the style of Scripture were not inspired. Soon afterwards, George Calixtus, Episcopius, and Grotinus made a clear distinction between inspiration and revelation. According to the last-named, nothing was revealed but the prophecies and the words of Jesus Christ, everything else was only inspired. Still further, he reduces inspiration to a pious motion of the sould {see "Votum pro pace Ecclesiae" in his complete works, III (1679), 672}. The Dutch Arminian school then represented by J. LeClerc, and, in France, by L. Capelle, Daille, Blondel, and other, followed the same course. Although they kept current terminology, they made it apparent, nevertheless, that the formula, "The Bible is the Word of God," was already about to be replaced by "The Bible contains the Word of God." Morever, the term word was to be taken in an equivocal sense. B. Biblical Rationalism In spite of all, the Bible was still held as the criterion of religious belief. To rob it of this prerogative was the work which the eighteenth century set itself to accomplish. In the attack then made on the Divine inspiration of the Scriptures three classes of assailants are to be distinguished. (1) The Naturalist philosophers, who were the forerunners of modern unbelief (Hobbes, Spinoza, Wolf); the English Deists (Toland, Collins, Woolston, Tindal, Morgan); the German Rationalists (Reimarus, Lessing); the French Encyclopedists (Voltaire, Bayle) strove by every means, not forgetting abuse and sarcasm, to prove how absurd it was to claim a Divine origin for a book in which all the blemishes and errors of human writings are to be found. (2) The critics applied to the Bible, the methods adopted for the study of profane authors. They, from the literary and historic point of view, reached the same conclusion as the infidel philosophers; but they thought they could remain believers by distinguishing in the Bible between the religious and the profane element. The latter they gave up to the free judgment of historical criticism; the former they pretended to uphold, but not without restrictions, which profoundly changed its import. According to Semler, the father of Biblical Rationalism, Christ and the Apostles accommodated themselves to the false opinions of their contemporaries; according to Kant and Eichborn, everything which does not agree with sane reason must be regarded as Jewish invention. Religion restricted within the limits of reason -- that was the point which the critical movement initiated by Grotius and LeClerc had in common with the philosophy of Kant and the theology of Wegscheider. The dogma of plenary inspiration dragged down with it, in its final ruin, the very notion of revelation (A. Sabatier, Les religions d'autorite et la religion de l'espirit, 2nd ed., 1904, p. 331). (3) These philosophical historical controversiers about Scriptural authority caused great anxiety in religious minds. There were many who then sought their salvation in one of the principles put forward by the earlly Reformers, notably by Calvin: to wit, that truly Christian certitude came from the testimony of the Holy Spirit. Man had but to sound his own soul in order to find the essence of religion, which was not a science, but a life, a sentiment. Such was the verdict of the Kantian philosophy then in vogue. It was useless, from the religious point of view, to discuss the extrinsic claims of the Bible; far better was the moral experience of its intrinisc worth. The Bible itself was nothing but a hostory of the religious experiences of the Prophets, of Christ and His Apostles, of the Synagogue and of the Church. Truth and Faith came not from without, but sprang from the Christian conscience as their source. Now this conscience was awakened and sustained by the narration of the religious experiences of those who had gone before. What mattered, then, the judgment passed by criticism on the historical truth of this narration, if it only evoked a salutary emotion in the soul? Here the useful alone was true. Not the text, but the reader was inspired. Such, in its broad outlines, was the final stage of a movement which Spener, Wesley, the Moravian Brethren, and, generally, the Pietists initiated, but of which Schleiermacher (1768-1834) was to be the theologian and the propagator in the nineteenth century. C. Present Conditions (1) The traditional views, however, were not abandoned without resistance. A movement back to the old idea of the theopneustia, including verbal inspiration, set in nearly everywhere in the first half of the nineteenth century. This reaction was called the Reveil. Among its principal promoters must be mentioned the Swiss L. Gaussen, W. Lee, in England, A. Dlorner in Germany, and, more recently, W. Rohnert. their labours at first evoked interest and sympathy, but were destined to fail before the efforts of a counter-reaction which sought to complete the work of Schleiermacher. it was led by Alex, Vinet, Edm. Scherer, and E. Rabaud in France; Rich. Rothe and especially Ritschl in Germany; S.T. Coleridge, F.D. Maurice, and Matthew Arnold in England. According to them, the ancient dogma of the theopneustia is not to be reformed, but given up altogether. In the heat of the struggle, however, university professors like E. Reuss, freely used the historical method; without denying inspiration they ignored it. (2) Abstracting from accidental differences, the present opinion of the so-called progressive Protestants (who profess, nevertheless, to remain sufficiently orthodox), as represented in Germany by B. Weiss, R.F. Grau, and H Cremer, in England by W. Sanday, C. Gore, and most Anglican scholars, may be reduced to the following heads: (a) the purely passive, mechanical theopneustia, extending to the very words, is no longer tenable. (b) Inspiration had degrees: suggestion, direction, elevation, and superintendency. All the sacred writers have not been equally inspired. (c) Inspiration is personal that is, given directly to the sacred writer to enlighten, stimulate, and purify his faculties. This religious enthusiasm, like every great passion, exalts the powers of the soul; it belongs, therefore, to the spiritual order, and is not merely a help given immediately to the intellect. Biblical inspiration, being a seizure of the ntire man by the Divine virtue, does not differ essentially from the gift of the Holy Spirit imparted to all the faithful. (d) It is, to say the least, an improper use of language to call the sacred text itself inspired. At any rate, this text can, and actually does, err not only in profane matters, but also in those appertaining more or less to religion, since the Prophets and Christ Himself, notwithstanding His Divinity, did not possess absolute infallibility. (Cf. Denney, A Dict. of Christ and the Gospels, I, 148-49.) The Bible is a historical document which taken in its entirety contains the authentic narrative of revelation, the tidings of salvation. (c) Revealed truth, and, consequently, the Faith we derive from it are not founded on the Bible, but on Christ himself; it is from Him and through Him that the written text acquires definitely all its worth. But how are we to reach the historical reality of Jesus -- His teaching, His institutions -- if Scripture, as well as Tradition, offers us no faithful picture? The question is a painful one. To establish the inspiration and Divine authority of the Bible the early Reformers had substituted for the teaching of the Church internal criteria, notably the interior testimony of the Holy Spirit and the spiritual efficacy of the text. Most Protestant theologians of the present day agree in declaring these criteria neither scientific nor traditional; and at any rate they consider them insufficient. (On the true criterion of inspiration see CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.) They profess, consequently, to supplement them, if not to replace them altogether, by a rational demonstration of the autheticity and substantial trustworthiness of the Biblical text. The new method may well provide a starting-point for the fundamental theology of Revelation, but it cannot supply a complete justification of the Canon, as it has been so far maintained in the Churches of the Reformation. Anglican theologians, too, like Gore and Sanday, gladly appeal tot he dogmatic testimony of the collective conscience of the universal Church; but, in so doing, they break with one of the first principles of the Reformation, the autonomy of the individual conscience. (3) The position of liberal Protestants (i.e. those who are independent of all dogma) may be easily defined. The Bible is just like other texts, neither inspired nor the rule of Faith. Religious belief is quite subjective. So far is it from depending on the dogmatic or even historical authority of a book that it gives to it, itself, its real worth. When religious texts, the Bible included, are in question, history -- or, at least, what people generally believe to historical -- is largely a product of faith, whcih has transfigured the facts. The authors of the Bible may be called inspired, that is endowed with a superior perception of religious matters; but this religious enthusiasm does not differ essentially from that which animated Homer and Plato. This is the denial of everything supernatural, in the ordinary sense of the word, as well in the Bible as in religion in general. Nevertheless, those who hold this theory defend themselves from the charge of infidelity, especially repudiating the cold Rationalism of the last century, which was made up exclusively of negations. They think that they remain sufficiently Christian by adhering to the religious sentiment to which Christ ahs given the most perfect expression yet known. Following Kant, Schleiermacher, and Ritschl, they profess a religion freed from all philosophical intellectualism and from every historical proof. Facts and formulae of the past have, in their eyes, only a symbolic and a transient value. Such is the new theology spread by the best-known professors and writers especially in Germany -- historians, exegetes, philologists, or even pastors of souls. We need only mention Harnack, H.J. Holtzmann, Fried. Delitzsch, Cheyne, Campbell, A. Sabatier, Albert and John Reville. it is to this transformation of Christianity that "Modernism", condemned by the Encyclical Pascendi Gregis, owes its origin. In modern Protestantism the Bible has decidely fallen from the primacy which the Reformation had so loudly conferred upon it. The fall is a fatal one, becoming deeper from day to day; and without remedy, since it is the logical consequence of the fundamental principle put forward by Luther and Calvin. Freedom of examination was destined sooner or later to produce freedom of thought. (Cf. A. Sabatier, Les religions d'autorite et la religion de l'espirite, 2nd ed., 1904, pp. 399-403.) CATHOLIC WORKS.-FRANZELIN, Tractatus de divina traditione et scriptura (2nd ed., Rome, 1875), 321-405; SCHMID, De inspirationis bibliorum vi et ratione (Louvain, 1886); ZANECCHIA, Divina inspiratio Sacrae Scripturae (Rome, 1898); Scriptor Sacer (Rome, 1903); BILLOT, De inspiratione Sacrae Scripturae (Rome, 1903); CH. PESCH, De inspiratione Sacrae Scripturae (Freiburg im Br., 1906); LAGRANGE in Revue Biblique (Paris, 1895), p. (London,6 Nov., 1897, to 5 Feb., 1898); HUMMELAUER, Exegetisches zur Inspirationsfrage (Freiburg im Br., 1904); FONCK, Der Kampf um die Warheit der heil. Schrift seit 25 Jahren (Innsburck, 1905); DAUSCH, Die Schrifitnspiration (Freiburg im Br., 1891); HOLZHEY, Die Inspiration de heil. Schrift in der Anschauung des Mittelaters (Munich, 1895); CH. PESCH, Zur neuesten Geschichte der Katholischen Inspirationslehre (Freiburg im Br., 1902) PROTESTANT WORKS.-GUSSEN, Theopneustic (2nd ed., Paris, 1842), tr. Pleanry Inspiration of Holy Scripture; LEE, Inspiration of Holy Scripture (Dublin, 1854); ROHNERT, Die Inspiration, der heil, Schrift und ihre Bestreiter (Leipzig, 1889); SANDAY, The oracles of God (London, 1891); FARRAR, The Bible, Its meaning and Supremacy (London, 1897); History of Interpretation (London 1886); A Clerical Symposium on Inspiration (London, 1884); RABAUD, Histoire de la doctrine de l inspriaation dans les pays de langue francaise depuis la Reforme jusqu a nos jours (Paris, 1883). ALFRED DURAND Installation Installation (Lat. installare, to put into a stall). This word, strictly speaking, applies to the solemn induction of a canon into the stall or seat which he is to occupy in the choir of a cathedral or collegiate church. It is the symbolical act (institutio corporalis) by which a canon is put in possession of the functions which he exercises in the chapter, and by which the chapter admits him. The ceremonies of this installation are regulated by local usage; very often they consist in the assignment of a staff in the choir and a place in the hall in which the meetings of the chapter are held. At the same time the dean invests the new canon with the capitular insignia, puts the biretta on his head, and receives his profession of faith and his oath to observe the statutes of the chapter. The term installation is also applied to the institutio corporalis, or putting in possession of any ecclesiastical benefice whatsoever (see INSTITUTION, CANONICAL); or, again, to the solemn entry of a parish priest into his new parish, even when this solemn act takes place after the parish priest has really been put in possession of his benefice. The corresponding ceremony for a bishop is known as enthronization (q.v.). AYERR, De symbolica canonicorum et canonicarum investitura (Goettingen, 1768); MAYER, Thesaurus novus juris ecclesiastici (Ratisbon, 1791-1794); FERRARIS, Prompta bibliotheca, s.v. Canonicatus, II (Paris, 1861), 134-138; HINSCHIUS, System des katholischen Kirchenrechts, II (Berlin, 1878), 700. A. VAN HOVE Instinct Instinct DEFINITIONS In both popular and scientific literature the term instinct has been given such a variety of meanings that it is not possible to frame for it an adequate definition which would meet with general acceptance. The term usually includes the idea of a purposive adaptation of an action or series of actions in an organized being, not governed by consciousness of the end to be attained. The difficulty is encountered when we attempt to add to this generic concept specific notes which shall differentiate it from reflex activities on the one hand and from intelligent activities on the other. Owing to the limitation of our knowledge of the processes involved, it may not always be possible to determine whether a given action should be regarded as reflex or instinctive, but this should not prevent us from drawing, on theoretical grounds, a clear line of demarcation between these two modes of activity. The reflex is essentially a physiological process. The reflex arc is an established neural mechanism which secures a definite and immediate response to a given physical stimulus. The individual may be conscious of the stimulus or of the response or of both, but consciousness does not in any case enter into the reflex as an essential factor. Instincts, in contradistinction to reflexes, are comparatively complex. Some writers are so impressed with this characteristic of instinct that they are disposed to agree with Herbert Spencer in defining it as an organized series of reflexes, but this definition fails to take into account the fact that consciousness forms an essential link in all instinctive activities. It has been suggested as a distinctive characteristic of instinct that it arises from perception, whereas the Source of a reflex is never higher than a sensation. Baldwin includes under instinct only reactions of a sensory-motor type. From a neurological point of view, in mammals at least, instinct always involves the cerebral cortex, the seat of consciousness, while the reflex is confined to the lower nerve centres. An obvious difference between reflexes and instincts is to be found in the fact that in the reflex the response to the stimulus is immediate, whereas the culmination of the instinctive activity, in which its purposive character appears, may be delayed for a considerable time. The chief difficulties in defining instinct are encountered in differentiating instinctive from intelligent activities. If the mode of origin of instinct and habit be left out of account, the two processes will be seen to resemble each other so closely that it is well-nigh impossible to draw any clear line of distinction between them. This circumstance has led to the popular conception of instinct as race habit, a view of the subject which finds support in so eminent an authority as Wilhelm Wundt; but this definition implies a theory of origin for instinct which is not universally accepted. Again, the Schoolmen and many competent observers, among whom E. Wasmann, S.J., is prominent, find the characteristic difference between instinctive and intelligent activities in the fact that one is governed exclusively by sensation, or by sensory associative processes, while the other is governed by intellect and free will. They accordingly attribute all the conscious activities of the animal to instinct, since, as they claim, none of these activities can be traced to intellect in the strict sense of the word. St. Thomas nowhere treats in detail of animal instinct, but his position on the subject is rendered none the less clear from a great many passages in the "Summa Theologica". He is in full agreement with the best modern authorities in laying chief emphasis on the absence of consciousness of the end as the essential characteristic of instinct. He says (op. cit., I-II, Q. xi, a. 2, C.): "Although beings devoid of consciousness (coqnitio) attain their end, nevertheless they do not attain a fruition of their end, as beings do who are endowed with consciousness. Consciousness of one's end, however, is of two kinds, perfect and imperfect. Perfect consciousness is that by which one is conscious not only of the end, and that it is good, but also of the general nature of purpose and goodness. This kind of consciousness is peculiar to rational natures. Imperfect consciousness is that by which a being knows the purpose and goodness in particular, and this kind of consciousness is found in brute animals, which are not governed by free will but are moved by natural instinct towards those things which they apprehend. Thus the rational creature attains complete enjoyment (fruitio); the brute attains imperfect enjoyment, and other creatures do not attain enjoyment at all." Wasmann's concept of instinct is in strict agreement with that of St. Thomas, while it is more explicit. He divides the instinctive activities of animals into two groups: "Instinctive actions in the strict, and instinctive actions in the wider acceptation of the term. As instances of the former class we have to regard those which immediately spring from the inherited dispositions of the powers of sensile cognition and appetite; and as instances of the latter those which indeed proceed from the same inherited dispositions but through the medium of sense experience." (Instinct and Intelligence in the Animal Kingdom, p. 35.) There is a growing tendency in biology and comparative psychology to restrict the term instinct to inherited purposive adaptations. Many writers add to this two other characteristics: they insist that an instinct must be definitely fixed or rigid in character, and that it must be common to a large group of individuals. Baldwin regards instinct as "a definitely biological, not a psychological conception" (Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology). He adds that "no adequate psychological definition of instinct is possible, since the psychological state involved is exhausted by the terms sensation (and also perception), instinct-feeling, and impulse." (Ibid.) The divergent views entertained by writers on the subject concerning the nature and origin of instinct naturally find expression in the currently accepted definitions of the term, a few of which are here appended : -- + "Instinct, natural inward impulse; unconscious, involuntary or unreasoning prompting to any mode of action, whether bodily or mental. instinct, in its more technical use, denotes any inherited tendency to perform a specific action in a specific way when the appropriate situation occurs; furthermore, an instinct is characteristic of a group or race of related animals." (New International Dictionary.) + "Instinct, a special innate propensity, in any organized being, but more especially in the lower animals, producing effects which appear to be those of reason and knowledge, but which transcend the general intelligence or experience of the creature; the sagacity of the brute." (Century Dictionary.) + "Instinct, an inherited reaction of the sensory-motor type, relatively complex and markedly adaptive in character, and common to a group of individuals." (Baldwin, "Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology ".) + "Instinct is the hereditary, suitable (adaptive) disposition of the powers of sensitive cognition and appetite in the animal." (Wasmann, op. cit., 36.) + "Habit differs from instinct, not in its nature, but in its origin; the last being natural, the first acquired." (Reid.) + "Instinct is a purposive action without consciousness of the purpose." (E. von Hartmann, "Philosophy of the Unconscious", tr. Coupland.) + "Instinct is reflex action into which there is imported the element of consciousness. The term is therefore a generic one, comprising all those faculties of mind which are concerned in conscious and adaptive action, antecedent to individual experience, without necessary knowledge of the relation to individual experience, without necessary knowledge of the relation between means employed and ends attained, but similarly performed under similar and frequently recurring circumstances by all the individuals of the same species." (Romanes, "Animal Intelligence", New York, 1892, p. 17.) + "Movements which originally followed upon simple or compound voluntary acts, but which have become wholly or partially mechanized in the course of individual life and of generic evolution, we term instinctive actions." (Wundt, "Human and Animal Psychology", London, 1894, p. 388.) ORIGIN A great many theories have been advanced to account for the origin of instinct. These theories may be grouped under three heads: (a) reflex theories, (b) theories of lapsed intelligence, and (c) the theory of organic selection. The name of Charles Darwin has been prominently associated with the reflex theory, sometimes called the theory of natural selection. This assumes that instincts, like anatomical structures, tend to vary from the specific type, and these variations, when advantageous to the species, are gradually accumulated though natural selection. In his chapter on instinct in the "Origin of Species", Darwin says: "It will be universally admitted that instincts are as important as corporal structures for the welfare of each species under its present conditions of life. Under changed conditions of life, it is at least possible that slight modifications of instinct might be profitable to a species; and if it can be shown that instincts do vary ever so little, then I can see no difficulty in natural selection preserving and continually accumulating variations of instinct to any extent that was profitable. It is thus, as I believe, that all the most complex and wonderful instincts have originated." (Op. cit., New York, 1892, vol. I, p. 321.) The difficulty with this theory is that it fails to account for the survival of the early beginnings of an instinct before it is of utility. It has also been urged against it that it does not account for the co-ordination of the muscular groups which are frequently involved in instinct. Similar objections, of course, have been urged against natural selection as the origin of many complex anatomical structures. The adaptive character, in the one case as in the other, points to the operation of an intelligence that altogether transcends the scope of the mental powers of the creatures in question. The second theory, that of lapsed intelligence, has assumed many forms, and has found many defenders among comparative psychologists and biologists during the last half century. Among the best-known authors espousing this theory may be mentioned Wundt, Eimer, and Cope. The two main difficulties in the way of the acceptance of this theory are, first, the high grade of intelligence demanded at very low levels of animal life, and second, it assumes the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Wundt rejects intelligence in the strict acceptation of the term as the source of animal instinct. His position is best stated in his own words: "We may reject at once as wholly untenable the hypothesis which derives animal instinct from an intelligence which, though not identical with that of man, is still, so to speak, of equal rank with it. At the same time we must admit that the adherents of an intellectual theory in a more general sense are right in ascribing a large number of the manifestations of mental life in animals not, indeed, to intelligence, as the intellectualists sensu stricto do, but to individual experiences, the mechanism of which can only be explained in terms of association." (Op. cit., p. 389.) After dealing with another phase of this subject, he continues: "Only two hypotheses remain, therefore, as really arguable. One of them makes instinctive action a mechanized intelligent action, which can be in whole or in part reduced to the level of the reflex; the other makes instinct a matter of inherited habit, gradually acquired and modified under the influence of the external environment in the course of numberless generations. There is obviously no necessary antagonism between these two views. Instincts may be actions originally conscious, but now become mechanical, and they may be inherited habits." (Ibid., p. 393.) After discussing human instincts and their relation to animal instincts, Wundt concludes: "External conditions of life and voluntary reactions upon them, then, are the two factors operative in the evolution of instinct. But they operate in different degrees. The general development of mentality is always tending to modify instinct in some way or another. And so it comes about that of the two associated principles the first, -- adaptation to environment, -- predominates at the lower stages of life; the second, -- voluntary activity, -- at the higher. This is the great difference between the instincts of man and those of the animals. Human instincts are habits, acquired or inherited from previous generations; animal instincts are purposive adaptations of voluntary action to the conditions of life. And a second difference follows from the first: that the vast majority of human instincts are acquired: while animals . . . are restricted to connate instincts, with a very limited range of variation." (Ibid., 409.) Romanes seeks to solve the problem of the origin of instinct by combining these two theories, accounting for the more rigid instincts of animals on the basis of natural selection and for the more plastic instincts by the inheritance of mechanized habits. He calls the former class of instincts primary and the latter secondary. More recently, the theory of organic selection has been advanced. According to this theory purposive adaptations of all kinds, whether intelligent or organic, are called upon to supplement incomplete endowment, and thus to keep the species alive until variations arc secured sufficient to make the instinct relatively independent. It is evident from the definitions and theories given above that several distinct things are included under the term instinct. This finds expression in the division of instincts into primary and secondary suggested by Romanes, and into connate and acquired instincts (Wundt). Darwin emphasized the same fact when he claimed that many instincts may have arisen from habit, and then adds: "but it would be a serious error to suppose that the greater number of instincts have been acquired by habit in one generation and then transmitted by inheritance to succeeding generations. It can be clearly shown that the most wonderful instincts with which we are acquainted, namely, those of the hive-bee and of many ants, could not possibly have been acquired by habit." (Op. cit., vol. I, 321.) Formerly, instincts interested naturalists chiefly because they were regarded as so many illustrations of the intelligence of the Creator, and, indeed, where it is a question of "primary", or "inherited", instincts -- or instincts in "the strict sense of the term", as Wasmann designates them -- the problem of origin is similar to that of the origin of anatomical characteristics. Evidently we shall have to account for such elaborate instincts as that which determines the conduct of the caterpillar or the emperor moth in building its cocoon along the same lines which we adopt in accounting for the origin of complicated anatomical structures. The intelligence displayed far transcends that which could possibly have been possessed by such lowly creatures. The "secondary", or "acquired", instincts have a theoretical interest of an entirely different character, arising out of the problems of the nature of animal intelligence and the origin of man. Monists, and in general all those who accept the brute origin of man, seek to obliterate the essential difference between man and the animal; hence they ascribe to the animal an intelligence which differs only in degree from that possessed by man. While at first sight this would seem to lift the animal up to the plane of human life, what it does in reality is to lower man to the plane of brute life. It may easily be demonstrated that many of the instincts in animals are capable of modification in the course of individual experience. Acts that are determined by a new element in the environment may be frequently repeated by a large number of the species; this repetition soon begets a habit which, to all intents and purposes, is identical with instinct. Such mechanized habits are, as we have seen, classified by some observers as instincts, and if such a habit be inherited, as some claim it may be, then no one would refuse to it the name of instinct. The real importance attaching to this problem arises from the form of consciousness that is operative in building up such habits, or secondary instincts. Aristotle and the Schoolmen attributed these purposive adjustments to the appetitus sensitivus. They found no need of calling into play any higher faculty than sensory perceptions of particular objects and the recognition of their desirability or the reverse. This view is developed by Wasmann. It should be observed, however, that the term instincts as used by the Scholastics and by Wasmann refers not only to the neural mechanism or habit in the animal, but to the sensory powers which enable the animal to adjust its spontaneous activities to its surroundings. The term "was not taken merely as a constituent part of the sensitive power of cognition and appetite but as the adaptive, natural disposition of animal sensation, which constitutes the vital principle that governs the spontaneous actions of the animal. . . . For apart from and beyond inherited, instinctive knowledge, scholastic philosophy ascribed to the animal a sensile memory and a power of perfecting inborn instincts though sense experience; it acknowledges in the animal not only complete hereditary talents for certain activities, but to a certain degree talent and ability acquired by sense experience and by practice." (Wasmann, op. cit., 138-39.) Wundt, as we have seen, denies to the animal intelligence of the same order as that possessed by man. A great deal of confusion has been imported into this subject by a loose and unjustifiable use of the terms reason and intelligence. To the superficial observer, of course, the power of sensory perception and association possessed by the animal resembles intelligence, but the terms have widely different signification. Intelligence in its lowest degree always implies as an essential characteristic the power of abstraction and generalization on which freedom of election rests, and, until it is shown that animals possess such a power, it is unjustifiable to attribute such intelligence to them as the school of naturalists do who approach the subject with the foregone conclusion that human intelligence originated from that of the brute, and differs only from it in degree. HUMAN INSTINCTS The question of the nature of human instincts and the treatment which they should receive is involved in many practical issues of the utmost consequence in the field of education. As we have seen above, some writers speak of acquired instincts, meaning thereby highly developed or mechanized habits; but it will be more convenient here to confine the use of the term to instincts in the proper sense of the word, that is, to innate or inherited tendencies, and to speak of modes of activity established in individual life through repetition as habits. The most striking characteristic of human instincts as contrasted with instincts in the brute is plasticity. It is, in fact, this characteristic of human instinct that renders education both possible and necessary. Among the higher animals many instincts are relatively plastic, that is, they are modified by the individual experience of the animal. This renders it possible to train animals to act in ways that are not provided for by definitely organized tendencies. The plasticity of the animal's instincts is in some direct proportion to the development of the brain and of the power of sense perception and sensory association, but when we turn to man we find that his intelligence, which asserts itself at a very early date in infancy, begins to modify all instinctive activities as soon as they appear, a fact which renders it difficult to observe unmodified instincts in adult life. There are, therefore, two things to be taken into account: the plasticity of the instinct and the power of intellect and free will that is brought to bear in modifying it. In both of these respects there is a striking contrast observable between man and the animal. It should be noted here as of special importance to the discussion that human instincts do not all make their appearance at birth. It is true that instinct causes the newly born babe to seek its mother's breast and to perform sundry other necessary functions, but many of the instincts make their appearance for the first time in the appropriate phase of neural and mental development. Again, while the appearance of the instinct is relatively late in the developmental series, it frequently, as in the case of coquetry and maternity, antedates by some years the adult function to which it refers. This renders the instincts much more plastic, or, in other words, much more amenable to the control of educative agencies than they would be if they appeared for the first time amid the stress of the fully developed emotions and passions to which they refer. This antedating of the function may be regarded as an indication of the vestigial character of the instincts in question. The work in the field of genetic psychology and of child study during the past few decades has revealed the presence and the important functions of many hitherto neglected instincts in the life of the child. These instincts cannot be neglected or they will run wild and produce their crop of undesirable results; they cannot be suppressed indiscriminately, because they are the native roots on which all habits that are of enduring strength in human life are grafted. On the other hand, many instincts are highly undesirable; their full development would, in fact, mean the production of criminals. For explanation of these instincts we are referred by many to the savage state from which civilized man has gradually emerged. "In the case of mankind, the self-assertion, the unscrupulous seizing upon all that can be grasped, the tenacious holding of all that can be kept, which constitute the essence of the struggle for existence, have answered. For his successful progress through the savage state, man has been largely indebted to those qualities which he shares with the ape and tiger. . . . But, in proportion as men have passed from anarchy to social organization, and in proportion as civilization has grown in worth, these deeply ingrained serviceable qualities have become defects. . . . In fact, civilized man brands all these ape and tiger promptings with the name of sins; he punishes many of the acts which flow from them as crimes; and, in extreme cases, he does his best to put an end to the survival of the fittest of former days by axe and rope." (Huxley, "Evolution and Ethics", New York, 1894, pp. 51-52.) Clearly, then, some instincts must be suppressed and others must be reinforced. It is the business of education to guide the native impulses of the child into proper channels and to build upon them the habits of civilized life. So far there is practical agreement in the field, but what standard shall be employed in determining which instincts shall be inhibited and which reinforced, and what methods shall be employed in directing the tide of instinctive activity? In these questions there is anything but agreement. Many of those educators who believe in the brute origin of man assume that the standard of selection here must be the same as that in the animal kingdom, namely, the conscious activities of each individual. They would have the child with his meagre endowment of intellect determine for himself, "experimentally", which instincts to suppress and which to cultivate. This thought is embodied in the "culture epoch" theory, which finds so much favour with many modern educators. This theory is founded on the assumption that the child recapitulates in the unfolding of his conscious life the history of the race; and it further assumes that the proper mode of treatment is to lead each phase of this recapitulation to function when it appears in the child's development. The child is to determine by his own experience the unsatisfactory character of the earlier phase, and thus be led to recognize the desirability of moving on to the later and higher phase. In these respects the Christian Church has always maintained a policy exactly the opposite of the one here outlined. She maintains that, whatever may be the nature of the child's instincts, he must be led from the beginning to function only on the highest plane attained by the adult whether through reason or Revelation. She further maintains that the standard of selection is not the choice of the individual child, but the standard of truth and goodness which has been revealed to man and has been accepted by the wisdom of the race. She has always maintained the principle of authority both in matters of doctrine and of conduct, as opposed to private judgment and individual choice, which, in her eyes, lead to anarchy. Moreover, the Church's position in this matter is in entire agreement with the secure findings of biology and psychology. The doctrine of recapitulation on which the culture epoch theory rests is a doctrine of embryology where it is held that ontogeny is a recapitulation of phylogeny, i.e., that the individual embryo recapitulates in its development the successive stages in the development of the race; but it should be observed that this doctrine is purely anatomical. Many biologists believe that the eye in race history was made by seeing and the lung by breathing; but no biologist would maintain for a moment that the eye in embryonic development was made by seeing and the lung by breathing. In fact, high levels of animal life are never reached except in those cases where the offspring is carried forward without functioning to the adult plane by the parent. And it may be rightly argued from analogy that, even if it be granted that the child's mental life is a recapitulation of the race life, the only way of bringing him up to the adult plane is through society's functioning for him, though its educative agencies, until he reaches adult stature. The culture epoch theory, which leads the child to function in each successive "culture epoch", would, therefore, not only retard his proper development, but it would inevitably initiate a violent retrogression. General works on evolution, psychology, and comparative psychology; cf. in particular MORGAN, Some Definitions of Instinct in Natural Science (London, May, 1895); IDEM, Habit and Instinct (London, 1896); IDEM, Animal Behaviour (London, 1900); IDEM, Introduction to Comparative Psychology (London, 1894); ROMANES, Animal Intelligence (New York, 1892); IDEM, Mental Evolution in Animals (New York, 1891); IDEM, Darwin and After Darwin, I (Chicago, 1896); MIVART, Lessons from Nature (London, 1879); IDEM, Origin of Human Reason (London, 1899); WASMANN, Instinct and Intelligence in the Animal Kingdom (St. Louis, 1903); LUBBOCK, Ants, Bees and Wasps (New York, 1893); GROOS, Play of Animals (New York, 1898); IDEM, Play of Man (New York, 1901); BALDWIN in Science of 20 March and 10 April (1896); IDEM, Story of the Mind (New York, 1898); IDEM in Dict. of Philos. and Psychol. (New York, 1901), s. v. lnstinct and Organic Selection; LICATA, Fisiologia dell' istinto (Naples, 1879); MASCI, Le teorie sulla formazione naturale dell' istinto (Naples, 1893). THOMAS EDWARD SHIELDS Institute of Mary Institute of Mary The official title of the second congregation founded by Mary Ward. Under this title Barbara Babthorpe, the fourth successor Mary Ward as "chief superior", petitioned for and obtained the approbation of its rule in 1703. It is the title appended to the signatures of the first chief superiors, and mentioned in the "formula of vows" of the first members. "Englische Fraeulein", "Dame Inglesse", "Loretto Nuns", are popular names for the members of the institute in the various countries where they have established themselves. On the suppression, in 1630, of Mary Ward's first congregation, styled by its opponents the "Jesuitesses", the greater number of the members returned to the world or entered other religious orders. A certain number, however, who desired still to live in religion under the guidance of Mary Ward, were sheltered with the permission of Pope Urban VIII in the Paradeiser Haus, Munich, by the Elector of Bavaria, Maximilian I. Thence some of the younger members were transferred at the pope's desire to Rome, there to live with Mary Ward and be trained by her in the religious life. Her work, therefore, was not destroyed, but reconstituted with certain modifications of detail, such as subjection to the jurisdiction of the ordinary instead of to the Holy See immediately, as in the original scheme. It was fostered by Urban and his successors, who as late as the end of the seventeenth century granted a monthly subsidy to the Roman house. Mary Ward died in England at Heworth near York in 1645, and was succeeded as chief superior by Barbara Babthorpe, who resided at Rome as head of the "English Ladies", and on her death was buried there in the church of the English College. She was succeeded as head of the institute by Mary Pointz, the first companion of Mary Ward. The community at Heworth removed to Paris in 1650. In 1669 Frances Bedingfield, one of the constant companions of Mary Ward, was sent by Mary Pointz to found a house in England. Favoured by Catherine of Braganza, she established her community first in St. Martin's Lane, London, and afterwards at Hammersmith. Thence a colony moved to Heworth, and finally in 1686 to the site of the present convent, Micklegate Bar, York. In addition to that at Munich, two foundations had meantime been made in Bavaria--at Augsburg in 1662, at Burghausen in 1683. At the opening of the eighteenth century the six houses of Munich, Augsburg, Rome, Burghausen, Hammersmith, and York were governed by local superiors appointed by the chief superior, who resided for the most part at Rome, and had a vicaress in Munich. Thus, for seventy years the institute carried on its work, not tolerated only, but protected by the various ordinaries, yet without official recognition till the year 1703, when at the petition of the Elector Maximilian Emanuel of Bavaria, Mary of Modena, the exiled Queen of England, and others, its rule was approved by Pope Clement XI. It was not in accordance with the discipline of the Church at that time to approve any institute of simple vows. The pope was willing, however, to approve the institute as such, if the members would accept enclosure. But fidelity to their traditions, and experience of the benefit arising from non-enclosure in their special vocation, induced them to forego this further confirmation. The houses in Paris and in Rome were given up about the date of the confirmation of the rule in 1703. St. Poelten (1706) was the first foundation from Munich after the Bull of Clement XI. In 1742 the houses in Austria and its dependencies were by a Bull of Benedict XIV made a separate province of the institute, and placed under a separate superior-general. The Austrian branch at present (1909) consists of fourteen houses. In Italy, Lodi and Vicenza have each two dependent filials. When the armies of the first Napoleon overran Bavaria in 1809, the mother-house in Munich and the other houses of the institute in Germany--Augsburg, Burghausen, and Altoetting excepted--were broken up and the communities scattered. On the restoration of peace to Europe, King Louis I of Bavaria obtained nuns from Augsburg, and established them at Nymphenburg, where a portion of the royal palace was made over to them. In 1840 Madame Catherine de Graccho, the superior of this house, was appointed by Gregory XVI general superior of the whole Bavarian institute. At the present day there are 85 houses under Bavaria, with 1153 members, 90 Postulants, 1225 boarders, 11,447 day pupils and 1472 orphans. Four houses in India, one at Rome, and two in England are subject to Nymphenburg. The house in Mainz escaped secularization, being spared by Napoleon on the condition that all connection with Bavaria should cease. It is now the mother-house of a branch which has eight filial houses. When vigour was reviving in the institute abroad, the Irish branch was founded (1821) at Rathfarnham, near Dublin, by Frances Ball, an Irish lady, who had made her novitiate at York. There are now 19 houses of the institute in Ireland, 13 subject to Rathfarnham and 6 under their respective bishops. The dependencies of Rathfarnham are in all parts of the world--3 houses in Spain, 2 in Mauritius, 2 at Gibraltar, 10 in India, 2 in Africa, 10 in Australia, with a Central Training College for teachers at Melbourne (1906). There are 8 houses of the institute in Canada, 3 in the United States, 7 in England, about 180 houses in all. Owing to the variety of names and the independence of branches and houses, the essential unity of the institute is not readily recognized. The "English Virgins", or "English Ladies", is the title under which the members are known in Germany and Italy, whilst in Ireland, and where foundations from Ireland have been made, the name best known is "Loretto Nuns", from the name of the famous Italian shrine given to the mother-house at Rathfarnham. Each branch has its own novitiate, and several have their special constitutions approved by the Holy See. The "Institute of Mary" is the official title of all; all follow the rule approved for them by Clement XI, and share in the approbation of their institute given by Pius IX, in 1877. The sisters devote themselves principally to the education of girls in boarding-schools and academies, but they are also active in primary and secondary schools, in the training of teachers, instruction in the trades and domestic economy, and the care of orphans. Several members of the institute have also become known as writers. M. LOYOLA Institute of Mission Helpers of the Sacred Heart Institute of Mission Helpers of the Sacred Heart In the autumn of 1888, there came to Baltimore, Maryland, a convert, Mrs. Hartwell, who previous to her reception into the Church had been interested in works of charity. Under the spiritual direction of Father Slattery, provincial of St. Joseph's Society for the coloured missions she began to catechize the negro children, and was soon joined by some companions. In the autumn of 1890, these ladies wishing to become religious laid the foundations of a community under the name of "Mission Helpers, Daughters of the Holy Ghost". The work was missionary and catechetical, but was exclusively for the coloured race, the sisters binding themselves thereto by a special vow. Very soon an industrial school for girls was opened. In 1895, the name of the institute was changed to "Mission Helpers of the Sacred Heart" and the members were dispensed from the "negro" vow. Thus there was no longer any distinction made as to race in the work of the sisters, which from that time was to embrace all the neglected poor. Hence, the field of missionary and catechetical labour was greatly broadened. A direct result of this change was the opening in 1897 of a school for deaf-mutes, at the request of Cardinal Gibbons. This school, St. Francis Xavier's, was the first Catholic institution for deaf-mutes in the ecclesiastical province of Baltimore. In Porto Rico, also, there was no provision whatsoever for deaf-mutes who were poor, until the Mission Helpers opened a school there, shortly after making their foundation in San Juan in 1902. This was a heavy undertaking, as the demands on the sisters for missionary and catechetical work in Porto Rico were very great, and the need urgent. At the first general chapter of the institute, which was held on 5 November, 1906, by command of Cardinal Gibbons, a constitution was adopted, and a superior general and her assistants elected according to its prescriptions. At this first election Mother M. Demetrias was chosen as mother general. The community was then officially declared canonically organized. Two important matters were settled about that time by ecclesiastical authority. The sisters were released from the observance of the vow which they had made to offer their prayers and good works for the welfare of the clergy, it having been declared uncanonical. Perpetual adoration was also discontinued because of the bodily hardship it entailed. On account of their missionary labours the sisters were unable to keep up the work of adoration, without grave detriment to their health, consequently it was decided to restrict it to the First Fridays. The active work of the institute as outlined by the constitution embraces the keeping of industrial schools for coloured girls; schools for deaf-mutes; day-nurseries; teaching catechism and giving instruction wherever needed; visiting the poor in their own homes, and in institutions, such as hospitals and alms-houses, and preparing the dying for the last sacraments. There are houses of the institute in New York, Trenton, Porto Rico, and Baltimore. SISTER M. de SALES Irish Institute of the Blessed Virgin Mary Irish Institute of the Blessed Virgin Mary Founded by Frances Mary Teresa Ball, under the direction and episcopal jurisdiction of the Most Rev. D. Murray, Archbishop of Dublin. By the archbishop's desire, Frances Ball had prepared herself for this undertaking by a two years' novitiate in St. Mary's Convent, Micklegate Bar, York. Two other Irish ladies, Miss Ellen Arthur and Miss Anne Therry, offered to join the new foundation and were accepted. On 4 November, 1822, the three pioneers took possession of Rathfarnham Abbey, which had been purchased by the Archbishop of Dublin to serve as a mother-house and novitiate. The wide-spreading fame of the superior education afforded in the Dublin Archdiocese by the Loretto nuns -- as they are commonly called -- brought demands for their services throughout Ireland. The first offshoot was planted in Navan, County Meath, in the year 1833. This convent has now a filiation in Mullingar. The convents in North Great George's Street and Stephen's Green, Dublin, come next in the order of foundations. The year 1836 was signalized by the rescript of Pope Gregory XVI addressed to the Most Rev. D. Murray, Archbishop of Dublin, which ordained that: "Those who have associated themselves and shall hereafter associate themselves to this institute cannot depart to another, even though observing rules of a more rigid discipline without the express permission of the Apostolic See." The year 1840 was marked by the erection of the first church in Ireland dedicated to the Sacred Heart, in Loretto Abbey, Rathfarnham. The same year saw the building of a smaller, but very beautiful, abbey in Dalkey, and also the opening of negotiations for another abbey in Gorey, which prepared the way for a future Loretto in the town of Wexford. In spite of her prudent reluctance to favour the repeated applications for an extension of the Irish sisters' work into foreign countries, Reverend Mother Ball at last yielded to the solicitations of Dr. Carew, Archbishop of Calcutta, and sanctioned the departure of volunteers for the Indian mission on 23 August, 1841. To Loretto House, Calcutta, have been added convents in Darjeeling, Lucknow, Assansol, Intally, Simla, etc. In addition to the boarding and day schools the sisters conduct orphanages and attend diligently to the religious instruction of adults. The success in India led to an appeal for nuns from Dr. Collier, Vicar Apostolic of Madras, which appeal was granted in 1846. Immediately afterwards the Vicar Apostolic of Gibraltar urged a like petition. Two Loretto convents are established on the Rock. The Most Rev. Dr. Power, Archbishop of Toronto, begged for a Loretto community in 1847. The under-named filiations own Loretto Abbey, Toronto, as their headhouse: the convents in the city and suburbs, likewise in Belleville, Lyndsay, Hamilton, Niagara Falls, Guelph, Stratford, Chicago, Joliet, and Sault Sainte Marie. The foundations in Fermoy and Omagh (Ireland) were supplied with members from Rathfarnham in the years 1853-5. The former has two filiations -- at Youghal and Clonmel. The Letterkenny Loretto was the first convent founded in the Diocese of Raphoe, County Donegal, since the Reformation. The convents at Bray, Baymount, Kilkenny, and Killarney were also founded by Reverend Mother Ball. After a lingering illness, borne with saintly fortitude, the foundress died on Whit-Sunday, 19 May, 1861. The most noteworthy events in the institute since her death have been: First, the approval and confirmation of the constitutions peculiar to Loretto Abbey, Rathfarnham, and its filiations by Pope Pius IX, the said constitutions having been sanctioned and transmitted to Rome by Cardinal Cullen in 1861, for the usual examination by the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda. Second, the transfer of the community at Baymount to Balbriggan. The foundation of a convent in Ballarat, Australia, from which proceeded the convents at Sydney, Portland, Perth, Adelaide, and Melbourne. To the latter is attached the Central Training College for Teachers, instituted by the Australian bishops and intrusted by their lordships to the management of the Loretto nuns. Third: large day schools were established in Enniscorthy, County Wexford, and in Rathmines, County Dublin. Fourth: foundations have been made in Seville, Madrid, and Yalla, in Spain. In Ireland the educational work of the Loretto nuns ranges through the three systems of primary, secondary, and university education -- the girls' various successes culminating in the winning of studentships and examinerships in the gift of the Royal University of Ireland. in other countries the Loretto nuns invariably work up to the requisite standard fixed by the extern educational authorities. (See INSTITUTE OF MARY.) SISTER MARY GERTRUDE Christian Brothers Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools NATURE AND OBJECT The Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools is a society of male religious approved by the Church, but not taking Holy orders, and having for its object the personal sanctification of its members and the Christian education of youth, especially of the children of artisans and the poor. It accepts the direction of any kind of male educational institution, provided the teaching of Latin be excluded; but its principal object is the direction of elementary gratuitous schools. This congregation was founded in 1680, at Reims, France, by St. John Baptist de La Salle, then a canon of the metropolitan church of that city. Being struck by the lamentable disorders produced among the multitude by their ignorance of the elements of knowledge, and, what was still worse, of the principles of religion, the saint, moved with great pity for the ignorant, was led, almost without a premeditated design, to take up the work of charitable schools. In order to carry out the last will of his spiritual director, Canon Roland, he first busied himself with consolidating a religious congregation devoted to the education of poor girls. He then seconded the efforts of a zealous layman, M. Nyel, to multiply schools for poor children. Thus guided by Providence, he was led to create an institute that would have no other mission than that of Christian education. However, it would be a serious error to insinuate that until the end of the seventeenth century the Catholic Church had interested herself but little in the education of the children of the people. From the fifth to the sixteenth century, many councils which were held, especially those of Vaison in 529 and Aachen in 817, recommended the secular clergy and monks to instruct children. In 1179 the Third Council of Lateran ordained that the poor be taught gratuitously, and in 1547 the Council of Trent decreed that in connexion with every church, there should be a master to teach the elements of human knowledge to poor children and young students preparing for orders. There were, therefore, numerous schools -- petites ecoles -- for the common people in France in the seventeenth century, but teachers were few, because the more clever among them abandoned the children of the poor to teach those of the wealthier class and receive compensation for their work. It was evident that only a religious congregation would be able to furnish a permanent supply of educators for those who are destitute of the goods of this world. The institutes of the Venerable Cesar de Bus in 1592 and of St. Joseph Calasanctius (1556-1648) had added Latin to the course of studies for the poor. The tentatives made in favour of boys by St. Peter Fourier (1565-1640) and Pere Barre, in 1678, failed; the work of M. Demia at Lyons in 1672 was not to spread. Then God raised up St. John Baptist de La Salle, not to create gratuitous schools, but to furnish them with teachers and give them fixed methods. The undertaking was much more difficult than the founder himself imagined. At the beginning he was encouraged by Pere Barre, a Minim, who had founded a society of teaching nuns, Les Dames de Saint-Maur. The clergy and faithful applauded the scheme, but it had many bitter adversaries. During forty years, from 1680 to 1719, obstacles and difficulties constantly checked the progress of the new institute, but by the prudence, humility, and invincible courage of its superior, it was consolidated and developed to unexpected proportions. DEVELOPMENT In 1680 the new teachers began their apostolate at Reims; in 1682 they took the name of "Brothers of the Christian Schools"; in 1684 they opened their first regular novitiate. In 1688 Providence transplanted the young tree to the parish of St-Sulpice, Paris, in charge of the spiritual sons of M. Olier. The mother-house remained in the capital until 1705. During this period the founder met with trials of every kind. The most painful came from holy priests whom he esteemed, but who entertained views of his work different from his own. Without being in any way discouraged, and in the midst of the storms, the saint kept nearly all of his first schools, and even opened new ones. He reorganized his novitiate several times, and created the first normal schools under the name of "seminaries for country teachers". His zeal was as broad and ardent as his love of souls. The course of events caused the founder to transfer his novitiate to Rouen in 1705, to the house of Saint-Yon, in the suburb of Saint-Sever, which became the centre whence the institute sent its religious into the South of France, in 1707. It was at Rouen that St. John Baptist de La Salle composed his rules, convoked two general chapters, resigned his office of superior, and ended his earthly existence by a holy death, in 1719. Declared venerable in 1840, he was beatified in 1888, and canonized in 1900. SPIRIT OF THE INSTITUTE The spirit of the institute, infused by the example and teachings of its founder and fostered by the exercises of the religious life, is a spirit of faith and of zeal. The spirit of faith induces a Brother to see God in all things, to suffer everything for God, and above all to sanctify himself. The spirit of zeal attracts him towards children to instruct them in the truths of religion and penetrate their hearts with the maxims of the Gospel, so that they may make it the rule of their conduct. St. John Baptist de La Salle had himself given his Brothers admirable proofs of the purity of his faith and the vivacity of his zeal. It was his faith that made him adore the will of God in all the adversities he met with; that prompted him to send two Brothers to Rome in 1700 in testimony of his attachment to the Holy See, and that led him to condemn openly the errors of the Jansenists, who tried in vain at Marseilles. and Calais to draw him over to their party. His whole life was a prolonged act of zeal: he taught school at Reims, Paris, and Grenoble, and showed how to do it well. He composed works for teachers and pupils, and especially the "Conduite des ecoles" the "Devoirs du chretien", and the "Regles de la bienseance et de la civilite chretienne". The saint pointed out that the zeal of a religious educator should be exercised by three principal means: vigilance, good example, and instruction. Vigilance removes from children a great many occasions of offending God; good example places before them models for imitation; instruction makes them familiar with what they should know, especially with the truths of religion. Hence, the Brothers have always considered catechism as the most important subject taught in their schools. They are catechists by vocation and the will of the Church. They are, therefore, in accordance with the spirit of their institute, religious educators: as religious, they take the three usual vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience; as educators, they add the vow of teaching the poor gratuitously according to the prescriptions of their rule, and the vow of remaining in their institute, which they may not leave of themselves even for the purpose of joining a more perfect order. Besides, the work appeared so very important to St. John Baptist de La Salle that, in order to attach the Brothers permanently to the education of the poor, he forbade them to teach Latin. GOVERNMENT The institute is governed by a superior general elected for life by the general chapter. The superior general is aided by assistants, who at the present time number twelve. He delegates authority to the visitors, to whom he confides the government of districts, and to directors, whom he places in charge of individual houses. With the exception of that of superior general, all the offices are temporary and renewable. The general chapters are convoked at least every ten years. Thirty-two have been held since the foundation of the congregation. The vitality of an institute depends on the training of its members. God alone is the author of vocations. He alone can attract a soul to a life of self-denial such as that of the Brothers. The mortification this life enjoins is not rigorous, but renouncement of self-will and of the frivolities of the world should gradually become complete. The usual age for admission to the novitiate of the society is from sixteen to eighteen years. Doubtless there are later vocations that are excellent, and there are earlier ones that develop the most beautiful virtues. If the aspirant presents himself at the age of thirteen or fourteen, he is placed in the preparatory or junior novitiate. During two or three years he devotes himself to study, is carefully trained to the habits of piety, and instructed how to overcome himself, so as one day to become a fervent religious. The novitiate proper is for young men who have passed through the junior novitiate, and for postulants who have come directly from the world. During a whole year they have no other occupation than that of studying the rules of the institute and applying themselves to observe them faithfully. At the end of their first year of probation, the young Brothers enter the scholasticate, where they spend more or less time according to the nature of the duties to be assigned to them. As a rule, each of the districts of the institute has its three departments of training: the junior novitiate, the senior novitiate, and the scholasticate. In community, subjects complete their professional training and apply themselves to acquire the virtues of their state. At eighteen years of age, they take annual vows; at twenty-three, triennial vows; and when fully twenty-eight years of age, they may be admitted to perpetual profession. Finally, some years later, they may be called for some months to the exercises of a second novitiate. METHODS OF TEACHING In enjoining on his disciples to endeavour above all to develop the spirit of religion in the souls of their pupils, the founder only followed the traditions of other teaching bodies -- the Benedictines, Jesuits, Oratorians, etc., and what was practised even by the teachers of the petites ecoles. His originality lay elsewhere. Two pedagogic innovations of St. John Baptist de La Salle met with approval from the beginning: + (1) the employment of the "simultaneous method"; + (2) the employment of the vernacular language in teaching reading. They are set forth in the "Conduite des ecoles", in which the founder condensed the experience he had acquired during an apostolate of forty years. This work remained in manuscript during the life of its author, and was printed for the first time at Avignon in 1720. (1) By the use of the simultaneous method a large number of children of the same intellectual development could thenceforward be taught together. It is true that for ages this method had been employed in the universities, but in the common schools the individual method was adhered to. Practicable enough when the number of pupils was very limited, the individual method gave rise, in classes that were numerous, to loss of time and disorder. Monitors became necessary, and these had often neither learning nor authority. With limitations that restricted its efficacy, St. Peter Fourier had indeed recommended the simultaneous method in the schools of the Congregation de Notre-Dame, but it never extended further. To St. John Baptist de La Salle belongs the honour of having transformed the pedagogy of the elementary school. Here required all his teachers to give the same lesson to all the pupils of a class, to question them constantly, to maintain discipline, and have silence observed. A consequence of this new method of teaching was the dividing up of the children into distinct classes according to their attainments, and later on, the formation of sections in classes in which the children were too numerous or too unequal in mental development. Thanks to these means, the progress of the children and their moral transformation commanded the admiration even of his most prejudiced adversaries. (2) A second innovation of the holy founder was to teach the pupils to read the vernacular language, which they understood, before putting into their hands a Latin book, which they did not understand. It may be observed that this was a very simple matter, but simple as it was, hardly any educator, except the masters of the schools of Port-Royal in 1643, had bethought himself of it; besides, the experiments of the Port-Royal masters, like their schools, were short lived, and exercised no influence on general pedagogy. In addition to these two great principles, the Brothers of the Christian Schools have introduced other improvements in teaching. They likewise availed themselves of what is rational in the progress of modern methods of teaching, which their courses of pedagogy, published in France, Belgium, and Austria, abundantly prove. THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY At the death of its founder, the Brothers of the Christian Schools numbered 27 houses and 274 Brothers, educating 9000 pupils. Seventy-three years later, at the time of the French Revolution, the statistics showed 123 houses, 920 Brothers, and 36,000 pupils (statistics of 1790). During this period, it had been governed by five superiors general: Brother Barthelemy (1717-20); Brother Timothee (1720-51); Brother Claude (1751-67); Brother Florence (1767-77); and Brother Agathon (1777-98, when he died). Under the administration of Brother Timothee successful negotiations resulted in the legal recognition of the institute by Louis XV, who granted it letters patent, 24 September, 1724; and in virtue of the Bull of approbation of Benedict XIII, 26 January, 1725, it was admitted among the congregations canonically recognized by the Church. The most prominent of its superiors general in the eighteenth century was Brother Agathon. A religious of strong character, he maintained the faithful observance of the rules by the Brothers; a distinguished educator, he published the "Douze vertus d'un bon Maitre", in 1785; an eminent administrator, he created the first scholasticates, in 1781, and limited new foundations to what was indispensable, aiming rather, when the storm was gathering on the horizon, to fortify an institute that had already become relatively widespread. The congregation, however, was hardly known outside of France, except in Rome, 1700; Avignon, 1703; Ferrara, 1741; Mareville, 1743; Luneville, 1749; and Morhange in Lorraine, 1761; Estavayer in Switzerland, 1750; Fort Royal, Martinique, 1777. Whilst adhering to their methods of teaching during the eighteenth century, the Brothers knew how to vary their application. The superiors general insisted on having the elementary schools gratuitous and by far the more numerous. In accordance with the course of studies set down in the "Conduite des ecoles", the Brothers applied themselves to teach very thoroughly reading, writing, the vernacular, and especially the catechism. The boarding school of St-Yon at Rouen, established in 1705 by St. John Baptist de La Salle himself, served as a model for like institutions: Marseilles in 1730, Angers in 1741, Reims in 1765, etc. It was proper that in these houses the course of studies should differ in some respects from that in the free schools. With the exception of Latin, which remained excluded, everything in the course of studies of the best schools of the time was taught: mathematics, history, geography, drawing, architecture, etc. In the maritime cities, such as Brest, Vannes, and Marseilles, the Brothers taught more advanced courses in mathematics and hydrography. Finally, the institute accepted the direction of reformatory institutions at Rouen, Angers, and Mareville. It was this efflorescence of magnificent works that the French Revolution all but destroyed forever. THE BROTHERS DURING THE REVOLUTION The revolutionary laws that doomed the monastic orders on 13 February, 1790, threatened the institute from 27 December, in the same year, by imposing on all teachers the civic oath voted on 27 November. The storm was imminent. Brother Agathon, the superior general endeavoured to establish communities in Belgium, but could organize only one, at St-Hubert in 1791, only to be destroyed in 1792. The Brothers refused to take the oath, and were everywhere expelled. The institute was suppressed in 1792, after it had been decreed that it "had deserved well of the country". The storm had broken upon the Brothers. They were arrested, and more than twenty were cast into prison. Brother Salomon, secretary general, was massacred in the Carmes (the Carmelite monastery of Paris); Brother Agathon spent eighteen months in prison; Brother Moniteur was guillotined at Rennes in 1794; Brother Raphael was put to death at Uzes; Brother Florence, formerly superior general, was imprisoned at Avignon; eight Brothers were transported to the hulks of Rochefort, where four died of neglect and starvation in 1794 and 1795. All the schools were closed and the young Brothers enrolled in the army of the Convention. At the peril of their lives some of the older Brothers continued to teach at Elbeuf, Condrieux, Castres, Laon, Valence, and elsewhere, to save the faith of the children. The Brothers of Italy had received some of their French confreres at Rome, Ferrara, Orvieto, and Bolsena. During this time, Brother Agathon, having left his prison, remained hidden at Tours, whence he strove to keep up the courage, confidence in God, and zeal of his dispersed religious. On 7 August, 1797, Pope Pius VI appointed Brother Frumence vicar-general of the congregation. In 1798 the Italian Brothers were in their turn driven from their houses by the armed forces of the Directory. The institute seemed ruined; it reckoned only twenty members wearing the religious habit and exercising the functions of educators. RESTORATION OF THE INSTITUTE. 1802-1810 In July, 1801, the First Consul signed the concordat with Pius VII. For the Church of France this was the spring of a new era; for the Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools it was a resurrection. If at the height of the storm some Brothers continued to exercise their holy functions, they were only exceptional cases. The first regular community reorganized at Lyons in 1802; others in 1803, at Paris, Valence, Reims, and Soissons. Everywhere the municipalities recalled the Brothers and besought the survivors of the woeful period to take up the schools again as soon as possible. The Brothers addressed themselves to Rome and petitioned the Brother Vicar to establish his abode in France. Negotiations were begun, and thanks to the intervention of his uncle, Cardinal Fesch, Bonaparte authorized the re-establishment of the institute, on 3 December, 1803, provided their superior general would reside in France. In November, 1804, the Brother Vicar arrived at Lyons, and took up his residence in the former petit college of the Jesuits. The institute began to live again. Nothing was more urgent than to reunite the former members of the congregation. An appeal was made to their faith and good will, and they responded. Shortly after the arrival of Brother Frumence at Lyons, the foundation of communities began. There were eight new ones in 1805, and as many in 1806, four in 1807, and five in 1808. Brother Frumence dying in January, 1810, a general chapter, the tenth since the foundation, was assembled at Lyons on 8 September following, and elected Brother Gerbaud to the highest office in the institute. Brother Gerbaud governed until 1822. His successors were Brother Guillaume de Jesus (1822-30); Brother Anaclet (1830-38); Brother Philippe (1838-74); Brother Jean-Olympe (1874-75); Brother Irlide (1875-84); Brother Joseph (1884-97); and Brother Gabriel-Marie elected in March, 1897. He is the thirteenth successor of St. John Baptist de La Salle. THE INSTITUTE FROM 1810 TO 1874 After 1810 communities of the Brothers multiplied like the flowers of the fields in spring-time after the frosts have disappeared. Fifteen new schools were opened in 1817, twenty-one in 1818, twenty-six in 1819, and twenty-seven in 1821. It was in this year that the Brother Superior General, at the request of the municipality, took up his residence in Paris, with his assistants. The institute then numbered 950 Brothers and novices, 310 schools, 664 classes, and 50,000 pupils. Fifteen years had sufficed to reach the same prosperous condition in which the Revolution found it in 1789. It must not, however, be admitted that, in consequence of the services rendered by the Brothers to popular education, they always enjoyed the favour of the Government. From 1816 to 1819, Brother Gerbaud, the superior general, had to struggle vigorously for the preservation of the traditional methods of the congregation. The mutual or Lancasterian method had just been introduced into France, and immediately the powerful Societe pour l'Instruction Elementaire assumed the mission of propagating it. At a time when teachers and funds were scarce, the Government deemed it wise to pronounce in favour of the mutual school, and recommended it by an ordinance in 1818. The Brothers would not consent to abandon the "simultaneous method" which they had received from their founder, and on this account they were subjected to many vexations. During forty years the supporters of the two methods were to contend, but finally the "simultaneous" teachers achieved the victory. By holding fast to their traditions and rules the Brothers had saved elementary teaching in France. The expansion of the Christian schools was not arrested by these struggles. In 1829 there were 233 houses, including 5 in Italy, 5 in Corsica, 5 in Belgium, 2 in the Island of Bourbon, and 1 at Cayenne; in all, 955 classes and 67,000 pupils. But the Government of Louis-Philippe obstructed this benevolent work by suppressing the grants made to certain schools: eleven were permanently closed, and twenty-nine were kept up as free schools by the charity of Catholics. The hour had now come for a greater expansion. Fortified and rejuvenated by trial, fixed for a long time on the soil of France, augmented by yearly increasing numbers, the institute could, without weakening itself, send educational colonies abroad. Belgium received Brothers at Dinant in 1816; the Island of Bourbon, 1817; Montreal, 1837; Smyrna, 1841; Baltimore, 1846: Alexandria, 1847; New York, 1848; St. Louis, 1849; Kemperhof, near Coblenz, 1851; Singapore, 1852; Algiers, 1854; London, 1855; Vienna, 1856; the Island of Mauritius, 1859; Bucharest, 1861; Karikal, India, 1862; Quito, 1863. In all of these places, the number of houses soon increased, and everywhere the same intellectual and religious results proved a recommendation of the schools of the Brothers. The period of this expansion is that of the generalship of Brother Philippe, the most popular of the superiors of teaching congregations in the nineteenth century at the time of the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71. Under his administration, the institute received its most active impetus. When Brother Philippe was elected superior general, in 1838, the number of schools and of Brothers was already double what it was in 1789; when he died, in 1874, it had increased in entirely unexpected proportions. The venerable superior saw the number of houses rise from 313 to 1149; that of the Brothers from 2317 to 10,235; that of their pupils from 144,000 to 350,000. And as in France, and through the benevolence of the hierarchy, Belgium, North America, the Indies, and the Levant multiplied Christian schools. Assuredly, Brother Philippe was aware that, for a religious institute, the blessing of numbers is less desirable than the progress of the religious in the spirit of their vocation. In order to strengthen them therein, the superior general composed seven volumes of "Meditations", and a large number of instructive "Circular Letters", in which are explained the duties of the Brothers as religious and as educators. Every year at the time of the retreats, until he was eighty years of age, he travelled all over France, and spoke to his Brothers in most ardent language, made still more impressive by the saintly example of this venerable old man. THE INSTITUTE FROM 1874 TO 1908 The generalship of Brother Irlide was marked by two principal orders of facts: a powerful effort to increase the spiritual vigour of the institute by introducing the Great Exercises or retreats of thirty days; and the reorganization as free schools of the French schools which the laicization laws from 1879 to 1886 deprived of the character of communal schools. This period witnessed, especially in two regions, the establishment and multiplication of Brothers' schools. The districts of Ireland and Spain, where such fine work is going on, were organized under the administration of Brother Irlide. Indefatigable in the fight, he asserted the rights of his institute against the powerful influence which strove to set them aside. He had broad and original views which he carried out with a strong, tenacious will. What his predecessor had accomplished by indomitable energy, Brother Joseph, superior general from 1884 to 1897, maintained by the ascendency of his captivating goodness. He was an educator of rare distinction and exquisite charm. He had received from Pope Leo XIII the important mission of developing in the institute the works of Christian perseverance, so that the faith and morals of young men might be safeguarded after leaving school. One of his great delights was to transmit this direction to his Brothers and to see them work zealously for its attainment. Patronages, clubs, alumni associations, boarding-houses, spiritual retreats, etc., were doubtless already in existence; now they became more prosperous. For many years the alumni associations of France had made their action consist in friendly but rare reunions. The legal attempts against liberty of conscience forced the members into the Catholic and social struggle. They have formed themselves into sectional unions; they have an annual meeting, and have created an active movement in favour of persecuted Catholic education. The alumni associations of the Brothers in the United States and Belgium have their national federation and annual meeting. It is especially in France that the work of the spiritual retreats, of which the chief centre has been the Association of St. Benoit-Joseph Labre, has been developed. Founded in Paris in 1883, it had, twenty-five years later, brought together 41,600 young Parisians at the house of retreat, at Athis-Mons. About the same time, "retreats previous to graduation" were gradually introduced in the schools of all countries with the view of the perseverance in their religious practices of the graduates entering upon active life. During the administration of Brother Gabriel-Marie, and until 1904, the normal progress of the congregation was not obstructed. The expansion of its divers works attained its maximum. Here are the words of one of the official reports of the Universal Exposition of Paris in 1900: "The establishments of the Institute of Brothers of the Christian Schools, spread all over the world, number 2015. They comprise 1500 elementary or high schools; 47 important boarding-schools; 45 normal schools or scholasticates for the training of subjects of the institute, and 6 normal schools for lay teachers; 13 special agricultural schools, and a large number of agricultural classes in elementary schools; 48 technical and trade schools; 82 commercial schools or special commercial courses." Such was the activity of the Institute of St. John Baptist de La Salle when it was doomed in France by the legislation that abolished teaching by religious. Not the services rendered, nor the striking lustre of its success, nor the greatness of the social work it had accomplished, could save it. Its glory, which was to render all its schools Christian, was imputed to it as a crime. In consequence of the application of the law of 7 July, 1904, to legally authorized teaching congregations, 805 establishments of the Brothers were closed in 1904, 196 in 1905, 155 in 1906, 93 in 1907, and 33 in 1908. Nothing was spared. The popular and free schools to the number of more than a thousand; the boarding and half-boarding schools such as Passy in Paris, those at Reims, Lyons, Bordeaux, Marseilles, etc.; the cheap boarding schools for children of the working class, such as the admirable houses of St. Nicholas, the technical and trade schools of Lyons, Saint-Etienne, Saint-Chamond, Commentry, etc.; the agricultural institutions of Beauvais, Limoux, etc. -- all were swept away. The blows were severe, but the beautiful tree of the institute had taken root too firmly in the soil of the whole Catholic world to have its vitality endangered by the lopping off of a principal branch. The remaining branches received a new afflux of sap, and on its vigorous trunk there soon appeared new branches. From 1904 to 1908, 222 houses have been founded in England, Belgium, the islands of the Mediterranean, the Levant, North and South America, the West Indies, Cape Colony, and Australia. SCHOOLS OF EUROPE AND THE EAST When their schools were suppressed by law in France, the Brothers endeavoured with all their might to assure to at least a portion of the children of the poor the religious education of which they were about to be deprived. At the same time the institute established near the frontiers of Belgium and Holland, of Spain and Italy, ten boarding-schools for French boys. The undertaking was venturesome, but God has blessed it, and these boarding-schools are all flourishing. Belgium has 75 establishments conducted by the Brothers, comprising about 60 popular free schools, boarding-schools, official normal schools, and trade schools known as St. Luke schools. There are 32 houses in Lorraine, Austria, Hungary, Bohemia, Galicia, Albania, Bulgaria, and Rumania. Spain, including the Canaries and the Balearic Isles, has 100 houses of the institute, of which about 80 are popular gratuitous schools. In Italy there are 34 houses, 9 of which are in Rome. The Brothers have been established over fifty years in the Levant, Turkey, Syria, and Egypt. The 50 houses which they conduct are centres of Christian education and influence, and are liberally patronized by the people of these countries. The district of England and Ireland comprises 25 houses, the Brothers for the most part being engaged in the "National" schools. In London they direct a college and an academy; in Manchester, an industrial school; and in Waterford, a normal school or training college, the 200 students of which are King's scholars, who are paid for by a grant from the British Government. In India, the Brothers have large schools, most of which have upwards of 800 pupils. Those of Colombo, Rangoon, Penang, Moulmein, Mandalay, Singapore, Malacca, and Hong Kong in China, stand high in public estimation. They are all assisted by government grants. SCHOOLS IN AMERICA The institute has already established 72 houses in Mexico, Cuba, Ecuador, Colombia, Panama, Argentina, and Chile. When Brother Facile was appointed visitor of North America in 1848, he found in Canada 5 houses, 56 Brothers and 3200 pupils in their schools. In 1908, the statistics show 48 houses, and nearly 20,000 pupils. The parochial schools are gratuitous, according to the constant tradition of the institute. The most important boarding-school is Mount St. Louis, Montreal. At the request of the Most Reverend Samuel Eccleston, Brother Philippe, superior general, sent three brothers to Baltimore in 1846. The district of which Baltimore has become the centre now contains 24 houses, the Brothers of which for the most part are engaged in gratuitous parochial schools; they also conduct five colleges; a protectory; and the foundations of the family of the late Francis Anthony Drexel of Philadelphia, namely, St. Francis Industrial School, at Eddington, Pa.; the Drexmor, a home for working boys at Philadelphia; and the St. Emma Industrial and Agricultural College of Belmead, Rock Castle, Va., for coloured boys. The district of New York is the most important in America. It comprises 38 houses, most of the Brothers of which are engaged in teaching parochial gratuitous schools. In addition to these they conduct Manhattan College, the De La Salle Institute, La Salle Academy, and Clason Point Military Academy, in New York City, and academies and high schools in other important cities. The New York Catholic Protectory, St. Philip's Home, and four orphan asylums and industrial schools under their care contain a population of 2500 children. The district of St. Louis contains 19 houses, the majority of the Brothers of which are doing parochial school work. They conduct large colleges at St. Louis and Memphis, and important academies and high schools at Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis, Duluth, St. Joseph and Santa Fe. They also have charge of the Osage Nation School for Indian boys at Gray Horse, Oklahoma. The district of San Francisco comprises 13 houses, and as in the other districts, the Brothers are largely engaged in parochial schools; but they also conduct St. Mary's College at Oakland, the Sacred Heart College at San Francisco, and the Christian Brothers' College at Sacramento, together with academies at Berkeley, Portland, Vancouver, and Walla Walla, and the St. Vincent Orphan Asylum, Marin Co., California, which contains 500 boys. The total number of pupils of the Brothers in the United States is thirty thousand. Their 94 houses are spread over 33 archdioceses and dioceses. It would not be possible in such an article as this to recall the memory of all the religious who, during the last sixty years, figured prominently in this development of their institute. Among those who have been called to their reward, we may however mention the revered names of Brothers Facile and Patrick, assistants to the superior general. INTELLECTUAL ACTIVITY The Brothers of the Christian Schools are too much absorbed by the work of teaching to devote themselves to the writing of books not of immediate utility in their schools. But, for the use of their pupils, they have written a large number of works on all the specialities in their courses of studies. Such works have been written in French, English, German, Italian, Spanish Flemish, Turkish, Annamite, etc. The Brothers' schoolbooks treat of the following subjects: Christian doctrine, reading, writing, arithmetic, geometry, algebra, trigonometry, mechanics, history, geography, agriculture, physics, chemistry, physiology, zoology, botany, geology, the modern languages, grammar, literature, philosophy, pedagogy, methodology, drawing, shorthand, etc. Annales de l'institut des freres des ecoles chretiennes (Paris, 1883); Essai historique sur la maison mere de l'institut des freres des ecoles chretiennes (Paris, 1905); DUBOIS-BERGERSON, Les nouvelles ecoles `a la Lancaster comparees avec l'enseignement des freres des ecoles chretiennes (Paris, 1817); La verite sur l'enseignement mutuel (Paris, 1821); RENDU, L'association en general, et particulierement l'association charitable des freres des ecoles chretiennes (Paris, 1845); D'ARSAC, Les freres des ecoles chretiennes pendant la guerre franco-allemande de 1870-1871 (Paris, 1872); Rapport de l'academie franc,aise sur le prix de Boston, decerne `a l'institut des freres des ecoles chretiennes (Paris, 1872); American Catholic Quarterly Review (October, 1879); Reports of the universal exhibitions of Paris, Vienna, Chicago, etc.; CAISSE, L'institut des freres des ecoles chretiennes, son origine, son but et ses oeuvres (Montreal, 1883); CHEVALIER, Les freres des ecoles chretiennes et l'enseignement primaire (Paris, 1887); RENDU, Sept ans de guerre `a l'enseignement libre (Paris, 1887); Catholic World (August, 1900; September, 1901); DES CILLEULS, Histoire de l'enseignement primaire (Paris, 1908); AZARIAS, Educational Essays (Chicago, 1896); GOSOOT, Essai critique sur l'enseignement primaire en France (Paris, 1905); JUSTINUS, Deposition dans l'enguete sur l'enseignement secondaire (Paris, 1899); CAlL, Rapport sur l'enseignement technique dans les ecoles catholiques en France (Paris, 1900); Autour de l'enseignement congreganiste (Paris, 1905); VESPEYREN, La lutte scolaire en Belgique (Brussels, 1906); Bulletin de l'oeuvre de Saint Jean Baptiste de La Salle; Bulletin des ecoles chretiennes; Bulletin de l'oeuvre de la jeunesse; L'education chretienne; Bulletins of the Various alumni associations formed by graduates of the Brothers' Schools; Bulletins and reports published by colleges, normal schools, etc.; Biographies of Brothers Irenee, Salomon, Philippe, Joseph, Scubilion, Exuperien, Auguste-Hubert, Alpert, Leon de Jesus etc.; Directoire pedagogique a l'usage des ecoles chretiennes (Paris, 1903); Conduite `a l'usage des ecoles chretiennes (Paris, 1903); Elements de Pedagogie pratique (Paris, 1901); Traite theorique et pratique de Pedagogie (Namur, 1901); Manuel de Pedagogie `a l'usage des ecoles primaires catholiques (Paris, 1909). BROTHER PAUL JOSEPH. Roman Historical Institutes Roman Historical Institutes Collegiate bodies established at Rome by ecclesiastical or civil authority for the purpose of historical research, notably in the Vatican archives. I. THE EARLIEST SCIENTIFIC USES OF THE VATICAN ARCHIVES In purely business matters or those of a political or diplomatic nature, the Roman ecclesiastical authorities have always relied on the material abundantly stored up in their archives. A glance at the papal "Regesta" of the thirteenth century shows occasional reference to documents formerly kept in the archives, but which had been lost. In time these references multiply and point to a constant official intercourse between the Curia and the keepers of the Apostolic archives. It is rare that such references disclose a purely scientific interest, and then only when foreign authorities inquire after documents that would facilitate domestic researches on given topics. Then, as now, it was the official duty of the personnel of the archives to attend to all such matters. In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the awakening critical investigation of the past led some scholars to resort to the rich treasures of the papal archives, and they were always treated with the utmost courtesy. The most far-reaching and efficient use of the archives for historical purposes began with Caesar Baronius, later cardinal, and author of the well-known monumental work on ecclesiastical history, undertaken at the instance of St. Philip Ned, "Annales ecclesiastici a Christo nato ad annum 1198", in twelve folio volumes (Rome, 1588-1593). Through this work, and in the several continuations of it by others, the world first learned of the great wealth of historical documents contained in the Roman archives, and especially in the archives of the Vatican. The extensive "Bullaria", or compilations of papal decrees, general and particular (see BULLS AND BRIEFS), are drawn in part from the archives of the recipients, but could never have reached their imposing array of volumes had not the Vatican furnished abundant material. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, ecclesiastical historians and the writers of the almost countless monographs (some of them very valuable) concerning local churches, monasteries, ecclesiastical institutions, etc. were greatly aided by the officials of the archives, themselves often scholarly investigators. In this respect the papal archivist, Augustin Theiner (1804-74) accomplished very far-reaching work, of great service to certain medieval countries or groups of countries, when he published, in many folio volumes, a multitude of documents relative to the ecclesiastical and civil history of Northern, Eastern, and Southern Europe, also a documentary treatise in three folio volumes on the temporal dominion of the pope and its administration. In the same period, i.e. from about 1850 to 1875, several other investigators, chiefly German and Austrian, in one way or another secured admittance to the papal archives. These events and other influences increased the desire of all scholars for the opening of this valuable repository of important historical documents. Although under Pius IX it became somewhat easier to obtain a permit for private research, the turbulent political conditions of his reign forbade anything like a general opening of the Vatican Archives. II. OPENING OF THE VATICAN ARCHIVES "We have nothing to fear from the publication of documents", exclaimed Leo XIII, when on 20 June, 1879, he appointed the ecclesiastical historian, Joseph Hergenroether, "Cardinal Archivist of the Holy Roman Church" (Palmieri, "Introite ed Esiti di Papa Niccolo III", Rome, pp. xiv, xv; Friedensburg, "Das kgl. Preussische Historische Institut in Rom", Berlin, 1903, passim). By this act he opened to students the archives of the Vatican, more especially what are known as the secret archives, despite strong opposition from several quarters. It took until the beginning of 1881 to arrange all preliminaries, including the preparation of suitable quarters for the work, after which date the barriers were removed which, until then, with a few exceptions, had shut out all investigators. The use of these treasures was at length regularized by a papal Decree (regolamento) of 1 May, 1884, whereby this important matter was finally removed from the province of discussion. In the meantime the pope had addressed to the three cardinals, Pitra, De Luca, and Hergenroether, his now famous letter on historical studies (18 Aug., 1883). III. SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN THE SECRET ARCHIVES Hitherto very little was known of the contents of this vast treasury; now its great wealth came to be widely appreciated -- Briefs, Bulls, petitions, department records, reports of nuncios and other reports, diaries, documentary collections, privileges, legal titles of the most miscellaneous kind, etc. Progress was at first rather slow, for no systematic use of the archives could be planned until the workers had familiarized themselves with the material at hand. The over-hasty treatment that, in the beginning, the thirteenth century material received, revealed quite clearly how much there was to learn before the archives could be used to the best advantage. Gradually, however, good order was introduced in all kinds of research work, in which task notable services were rendered by the historical institutes which from time to time were established in close relation to the Vatican Archives. Research work in these archives may be divided into individual and collective, or general and special. Individual researches are made by individual scholars, while collective work is conducted by several who have either united for that purpose, or belong permanently to some association. General research devotes itself to the larger outlines of ecclesiastical history, while special research seeks the solution of particular problems, more or less far-reaching in importance. Both methods may be combined, objectively and subjectively; an individual investigator may work at a general theme, while an association may take up the study of a restricted or specific problem, and vice versa. The results of Vatican historical study are to be found in periodicals, essays, and books, also disseminated in large historical collections devoted to other classes of historical material, and containing the results of other investigations, e.g. the "Monumenta Germaniae Historica". A study of the published material exhibits long series of original documents, narratives based on copious documentary material, and occasionally narratives based on information obtained in the archives, but unaccompanied by the documents or by reference to them. IV. FIELD OF INVESTIGATION While it is but natural that the study of documents should be chiefly done in the Vatican archives, most investigators also carry on work in the important collection of printed books known as the Vatican Library. In October, 1892, there was opened in connexion with the archives and the Library a consultation library, the "Bibliotheca Leoniana", in order to facilitate research, historical and Biblical. Governments, academies, libraries, archives, and corporations contributed to it, and it has already reached very large proportions. The archives themselves are so organized that nearly every student of history may discover there something of special importance in his own province. The numerous other archives and manuscript-collections of Rome are also open, as a rule, to the student; indeed, few workers limit themselves exclusively to Vatican materials. Moreover, studies begun in the Vatican are often supplemented by scientific excursions to other Italian cities, either on the student's homeward journey or during some vacation period; such excursions have at times resulted in surprising discoveries. An exhaustive examination of Italian archives and libraries leads occasionally to a larger view of the subject than was originally intended by the investigator, for whom in this way new questions of importance spring up, the definite solution of which becomes highly desirable. Experience, therefore, and the detailed study of the numerous repertories, indexes, and inventories of manuscripts, have made it necessary to organize permanently the scientific historical researches carried on in the interest of any given country. This means a saving of money and of labour; in this way also more substantial achievements can be hoped for than from purely individual research. Consequently, institutes for historical research were soon founded in Rome, somewhat on the plan of the earlier archaeological societies. While the opening of such institutes is a nobile offlcium of any government, private associations have made serious sacrifices in the same direction and sustained with success the institutes they have called into life. The state institutes investigate all that pertains to national relations or intercourse (religion, politics, economics, science, or art) with the Curia, with Rome, or, for that matter, with Italy. Many of these institutes do not attempt to go further, and their field is certainly comprehensive and in itself admirable. Others devote themselves to similar researches, but do not neglect general questions of interest to universal history, profane or ecclesiastical, or to the history of medieval culture. Of course, only the larger institutes, with many workers at their disposal, can satisfactorily undertake problems of this nature. V. HISTORICAL INSTITUTES AT THE VATICAN ARCHIVES England At the end of 1876 the Rev. Joseph Stevenson, who was employed by the English Public Record Office to obtain transcripts of documents of historical importance in the Vatican archives, resigned his appointment, and Sir Thomas Hardy, on Cardinal Manning's recommendation, appointed the late Mr. W. H. Bliss as his successor. Though for years Stevenson and Bliss conducted their researches alone, in the last decade other English investigators, chiefly younger men, had been detailed to Rome by the home Government to co-operate with Bliss and hasten the progress of his work. Bliss died very suddenly of pneumonia, at an advanced age, 8 March, 1909, and though his place has not yet been filled by the English Government, English investigators continue the work, under direction of the Record Office; they strictly confine themselves, however, to the search for English documents. Scientific use of this material was not called for, and was therefore not undertaken. Short resumes were provided in English of the contents of the documents in question, so as to facilitate the widest possible use to those who had not sufficient mastery of Latin and Italian. So far there have appeared: "Calendars of Entries in the Papal Registers relating to Great Britain and Ireland:" + I. "Papal Letters" (London, since 1892 seven volumes to date, the eighth in course of preparation); + II. "Petitions to the Pope" (1 vol.). The reports of these investigations are to be found in the "Annual Reports of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records", the first one, covering 1877, 1878, and 1879, is found under the year 1880. In addition to the medieval material, numerous extracts and transcripts of a political nature were made from sixteenth- and seventeenth-century documents, transmitted to the Record Office and partly used in the "Calendars of State Papers". France The Ecole Franc,aise de Rome, originally one with that of Athens, employs almost constantly historical investigators at the Grande Archivio of Naples; they devote themselves to the documents of the Angevin dynasty. This institute has an organ of its own, the "Melanges d'archeologie et d'histoire", in whose pages are found not only historical studies properly so called, but also papers on the history of archaeology and of art. The institute has s home in the Palazzo Farnese, where its director lives, and where a rich library is housed. It was founded in 1873, and during the reign of Pius IX, long before the opening of the secret archives, inaugurated its great achievement, the editing of the papal "Regesta" of the thirteenth century, a gigantic and yet unfinished task. Scholars of international reputation have figured among its directors; its present head is Monsignor Louis Duchesne, whose monumental work, the "Liber Pontificalis", and numerous other productions, place him in the forefront of Church historians. The "Bibliotheque des Ecoles Franc,aises d'Athenes et de Rome", is made up of lengthy monographs by pupils of the Ecole, treating of divers subjects connected with their studies in the Vatican archives and library. The papal "Regesta" of the thirteenth century, the "Liber Pontificalis", and the "Liber Censuum" (Fabre-Duchesne) form a second series of historical publications to the credit of the French school. A third series is made up of documents selected from the fourteenth-century papal "Regesta", and is entitled "Lettres des papes d'Avignon se rapportant `a la France". The slow progress of so many learned enterprises is a matter of general regret, nor can one always approve the methods employed, though no one can deny the very great utility of these scholarly studies and researches for the history of the papacy and its international relations. The chaplains of the French National Institute of St-Louis des Franc,ais have recently undertaken a work closely related to that of the Ecole Franc,aise, the publication in concise regesta-like form of all letters of the Avignon popes. Gratifying progress is being made with the "Regesta" of John XXII. The review known as the "Annales de St-Louis des Franc,ais", whose contributions to ecclesiastical history were noteworthy, has been discontinued. Other works of a learned historical nature have been published by the chaplains of this institute, the results of their diligent researches in the Vatican archives. German Catholic Institutes The chaplains of the German national institute of Santa Maria di Campo Santo Teutonico were among the first to profit by the opening of the secret archives for the conduct of scientific research in the field of German ecclesiastical history. Monsignor de Waal, director of the institute, founded the "Roemische Quartalschrift fuer Archaeologie und Kirchengeschichte" as a centre for historical research more modest and limited in scope, and it fulfils this purpose in a creditable manner. To the students of history at the Campo Santo is owing the founding, at Rome, of the Goerres Society Historical Institute. This institute, established after long hesitation, sufficiently explained by the slender resources of the society, is now a credit to its founders (besides regular reports, begun in 1890, on the work of this institute, and filed in the records of the society, see Cardauns, "Die Goerres Gesellschaft, 1876-1901", Cologne, 1901, pp. 65-73). In 1900 a new department was added and placed under the guidance of Monsignor Wilpert, for the study of Christian archaeology and the history of Christian art. The Roman labours of the Goerres Society Institute deal chiefly with nunciature reports, the administration records of the Curia since 1300, and the Acts of the Council of Trent. Other publications, more or less broad in scope, are published regularly in the "Historisches Jahrbuch", among its "Quellen und Forschungen", or in other organs of the Goerres Society. The twelve stout volumes in which this institute proposes to edit exhaustively the Acts and records of the Council of Trent, represent one of the most difficult and important tasks which could be set before a body of workers in the Vatican archives. The aforesaid investigation of medieval papal administration and financial records, which the institute investigates in cooperation with the Austrian Leo Society, open up a chief source of information for the history of the Curia in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The results accomplished by this purely private association surpass greatly those of many governmental institutes. The Goerres Society Institute maintains at Rome no library of its own, but aids efficiently in the growth of the fine library at the Campo Santo Teutonico, near the Vatican. The Leo Society supports at Rome a trained investigator, who devotes his time to publications from the papal treasury (Camera), records of the later Middle Ages. The present director of the Goerres Society Institute is Dr. Stephan Ehses. Austria The Austrian institute (Instituto Austriaco di studi storici), established by Theodor von Sickel, and now directed by Professor von Pastor, has existed since 1883. It affords young historical workers the means of familiarizing themselves during a brief sojourn at Rome with the rich manuscript materials accumulated there, and in this way enables them to produce monographs of value. It cooperates in the publication of the nunciature reports, and contemplates the publication of the correspondence of the legates and the ambassadors at the Council of Trent. Among the publications of this institute are Sickel's study on the "Privilegium Ottonianum"; his edition of the "Liber Diurnus"; and his noteworthy "Roemische Berichte" (Roman reports). Several valuable studies by this institute have appeared in the "Mittheilungen des oesterreichischen Institutes fuer Geschichtsforschung," dealing with the work of the medieval papal chancery, while Ottenthal's "Chancery Rules" and Tangl's "Chancery Regulations" are constantly referred to in every recent work on the Middle Ages. The numerous historical commissions which were sent from Bohemia to Rome (concerning which, see below) may be considered as auxiliaries of the Austrian Institute. Prussia A short history of the founding of the Prussian historical institute was published by Friedensburg (Berlin, Academy of Sciences). The project dates back to 1883, but it was not until May of 1888 that Konrad Schottmueller succeeded in opening a Prussian Historical Bureau that began modestly enough, but soon developed into the actual Prussian Institute, reorganized (12 November, 1902) on a materially enlarged scale, and now the most important of all historical institutes at Rome, owing largely to the efforts of its present director, Professor Kehr. In addition to the general work of historical investigations, special departments are conducted for the history of art and for patristic and Biblical research. Besides its own publication," Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven" the institute issues a series of German nunciature reports (eleven volumes since 1897). The Library of the Institute, besides extensive monographs on various subjects, has published the useful "Repertorium Germanicum", and, in co-operation with the Instituto Storico Italiano, the "Registrum chartarum Italiae", a series of independent volumes. These researches take in Italian, German, French, English, and Spanish archives; Austria and Switzerland are likewise visited occasionally. The library of the institute ranks, with that of the Palazzo Farnese, among the best historical libraries in Rome. Hungary The "Hungaricorum Historicorum Collegium Romanum", though no longer in existence, owed its inception in 1892 to the efforts of Monsignor Fraknoi, and published under his direction (since 1897) the "Monumenta Vaticana historiam regni Hungariae illustrantia", whose two series in ten folio volumes are a lasting tribute to the munificence of Fraknoi. Other noteworthy monographs based on Roman documents and illustrating the history of Hungary must be credited to this institute. Belgium The "Institut historique Belge `a Rome" was founded in December, 1904. The minister of state defined its purpose to be the searching of Italian archives, and especially those of the Vatican, for historical material bearing on Belgium, and the publication of the results obtained. The project included a centre for individual Belgian investigators as well as for students assisted by the State, where all might find an adequate library and facilities for securing historical data of every kind. The institute, it is hoped, will eventually become an "Ecole des hautes etudes" for the study of ecclesiastical and profane history, classical philology, archaeology, and the history of art. Its first director was Dom Ursmer Berliere, of the Abbey of Maredsous (1904-1907); his successor is Dr. Gottfried Kurth, professor emeritus at the University of Liege. The institute has published thus far two volumes of "Analecta Vaticano-Belgica": + I, "Suppliques de Clement VI" (1342-1352), by Berliere; + II, "Lettres de Jean XXII" (1316-1334), vol. I (1316-1324), by Fayen. The following are in preparation: + "Lettres de Jean XXII", vol. II, by Fayen; + "Suppliques d'Innocent VI" (1352-1362), by Berliere; + "Lettres de Benoit XII" (1334-1342), by Fierens. Two other volumes are under way. By his pamphlet "De la creation d'une ecole Belge `a Rome" (Tournai, 1896), Professor Cauchie of Louvain contributed greatly to the founding of the institute. Holland The Netherland institute grew out of various historical commissions, the last of which was established 20 May, 1904. Its two representatives, Dr. Brom and Dr. Orbaan, were appointed on 31 March, 1906, director and secretary respectively of the state institute founded on this date, and of which they thus became the first members (Brom, "Nederlandsche gesehiedvorsching en Rome", 1903). This institute aims at a systematic investigation of Holland's ecclesiastical and political relations, and of her artistic, scientific, and economic relations, with Rome and Italy during the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries, a period of very great importance for Holland. A yearly report of the institute and its library appears at The Hague in "Verslagen omtrent's Rikjs onde archieven". Besides a number of essays and minor works, there appeared at The Hague, during 1908, a work by Brom, "Archivalia in Italie"; part I, Rome, "Vaticaansch Archief". All historical material in Italian archives bearing on the Netherlands will be concisely described in this series of volumes; the first part contains 2650 numbers, and is specially valuable because of the excellent conspectus it offers of the contents of the Vatican archives. A work by Orbaan, on Dutch scholars and artists in Rome, is ready for the press (1910). VI. MISCELLANEOUS RESEARCHES IN THE VATICAN ARCHIVES The institutes above-mentioned offer a very incomplete idea of the historical work done in the Vatican archives. Many Frenchmen, Germans, Austrians, Belgians, and others flock to Rome and spend much of their time in private investigations of their own. Most of these workers attach themselves to some institute and profit by its experience. Among Americans we may mention Professor Charles Homer Haskins, who familiarized himself with the treasures contained in the archives and library, and made a report on the same for the "American Historical Review", reprinted in the "Catholic University Bulletin", Washington, 1897, pp. 177-196; Rev. P. de Roo, who laboured for several years on the "Regesta" of Alexander VI; Heywood, who compiled the "Documenta selecta e tabulario Sanctae Sedis, insulas et terras anno 1492 repertas a Christophoro Columbo respicientia", which he published in phototype in 1892. Other American scholars have profited largely by the immemorial academic hospitality of the popes. Special mention should be made here of the studies of Luka Jelic and Conrad Eubel concerning early missionary enterprises, and of an essay by Shipley on "The Colonization of America" (Lucerne, 1899). For other valuable information see the tenth volume of the "Records of the American Catholic Historical Society of Philadelphia". The time would seem to be at hand for the foundation of an American Catholic historical institute, which would take over the task of collecting and publishing in a systematic way the numerous important documents concerning the American Church preserved in many places at Rome, particularly in the Propaganda archives. Russia has sent historical commissions to Rome repeatedly, and for several years at a time. The names of Schmurlow, Brueckner, Pierling, Forster, Wiersbowski, and others are sufficient reminders of the excellent work accomplished. From Japan came Dr. Murakami, to explore the Propaganda and Vatican archives for a history of the Catholic missions to Japan (1549-1690). Denmark is represented among the investigators by such names as Moltesen, Krarup, and Lindback; Norway by Storm, and Sweden by Tegner, Elof, Karlson, and others. Moritz Stern, Felix Vernet, and others obtained at the Vatican material for a history of the Hebrews. The Spanish Government was long officially represented by the famous Spanish historian, Ricardo de Hinojosa, while researches in Portuguese history are conducted by MacSwiney. Switzerland entered into this peaceful competition by the labours of Kirsch and Baumgarten in 1899, and since the close of the last century many Swiss have visited Rome for Vatican researches, both as individuals and on official missions. We need only mention the names of Buechi, Wirz, Bernoulli, Steffens, Reinhard, and Stueckelberg. In addition to these and many more names, we must mention the numerous religious who seek in the archives fresh material for general ecclesiastical history, or the history of their order, e. g. the Benedictines and the Bollandists. The writer has observed at work in the archives during the last twenty-one years Dominicans, Jesuits, Franciscans, Minor Conventuals, Capuchins, Trinitarians, Cistercians, Benedictines, Basilians, Christian Brothers, Lateran Canons Regular, Vallombrosans, Camaldolese, Olivetans, Silvestrines, Carthusians, Augustinians, Mercedarians, Barnabites, and others. Women have at times secured temporary admittance, though for intelligible reasons this privilege is now restricted. Since 1879 the archives have welcomed Catholics, Protestants, Hebrews, believers and infidels, Christians and heathens, priests and laymen, men and women, rich and poor, persons of high social standing and plain citizens, of every nation and language. The writer is acquainted with nearly all the great archives of Europe, and knows that none of them afford similar facilities to the historical student or extend him more courtesy. The number of visitors is at all times higher than to other archives, while the freedom allowed in the use of the material is the most far-reaching known; practically nothing is kept hidden. VII. RESULTS OF VATICAN RESEARCH It is not easy to determine which branch of historical science derives most benefit from Vatican research, nor is the question a simple one. Chronologically, there is no doubt that so far the most favoured period is that of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The sixteenth century comes next, much light being shed on it by the nunciature reports and the Acts of the Council of Trent. The seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries have hitherto been represented by few works, and these not very comprehensive. From the standpoint of subjects treated, Vatican research falls into three parts: + (1) The study of the ecclesiastical relations of Rome with individual nations or peoples; + (2) Roman ecclesiastical administration in all its details; + (3) the influence exerted by the papacy on the civilized world, whether purely political or of a mixed political and religious nature. If we consider the medieval period under the first of these subdivisions the results obtained are substantially as follows: + (a) compilation of correct lists of bishops and titular bishops; + (b) investigation of the so-called Servitia (communia et secreta), i. e. of certain dues paid at Rome, among them pallium dues; + (c) completer lists of bishoprics, abbeys, prelateships and churches directly subject to the Holy See; + (d) lists, as complete as possible, of all kinds of papal ordinances, processes decisions, constitutions, and decrees; + (e) study of the entire system of minor benefices in so far as affected by curial reservations; + (f) selection from the petition files of all requests growing out of the said system; + (g) reports of bishops on the state of their dioceses, and consistorial processes; + (h) investigation into the influence of the Inquisition, to determine how far the respective local authorities were influenced by the Curia; + (i) inquiry into the taxes imposed on clergy and Churches for purely ecclesiastical purposes, and into the ways and means of collecting these taxes. For certain dioceses, ecclesiastical provinces, regions, or entire countries, all these data, together with other items of information, have in the course of time been gathered, and published, by individuals and by associations. They have also, in a general way, been made generally accessible by the publication, as a whole, of the respective papal registers (see REGISTERS, PAPAL), e. g. the "Regesta" publications of the French institute, and the cameral (papal fiscal) reports of the Goerres and Leo societies. "Chartularia", or collections of papal Bulls have been published not only for Westphalia, Eastern and Western Prussia, Utrecht, Bohemia, Salzburg, Aquileia, but also for Denmark, Poland, Switzerland, Great Britain, Ireland, and Germany (Repertorium Germanicum), not to speak of other countries. Many a student of the Vatican archives has devoted all his time to a single subject, e. g. Armellini, "Le Chiese di Roma"; Storm, "Die Obligationen der norwegischen Praelaten von 1311-1523"; Samaran-Mollat, "La fiscalite pontificale en France au l4 ^me siecle"; Berliere, "Les 'Libri Obligationum et Solutionum' des archives vaticanes", for the Dioceses of Cambrai, Liege, Therouanne, and Tournai; Rieder, "Roemische Quellen zur Konstanzer Bisthumsgeschichte (1305-1378)". The work done in the second subdivision is of the greatest importance for questions of history, canon law, and general and medieval culture. The all-pervading activity of the medieval popes has been richly illustrated by various investigators, e. g. Goeller on the records of the "Poenitentiaria"; Kirsch and Baumgarten on the finances (officials, administration) of the College of Cardinals; Baumgarten on the respective offices of the vice-chancellor and the "Bullatores", the residence-quarters of the Curia, its Cursores or messengers; Watzl, Goeller, and Schaefer on the finance bureau of the Curia; von Ottenthal on the secretaries and the "Chancery rules"; Tangl and Erler respectively on the "Chancery regulations" and the "Liber Cancellariae"; Kehr, Berliere, and Rieder on the petition files (libelli supplices), etc. The student will find quite helpful illustration of these delicate labours in the remarkable editions of the "Liber Pontificalis" by Duchesne; the "Liber Censuum" by Duchesne-Fabre; the "Italia Pontificia" by Kehr; the "Hierarchia Catholica Medii AEvi" by Eubel; the "Catalogue of Cardinals" by Cristofori; the "Acts of the Council of Trent", by Ehses, Merkle, and Buschbell, not to speak of numerous other valuable works. As to the third subdivision, i. e. the purely political, or politico-ecclesiastical activities of the popes, no clearly defined distinction can be made, either in the Middle Ages or in more modern times, between these activities and the exercise of purely ecclesiastical authority; their numerous manifestations may be studied in the publications briefly described above. Abundant information is to be found in the publications of the papal "Regesta" and the "Camera" or treasury, records. We learn from them many curious items of profane history, e. g. the population of various kingdoms, grants of tithes to kings and rulers for political purposes, etc. The nunciature reports are rich in this information. In a general way the Vatican archives and these new historical Roman institutes have been particularly helpful towards a better knowledge of the ecclesiastico-religious relations of individual dioceses, countries, and peoples with the head of the Church and its central administration. So numerous have been the results of investigation published along these lines, that it has hitherto been impracticable to prepare an exhaustive bibliography of the works based on studies in the Vatican archives. Melampo and Ranuzzi, following in the footsteps of Meister, have recently published a very useful, but not at all exhaustive, list of all the books and essays of this kind which had appeared up to 1900: "Saggio bibliografico dei lavori eseguiti nell' Archivio Vaticano" (Rome, 1909). (See VATICAN, sub-title Archives, Library; and BULLARIUM.) Most of the information on the Roman historical institutes is as yet scattered in essays and book prefaces. Besides the works of FRIEDENSBURG and BROM above referred to, see HASKINS, The Vatican Archives in American Hist. Rev. (October, 1896), reprinted in Catholic Univ. Bulletin (April, 1897); CAUCHIE, De la creation d'une ecole belge `a Rome; SCHLECHT in BUCHBERGER, Kirchliches Handlexikon, s. v. Institute, historische; and the financial reports of the various institutes in their respective official publications. Among the accounts published by the various historical commissions the best have always been those of the Poles and the Russians, and are to be found in MELAMPO-RANUZZI. PAUL M. BAUMGARTEN. Canonical Institution Canonical Institution (Lat. institutio, from instituere, to establish) In its widest signification, Canonical Institution denotes any manner, in accordance with canon law, of acquiring an ecclesiastical benefice (Regula prima juris, in VIto). In its strictest sense the word denotes the collation of an ecclesiastical benefice by a legitimate authority, on the presentation of a candidate by a third person (institutio tituli collativa). The term is used also for the actual putting in possession of a benefice (institutio corporalis), and for the approbation requisite for the exercising of the ecclesiastical ministry when an authority inferior to the bishop has power to confer an ecclesiastical benefice (institutio auctorisabilis). (Cf. gloss on "Regula prima juris", in VIto, s. v. "Beneficium".) I. The institutio tituli collativa (that which gives the title), sometimes also called verbalis (which may be by word of mouth or by writing, as distinguished from the institutio corporalis, or realis), is the act by which an ecclesiastical authority confers a benefice on a candidate presented by a third person enjoying the right of presentation. This occurs in the case of benefices subject to the right of patronage (jus patronatus), one of the principal prerogatives of which is the right of presenting to the bishop a titular for a vacant benefice. It also occurs when, in virtue of a privilege or of a concordat, a chapter, a sovereign, or a government has the right to present to the pope the titular of a bishopric or of an important ecclesiastical office. If the pope accepts the person presented, he bestows the institutio canonica on the titular, The effect of this act is to give the candidate who has been presented (and who till then had only a jus ad rem, i. e. the right to be provided with the benefice) a jus in re or in beneficio, i, e. the right of exercising the functions connected with the benefice and of receiving revenues accruing from it. The right of institution to major benefices rests in the pope, but in the case of minor benefices it may belong to a bishop and his vicar-general, to a vicar capitular, or even to other ecclesiastics, in virtue of a foundation title dating from before the Council of Trent (Sess, XIV, "de Ref.", c. xii), or of a privilege, or of prescription. In all these cases the bishop has the right to examine the candidate, excepting candidates presented by universities recognized canonically (Council of Trent, Sess. VII, "de Ref.", c. xiii; Sess. XXV, "de Ref.", c. ix); even this exception does not apply to parishes (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIV, "de Ref.", c. xviii). Institution ought to be bestowed within the two months following the presentation, in the case of parish churches (Constitution of Pius V, "In conferendis", 16 March, 1567), but canon law has not specified any fixed time with regard to other benefices. However, if the bishop refuses to grant institution within the time appointed by a superior authority, the latter can make the grant itself (see JUS PATRONATUS). II. The institutio corporalis, also called investitura, or installatio, is the putting of a titular in effective possession of his benefice. Whereas canon law permits a bishop to put himself in possession of his benefice (see ENTHRONIZATION), in the case of minor benefices it requires an actual installation by a competent authority. The bishop may punish any one who takes possession of a benefice on his own authority, and the violent occupation of a benefice in possession of another ecclesiastic entails on the guilty party the loss of all right to that benefice. The right of installation formerly belonged to archdeacons, but is now reserved to the bishop, his vicar-general, or his delegate, ordinarily the dean (decanus christianitatis or foraneus). It is performed with certain symbolical ceremonies, determined by local usage or by diocesan statutes, such, for instance, as a solemn entry into the parish and into the church, the handing over of the church keys, a putting in possession of the high altar of the church, the pulpit, confessional, etc. In some countries there is a double installation: the first by the bishop or vicar-general, either by mere word of mouth, or by some symbolical ceremony, as, for instance, presenting a biretta; the second, which is then a mere ceremony, taking place in the parish and consisting in the solemn entry and other formalities dependent on local custom. In some places custom has even done away with the institutio corporalis properly so called; the rights inherent to the putting in possession are acquired by the new titular to the benefice by a simple visit to his benefice, for instance, to his parish, with the intention of taking possession thereof, provided such visit is made with the authority of the bishop, thus precluding the possibility of self-investiture. When the pope names the titular to a benefice, he always mentions those who are to put the beneficiary in possession. The following are the effects of the institutio corporalis: + From the moment he is put in possession the beneficiary receives the revenues of his benefice. + He enjoys all the rights resulting from the ownership and the possession of the benefice, and, in particular, it is from this moment that the time necessary for a prescriptive right to the benefice counts. + The possessor can invoke in his favour the provisions of rules 35 and 36 of the Roman Chancery de annali, and de triennali possessione. This privilege has lost much of its importance since the conferring of benefices is now a matter of less dispute than in former times. Formerly, on account of various privileges, and the constant intervention of the Holy See in the collation of benefices, several ecclesiastics were not infrequently named to the same benefice. Should one of them happen to have been in possession of the benefice for a year, it would devolve on the rival claimant to prove that the possessor had no right to the benefice; moreover, the latter was obliged to begin his suit within six months after his nomination to the benefice by the pope, and the trial was to be concluded within a year counting from the day when the actual possessor was cited to the courts (rule 35 of the Chancery). These principles are still in force. The triennial possession guaranteed the benefice to the actual incumbent in all actions in petitorio or in possessorio to obtain a benefice brought by any claimant whatsoever (rule 36 of the Chancery). + The peaceful possession of a benefice entails ipso facto the vacating of any benefices to which the holder is a titular, but which would be incompatible with the one he holds. + It is only from the day when bishops and parish priests enter into possession of their benefices that they can validly assist at marriages celebrated in the diocese or in the parish (Decree "Ne temere", 2 August, 1907). Furthermore, in some dioceses the statutes declare invalid any exercise of the powers of jurisdiction attached to a benefice, before the actual installation in the benefice. III. The institutio auctorisabilis is nothing but an approbation required for the validity of acts of jurisdiction, granted by the bishop to a beneficiary in view of his undertaking the care of souls (cura animarum). It is an act of the same nature as the approbation which a bishop gives members of a religious order for hearing confessions of persons not subject to their authority, and without which the absolution would be invalid; but there is this difference that in the case of the institutio auctorisabilis the approbation relates to the exercise of the ministerial functions taken as a whole. It is the missio canonica indispensable for the validity of acts requiring an actual power of jurisdiction. This institution, which is reserved to the bishop or his vicar-general and to those possessing a quasi-episcopal jurisdiction, is required when the institutio tituli collativa belongs to an inferior prelate, a chapter, or a monastery. The institutio tituli collativa given by the bishop himself implies the institutio auctorisabilis, which, therefore, needs not to be given by a special act. Decretals of Gregory IX, bk. III, tit. 7, De institutionibus; Liber Sextus, bk. III, tit. 6, De Institutionibus; FERRARIS, Prompta bibliotheca, s. v. Institutio, IV (Paris, 1861), 701-12; HINSCHIUS, System des katholischen Kirchenrechts, II (Berlin, 1878-1883), 649-57, and III, 3-4; SANTI, Proelectiones iuris canonici, III (Ratisbon, 1898), 116-25; WERNZ, Jus decretalium, II (Rome, 1899), 532-45; GROSS, Das Recht an der Pfruende (Graz, 1887); Archiv fuer katholisches Kirchenrecht, LXXXVIII (1908), 768-9, and LXXXIX (1909), 75-8, 327-9. A. VAN HOVE Intellect Intellect (Latin intelligere -- inter and legere -- to choose between, to discern; Greek nous; German Vernunft, Verstand; French intellect; Italian intelletto). The faculty of thought. As understood in Catholic philosophical literature it signifies the higher, spiritual, cognitive power of the soul. It is in this view awakened to action by sense, but transcends the latter in range. Amongst its functions are attention, conception, judgment, reasoning, reflection, and self-consciousness. All these modes of activity exhibit a distinctly suprasensuous element, and reveal a cognitive faculty of a higher order than is required for mere sense-cognitions. In harmony, therefore, with Catholic usage, we reserve the terms intellect, intelligence, and intellectual to this higher power and its operations, although many modern psychologists are wont, with much resulting confusion, to extend the application of these terms so as to include sensuous forms of the cognitive process. By thus restricting the use of these terms, the inaccuracy of such phrases as "animal intelligence" is avoided. Before such language may be legitimately employed, it should be shown that the lower animals are endowed with genuinely rational faculties, fundamentally one in kind with those of man. Catholic philosophers, however they differ on minor points, as a general body have held that intellect is a spiritual faculty depending extrinsically, but not intrinsically, on the bodily organism. The importance of a right theory of intellect is twofold: on account of its bearing on epistemology, or the doctrine of knowledge; and because of its connexion with the question of the spirituality of the soul. HISTORY The view that the cognitive powers of the mind, or faculties of knowledge, are of a double order -- the one lower, grosser, more intimately depending on bodily organs, the other higher and of a more refined and spiritual nature -- appeared very early, though at first confusedly, in Greek thought. It was in connexion with cosmological, rather than psychological, theories that the difference between sensuous and rational knowledge was first emphasized. On the one hand there seems to be constant change, and, on the other hand, permanence in the world that is revealed to us. The question: How is the apparent conflict to be reconciled? or, Which is the true representation? forced itself on the speculative mind. Heraclitus insists on the reality of the changeable. All things are in a perpetual flux. Parmenides, Zeno, and the Eleatics argued that only the unchangeable being truly is. Aisthesis, "sense", is the faculty by which changing phenomena are apprehended; nous, "thought", "reason", "intellect", presents to us permanent, abiding being. The Sophists, with a skill unsurpassed by modern Agnosticism, urged the sceptical consequences of the apparent contradiction between the one and the many, the permanent and the changing, and emphasized the part contributed by the mind in knowledge. For Protagoras, "Man is the measure of all things", whilst with Gorgias the conclusion is: "Nothing is; nothing can be known; nothing can be expressed in speech". Socrates held that truth was innate in the mind antecedent to sensuous experience, but his chief contribution to the theory of knowledge was his insistence on the importance of the general concept or definition. It was Plato, however, who first realized the full significance of the problem and the necessity for coordinating the data of sense with the data of the intellect, he also first explained the origin of the problem. The universe of being, as reported by reason, is one, eternal, immutable; as revealed by sense, it is a series of multiple changing phenomena. Which is the truly real? For Plato there are in a sense two worlds, that of the intellect (noeton) and that of sense (horaton). Sense can give only an imperfect knowledge of its object, which he calls belief (pistis) or conjecture (eikasia). The faculties by which we apprehend the noeton, "the intelligible world" are two: nous, "intuitive reason", which reaches the ideas (see IDEA); and logos, "discursive reason", which by its proper process, viz. episteme "demonstration", attains only to dianoia "conception". Plato thus sets up two distinct intellectual faculties attaining to different sets of objects. But the world of ideas is for Plato the real world, that of sense is only a poor shadowy imitation. Aristotle's doctrine on the intellect in its main outline is clear. The soul is possessed of two orders of cognitive faculty, to aisthetikon, "sensuous cognition", and to dianoetikon "rational cognition" . The sensuous faculty includes aisthesis, sensuous perception", phantasia, "imagination", and mneme, memory". The faculty of rational cognition includes nous and dianoia. These, however, are not so much two faculties as two functions of the same power. They roughly correspond to intellect and ratiocinative reason. For intellect to operate, previous sense perception is required. The function of the intellect is to divest the object presented by sense of its material and individualizing conditions, and apprehend the universal and intelligible form embodied in the concrete physical reality. The outcome of the process is the generalization in the intellect of an intellectual form or representation of the intelligible being of the object (eidos, noeton). This act constitutes the intellect cognizant of the object in its universal nature. In this process intellect appears in a double character. On the one hand it exhibits itself as an active agent, in that it operates on the object presented by the sensuous faculty rendering it intelligible. On the other hand, as subject of the intellectual representation evolved, it manifests passivity, modifiability, and susceptibility to the reception of different forms. There is thus revealed in Aristotle's theory of intellectual cognition an active intellect (nous poietikos) and a passive intellect (nous pathetikos). But how these are to be conceived, and what precisely is the nature of the distinction and relation between them, is one of the most irritatingly obscure points in the whole of Aristotle's works. The locus classicus is his "De Anima", III, v, where the subject is briefly dealt with. As the active intellect actuates the passive, it bears to it a relation similar to that of form to matter in physical bodies. The active intellect "illuminates" the object of sense, rendering it intelligible somewhat as light renders colours visible. It is pure energy without any potentiality, and its activity is continuous. It is separate, immortal, and eternal. The passive intellect, on the other hand, receives the forms abstracted by the active intellect and ideally becomes the object. The whole passage is so obscure that commentators from the beginning are hopelessly divided as to Aristotle's own view on the nature of the nous poietikos. Theophrastus, who succeeded Aristotle as scholiarch of the Lyceum, accepted the twofold intellect, but was unable to explain it. The great commentator, Alexander of Aphrodisias, interprets the nous poietikos as the activity of the Divine intelligence. This view was adopted by many of the Arabian philosophers of the Middle Ages, who conceived it in a pantheistic sense. For many of them the active intellect is one universal reason illuminating all men. With Avicenna the passive intellect alone is individual. Averrhoes conceives both intellectus agens and intellectus possibilis as separate from the individual soul and as one in all men. The Schoolmen generally controverted the Arabian theories. Albertus Magnus and St. Thomas interpret intellectus agens and possibilis as merely distinct faculties or powers of the individual soul. St. Thomas understands "separate" (choristos) and "pure" or "unmixed" (amiges) to signify that the intellect is distinct from matter and incorporeal. Interpreting Aristotle thus benevolently, and developing his doctrine Aquinas teaches that the function of the active intellect is an abstractive operation on the data supplied by the sensuous faculties to form the species intelligibiles in the intellectus possibilis. The intellectus possibilis thus actuated cognizes what is intelligible in the object. The act of cognition is the concept, or verbum mentale, by which is apprehended the universal nature or essence of the object prescinded from its individualizing conditions. The main features of the Aristotelean doctrine of intellect, and of its essential distinction from the faculty of sensuous cognition, were adhered to by the general body of the Schoolmen. By the time we reach modern philosophy, especially in England, the radical distinction between the two orders of faculties begins to be lost sight of. Descartes, defending the spirituality of the soul; naturally supposes the intellect to be a spiritual faculty. Leibniz insists on both the spirituality and innate efficiency of the intellect. Whilst admitting the axiom, "Nil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu", he adds with much force, "nisi intellectus ipse", and urges spontaneity and innate activity as characteristics of the monad. From the break with Scholasticism, however, English philosophy drifted towards Sensationism and Materialism, subsequently influencing France and other countries in the same direction, as a consequence, the old conception of intellect as a spiritual faculty of the soul, and as a cognitive activity by which the universal, necessary, and immutable elements in knowledge are apprehended, was almost entirely lost. For Hobbes the mind is material, and all knowledge is ultimately sensuous. Locke's attack on innate ideas and intuitive knowledge, his reduction of various forms of intellectual cognition to complex amalgams of so called simple ideas originating in sense perception, and his representation of the mind as a passive tabula rasa, in spite of his allotting certain work to reflection and the discursive reason, paved the way for all modern Sensationism and Phenomenalism. Condillac, omitting Locke's "reflection", resolved all intellectual knowledge into Sensationism pure and simple. Hume, analysing all mental Products into sensuous impressions, vivid or faint, plus association due to custom, developed the sceptical consequences involved in Locke's defective treatment of the intellectual faculty, and carried philosophy back to the old conclusions of the Greek Sensationists and Sophists, but reinforced by a more subtile and acute psychology. All the main features of Hume's psychology have been adopted by the whole Associationist school in England, by Positivists abroad, and by materialistic scientists in so far as they have any philosophy or psychology at all. The essential distinction between intellect, or rational activity, and sense has in fact been completely lost sight of, and Scepticism and Agnosticism have logically followed. Kant recognized a distinction between sensation and the higher mental element, but, conceiving the latter in a different way from the old Aristotelean view, and looking on it as purely subjective, his system was developed into an idealism and scepticism differing in kind from that of Hume, but not very much more satisfactory. Still, the neo-Kantian and Hegelian movement, which developed in Great Britain during the last quarter of the nineteenth century has contributed much towards the reawakening of the recognition of the intellectual, or rational, element in all knowledge. THE COMMON DOCTRINE The teaching of Aristotle on intellect, as developed by Albertus Magnus and St. Thomas, has become, as we have said, in its main features the common doctrine of Catholic philosophers. We shall state it in brief outline. (1) Intellect is a cognitive faculty essentially different from sense and of a supra-organic order; that is, it is not exerted by, or intrinsically dependent on, a bodily organ, as sensation is. This proposition is proved by psychological analysis and study of the chief functions of intellect. These are conception, judgment, reasoning, reflection, and self-consciousness. All these activities involve elements essentially different from sensuous consciousness. In conception the mind forms universal ideas. These are different in kind from sensations and sensuous images. These latter are concrete and individual, truly representative of only one object, whilst the universal idea will apply with equal truth to any object of the class. The universal idea possesses a fixity and invariableness of nature, whilst the sensuous image changes from moment to moment. Thus the concept or universal idea of "gold", or "triangle", will with equal justice stand for any specimen, but the image represents truly only one individual. The sensuous faculty can be awakened to activity only by a stimulus which whatever it be, exists in a concrete, individualized form. In judgment the mind perceives the identity or discordance of two concepts. In reasoning it apprehends the logical nexus between conclusion and premises. In reflection and self-consciousness it turns back on itself in such a manner that there is perfect identity between the knowing subject and the object known. But all these forms of consciousness are incompatible with the notion of a sensuous faculty, or one exerted by means of a bodily organ. The Sensationist psychologists, from Berkeley onwards, were unanimous in maintaining that the mind cannot form universal or abstract ideas. This would be true were the intellect not a spiritual faculty essentially distinct from sense. The simple fact is that they invariably confounded the image of the imagination, which is individualized, with the concept, or idea, of the intellect. When we employ universal terms in any intelligible proposition the terms have a meaning. The thought by which that meaning is apprehended in the mind is a universal idea. (2) In cognition we start from sensuous experience. The intellect presupposes sensation and operates on the materials supplied by the sensuous faculties. The beginning of consciousness with the infant is in sensation. This is at first felt, most probably, in a vague and indefinite form. But repetition of particular sensations and experience of other sensations contrasted with them render their apprehension more and more definite as time goes on. Groups of sensations of different senses are aroused by particular objects and become united by the force of contiguous association. The awakening of any one of the group calls up the images of the others. Sense perception is thus being perfected. At a certain stage in the process of development the higher power of intellect begins to be evoked into activity, at first feebly and dimly. In the beginning the intellectual apprehension, like the sensations which preceded, is extremely vague. Its first acts are probably the cognition of objects revealed through sensation under wide and indefinite ideas, such as "extended-thing", "moving-thing", "pressing-thing", and the like. It takes in objects as wholes, before discriminating their parts. Repetition and variation of sense-impressions stimulates and sharpens attention. Pleasure or pain evokes interest and the intellect concentrates on part of the sensuous experience, and the process of abstraction begins. Certain attributes are laid hold of, to the omission of others. Comparison and discrimination are also called into action, and the more accurate and perfect elaboration of concepts now proceeds rapidly. The notions of substance and accidents, of whole and parts, of permanent and changing, are evolved with increasing distinctness. Generalization follows quickly upon abstraction. When an attribute or an object has been singled out and recognized as a thing distinct from its surroundings, an act of reflection renders the mind aware of the object as capable of indefinite realization and multiplication in other circumstances, and we have now the formally reflex universal idea. The further activity of the intellect is fundamentally the same in kind, comparing, identifying, or discriminating. The activity of ratiocination is merely reiteration of the judicial activity. The final stage in the elaboration of a concept is reached when it is embodied for further use in a general name. Words presuppose intellectual ideas, but register them and render them permanent. The intellect is also distinguished according to its functions, as speculative or practical. When pronouncing simply on the rational relations of ideas, it is called speculative; when considering harmony with action, it is termed practical. The faculty, however, is the same in both cases. The faculty of conscience is in fact merely the practical intellect, or the intellect passing judgment on the moral quality of actions. The intellect is essentially the faculty of truth and falsity, and in its judicial acts it at the same time affirms the union of subject and predicate and the agreement between its own representation and the objective reality. Intellect also exhibits itself in the higher form of memory when there is conscious recognition of identity between the present and the past. To the intellect is due also the conception of self and personal identity. The fundamental difficulty with the whole Sensationist school, from Hume to Mill, in regard to the recognition of personality, is due to their ignoring the true nature of the faculty of intellect. Were there no such higher rational faculty in the mind, then the mind could never be known as anything more than a series of mental states. It is the intellect which enables the mind to apprehend itself as a unity, or unitary being. The ideas of the infinite, of space, time, and causality are all similarly the product of intellectual activity, starting from the data presented by sense, and exercising a power of intuition, abstraction, identification, and discrimination. It is, accordingly, the absence of an adequate conception of intellect which has rendered the treatment of all these mental functions so defective. in the English psychology of the last century. (See also FACULTIES OF THE SOUL; DIALECTIC; EPISTEMOLOGY; EMPIRICISM; IDEALISM; POSITIVISM.) MICHAEL MAHER Intendencia Oriental y Llanos de San Martin Intendencia Oriental y Llanos de San Martin Vicariate Apostolic in the province of Saint Martin, Colombia, South America, created 24 March, 1908, and entrusted to the Society of Mary. In place of this vicariate there were formerly two prefectures Apostolic, one created on 23 June, 1903, and the other on 8 January, 1904, after negotiations (dating from 1902) between the Holy See and the Colombian Government for the evangelization of these vast provinces. Surrounded by the Cordilleras, and watered by the Batatas, Garagoa, Guavio, Humades, Meta, and Orinoco Rivers, the territory is still inhabited largely by the uncivilized natives, in number about 50,000, of whom scarcely 10,000 have been baptized. U. BENIGNI Intention Intention (Lat. intendere, to stretch toward, to aim at) is an act of the will by which that faculty efficaciously desires to reach an end by employing the means. It is apparent from this notion that there is a sharply defined difference between intention and volition or even velleity. In the first instance there is a concentration of the will to the point of resolve which is wholly lacking in the others. With the purpose of determining the value of an action, it is customary to distinguish various sorts of intentions which could have prompted it. First, there is the actual intention, operating, namely, with the advertence of the intellect. Secondly, there is the virtual intention. Its force is borrowed entirely from a prior volition which is accounted as continuing in some result produced by it. In other words, the virtual intention is not a present act of the will. but rather a power (virtus) come about as an effect of a former act, and now at work for the attainment of the end. The thing therefore that is wanting in a virtual, as contrasted with an actual, intention is not of course the element of will, but rather the attention of the intellect, and that particularly of the reflex kind. So, for example, a person having made up his mind to undertake a journey may during its progress be entirely preoccupied with other thoughts. He will nevertheless be said to have all the while the virtual intention of reaching his destination. Thirdly, an habitual intention is one that once actually existed, but of the present continuance of which there is no positive trace; the most that can be said of it is that it has never been retracted. And fourthly an interpretative intention is one that as a matter of fact has never been really elicited; there has been and is no actual movement of the will; it is simply the purpose which it is assumed a man would have had in a given contingency, had he given thought to the matter. It is a commonplace among moralists that the intention is the chief among the determinants of the concrete morality of a human act. Hence when one's motive is grievously bad, or even only slightly so, if it be the exclusive reason for doing something, then an act which is otherwise good is vitiated and reputed to be evil. An end which is only venially bad, and which at the same time does not contain the complete cause for acting, leaves the operation which in other respects was unassailable to be qualified as partly good and partly bad. A good intention can never hallow an action the content of which is wrong. Thus it never can be lawful to steal, even though one's intention be to aid the poor with the proceeds of the theft. The end does not justify the means. It may be noted here in passing, as somewhat cognate to the matter under discussion, that the explicit and frequently renewed reference of one's actions to Almighty God is not now commonly thought to be necessary in order that they may be said to be morally good. The old-time controversy on this point has practically died out. Besides affecting the goodness or badness of acts, intention may have much to do with their validity. Is it required, for instance, for the fulfilment of the law? The received doctrine is that, provided the subject is seriously minded to do what is prescribed, he need not have the intention of satisfying his obligation; and much less is it required that he should be inspired by the same motives as urged the legislator to enact the law. Theologians quote in this connection the saying, "Finis praecepti non cadit sub praecepto" (the end of the law does not fall under its binding force). What has been said applies with even more truth to the class of obligations called real, enjoining for instance the payment of debts. For the discharge of these no intention at all is demanded, not even a conscious act. It is enough that the creditor gets his own. The Church teaches very unequivocally that for the valid conferring of the sacraments, the minister must have the intention of doing at least what the Church does. This is laid down with great emphasis by the Council of Trent (sess. VII). The opinion once defended by such theologians as Catharinus and Salmeron that there need only be the intention to perform deliberately the external rite proper to each sacrament, and that, as long as this was true, the interior dissent of the minister from the mind of the Church would not invalidate the sacrament, no longer finds adherents. The common doctrine now is that a real internal intention to act as a minister of Christ, or to do what Christ instituted the sacraments to effect, in other words, to truly baptize, absolve, etc., is required. This intention need not necessarily be of the sort called actual. That would often be practically impossible. It is enough that it be virtual. Neither habitual nor interpretative intention in the minister will suffice for the validity of the sacrament. The truth is that here and now, when the sacrament is being conferred, neither of these intentions exists, and they can therefore exercise no determining influence upon what is done. To administer the sacraments with a conditional intention, which makes their effect contingent upon a future event, is to confer them invalidly. This holds good for all the sacraments except matrimony, which, being a contract, is susceptible of such a limitation. As to the recipients of the sacraments, it is certain that no intention is required in children who have not yet reached the age of reason, or in imbeciles, for the validity of those sacraments which they are capable of receiving. In the case of adults, on the other hand, some intention is indispensable if the sacrament is not to be invalid. The reason is that our justification is not brought about without our co-operation, and that includes the rational will to profit by the means of sanctification. How much of an intention is enough is not always quite clear. In general, more in the way of intention will be demanded in proportion as the acts of the receiver seem to enter into the making of the sacrament. So for penance and matrimony under ordinary conditions a virtual intention would appear to be required; for the other sacraments an habitual intention is sufficient. For an unconscious person in danger of death the habitual intention may be implicit and still suffice for the validity of the sacraments that are then necessary or highly useful; that is, it may be contained in the more general purpose which a man has at some time during his life, and which he has never retracted, of availing himself of these means of salvation at so supreme a moment. For the gaining of indulgences the most that can probably be exacted is an habitual intention. JOSEPH F. DELANY Intercession Intercession (Mediation) To intercede is to go or come between two parties, to plead before one of them on behalf of the other. In the New Testament it is used as the equivalent of entygchanein (Vulg. interpellare, in Heb., vii, 25). "Mediation" means a standing in the midst between two (contending) parties, for the purpose of bringing them together (cf. mediator, mesites, I Tim., ii, 5). In ecclesiastical usage both words are taken in the sense of the intervention primarily of Christ, and secondarily of the Blessed Virgin and the angels and saints, on behalf of men. It would be better, however, to restrict the word mediation to the action of Christ, and intercession to the action of the Blessed Virgin, the angels, and the saints. In this article we shall briefly deal with: I. the Mediation of Christ; and at more length with, II. the intercession of the saints. I. THE MEDIATION OF CHRIST In considering the Mediation of Christ we must distinguish between His position and His office. As God-man He stands in the midst between God and man partaking of the natures of both, and therefore, by that very fact, fitted to act as Mediator between them. He is, indeed, the Mediator in the absolute sense of the word, in a way that no one else can possibly be. "For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (I Tim., ii, 5). He is united to both: "The head of every man is Christ... the head of Christ is God" (I Cor., xi, 3). His office of Mediator belongs to Him as man, His human nature is the principium quo, but the value of His action is derived from the fact that it is a Divine Person Who acts. The main object of His mediation is to restore the friendship between God and man. This is attained first by the meriting of grace and remission of sin, by means of the worship and satisfaction offered to God by and through Christ. But, besides bringing man nigh unto God, Christ brings God nigh unto man, by revealing to man Divine truths and commands -- He is the Apostle sent by God to us and the High-Priest leading us on to God (Heb., iii, 1). Even in the physical order the mere fact of Christ's existence is in itself a mediation between God and man. By uniting our humanity to His Divinity He united us to God and God to us. As St. Athanasius says, "Christ became man that men might become gods" ("De Incarn.", n. 54; cf. St. Augustine, "Serm. De Nativitate Dom."; St. Thomas, III, Q. i, a. 2). And for this Christ prayed: "That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee. . . . I in them, and thou in me; that they may be made perfect in one" (John, xvii, 21-23). The subject of Christ's mediation belongs properly to the articles ATONEMENT; JESUS CHRIST; REDEMPTION. See also St. Thomas, III, Q. xxvi; and the treatises on the Incarnation. II. INTERCESSION AND INVOCATION We shall here speak not only of intercession, but also of the invocation of the saints. The one indeed implies the other; we should not call upon the saints for aid unless they could help us. The foundation of both lies in the doctrine of the communion of saints. In the article on this subject it has been shown that the faithful in heaven, on earth, and in purgatory are one mystical body, with Christ for their head. All that is of interest to one part is of interest to the rest, and each helps the rest: we on earth by honouring and invoking the saints and praying for the souls in purgatory, and the saints in heaven by interceding for us. The Catholic doctrine of intercession and invocation is set forth by the Council of Trent, which teaches that the saints who reign together with Christ offer up their own prayers to God for men. It is good and useful suppliantly to invoke them, and to have recourse to their prayers, aid, and help for obtaining benefits from God, through His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, Who alone is our Redeemer and Saviour. Those persons think impiously who deny that the Saints, who enjoy eternal happiness in heaven, are to be invoked; or who assert either that they do not pray for men, or that the invocation of them to pray for each of us is idolatry, or that it is repugnant to the word of God, and is opposed to the honour of the one Mediator of God and men, Jesus Christ (Sess. XXV). This had already been explained by St. Thomas: Prayer is offered to a person in two ways: one as though to be granted by himself, another as to be obtained through him. In the first way we pray to God alone, because all our prayers ought to be directed to obtaining grace and glory which God alone gives, according to those words of the psalm (lxxxiii, 12): 'The Lord will give grace and glory.' But in the second way we pray to the holy angels and to men not that God may learn our petition through them, but that by their prayers and merits our prayers may be efficacious. Wherefore it is said in the Apocalypse (viii, 4): 'And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel' (Summ. Theol., II-II, Q. lxxxiii, a. 4). The reasonableness of the Catholic teaching and practice cannot be better stated than in St. Jerome's words: If the Apostles and Martyrs, while still in the body, can pray for others, at a time when they must still be anxious for themselves, how much more after their crowns, victories, and triumphs are won! One man, Moses, obtains from God pardon for six hundred thousand men in arms; and Stephen, the imitator of the Lord, and the first martyr in Christ, begs forgiveness for his persecutors; and shall their power be less after having begun to be with Christ? The Apostle Paul declares that two hundred three score and sixteen souls, sailing with him, were freely given him; and, after he is dissolved and has begun to be with Christ, shall he close his lips, and not be able to utter a word in behalf of those who throughout the whole world believed at his preaching of the Gospel? And shall the living dog Vigilantius be better than that dead lion? ("Contra Vigilant.", n. 6, in P. L., XXIII, 344). The chief objections raised against the intercession and invocation of the saints are that these doctrines are opposed to the faith and trust which we should have in God alone; that they are a denial of the all-sufficient merits of Christ; and that they cannot be proved from Scripture and the Fathers. Thus Article 22 of the Anglican Church says: "The Romish doctrine concerning the Invocation of Saints is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God." (1) In the article ADORATION it has been clearly shown that the honour paid to angels and saints is entirely different from the supreme honour due to God alone, and is indeed paid to them only as His servants and friends. "By honouring the Saints who have slept in the Lord, by invoking their intercession and venerating their relics and ashes, so far is the glory of God from being diminished that it is very much increased, in proportion as the hope of men is thus more excited and confirmed, and they are encouraged to the imitation of the Saints" (Cat. of the Council of Trent, pt. III, c. ii, q. 11). We can, of course, address our prayers directly to God, and He can hear us without the intervention of any creature. But this does not prevent us from asking the help of our fellow-creatures who may be more pleasing to Him than we are. It is not because our faith and trust in Him are weak, nor because His goodness and mercy to us are less; rather is it because we are encouraged by His precepts to approach Him at times through His servants, as we shall presently see. As pointed out by St. Thomas, we invoke the angels and saints in quite different language from that addressed to God. We ask Him to have mercy upon us and Himself to grant us whatever we require; whereas we ask the saints to pray for us, i.e. to join their petitions with ours. However, we should here bear in mind Bellarmine's remarks: "When we say that nothing should be asked of the saints but their prayer for us, the question is not about the words, but the sense of the words. For as far as the words go, it is lawful to say: 'St. Peter, pity me, save me, open for me the gate of heaven'; also, 'Give me health of body, patience, fortitude', etc., provided that we mean 'save and pity me by praying for me'; 'grant me this or that by thy prayers and merits.' For so speaks Gregory of Nazianzus (Orat. xviii -- according to others, xxiv -- " De S. Cypriano" in P. G., XXXV, 1193; "Orat. de S. Athan.: In Laud. S. Athanas.", Orat. xxi, in P. G., XXXV, 1128); in "De Sanct. Beatif.", I, 17. The supreme act of impetration, sacrifice, is never offered to any creature. "Although the Church has been accustomed at times to celebrate certain Masses in honour and memory of the Saints, it does not follow that she teaches that sacrifice is offered unto them, but unto God alone, who crowned them; whence neither is the priest wont to say 'I offer sacrifice to thee, Peter, or Paul', but, giving thanks to God for their victories, he implores their patronage, that they may vouchsafe to intercede for us in heaven, whose memory we celebrate upon earth" (Council of Trent, Sess. XXII, c. iii). The Collyridians, or Philomarianites, offered little cakes in sacrifice to the Mother of God; but the practice was condemned by St. Epiphanius (Haer., lxxix, in P. G., XLI, 740); Leontius Byzant., "Contra Nest. et Eutych.", III, 6, in P. G., LXXXVI, 1364; and St. John of Damascus (Haer., lxxix, in P. G., XCIV, 728). (2) The doctrine of one Mediator, Christ, in no way excludes the invocation and intercession of saints. All merit indeed comes through Him; but this does not make it unlawful to ask our fellow-creatures, whether here on earth or already in heaven, to help us by their prayers. The same Apostle who insists so strongly on the sole mediatorship of Christ, earnestly begs the prayers of his brethren: "I beseech you, therefore, brethren, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the charity of the Holy Ghost, that you help me in your prayers for me to God" (Rom., xv, 30); and he himself prays for them: "I give thanks to my God in every remembrance of you, always in all my prayers making supplication for you all" (Phil., i, 3, 4). If the prayers of the brethren on earth do not derogate from the glory and dignity of the Mediator, Christ, neither do the prayers of the saints in heaven. (3) As regards the proof from Holy Scripture and the Fathers, we can show that the principle and the practice of invoking the aid of our fellow-creatures are clearly laid down in both. That the angels have an interest in the welfare of men is clear from Christ's words: "There shall be joy before the angels of God upon one sinner doing penance" (Luke, xv, 10). In verse 7 He says simply: "There shall be joy in heaven". Cf. Matt., xviii, 10; Heb., i, 14. That the angels pray for men is plain from the vision of the Prophet Zacharias: "And the angel of the Lord answered, and said: O Lord of hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem . . . and the Lord answered the angel . . . good words, comfortable words" (Zach., i, 12, 13). And the angel Raphael says: " When thou didst pray with tears . . . I offered thy prayer to the Lord" (Tob., xii, 12) The combination of the prayers both of angels and saints is seen in the vision of St. John: "And another angel came, and stood before the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer of the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar, which is before the throne of God. And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel" (Apoc., viii, 3, 4). God Himself commanded Abimelech to have recourse to Abraham's intercession: "He shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live. . . . And when Abraham prayed, God healed Abimelech" (Gen., xx, 7, 17). So, too, in the case of Job's friends He said: "Go to my servant Job, and offer for yourselves a holocaust; and my servant Job shall pray for you: his face I will accept" (Job, xlii, 8). Intercession is indeed prominent in several passages in this same Book of Job: "Call now if there be any that will answer thee, and turn to some of the saints' (v, 1);" If there shall be an angel speaking for him . . . He shall have mercy on him, and shall say: Deliver him, that he may not go down to corruption" (xxxiii, 23). "They [the angels] appear as intercessors for men with God, bringing men's needs before Him, mediating in their behalf. This work is easily connected with their general office of labouring for the good of men" (Dillman on Job, p. 44). Moses is constantly spoken of as "mediator': "I was the mediator and stood between the Lord and you" (Deut., v, 5; cf. Gal., iii, 19, 20). It is true that in none of the passages of the Old Testament mention is made of prayer to the saints, i. e; holy men already departed from this life; but this is in keeping with the imperfect knowledge of the state of the dead, who were still in Limbo. The general principle of intercession and invocation of fellow-creatures is, however, stated in terms which admit of no denial; and this principle would in due course be applied to the saints as soon as their position was defined. In the New Testament the number of the saints already departed would be comparatively small in the early days. The greatest of the Fathers in the succeeding centuries speak plainly both of the doctrine and practice of intercession and invocation. "But not the High-Priest [Christ] alone prays for those who pray sincerely, but also the angels . . . as also the souls of the saints who have already fallen asleep (ai te ton prokekoimemenon hagion psychai, Origen, "De Oratione", n. xi, in P. G., XI, 448). In many other places Origen uses similar expressions; indeed it may be said that there is hardly any treatise or homily in which he does not refer to the intercession of the angels and saints. St. Cyprian, writing to Pope Cornelius, says: "Let us be mutually mindful of each other, let us ever pray for each other, and if one of us shall, by the speediness of the Divine vouchsafement, depart hence first, let our love continue in the presence of the Lord, let not prayer for our brethren and sisters cease in the presence of the mercy of the Father" (Ep. lvii, in P. L., IV, 358). "To those who would fain stand, neither the guardianship of saints nor the defences of angels are wanting" (St. Hilary, "In Ps. cxxiv", n. 5, 6, in P. L., X, 682). "We then commemorate also those who have fallen asleep before us, first, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, that God, by their prayers and intercessions, may receive our petitions" (St. Cyril of Jerus., "Cat. Myst.", v, n. 9) in P. G., XXXIII, 1166). "Remember me, ye heirs of God, ye brethren of Christ, supplicate the Saviour earnestly for me, that I may be freed though Christ from him that fights against me day by day" (St. Ephraem Syrus, "De Timore Anim.", in fin.). "Ye victorious martyrs who endured torments gladly for the sake of the God and Saviour; ye who have boldness of speech towards the Lord Himself; ye saints, intercede for us who are timid and sinful men, full of sloth, that the grace of Christ may come upon us, and enlighten the hearts of all of us that so we may love him" (St. Ephraem, "Encom. in Mart."). "Do thou, [Ephraem] that art standing at the Divine altar, and art ministering with angels to the life-giving and most Holy Trinity, bear us all in remembrance, petitioning for us the remission of sins, and the fruition of an everlasting kingdom" (St. Gregory of Nyssa, "De vita Ephraemi", in fin., P. G., XLVI, 850). "Mayest thou [Cyprian] look down from above propitiously upon us, and guide our word and life; and shepherd [or shepherd with me] this sacred flock . . . gladdening us with a more perfect and clear illumination of the Holy Trinity, before Which thou standest" (St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. xvii -- according to others, xxiv -- "De S. Cypr.", P. G., XXXV, 1193). In like manner does Gregory pray to St. Athanasius (Orat. xxi, "In laud. S. Athan.", P. G., XXXV, 1128). "O holy choir! O sacred band! O unbroken host of warriors! O common guardians of the human race! Ye gracious sharers of our cares! Ye co-operators in our prayer! Most powerful intercessors!" (St.Basil, "Hom. in XL Mart.", P. G., XXXI, 524). "May Peter, who wept so efficaciously for himself, weep for us and turn towards us Christ's benignant countenance" (St. Ambrose, "Hexaem.", V, xxv, n. 90, in P. L., XIV, 242). St. Jerome has been quoted above. St. John Chrysostom frequently speaks of invocation and intercession in his homilies on the saints, e. g. "When thou perceivest that God is chastening thee, fly not to His enemies . . . but to His friends, the martyrs, the saints, and those who were pleasing to Him, and who have great power" (parresian, "boldness of speech" -- Orat. VIII, "Adv. Jud.", n. 6, in P. G., XLVIII, 937). "He that wears the purple, laying aside his pomp, stands begging of the saints to be his patrons with God; and he that wears the diadem begs the Tent-maker and the Fisherman as patrons, even though they be dead" ("Hom. xxvi, in II Ep. ad Cor.", n. 5, in P. G., LXI, 581). "At the Lord's table we do not commemorate martyrs in the same way that we do others who rest in peace so as to pray for them, but rather that they may pray for us that we may follow in their footsteps" (St. Augustine, "In Joann.", tr. lxxxiv, in P. L., XXXIV, 1847). Prayers to the saints occur in almost all the ancient liturgies. Thus in the Liturgy of St. Basil: "By the command of Thine only-begotten Son we communicate with the memory of Thy saints . . . by whose prayers and supplications have mercy upon us all, and deliver us for the sake of Thy holy name which is invoked upon us". Cf. the Liturgy of Jerusalem, the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom, the Liturgy of Nestorius, the Coptic Liturgy of St. Cyril, etc. That these commemorations are not later additions is manifest from the words of St. Cyril of Jerusalem: "We then commemorate also those who have fallen asleep before us, first, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, that God by their prayers and intercessions may receive our petitions" ("Cat. Myst.", v, in P. G., XXXIII, 1113). (See Renaudot, "Liturgiarum Orientalium Collectio", Paris, 1716.) We readily admit that the doctrine of the intercession of the saints is a development from the teaching of Scripture and that the practice is open to abuse. But if the carefully-worded and wholesome decrees of the Council of Trent be adhered to, there is nothing in the doctrine or practice which deserves the condemnation expressed in Article xxii of the Anglican religion. Indeed the High Church Anglicans contend that it is not the invocation of saints that is here rejected, but only the "Romish doctrine ", i. e. the excesses prevailing at the time and afterwards condemned by the Council of Trent. "In principle there is no question herein between us and any other portion of the Catholic Church. . . . Let not that most ancient custom, common to the Universal Church, as well Greek as Latin, of addressing Angels and Saints in the way we have said, be condemned as impious, or as vain and foolish" [Forbes, Bishop of Brechin (Anglican), "Of the Thirty-nine Articles", p. 422]. The reformed Churches, as a body, reject the invocation of the saints. Article xxi of the Augsburg Confession says: "Scripture does not teach us to invoke the Saints, or to ask for help from the Saints; for it puts before us Christ as the one mediator, propitiatory, high-priest and intercessor." In the "Apology of the Augsburg Confession" (ad art. xxi, sects. 3, 4), it is admitted that the angels pray for us, and the saints, too, "for the Church in general"; but this does not imply that they are to be invoked. The Calvinists, however, reject both intercession and invocation as an imposture and delusion of Satan, since thereby the right manner of praying is prevented, and the saints know nothing of us, and have no concern as to what passes on earth ("Gall. Confess.", art. xxiv; "Remonst. Conf." c. xvi, sect. 3). DENZINGER, Enchiridion (10th ed., Freiburg im Br., 1908), n.984; Catechism of the Council of Trent, tr. DONOVAN (Dublin, 1867); ST. THOMAS, II-II, Q. lxxxiii, a. 4; and Suppl., Q. lxxii, a. 2; SUAREZ, De Incarnatione (Venice, 1740-51), disp. lii; PETAVIUS, De Incarnatione (Bar-le-Duc, 1864-70), XV, c. v, vi; BELLARMINE, De Controversiis Christian Fidei, II (Paris, 1608), Controv. quarta, I, xv sqq.; WATERWORTH, Faith of Catholics, III (New York, 1885); MILNER, End of Religious Controversy, ed. RIVINGTON (London, 1896); GIBBONS, Faith of our Fathers (Baltimore, 1890), xiii, xiv; MOeHLER, Symbolism tr. ROBERTSON, II (London, 1847), 140 sqq. T.B. SCANNELL Episcopal Intercession Episcopal Intercession The right to intercede for criminals, which was granted by the secular power to the bishops of the Early Church. This right originated rather in the great respect in which the episcopal dignity was held in the early centuries of Christianity, than in any definite enactment. Reference to its existence is made in the seventh canon of the Council of Sardica about 344 (Mansi, "Collectio Amplissima Conciliorum", III. It is also mentioned by St. Augustine (Epp. cxxxiii and cxxxix, in Migne, P.L., XXXIII, 509, 535), St. Jerome (Ep. lii, in Migne, P.L., XXII, 527-40), and by Socrates in his "Church History" (V, xiv; VII, xvii). St. Augustine repeatedly interceded for criminals with Macedonius, who was then governor of Africa (Epp. clii-cliii, in Migne, P.L., XXXIII, 652). Martin of Tours interceded with Emperor Maximus for the imprisoned Priscillianists in 384-5: and Bishop Flavian of Antioch interceded with Emperor Theodosius I in 387 on behalf of the inhabitants of Antioch, who had wantonly destroyed the imperial statues in that city. St. Ambrose induced Emperor Theodosius I to enact a law which forbade the execution of the death penalty and the confiscation of property until thirty days after sentence had been passed. It was the purpose of this law to leave room for clemency and to prevent the punishing of the innocent [see Bossuet, "Gallia Orthodoxa" pars I, lib. II, cap. v, in "OEuvres Completes", XII (Bar-le-Duc, 1870), 98]. To enable them to exercise their right of intercession, the bishops had free access to the prisons (Codex Theodosii, app., cap. xiii). They were even exhorted to visit the prisoners every Wednesday and Saturday in order to investigate the cause of their imprisonment, and to admonish the supervisors of the prisons to treat those committed to their charge with Christian charity. In case the prison-keepers were found to be inhuman or remiss in their duty towards their prisoners, the bishops were to report these abuses to the emperor. The rights of the bishops, which were almost unlimited in this respect, were somewhat regulated for the bishops of the Eastern Empire in "Codex Justiniani", lib. I, tit. 4: "De episcopali audientia"; for the bishops of the Western Empire in the "Edicta Theoderici", cap. xiv (Mon. Germ. Leg., V). Closely allied with the right of episcopal intercession was the right of asylum or sanctuary (see RIGHT OF ASYLUM), and the right and duty of the bishops to protect orphans, widows, and other unfortunates. Thus Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, interceded with Empress Pulcheria in behalf of the poor of his diocese, who were overladen with taxes; the Third Council of Carthage, held in 399, requested the emperor to accede to the wishes of the bishops by appointing advocates to plead the causes of the poor before the courts, while the Council of Macon, held in 585, forbade all civil authorities to begin judicial proceedings against widows and orphans without previously notifying the bishop of the diocese to which the accused belonged. KRAUS, Realencyklopaedie der christlichen Altertuemer, I (Freiburg im Br., 1882), 166-7; RATZINGER, Gesch. der kirchlichen Armenpflege (Freiburg im Br., 1884), 133-9; EALES in Dictionary of Christian Antiquities (London, 1876-80), s. v.; LALEMAND, Histoire de la Charite, I (Paris, 1907-). MICHAEL OTT Interdict Interdict (Latin interdictum, from inter and dicere). Originally in Roman law, an interlocutory edict of the praetor, especially in matter affecting the right of possession; it still preserves this meaning in both Roman and canon law. In present ecelesiastical use the word denotes, in general, a prohibition. In addition to the definite meaning it has when referring to the object of this article, the term is often loosely employed in a wider and rather untechnical sense. We speak of a priest, a church, or a practice of devotion being interdicted, to denote a suspended priest, one who either by canon law or by the stricture of his ordinary is forbidden to exercise his sacerdotal functions, a church building that has been secularized, or one in which Divine service is temporarily suspended, because the edifice has incurred "pollution" or lost its consecration, finally, extraordinary practices of devotion are said to be interdicted. But, strictly speaking, interdict is applied only to persons and churches affected by the penal measure or censure called "interdict", and it is exclusively in this sense of the word that the subject is treated here. After explaining its nature and effects we shall mention the interdicts in force by common canonical law. An interdict is a censure, or prohibition, excluding the faithful from participation in certain holy things. These holy things are all those pertaining to Christian worship, and are divided into three classes: + the Divine offices, in other words the Liturgy, and in general all acts performed by clerics as such, and having reference to worship + the sacraments, excepting private administrations of those that are of necessity; + ecclesiastical burial, including all funeral services. This prohibition varies in degree, according to the different kinds of interdicts to be enumerated: First, interdicts are either local or personal; the former affect territories or sacred buildings directly, and persons indirectly; the latter directly affect persons. Canonical authors add a third kind, the mixed interdict, which affects directly and immediately both persons and places; if, for instance, the interdict is issued against a town and its inhabitants, the latter are subject to it, even when they are outside of the town (arg. cap. xvi, "De sent. excomm." in VI). Local interdicts, like personal interdicts, may be general or particular. A general local interdict is one affecting a whole territory, district, town, etc., and this was the ordinary interdict of the Middle Ages; a particular local interdict is one affecting, for example, a particular church. A general personal interdict is one falling on a given body or group of people as a class, e.g. on a chapter, the clergy or people of a town, of a community; a particular personal interdict is one affecting certain individuals as such, for instance, a given bishop, a given cleric. Finally, the interdict is total if the prohibition extends to all the sacred things mentioned above; otherwise it is called partial. A special kind of partial interdict is that which forbids one to enter a church, interdictum ab ingressu ecclesiae mentioned by certain texts. Omitting the mixed interdict, which does not form a distinct class, we have therefore: + the general local interdicts; + particular local interdicts; + general personal interdicts; + particular personal interdicts; + prohibitions against entering a church. We may add + the prohibition obliging the clergy to abstain from celebrating the Divine offices, cessatio a divinis, a measure somewhat akin to a particular local interdict, only that it is not imposed on account of any crime on the part of those whom it affects. This short account shows us that under the same name are grouped penal measures rather different in nature, but having in common a prohibition of certain sacred things. Interdict differs from excommunication, in that it does not cut one off from the communion of the faithful or from Christian society, though the acts of religion forbidden in both cases are almost identical. It differs from suspension also in this respect: the latter affects the powers of clerics, inasmuch as they are clerics, while the interdict affects the rights of the faithful as such, and does not directly affect clerics as such but only as members of the Church. Of course, it follows that the clergy cannot exercise their functions towards those under interdict, or in interdicted places or buildings, but their powers are not directly affected, as happens in case of suspension; their jurisdiction remains unimpaired, which allows of a guilty individual being punished, without imperilling the validity of his acts of jurisdiction. This shows that an interdict is more akin to excommunication than to suspension. Whereas excommunication is exclusively a censure, intended to lead a guilty person back to repentance, an interdict, like suspension, may be imposed either as a censure or as a vindictive punishment. In both cases there must have been a grave crime; if the penalty has been inflicted for an indefinite period and with a view to making the guilty one amend his evil ways it is imposed as a censure; if, however, it is imposed for a definite time, and no reparation is demanded of the individuals at fault, it IS inflicted as a punishment. Consequently the interdicts still in vogue in virtue of the Constitution "Apostolicae Sedis" and the Council of Trent are censures; whilst the interdict recently (1909) placed by Pius X on the town of Adria for fifteen days was a punishment. Strictly speaking, only the particular personal interdict is in all cases a perfect censure, because it alone affects definite persons, while the other interdicts do not affect the individuals except indirectly and inasmuch as they form part of a body or belong to the interdicted territory or place. That is also the reason why only particular personal interdicts, including the prohibition to enter a church suppose a personal fault. In all other cases, on the contrary, although a fault has been committed, and it is intended to punish the guilty persons or make them amend, the interdict may affect and does affect some who are innocent, because it is not aimed directly at the individual but at a moral body, e. g. a chapter, a monastery, or all the inhabitants of a district or a town. If a chapter incur an interdict (Const. "Apost. Sedis", interd., n. 1) for appealing to a future general council, the canons who did not vote for the forbidden resolution are, notwithstanding, obliged to observe the interdict. And the general local interdict suppressing all the Divine offices in a town will evidently fall on the innocent as well as the guilty. Such interdicts are therefore inflicted for the faults of moral bodies, of public authorities as such, of a whole population, and not for the faults of private individuals. Who have the power of imposing an interdict, and how does it cease? In general, the reader may be referred to CENSURES, ECCLESIASTICAL, and Excommunication. We shall add a few brief remarks. Any prelate having jurisdiction in foro externo can impose an interdict on his subjects or his territory. It may be provided for in the law and then, like other censures (q.v.), can be ferendae or latae sententiae. A particular personal interdict is removed by absolution, other interdicts are said to be "raised", but this does not imply any act relative to the individuals under interdict; when imposed as a punishment these interdicts may cease on the expiration of a definite time. (1)General local interdict A general local interdict is -- for a whole population, town, province, or region -- the almost complete suspension of the liturgical and sacramental Christian life. Examples of it exist as early as the ninth century, under the name of excommunication (see in particular the Council of Limoges of 1031). Innocent III gave this measure the name of interdict and made vigorous use of it. It will suffice to recall the interdict imposed in 1200 on the Kingdom of France, when Philip II Augustus repudiated Ingeburga to marry Agnes of Meran; and that on the Kingdom of England in 1208, to support the election of Stephen Langton to the See of Canterbury against John Lackland, which lasted till the submission of that king in 1213. It was a dangerous weapon, but its severity was mitigated little by little, and at the same time it was less frequently employed. The last example of a general interdict launched by the pope against a whole region seems to have been that imposed by Paul V in 1606 on the territory of Venice, it was raised in the following year. A quite recent example of a general, local, and personal interdict, but of a purely penal nature, is the interdict placed by Pius X on the town and suburbs of Adria in Northern Italy, by decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Consistory, on 30 September, 1909, to punish the population of Adria for a sacrilegious attack made on the bishop, Mgr. Boggiani, in order to prevent him from transferring his residence to Rovigo. The interdict was to last for fifteen days, and contained the following provisions: "Prohibited are: (a) the celebration of the Mass and all other liturgical ceremonies; (b) the ringing of bells; (c) the public administration of the sacraments; (d) solemn burial. The following alone are permitted: (a) the baptism of children, the administration of the other sacraments and of the Viaticum to the sick, (b) the private celebration of marriages; (c) one Mass each week for the renewal of the Holy Eucharist." It was recalled that the violation of this interdict constitutes a mortal sin for all and imposed an irregularity on clerics (Acta Ap. Sedis, 15 Oct., 1909, p. 765). To return to the subject of a general local interdict, but non-personal in kind, the law authorizes the private celebration of Mass and the choir office, the doors of the church being closed (c. lvii, "De sent. exc.", and c. xxiv, eod. in VI), and also the administration of confirmation; on the other hand canonical authors did not allow extreme unction for the sick, but Pius X permits it. To these relaxations must be added the exceptions made in time of interdict for the celebration of the great feasts of Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, the Assumption, Corpus Christi, and its octave. (2)The particular local interdict The particular local interdict has the same effects, but they are limited to the interdicted place or church. The above-mentioned mitigations, however, are not allowed. Whoever knowingly celebrates or causes to be celebrated the Divine offices in an interdicted place incurs ipso facto the prohibition against entering the church until he has made amends (Const. Ap. Sedis, interd., n. 2); and any cleric who knowingly celebrates any Divine office in a place interdicted by name becomes irregular (C. xviii, "De sent. excomm." in VI), but not if he administers a sacrament to an interdicted individual, as the law has not legislated for such a case. (3) The general personal interdict The general personal interdict, which, we have seen, may be combined with the local interdict, has the same effects for all the persons who form or will form part of the group, community, or moral person under interdict: all the canons of a chapter, all the religious of a convent, all the inhabitants of a town, all those domiciled in the place, etc. They, however, escape from the interdict who are not members or who cease to be members of the body affected, e. g. a canon appointed to another benefice, a stranger who leaves the town, etc. But the mere change of locality has no liberating effect, and the interdict follows the individual members of the body wherever they may go. (4) The particular personal interdict The particular personal interdict, which is a real censure, affects individuals much in the same way as excommunication. They may not assist at the Divine offices or at Mass, and if they are interdicted by name they should be put out, however, if they refuse to withdraw it is not necessary to suspend the service since, after all, the interdict does not deprive them of the communion of the faithful. They may not demand to receive the sacraments, except Penance and the Viaticum, and it is not lawful to administer them. They are to be deprived of ecclesiastical burial, but Mass and the ordinary prayers may be said for them. A cleric violating the interdict becomes irregular. (5) The interdict against entering the church The interdict against entering the church is a real censure, intended to bring about the amendment of the erring one; it prohibits him from taking part in Divine service in the church and from being accorded a burial service in it. But outside the church he is as if he had not incurred any censure, he can attend Divine service and receive the sacraments in a private oratory and pray in the church when service is not being held in it. The individual is absolved after due satisfaction for his fault. (6) The cessation from Divine service The cessation from Divine service, cessatio a divinis, follows the rules of the local interdict, from which it differs, not in its effects, but only because the fault for which it is imposed is not the fault of the clerics who are prohibited from celebrating the Divine service. It forbids the holding of Divine service and the administration of the sacraments in a given sacred place. It is a manifestation of sorrow and a kind of reparation for a grievous wrong done to a holy place. This cessatio a divinis is not imposed ipso facto by the law; it is imposed by the ordinary when and under the conditions that he judges suitable. There are five interdicts latae sententiae, two of which are mentioned in the Constitution "Apostolicae Sedis", two decreed by the Council of Trent, and one added by the Constitution "Romanus Pontifex" of 23 August, 1873: 1. "Universities, colleges, and chapters, whatsoever be their name, that appeal from the ordinances or mandates of the reigning Roman pontiff to a future general council, incur an interdict specially reserved to the Roman pontiff." This interdict is imposed for the same crime as the specially reserved excommunication no. 4 [see EXCOMMUNICATION, VII, A, (a)], but the excommunication falls on the individuals, and the interdict on the group, or moral persons, by whatever name they be called, and who cannot be excommunicated as such. 2. "Those who knowingly celebrate or cause to be celebrated the Divine offices in places interdicted by the ordinary or his delegate, or by the law; those who admit persons excommunicated by name to the Divine offices, the sacraments of the Church, or to ecclesiastical burial, incur pleno jure the interdict against entering the church, until they have made amends sufficient in the opinion of him whose order they have contemned." This interdict, which is borrowed, except for a few minor modifications, from c. viii, "De privilegiis", in VI of Boniface VIII, is therefore reserved to the competent prelate. Its object is to ensure the observance, on the one hand, of the local interdict, and, on the other, of excommunication by name (see EXCOMMUNICATION, vol. V, p. 680, subtitle Vitandi and Tolerati). 3. The Council of Trent (Sess. VI, cap. i, "De Ref.") imposes on bishops the duty of residence; it prescribes that those who absent themselves without a sufficient reason for six continuous months are to be deprived of a quarter of their annual revenue; then of another quarter for a second six months' absence; after which, the council continues, "as their contumacy increases . . . the metropolitan will be bound to denounce to the Roman pontiff, by letter or by messenger, within three months, his absent suffragan bishops, and the senior resident suffragan bishop will be obliged to denounce his absent metropolitan, under penalty of interdict against entering the church, incurred eo ipso. The obligation of denouncing begins, therefore, only after an entire year's absence, and the interdict is incurred only if the denunciation has not been made within the next three months. 4. The Council of Trent (Sess. VII, cap. x, "De Ref.") forbids chapters, during the vacancy of a see, to grant dimissory letters within a year dating from the vacancy, unless to clerics who are arctati, i.e. obliged to obtain ordination on account of a benefice; this prohibition carries with it the penalty of interdict. The Council of Trent having later (Sess. XXIV, cap. xvi, "De Ref.") obliged the chapter to name a vicar capitular within eight days, the interdict can be incurred by the chapter only for dimissory letters granted during these eight days. It is disputed whether or not the vicar capitular would incur the interdict for this fault (Pennacchi in Const. "Ap. Sedis", IT. 469). 5. The Constitution "Romanus Pontifex" aims at preventing those who are elected by the chapters or named by the civil authorities from undertaking the administration of their church under the name or title of vicar capitular. Besides the excommunication incurred by the chapters and the person elected (see EXCOMMUNICATION, sub-title Excommunications Pronounced or Renewed Since the Constitution "Apostolica Sedis"), Pius IX imposes on "those among them who have received the episcopal order a suspension from the exercise of their pontifical powers and the interdict against entering the church, pleno jure and without any declaration." A. BOUDINHON Psychology of Interest Psychology of Interest (Lat. interest; Fr. interet; Germ. interesse). The mental state called interest has received much attention in recent psychological literature. This is largely due to the German philosopher Herbart. The important position he has won for it in the theory of education makes it deserving of some treatment in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Psychologists have disputed as to the exact meaning to be assigned to the term and the precise nature of the mental state. PSYCHOLOGY OF INTEREST Interest has been variously defined as a kind of consciousness accompanying and stimulating attention, a feeling pleasant or painful directing attention--the pleasurable or painful aspect of a process of attention--and as identical with attention itself. Thus it may be said, I attend to what interests me; and, again, that to be interested and to attend are identical. The term interest is used also to indicate a permanent mental disposition. Thus I may have an interest in certain subjects, though they are not an object of my present attention. However interest be defined, and whether it be described as a cause of attention, an aspect of attention, or as identical with attention, its special significance lies in its intimate connection with the mental activity of attention. Attention may be defined as cognitive or intellectual energy directed towards any object. It is essentially selective, it concentrates consciousness on part of the field of mental vision, whilst it ignores other parts. Attention is also purposive in character. It focuses our mental gaze in order to attain a clearer and more distinct view. It results in a deeper and more lasting impression, and therefore plays a vital part both in each cognitive act and in the growth of knowledge as a whole. The English Associationist school of psychology and most Empiricists, in treating of the genesis of knowledge, seem to look on the intensity or frequency of the stimulus as the most influential factor in the process of cognition. As a matter of fact, what the mind takes in depends almost entirely on this selective action of attention. Out of the total mass of impressions, streaming in at any moment through the various channels of sense, it is only those to which attention is directed that rise to the level of intellectual life, or take real hold of the mind. What these are will be determined by interest. We are interested in what is connected with our past experience, especially in what is partly new, yet partly familiar. Pleasant feelings and painful feelings are original excitants of attention; there are other experiences also--neutral perhaps in themselves, but associated with these latter--which generate fear or hope, and so become interesting. Though our attention may be temporarily attracted by any sudden shock or unexpected impression of unusual intensity, we do not speak of this as interesting, and our attention soon wanes. Isolated experiences, except in so far as they may stimulate the intellect to seek to correlate them with some previous cognitions, do not easily hold the mind. Repeated efforts are required to keep our attention fixed on an unfamiliar branch of study (as e.g. a new language or science). But in proportion as each successive act of observation or understanding leaves a deposit in the form of an idea in the memory, ready to be awakened by partially similar experiences in the future, there as gradually built up in the mind a group or system of ideas constituting our abiding knowledge of the subject. Such series of experiences, with the group of ideas thus deposited in the memory, render similar acts of cognition easy and agreeable in the future. In fact they develop a kind of appetite for future related experiences, which are henceforth assimilated, or, in Herbartian language, apperceived, with facility and satisfaction. The latent group of ideas bearing in any topic constitute an interest in the sense of a permanent disposition of the mind, whilst the feeling of the process of apperception, or assimilation, is interest viewed as a form of actual consciousness. But an event of a bizarre or novel character, which we may find difficulty in comprehending or assimilating with past experience, may also fascinate our mind. The strange, the horrible, may thus awaken at least temporarily a keen, if morbid, interest. Still, in so far as such experiences may excite fear or anxiety, they come under the general principle that interest is associated with personal pleasure or pain. Broadly speaking, then, all those things which arouse or sustain non-voluntary or spontaneous attention are interesting whilst phenomena to which we can attend only with voluntary effort are uninteresting. The child is interested in its food and its play, also in any operations associated with pleasure or pain in the past. The boy is interested in his games, in those exercises which he has come to connect with his own well-being, and in branches of study which have already effected such a lodgment in the mind that new ideas and items of information are readily assimilated and associated with what has gone before. Men are interested in those subjects which have become interwoven and connected with the main occupations of their lives. PEDAGOGICS The psychology of interest being thus understood, its capital importance in the work of education becomes obvious. It is in his insistence on the value of this mental and moral force, and his systematic treatment of it in application to the business of teaching that Herbart's chief importance as an educationist lies. In proportion as the teacher can awaken and sustain the interest of the pupil, so much greater will be the facility, the rapidity and the tenacity of the mental acquisition of the latter. It must be admitted that, in beginning most branches of knowledge, a number of "dry" facts, which possess little interest of themselves for the child, have usually to be learned by sheer labour. The spontaneous attention of the pupil will not fix on and adhere with satisfaction to the ideas presented in the opening pages of a text-book. Here the teacher is compelled to demand the effort of voluntary attention, even though it be not pleasant, on the part of the pupil. Still, he will wisely do his utmost to make some of the future utility of the immediate labour intelligible to the student, and in this way attach mediate interest to that which is dull and unattractive in itself. Moreover, as the protracted effort of attention to what is in itself uninteresting is fatiguing, he will keep the lessons in these subjects short at first, and vary the monotony by enlivening and useful bite of information, illustrations, comments, and the like, which will afford relief and rest between the attacks on the substance of the lesson. At this stage the master aims at being an interesting teacher; he cannot as yet make his subject interesting, which, however, should be his ultimate goal. But, as the student advances, there is being formed in his mind an increasing group of cognitions, a growing mass of ideas about this branch of study, which makes the entrance of each new idea connected with it easier and more welcome. There is a feeling of satisfaction as each new item fits into the old, and is assimilated or "apperceived" by the latter. The pupil begins to feel that the ideas he already possesses give him a certain power to understand and manipulate the subject of his study. He has become conscious of an extension of this power with each enlargement of his knowledge, and the desire for more knowledge begins to manifest itself. Here we have apperceptive attention or immediate interest. To generate this immediate interest in the subject itself being a main object of the teacher, this purpose should determine his exposition of the subject as a whole, and also guide him in dealing with the student from day to day. His exposition should be orderly, proceeding logically with proper divisions: the more important principles or ideas should be firmly fixed by repetition, the subdivisions located in their proper places, and their connection with the heads under which they fall made clear. By this means the ideas about the subject introduced into the mind of the pupil are built up into a rational or organized system. This secures greater command of what is already known, as well as greater facility in the reception of further knowledge, and so expedites the growth of interest. But besides this orderliness of exposition in the treatment of the matter, which might be formal and lifeless, the teacher must be continually adapting his instruction to the present condition of the pupil's mind. He must constantly keep in view what ideas the student has already acquired. He has to stir up the related set of ideas by judicious questions or repetitions, and excite the appetite of curiosity, when about to communicate further information; he has to show the connection and bind the new item with the previous knowledge by comparison, illustration, and explanation. Finally, he is to be alive to every opportunity to generalize, and to show how the new information may be applied by setting suitable exercises or problems to be worked out by the pupil himself. He thus leads the pupil to realize his increase of power, which is one of the most effective means of fostering active interest both in the subject itself and in the relation of its various parts with the whole. Modern pedagogy, however, especially since Herbart, insists on the value of interest not only as a means, but as an educational end in itself. For the Herbartian school the aim of education should be the formation of a man of "many-sided interest". This is to be attained by the judicious cultivation of the various faculties intellectual, emotional, and moral--that is by the realization of man's entire being with all its aptitudes. It may be conceded that, with certain qualifications and reservations, there is a substantial amount of truth in this view. Worthy interests ennoble and enrich human life both in point of dignity and happiness. The faculties, mental and physical, clamour for exercise; man's activities will find an outlet; the capacities of his soul are given to be realized. Ceteris paribus, one good test of the educational value of any branch of study, and of the efficiency of the method by which it has been taught, is to be found in the degree in which it becomes a permanent interest to the mind. The exercise of our mental powers on a subject, which has already created for itself a real interest, is accompanied by pleasure. A man's business or profession, when he is working independently for himself, should, and normally does, become a topic of keen interest. But, unless his life is to be very narrow and stinted, he should also have other interests. His leisure hours require them. Wholesome intellectual, social, and aesthetic interests are amongst the most effective agencies for overcoming the temptations to drink, gambling, and other degrading forms of amusement. The pressure of ennui and idleness will develop a most harmful discontent, unless the faculties find suitable employment. The man who, after a number of years devoted exclusively to the work of making money, retires from business in order to enjoy himself, is liable to find life almost insupportable through want of interesting occupation. A subject, respecting which the mind is in possession of an organized system of ideas, is necessary to man for the agreeable exercise of his faculties, and such an interest requires time for its growth. Although then it is erroneous to maintain that many-sided interest or culture, however rich and varied, constitutes morality or supplies for religion, still it may be readily acknowledged that a judicious equipment of worthy interests, intellectual, aesthetic, and social is a powerful ally in the battle with evil passions, and also one of the most precious elements of human well-being with which a wisely planned scheme of education can equip the human soul. MICHAEL MAHER Interest Interest Notion of interest Interest is a value exacted or promised over and above the restitution of a borrowed capital. + Moratory interest, that is interest due as an indemnity or a penalty for delay in payment, is distinguished from + compensatory interest, which indemnifies the lender for the danger he really runs of losing his capital, the loss that he suffers or the gain of which he deprives himself in disembarrassing himself of his capital during the period of the loan, and from + lucrative interest, which is an emolument that the lender would not gain without lending. Interest originates in the loan of goods for consumption, which permits the borrower to expend or to destroy the things lent, on condition of giving back an equal number of the same kind or quality. The sum to be paid for the usage of an article, which must itself be given back, is called hire. Everything which is consumed by usage: corn, wine, oil, fruit, etc., can be the matter of a loan (former sense), but ordinarily it is a sum of money which is lent. Legitimacy of lending at interest Is it permitted to lend at interest? Formerly (see Usury) the Church rigorously condemned the exacting of anything over and above capital, except when, by reason of some special circumstance, the lender was in danger of losing his capital or could not advance his loan of money without exposing himself to a loss or to deprivation of a gain. These special reasons, which authorise the charging of interest, are called extrinsic titles. Besides these compensatory interests, the Church has likewise admitted moratory interest. In our day, she permits the general practice of lending at interest, that is to say, she authorizes the impost, without one's having to enquire if, on lending his money, he has suffered a loss or deprived himself of a gain, provided he demand a moderate interest for the money he lends. This demand is never unjust. Charity alone, not justice, can oblige anyone to make a gratuitous loan (see the replies of the Penitentiary and of the Holy Office since 1830). What is the reason for this change in the attitude of the Church towards the exaction of interest? As may be more fully seen in the article Usury, this differece is due to economical circumstances. The price of goods is regulated by common valuation, and the latter by the utility that their possession ordinarily brings in a given centre. Now, today, otherwise than formerly, one can commonly employ one's money fruitfully, at least by putting it into a syndicate. Hence, today, the mere possession of money means a certain value. Whoever hands over this possession can claim in return this value. Thus it is that one acts in demanding an interest. Just rate of interest Even today one can still sin against justice by demanding too high an interest, or usury, as it is called. What interest then is just and moderate? Theoretically, and in an abstract way, the fair rate of interest nearly corresponds to the average gain that those engaged in business may generally expect in a determined centre. It nearly corresponds, for the interest being guaranteed, whilst the profit is uncertain, we must discount the value of an insurance premium from the average profit. Accordingly, in a determined centre, if those who sink their money in buildings, land, or industrial undertakings generally look for a profit of 6 percent, the just rate of interest will be about 4 or 5 percent. This rate covers the risks and ordinary inconveniences of lending. But if one had to run special risks or had to give up an extraordinary premium, one might in all justice exact a higher rate of interest. Such, therefore, is the theoretical rule. In practice, however, as even the answer of the Sacred Penitentiary shows (18 April, 1889), the best course is to conform to the usages established amongst men, precisely as one does with regard to other prices, and, as happens in the case of such prices, particular circumstances influece the rate of interest, either by increasing or lowering it. In this way, the security offered by advances to the governments of wealthy countries and those that cover mortgages diminish the rate for public loans and loans on mortgage. On the contrary, the interest on shipping, and mercantile business is higher than that in civil business, on account of the greater uncertainty in sea voyages and in commercial enterprise. A. VERMEERSCH Interims Interims (Lat. interim, meanwhile.) Interims are temporary settlements in matters of religion, entered into by Emperor Charles V (1519-56) with the Protestants. I. THE INTERIM OF RATISBON The Interim of Ratisbon, published at the conclusion of the imperial diet, 29 July, 1541. It was based on the result of the previous conference between Catholics and Protestants, in which an agreement had been reached on the idea of justification and other points of doctrine. Consequently the imperial "recess" enacted that the adjustment of the religious question should be postponed until the next general council or imperial diet; that meanwhile the Protestants should not go beyond or against the articles agreed upon; that an ecclesiastical reform be inaugurated by the prelates; that the Peace of Nuremberg (1532) should be maintained; that monasteries and chapter-houses should remain intact; that the ecclesiastics should retain their possessions; that the Protestants should not draw anyone to their side; that all judicial proceedings in matters of religion should be suspended; that the imperial court of justice (Reichskammergericht) should remain as before; and that the recess of Augsburg (1530) should remain in force. Owing to the opposition of the Protestants, Charles V in a secret declaration made concessions to them, which practically nullified the recess. The articles agreed upon were to be accepted in the sense of their theologians; the monasteries and chapter-houses might be called on to inaugurate a reform; the ecclesiastics, monasteries, and chapter-houses, that had embraced the Confession of Augsburg, were to remain in the full possession of their property; the Protestants were not to compel the subjects of Catholic princes to embrace their Faith, but if anyone came to them spontaneously, he was not to be hindered; the members of the imperial court of justice were not to be molested, if they turned Protestants; and the recess of Augsburg was to have force only in matters not appertaining to religion. II. THE INTERIM OF AUGSBURG The Interim of Augsburg, published at the conclusion of the imperial diet, 30 June, 1548. In twenty-six chapters, it comprised statements on matters of doctrine and ecclesiastical discipline. The points of doctrine were all explained in the sense of Catholic dogma, but couched in the mildest and vaguest terms; and wherever it was feasible, the form and the concept approached the Protestant view of those subjects. In matters of ecclesiastical discipline two important concessions were made to the Protestants, viz, the marriage of the clergy, and Communion under both kinds. In addition, an imperial ordinance enjoined on the Catholic clergy the execution of reforms in the choice and ordination of ecclesiastics, the administration of the sacraments, and other similar matters. III. THE INTERIM OF ZELLA The Interim of Augsburg was meant principally for the Protestants, whose return to the Catholic Faith was looked for; but nearly everywhere they very strongly opposed it. In order to make it less objectionable, a modification was introduced by Melanchthon and other Protestant divines, commissioned thereto by Elector Maurice of Saxony (1521-53). In a meeting held at Alt-Zella in November, 1548, they explained in a Protestant sense what they considered essential points of doctrine, e.g. justification and others; they accepted the non-essentials or adiaphora, such as confirmation, Mass, the use of candles, vestments, holy days, etc. The document then drawn up became known as the Interim of Zella, or the Small Interim. In the diet held at Leipzig in December, 1548, it was adopted by the estates of the Electorate of Saxony, and was then called the Interim of Leipzig, or the Great Interim. PASTOR, Die kirchlichen Reunionsbestrebungen waehrend der Regierung Karls V. (Freiburg im Br., 1879); IDEM, Gesch. der Paepste, V (Freiburg im Br., 1909); JANSSEN-PASTOR, Geschichte des deutschen Volkes, III (Freiburg im Br., 1899); KAULEN in Kirchenlex, (Freiburg im Br., 1889), s. v. Interim; ISSLEIB in Realencyk. fuer prot. Theol. (Leipzig, 1901), s. v. Interim. FRANCIS J. SCHAEFER Internuncio Internuncio (Lat. inter, between; nuntius, messenger.) The name given in the Roman Curia to a diplomatic agent who, though not belonging to the five highest classes of the papal diplomatic service (legatus a latere, nuncio with full powers of a legatus a latere, legate, nuncio of the first class, and nuncio of the second class), is, nevertheless, chief of a legation (chef de mission). He may have several subordinates, and, on the other hand, his household may consist only of a private secretary. The nomination of internuncios follows no fixed rule; they have been, and still are, accredited indiscriminately to countries differing widely in ecclesiastical importance, e. g. Luxemburg, Chile, Holland, Brazil. Formerly the powers of an internuncio were necessarily extensive, owing to the lack of telegraph service and the slow postal deliveries; they are now almost entirely confined to routine work. In exceptional cases extraordinary powers are given to the internuncio, when important affairs are in question. As conditions in the various countries to which internuncios are ordinarily sent differ considerably, their general powers are regulated accordingly; in consequence, no general statement of the duties of an internuncio is possible. Nor can the ecclesiastical dignity or position at court of the internuncio be determined with more exactitude. It is safe to say that they are always domestic prelates or titular archbishops. The simple prelature has always been the rule for the internuncios of Holland and Luxemburg, the last of whom was Mgr. Tarnassi. The internuncios accredited to South America in the last century were mostly titular archbishops. At present (summer of 1909), the only internuncios are those in Argentina and Chile, and both are titular archbishops. The earlier arrangement, that internuncios should bear the title of Apostolic delegate and envoy extraordinary, no longer obtains. The last case of the kind occurred in Portugal about the middle of the nineteenth century. Internuncios, when promoted, are appointed nuncios; in rare instances they become Apostolic delegates. Too much confidence must not be placed in earlier works on papal diplomacy, apropos of this office; according to the requirements of the moment, the Curia increases or diminishes both its scope and its powers. PAUL MARIA BAUMGARTEN Biblical Introduction Biblical Introduction A technical name which is usually applied to two distinct, but intimately connected, things. First, it designates the part of Scriptural science which is concerned with topics preliminary to the detailed study and correct exposition of Holy Writ. Next, it is given to a work in which these various topics are actually treated. I. SCOPE AND DIVISIONS As is commonly admitted at the present day, the general object of Biblical introduction is to supply the student of the sacred books of the Old and New Testaments with the knowledge which is necessary, or at least very desirable, for the right interpretation of their contents. Thus understood, the scope of an introduction to the inspired writings which make up the Bible is substantially that of an introduction to other writings of antiquity. An introduction helps materially the student of the text of these writings to know beforehand and in a precise manner the personal history and actual surroundings of the author to whom each writing is ascribed, to become acquainted with the date of composition and the general form and purpose of the works before him, to acquire familiarity with the leading features of the ancient languages in which the various books were originally written, to realize distinctly the peculiar literary methods employed in their composition, to know something of the various fortunes (alterations, translations, etc.) which have befallen the text in the course of ages, etc. An introduction, too, whether the work for which it is designed be profane or sacred, has usually a limited scope. It is not supposed to treat of each and every topic the knowledge of which might be useful for the right understanding of the books in question. It is justly regarded as sufficient for all practical purposes, when, by the information which it actually imparts, it enables the reader of the works of antiquity to start intelligently on the detailed study of their text. Owing, however, to the fact that the books of the Bible are not simply ancient, but also inspired, writings, the scope of Biblical introduction embraces the various questions which are connected with their inspired character, and which, of course, have no place in an introduction to merely human productions. For this same reason, too, certain topics -- such as the questions of integrity and veracity -- which naturally belong to treatises preliminary to the study of any ancient writing, assume a very special importance in Biblical introduction. Biblical introduction is frequently, and indeed aptly, divided into two parts, general and special, the former embracing the preliminary questions which concern the Bible as a whole, the latter being restricted to those which refer to the separate books of Holy Writ. The field of general introduction has long been, and is still, surveyed from different standpoints by Biblical scholars. It no longer embraces a detailed description of the Oriental languages and of the Hellenistic Greek, but is universally limited, in regard to those languages, to a brief exposition of their leading characteristics. With regard to the questions which pertain to the antiquities, geography and chronology of the Bible, some scholars are still of the opinion that they should be dealt with in a general introduction to the study of the Holy Scriptures; most, however -- and rightly, as it seems -- think that they do not belong to the field of general introduction; the proper place for such topics is either in special treatises or in the body of works on Biblical history. Again, a certain number of scholars regard as forming a part of general introduction the history of God's chosen people, of Divine Revelation, of Biblical theology, of the religious institutions of Israel. They rightly urge that a previous acquaintance with that history is invaluable in the pursuit of Biblical exegesis. It remains true, however, that the study of the historical, doctrinal, etc., contents of Holy Writ is usually considered outside the sphere of general introduction, and may be more profitably followed in distinct treatises bearing the respective names of sacred history, history of Biblical Revelation, Biblical theology, history of the religion of Israel. It thus appears that, at the present day, the tendency is to restrict the object of general introduction to a few questions, particularly to those which help directly to determine the value and meaning of the Sacred Writings considered as a whole. In point of fact, that object, as conceived especially by Catholics, is limited to the great questions of the inspired and canonical character of the Scriptures, their original text and principal translations, the principles and history of their interpretation. As already stated, special introduction deals with the preliminary topics which concern the separate books of the Bible. It is very naturally divided into special introduction to the Old Testament and special introduction to the New Testament. As the Divine authority of the books of either Testament is established by the study of the general introduction to the Bible, so the topics treated in the special introduction are chiefly those which bear on the human authority of the separate writings of the Bible. Hence the questions usually studied in connexion with each book or with a small group of books, such for instance as the Pentateuch, are those of authorship, unity, integrity, veracity, purpose, source of information, date and place of composition, etc. Instead of the divisions of Biblical introduction which have been set forth, numerous writers, particularly in Germany, adopt a very different grouping of the topics preliminary to the exegetical study of the Sacred Scriptures. They do away with the division of Biblical introduction into general and special, and treat of all the questions which they connect with the books of the Old Testament in an "Introduction to the Old Testament" and of all those which they examine with reference to the books of the New Testament in an "Introduction to the New Testament". In either "Introduction" they ordinarily devote a first section to the topics which refer to the contents, date, authorship, etc. of the separate books, and a second section to a more or less brief statement of the canon, text and versions, etc. of the same books considered collectively. Their distribution of the topics of Biblical introduction leaves no room for hermeneutics, or scientific exposition of the principles of exegesis, and in this respect, at least, is inferior to the division of Biblical introduction into general and special, with its comprehensive subdivisions. II. NATURE AND METHOD OF TREATMENT Catholic scholars justly regard Biblical introduction as a theological science. They are indeed fully aware of the possibility of viewing it in a different light, of identifying it with a literary history of the various books which make up the Bible. They distinctly know that this is actually done by many writers outside of the Church, who are satisfied with applying to the Holy Scriptures the general principles of historical criticism. But they rightly think that in so doing these writers lose sight of essential differences which exist between the Bible and merely human literature, and which should be taken into account in defining the nature of Biblical introduction. Considered in their actual origin, the sacred books which make up the Bible have alone a Divine authorship which must needs differentiate Biblical introduction from all mere literary history, and impart to it a distinctly theological character. In view of this, Biblical introduction must be conceived as an historical elucidation, not simply of the human and outward origin and characteristics of the sacred records, but also of that which makes them sacred books, viz., the operation of the Holy Ghost Who inspired them. Again, of all existing literatures, the Bible alone has been entrusted to the guardianship of a Divinely constituted society, whose plain duty it is to ensure the right understanding and correct exposition of the written word of God, by seeing that the topics preliminary to its exegesis be fittingly treated by Biblical introduction. Whence it readily follows that Biblical introduction is, by its very nature, a theological discipline, promoting, under the authoritative guidance of the Church, the accurate knowledge of Divine Revelation embodied in Holy Writ. For these and for other no less conclusive reasons, Catholic scholars positively refuse to reduce Biblical introduction to a mere literary history of the various books which make up the Bible, and strenuously maintain its essential character as a theological science. While doing so, however, they do not intend in the least to deny that the topics which fall within its scope should be handled by means of the historico-critical method. In fact, they distinctly affirm that Biblical introduction should be both historical and critical. According to them, constant appeal must be made to history as to a valuable source of scientific information concerning the questions preliminary to the study of the Bible, and also a witness whose positive testimony, especially with regard to the origin and the transmission of the Sacred Books, no one can lightly set aside without laying himself open to the charge of prejudice. According to them, too, the art of criticism must be judiciously employed in the study of Biblical introduction. It is plain, on the one hand, that the science of Biblical introduction can be said to rest on a solid historical basis only in so far as the data supplied by the study of the past are correctly appreciated, that is, are accepted and set forth as valid to the precise extent in which they can stand the test of sound criticism. It is no less plain, on the other hand, "that nothing is to be feared for the Sacred Books, from the true advance of the art of criticism; nay more, that a beneficial light may be derived from it, provided its use be coupled with a real prudence and discernment" (Pius X, 11 Jan., 1906). III. HISTORY As a distinct theological discipline, Biblical introduction is indeed of a comparatively recent origin. Centuries, however, before its exact object and proper method of study had been fixed, attempts had been made at supplying the readers and expositors of Holy Writ with a certain amount of information whereby they would be more fully prepared for the better understanding of the Sacred Writings. In view of this, the history of Biblical introduction may be extended back to the early years of the Church, and made to include three principal periods: patristic times; Middle Ages; recent period. (1) Patristic Times The early ecclesiastical writers were directly concerned with the exposition of Christian doctrines, so that their works relative to Holy Writ are distinctly hermeneutical, and present only occasionally some material which may be utilized for the treatment of the questions which pertain to Biblical introduction. Of the same general nature are the writings of St. Jerome, although his prefaces to the various books of Scripture, some of his treatises and of his letters deal explicitly with certain introductory topics. St. Augustine's important work, "De Doctrina Christiana", is chiefly a hermeneutical treatise, and deals with only a few questions of introduction in book II, chapters viii-xv. One of the writers most frequently mentioned in connexion with the first period in the history of Biblical introduction is a certain Greek, Adrian (died about a.d. 450), who is probably the same as the Adrian addressed by St. Nilus as a monk and a priest. He certainly belonged to the Antiochene school of exegesis, and was apparently a pupil of St. John Chrysostom. He is the author of a work entitled Eisagoge eis tas Theias Graphas, "Introduction to the Divine Scriptures", which has indeed supplied the specific name of introduction for the theological science treating of topics preliminary to the study of Holy Writ, but which, in fact, is simply a hermeneutical treatise dealing with the style of the sacred writers and the figurative expressions of the Bible (P. G., XCVIII). The other principal writers of that period are: St. Eucherius of Lyons (died about 450), whose two books, "Instructiones ad Salonium filium", are rather a hermeneutical than an introductory work; the Benedictine Cassiodorus (died about 562), whose treatise "De institutione Divinarum Scripturarum" sums up the views of earlier writers and gives an important list of Biblical interpreters, chiefly Latin; the African bishop Junilius (died about 552), who belongs to the school of Nisibis, and whose "Instituta regularia divinae legis" resembles most a Biblical introduction in the modern sense of the expression; lastly, St. Isidore of Seville (died 636), whose "Etymologiae" and "Prooemia in libros V. et N. Testamenti" supply useful material for the study of Biblical introduction. (2) Middle Ages During this period, as during the one just described, the preoccupations of the ecclesiastical writers were chiefly doctrinal and exegetical, and their methods of study had usually little to do with the historico-critical method of investigation by means of which, as we have seen, questions introductory to the interpretation of the Bible should be treated. Most of them were satisfied with a mere repetition of what had been said by St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and Cassiodorus. This they did in the prefaces which they prefixed to their commentaries on the Sacred Books, and the purpose of which is directly hermeneutical. The only remarkable work on introduction produced in the Middle Ages is the one which the Jewish convert Nicholas of Lyra (died 1340) placed at the beginning of his "Postilla Perpetua", and in which he treats of the canonical and uncanonical books, the versions of the Bible, the various senses of Holy Writ, and the rules of interpretation. (3) Recent Period This is by far the most important and most fruitful period in the history of Biblical introduction. Since the sixteenth century this branch of theological learning has been more and more cultivated as a distinct science, and has gradually assumed its present form. The first work of this period was published at Venice, in 1566, by the Dominican Sixtus of Siena (died 1599). It is entitled "Bibliotheca sancta ex praecipuis Catholicae Ecclesiae auctoribus collecta", and treats in eight books of the sacred writers and their works, of the best manner of translating and explaining Holy Writ, and gives a copious list of Biblical interpreters. Among the Catholic authors on introduction who soon followed Sixtus the following deserve a special mention: Arias Montanus (died 1598), whose "Prolegomena" in his Polyglot (Antwerp, 1572) forms a valuable introduction; Salmeron (died 1585), whose "Prolegomena Biblica" appears in the first volume of his works (Madrid, 1598); Serarius (died 1642) whose "Praeloquia" (Antwerp, 1625) was selected by Migne as the most suitable general introduction with which to begin his "Sacrae Scripturae Cursus Completus"; the Oratorian Lami (died 1715), the learned writer of the "Apparatus ad Biblia sacra" (Paris, 1687); the Benedictine Martianay (died 1717); and the able theologian Ellies Dupin (died 1719). Meantime the Protestants, somewhat belated by doctrinal bias, brought forth a certain number of general introductions, among which may be mentioned those of Rivet (Dordrecht, 1616); Walther (Leipzig, 1636); Calov (Wittenberg, 1643); Brian Walton (London, 1637); and Heidegger (Zurich, 1681) The first scholar to depart from the unsatisfactory method of treating topics preliminary to the study of Holy Writ which had hitherto prevailed, and which had made some of the writings of his immediate predecessors dogmatic treatises rather than works on Biblical introduction, was the French Oratorian Richard Simon (1638-1712). According to him the Sacred Books, no less than the various Biblical translations and commentaries, are literary products which must bear the impress of the ideas and the methods of composition prevalent at the time when they were written, so that, to view and appreciate these works aright, one should study them carefully in themselves and in the light of the historical events under which they came into existence. A study at once historical and critical appeared also to him the best means for disposing of unsound theories, and for vindicating the inspired character of the Bible, which had been recently impugned by Hobbes and Spinoza. Hence the name of "Histoire Critique", which he gave to his epoch-making introductions to the Old Testament (Paris, 1678), to the text (Rotterdam, 1689), versions (Rotterdam, 1690), and commentaries (Rotterdam, 1693) of the New Testament. Simon's methods and conclusions were at first strenuously opposed, and afterwards set aside by Catholics and by Protestants alike. The most noteworthy works of the eighteenth century on introduction, on the basis of the ancient method, are, among Catholics, those of Calmet (Paris, 1707-20); Goldhagen (Mainz, 1765-68); Fabricy (Rome, 1772); Marchini (Turin, 1777); and Mayer (Vienna, 1789); and, among Protestants, those of Hody (Oxford, 1705); Carpzov (Leipzig, 1721-28); J. D. Michaelis (Goettingen, 1750; Hamburg, 1787). The true method of Biblical introduction set forth and applied by Simon was not destined, however, to be discarded forever. The rationalists were the first to use it, or rather to abuse it, for their anti-dogmatic purposes. Ever since the latter part of the eighteenth century, they, and those more or less affected by rationalistic tendencies, have very often openly, and at times with rare ability, treated Biblical introduction as a mere literary history of the Sacred Writings. As belonging to the critical school, the following writers on introductory topics may be mentioned: Semler (died 1791); Eichhorn (died 1827); de Wette (died 1849); Bleek (died 1859); Vatke (died 1882); Riehm (died 1888); Kuenen (died 1891); Reuss (died 1891); Scholten; Hilgenfeld; Wellhausen; W. R. Smith (died 1894); S. Davidson (died 1898); Strack; Wildeboer; E. Kautzsch; F. E. Koenig; Juelicher; Cornill; Baudissin; H. Holtzmann; Bacon; Budde; Cheyne; Kent; Moffatt; Von Soden; Pfleiderer; to whom may be added, as occupying in the main similar positions, B. Weiss; Salmon; Driver; A. B. Davidson (died 1902); Curtiss (died 1904); Ottley; Kirkpatrick; Ryle; Briggs; Bennett; Adeney; C. H. H. Wright; McFayden; and Geden. The following are the principal Protestant writers who meantime have striven to stay the progress of the critical school by treating the questions of Biblical introduction on conservative lines: Hengstenberg (died 1869); Hofmann (died 1877); Haevernick (died 1845); Keil (died 1888); Bissell; Gloag; Godet (died 1900); Westcott (died 1902); Harman; Sayce; Sanday; Green (died 1900); Dods; Kerr; Burkitt; Zahn; Mackay; Urquhart; and Orr. During the same period Catholics have produced numerous works on Biblical introduction, and used in them, in various degrees, the historico-critical method of investigation. These works may be briefly given under four general heads, as follows: + General Introduction to Holy Writ: Dixon, "Intr. to the Sacred Scriptures" (Dublin, 1852); Trochon, "Introd. generale" (Paris, 1886-87); Chauvin, "Lec,ons d'Int. generale" (Paris, 1897); Breen, "General and Critical Introd. to the Holy Scripture" (Rochester, 1897); Gigot, "General Introd. to the H. Script." (New York, 1899); Telch, "Intr. Generalis in Scripturam Sacram" (Ratisbon, 1908). + General and Special Introd. to both Testaments: Alber, "Institutiones Scrip. Sac. Antiq. et Novi Test." (Budapest, 1801-08); Scholz, "Allgem. Einleit. in die heilige Schrift des A. und N. T." (Cologne, 1845-48); Glaire, "Introd. historiq. et critiq. aux Livres de l'A. et du N. T." (Paris, 1838-); Haneberg, "Geschichte der bibl. Offenbarung als Einleitung ins alte und neue Testam." (Ratisbon, 1849); Gilly, "Preeis d'Introd. generale et particuliere `a l'Ecrit. Ste" (Nimes, 1867); Lamy, "Introd. in Sac. Scripturam" (Mechlin, 1867); Danko, "Hist. Revelationis divinae V. T." (Vienna, 1852); Idem, "Hist. Rev. divinae N. T." (Vienna, 1867); Kaulen, "Einleitung in die heilige Schrift des A. und N. T." (Freiburg im Br., 1876); Vigouroux and Bacuez, "Manuel Biblique" (Paris, 1879); Ubaldi, "Introd. in Sacr. Script." (Rome, 1877-81); Cornely, "Introd. historica et critica in U. T. libros" (Paris, 1885-87); Trochon and Lesetre, "Introd. `a l'Etude de l'Ecrit. Sainte" (Paris, 1889-90); Barry, "The Tradition of Scripture" (New York, 1906). + Special Introd. to the Old Testament: Jahn, "Einleit. in die goettliche Buecher des A. Bundes" (Vienna, 1793); Ackermann, "Introd. in lib. sacros V. Test." (Vienna, 1825-9); Herbst, "Hist. Krit. Einleitung in die heilige Schriften des A. T." (Karlsruhe, 1840-44); Reusch, "Lehrbuch der Einl. in das A. T." (Freiburg im Br., 1864); Zschokke, "Hist. sacra V. T." (Vienna, 1872); Neteler, "Abriss der alttest. Literaturgeschichte" (Muenster, 1870); Martin, "Intr. `a la Critique generale do l'A. T." (Paris, 1886-89); Schoepfer, 'Gesch. des A. T." (Brixen, 1894); Gigot, "Special Intr. to O. T." (New York, 1901, 1906). + Special Introduct. to the New Testament: Feilmoser, "Einl. in die Buecher des N. Bundes" (Innsbruck, 1810); Unterkircher, "Einl. in die B. des N. T." (Innsbruck, 1810); Hug, "Einl. in die heil. Schriften des N. T." (Tuebingen, 1808); Reithmayer "Einl. in die kanonisch. B. des N. T." (Ratisbon, 1852); Maier, "Einl. in die Schrif. des N. T." (Freiburg im Br., 1852); Markf, "Introd. in sacros libros N. T." (Budapest, 1856); Guentner, "Introd. in sacros N. T. libros" (Prague, 1863); Langen, "Grundriss der Einleitung das N. T." (Freiburg im Br., 1868); Aberle, "Einl. in das N. T." (Freiburg im Br., 1877); Trenkle, "Einl. in das N. T." (Freiburg im Br., 1897); Schaefer, "Einl. in das N. T." (Paderborn, 1898); Belser, "Einl. in das N. T." (Freiburg im Br., 1901); Jacquier, "Histoire des Livres du N. T." (Paris, 1904-08); Brassac, "Nouveau Testament" (Paris, 1908, 1909), twelfth recast edition of vols. III and IV of Vigouroux's "Manuel Biblique". From among the introductory works recently published by Jewish scholars the following may be mentioned: J. Fuerst, "Geschichte der biblischen Literatur und des judisch-hellenistischen Schriftens" (Leipzig, 1867-70); Cassel, "Geschichte der judischen Literatur" (Berlin, 1872-73); J. S. Bloch, "Studien zur Geschichte der Sammlung der A. Literatur" (Leipzig, 1875); A. Geiger, "Einleitung in die biblischen Schriften" (Berlin, 1877); Wogue, "Histoire de la Bible et de l'Exegese biblique jusqu'`a nos jours" (Paris, 1881). Besides the separate works on Biblical introduction which have been mentioned, valuable contributions to that branch of Scriptural science are found in the shape of articles in the Dictionaries of the Bible and the general encyclopedias already published or yet issuing. FRANCIS E. GIGOT Introit Introit The Introit (Introitus) of the Mass is the fragment of a psalm with its antiphon sung while the celebrant and ministers enter the church and approach the altar. In all Western rites the Mass began with such a processional psalm since the earliest times of which we have any record. As it was sung by the choir it is not, of course, to be found in sacramentaries; but introits are contained in the first antiphonaries known (the Gregorian Antiphonary at Montpellier, the St. Gall manuscript, that represent a seventh-century tradition, etc.; see Leclercq in "Dict. d'archeologie chretienne", s. v. "Antiphonaire"). The First Roman Ordo (sixth to seventh century) says that as soon as the candles are lit and everything is ready, the singers come and stand before the altar on either side, "and presently the leader of the choir begins the antiphon for the entrance (antiphona ad introitum)". As soon as the deacons hear his voice they go to the pope, who rises and comes from the sacristy to the altar in procession ("Ordo Rom. I", ed. Atchley, London, 1905, p. 128). There is every reason to suppose that as soon as the Western liturgies were arranged in definite forms, the entrance was always accompanied by the chant of a psalm, which from that circumstance was called at Rome Introitus or Psalmus or Antiphona ad Introitum. The old Gallican Rite called it Antiphona ad Pr legendum; at Milan it is the Ingressa; in the Mozarabic, Carthusian, Dominican, and Carmelite books, Officium. The Introit was a whole psalm sung with the Gloria Patri and Sicut erat verses, preceded and followed by an antiphon in the usual way. No doubt originally it was sung as a solo while the choir repeated a response after each verse (the psalmus responsorius of which we still have an example in the Invitatorium at Matins), then the later way of singing psalms (psalmus antiphonarius) was adopted for the Introit too. The "Liber Pontificalis" ascribes this antiphonal chant at the Introit to Pope Celestine I (422-32): "He ordered that the psalms of David be sung antiphonally [ antiphonatim, by two choirs alternately] by all before the Sacrifice, which was not done before; but only the epistle of St. Paul was read and the holy Gospel" (ed. Duchesne, I, Paris, 1886, 230). The text seems even to attribute the use of the Introit-psalm in any form to this pope. Medieval writers take this idea from the "Liber Pontificalis", e. g. Honorius of Autun, "Gemma animae" (in P. L., CLXXII): "Pope Celestine ordered psalms to be sung at the entrance (ad introitum) of the Mass. Pope Gregory [I] afterwards composed antiphons in modulation for the entrance of the Mass" (I, lxxxvii). Probst thought that Gelasius I (492-96) invented the Introit (Die abendlaendische Messe vom 5 bis zum 8 Jahrhundert, Muenster, 1896, 36). It is perhaps safest to account for our Introit merely as a development of the processional psalm sung during the entrance of the celebrant and his ministers, as psalms were sung in processions from very early times. But it soon began to be curtailed. Its object was only to accompany the entrance, so there was no reason for going on with it after the celebrant had arrived at the altar. Already in the First Roman Ordo as soon as the pope is ready to begin Mass he signs to the choir-master to leave out the rest of the psalm and go on at once to the Gloria Patri (ed. Atchley, p. 128). Since the early Middle Ages the psalm has been further shortened to one verse (Durandus, "Rationale", IV, 5). So it received the form it still has, namely: an antiphon, one verse of a psalm, Gloria Patri, Sicut erat, the antiphon repeated. In the Milanese Rite the antiphon of the Ingressa is not repeated except in Requiem Masses; on the other hand, in some medieval uses it was repeated several times (Durandus, loc. cit.). On great feasts the Carmelites still repeat it twice at the end. The antiphon is taken as a rule from the Psalter (Durandus calls such introits regulares); sometimes (e.g. second and third Christmas Mass, Ascension-Day, Whit-Sunday, etc.) from another part of the Bible; more rarely (Assumption, All Saints, many Masses of Our Lady -- "Salve sancta parens", Requiems, etc.) it is a composition by some later writer. The verse of the psalm in the earlier introits is the first (obviously still a fragment of the whole), except that when the antiphon itself is the first verse the "psalm" is the next (twelfth and fifteenth Sundays after Pentecost, etc.). In later times it has become common to choose a suitable verse regardless of this rule (e. g. the Crown of Thorns Mass for Friday after Ash Wednesday, St. Ignatius Loyola on 31 July, etc.). The text of the psalms used in the introits (as throughout the Missal) is not the Vulgate but the Itala. In Paschal time two Alleluias are added to the antiphon, sometimes (Easter Day, Low Sunday, the Third and Fourth Sundays after Easter, etc.) there are three. In Requiems and Masses de tempore in Passiontide, when the Psalm Judica is not said, there is no Gloria Patri at the Introit. On Holy Saturday and at the chief Mass on Whitsun Eve (when the prophecies are read) there is no Introit at all. The reason of this is obvious. The Introit accompanies the entrance; but on these occasions the celebrant has been at the altar for some time before Mass begins. We name Masses (that is the complex of changeable prayers that make up the Puerperium) from the first words of the Introit by which they begin. Thus the Mass for the first Sunday of Advent is called Ad te leva; the two Masses of the Sacred Heart are distinguished as Miserability and Exordium; a Mass for the dead is spoken of as a Requiem, and so on. There is nothing corresponding to our Introit in the Eastern rites. In all of them the liturgy begins quite differently. The preparation (vesting, preparation of the offerings) takes place in the sanctuary, so there is no procession to the altar. RITUAL OF THE INTROIT At high (or sung) Mass till quite lately the rule had obtained that the choir did not begin the Introit till the celebrant began the first prayers at the foot of the altar. Now the new Vatican "Gradual" (1908) has restored the old principle, that it is to be sung while the procession moves from the sacristy to the altar. ("De redivivus servanda in cant miss" in the introduction.) It should therefore be begun as soon as the head of the procession appears in the church. One or more cantors sing to the sign*, all continue; the cantors alone sing the first half of the psalm and the V. Gloria Patri (ibid.). The celebrant, having finished the preparatory prayers at the altar-steps, goes up to the altar and kisses it (saying meanwhile the two short prayers, A ufer a nobis and Oranges te); then, going to the left (Epistle) side, he reads from the Missal the Introit, just as it is sung. This is one of the continual reactions of low Mass on high Mass. When the custom of low Mass began (in the early Middle Ages) the celebrant had to supply all the parts of deacon, subdeacon, and choir himself. Then, as he became used to saying these parts, he said them even at high Mass, too; they were, besides, chanted by others. So the rule has obtained that everything is said by the celebrant. The recital of the Introit should be considered as the real beginning of Mass, since what has gone before is rather of the nature of the celebrant's preparation. For this reason he makes the sign of the cross at its first words, according to the general rule of beginning all solemn functions (in this case the Mass) with that sign. At Requiem Masses he makes the cross not on himself but over the Missal, quasi aliquem benedicens says the rubric (Ritus cel., xiii, 1). This is understood as directing the blessing to the souls in purgatory. At low Mass there is no change here, save the omission of the chant by the choir. Of the medieval commentators see especially DURANDUS, Rationale Divinorum Officiorum, IV, 5; BENEDICT XIV, De S. Miss Sacrificio, II 4; DuCHESNE, Origines du culte chretien (Paris, 1898), 154-155; GIHR, Das heilige Messopfer (Freiburg im Br., 1897), 346-57. ADRIAN FORTESCUE Intrusion Intrusion (Latin intrudere.) Intrusion is the act by which unlawful possession of an ecclesiastical benefice is taken. It implies, therefore, the ignoring of canonical institution, which is the reception of the benefice at the bands of him who has the right to bestow it by canon law. The necessity of proper canonical institution rests primarily on certain passages of the New Testament (John, x, 1; Hebr., v, 4), in which a legitimate mission from properly constituted authority in the Church is postulated. This is reaffirmed by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIII, can. vii), and in the "Corpus Juris Canonici" it is decreed: "An ecclesiastical benefice may not be taken possession of without canonical institution" (cap. i, De reg. jur., in vi). Intrusion does not necessarily signify the employment of force in entering upon a benefice. To constitute him an intruder or usurper in the ecclesiastical sense, it is sufficient that the person has no true canonical title to the benefice when he takes possession. Historical examples of intrusion on a large scale are not wanting. To pass over the many violations of the Church's right during the investiture struggles of medieval times, we find wholesale intrusion practised in France in the reigns of Louis XIV and Napoleon I, when ecclesiastics, nominated to episcopal sees but whose elections were never confirmed by the pope, ruled the dioceses into which they were thus intruded. Pius IX, in his Constitution "Romanus Pontifex", decreed excommunication and privation of dignities against members of a cathedral chapel who hand over the administration of a diocese to one who, although nominated, has not yet presented his letters of canonical institution. When laymen have the right of presentation to a benefice, the confirmation of ecclesiastical authority is necessary before actual possession can be obtained. The nominee who does not wait for this canonical induction is an intruder. The definition is also extended to persons who, having been repelled even unjustly by their ecclesiastical superiors, seek the aid of the civil power to obtain possession under pretext of abuse. As an intruder has no true title to receive the revenues of the benefice which he uncanonically holds, he is bound in conscience to make restitution of what are ill-gotten gains to the lawful titular. Even if the latter die, it does not legalize the position of the intruder, for in that case the restitution must be made to the true titular's lawful successor in the benefice. To remove the irregularity incurred by intrusion,, the papal power must be invoked, as the censure is reserved to the Holy See. A dispensation from such an irregularity is the more difficult to obtain in proportion to the falsity of the title invoked or the employment of violence in entering on the benefice. Canonists also extend the term intrusion to the keeping possession of a benefice by a hitherto lawful possessor, after it has been vacated by violation of certain decrees of the Church. Thus, titulars of one benefice who fraudulently present themselves for examination in a concursus to obtain a benefice for another by impersonating him, who obtain a benefice for others on the understanding that they are to be rewarded for it, or who seek a benefice with the intention of resigning it to another with a secret provision that they are to receive a pension from its revenues, lose the right to their own benefices, which thus canonically become vacant. By retaining possession of them in such cases, they become intruders. CRAISSON. Manuale Totius Juris Canonici, I (Paris, 1899); FERRARIS, Bibliotheca Canonica, I (Rome, 1885), s.v. Beneficium; WERNZ, Jus Decretalium, II (Rome. 1899). WILLIAM H. W. FANNING Intuition Intuition Intuition (Latin intueri, to look into) is a psychological and philosophical term which designates the process of immediate apprehension or perception of an actual fact, being, or relation between two terms and its results. Hence the words Intuitionism or Intuitionalism mean those systems in philosophy which consider intuition as the fundamental process of our knowledge or at least give to intuition a large place (the Scottish school), and the words Intuitive Morality and Intuitional Ethics denote those ethical theories which base morality on an intuitive apprehension of the moral principles and laws, or consider intuition as capable of distinguishing the moral qualities of our actions (Shaftesbury, Hutcheson Reid, Dugald Stewart). As an element of educational method intuition means the grasp of knowledge by concrete, experimental or intellectual, ways of apprehension. The immediate perception of sensuous or material objects by our senses is called sensuous or empirical intuition, the immediate apprehension of intellectual or immaterial objects by our intelligence is called intellectual intuition. It may be remarked that Kant calls empirical intuitions our knowledge of objects through sensation, and pure intuition our perception of space and time as the forms a priori of sensibility. Again, our intuitions may be called external or internal, according as the objects perceived are external objects or internal objects or acts. The importance of intuition as a process and element of knowledge is easily seen if we observe that it is intuition which furnishes us with the first experimental data as well as with the primary concepts and the fundamental judgments or principles which are the primitive elements and the foundation of every scientific and philosophical speculation. This importance, however, has been falsely exaggerated by some modern philosophers to an extent which tends to destroy both supernatural religion and the validity of human reason. There has been an attempt, on their part, to make of intuition, under different names, the central and fundamental element of our power of acquiring knowledge, and the only process or operation that can put us into contact with reality. So we have the creation or intuition of the ego and non ego in the philosophy of Fichte; the intuition or intellectual vision of God claimed by the Ontologists in natural theology (see ONTOLOGISM), W. James's unconscious intuition or religious experience (The Varieties of Religious Experience), Bergson's philosophy of pure intuition the experience or experiential consciousness of the Divine of the Modernists (Encyclical "Pascendi gregis"). According to the Ontologists, our knowledge of notions endowed with the character of necessity and universality, as well as our idea of the Infinite, are possible only through an antecedent intuition of God present in us. Other philosophers start from the principle that human reasoning is unable to give us the knowledge of things in themselves. The data of common sense, our intellectual concepts, and the conclusions reached through the process of discursive reasoning do not, they say primarily represent reality, but acting under diverse influences such as those of our usual and practical needs, common sense and discursive reason result in a deformation of reality; the value of their data and conclusions is one of practical usefulness rather than one of true representation (see PRAGMATISM). Intuition alone, they maintain, is able to put us in communication with reality and give us a true knowledge of things. Especially in regard to religious truths, some insist, it is only through intuition and internal experience that we can acquire them. "God", says the Protestant A. Sabatier in his Esquisse d'une philosophie de la religion, "is not a phenomenon which can be observed outside of the ego, a truth to be demonstrated by logical reasoning. He who does not feel Him in his heart, will never find Him outside . . . . We never become aware of our piety without at the same time feeling a religious emotion and perceiving in this very emotion, more or less obscurely, the object and the cause of religion, namely, God." The arguments used by the Schoolmen to prove the existence of God, say the Modernists, have now lost all their value; it is by the religious feeling, by an intuition of the heart that we apprehend God (Encycl. "Pascendi gregis" and "II programma dei modernisti"). Such theories have their source in the principle of absolute subjectivism and relativism -- the most fundamental error in philosophy. Starting with Kant's proposition that we cannot know things as they are in themselves but only as they appear to us, that is, under the subjective conditions that our human nature necessarily imposes on them, they arrive at the conclusion that our rational knowledge is subjectively relative, and that its concepts, principles, and process of reasoning are therefore essentially unable to reach external and transcendental realities. Hence their recourse to intuition and immanence. But it is easy to show that if intuition is necessary in every act of knowledge, it remains essentially insufficient in our present life, for scientific and philosophical reflection. In our knowledge of nature we start from observation; but observation remains fruitless if it is not verified by a series of inductions and deductions. In our knowledge of God, we may indeed start from our nature and from our insufficiency and aspirations, but if we want to know Him we have to demonstrate, by discursive reasoning, His existence as an external and transcendent Cause and Supreme End. We may indeed, in Ethics have an intuition of the notion of duty, of the need of a sanction; but these intuitive notions have no moral value if they are not connected with the existence of a Supreme Ruler and Judge, and this connection can be known only through reasoning. The true nature, place, and value of intuition in human knowledge are admirably put forth in the Scholastic theory of knowledge. For the Schoolmen the intuitive act of intellectual knowledge is, by its nature, the most perfect act of knowledge, since it is an immediate apprehension of and contact with reality in its concrete existence, and our supreme reward m the supernatural order will consist in the intuitive apprehension of God by our intelligence: the beatific vision. But in our present conditions of earthly life, our knowledge must of necessity make use of concepts and reasoning. All our knowledge has its starting-point in the intuitive data of sense experience, but in order to penetrate the nature of these data, their laws and causes, we must have recourse to abstraction and discursive reasoning. It is also through those processes and through them alone that we can arrive at the notion of immaterial beings and of God himself (St. Thomas "Contra Gentes", I, 12; "Summa Theologica" I:84-88, etc.) . Our mind has the intuition of primary principles (intellectus) but their application, in order to give us a scientific and philosophical knowledge of things, is subject to the laws of abstraction and successive reasoning (ratio, discursus, cf. I:58:3, II-II:49:5, ad 2um). Such a necessity is, as it were, a normal defect of human intelligence; it is the natural limit which determines the place of the human mind in the scale of intellectual beings. Concepts and reasoning therefore are in themselves inferior to intuition; but they are the normal processes of human knowledge. They are not, however a deformation of reality, though they give only an imperfect and inadequate representation of reality -- and the more so according to the excellency of the objects represented -- they are a true representation of it. GEORGE M. SAUVAGE Inventory of Church Property Inventory of Church Property By inventory (Lat. inventarium) is meant a descriptive list in which are enumerated systematically, item by item, the personal and real property, rights, titles, and papers or documents of a person, an estate, or any institution. Inventories are prescribed by law to control effectively the management of any trust, inheritance, guardianship, etc., by an executor or administrator. Thus, an inventory is to be made at the beginning of a given administration; when the period of management has expired, the out-going official must produce all the things which appear in this inventory or were added later, excepting those which have been consumed or rendered useless. Then the inventory is to be verified. This formality is discharged, as the case may demand, by an authorized official, a notary, or merely in the presence of witnesses. A measure so useful for the proper administration of property of all kinds could not fail to find a place among the regulations for the management of church property, seeing that this was not administered by its owners, and that those in charge of it were all bound to render an annual account to the bishop (Council of Trent, Sess., XXII, c. vii). It must be admitted, however, that the old writers on canon law prior to the Council of Trent, though they implicitly suppose an inventory of church property, make no formal mention of it. The only texts that refer to it clearly are those ordering bishops to separate carefully their own property from that of the Church, so that their heirs may not seize the goods of the Church, or the Church lay claim to their proper belongings (Can. Apost., xl; Council of Antioch, 341, can. xxiv and xxv; Cod. Eccl. Afric., can. lxxxi, etc.). The most important document relating to the inventories of church property is the Motu Proprio, "Provida", of Sixtus V, 29 April, 1587. The pope had decreed the establishment of a general ecclesiastical record office at Rome, where inventories of all the church property in Italy should be kept; he abandoned this project on being informed that such inventories existed in the archives of many bishoprics and that the bishops verified them when making their pastoral visitations. However, he commanded all ordinaries who did not follow this practice to have an inventory of the property of all the churches and ecclesiastical establishments within their territories made within the space of one year; all administrators were obliged to draw up, within twelve months after entering into office, an inventory of the property confided to them and to send it to the ordinary. The Roman Council of 1725 under Benedict XIII (tit. xii, c. i) renewed the order of Sixtus V, and gave as an appendix a model of a suitable inventory in twenty-eight paragraphs (the text of Sixtus V and the specimen inventory are contained in the "Acta Conc. Recent. Collect. Lacensis", I, col. 416). As a model of an inventory we might also refer to the instructions given for the general visitation of Rome ordered by Pius X in his Bull of 11 February, 1904 (see Analecta Eccles., 1904). Since the Council of Rome almost every assembly of bishops has prescribed the making of inventories of church property; suffice it to mention, among the more important recent councils, the Second Council of Westminster in 1855, the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore in 1884 (art. cclxviii sq.), and the Plenary Council of Latin America, held at Rome in 1899 (art. cclxv, dcccxli, dcccli). To these must be added the ecclesiastico civil laws of various countries. Every administrator of church property and every beneficiary must therefore, on assuming office, draw up an exact inventory of the personal and real property confided to his care. Of this inventory two copies are usually to be made -- one to be kept in the archives, the other to be sent to the bishop (in some countries a third copy has to be sent to the civil authorities). When his term of office expires, the administrator or beneficiary must hand over to his successor all the articles entered in the inventory; this verification is done in a document which discharges the retiring official, and places the responsibility on his successor; as in the case of the inventory, two or three copies of this document are to be made. During the period of management the administrator must keep his inventory up to date, that is to say, he must make a record, with due legal formalities, of any property acquired, alienated, changed, or reinvested. Finally, during his episcopal visitations, the bishop, who has the right of approving the inventories, must have them produced and see that they are accurate. For bibliography, see PROPERTY, ECCLESIASTICAL. A. BOUDINHON Canonical Investiture Canonical Investiture (Lat. investitura, from investire, to clothe.) Canonical Investiture is the act by which a suzerain granted a fief to his vassal, and the ceremonies which accompanied that grant. From the middle of the eleventh century, and perhaps during the first half of that century, the term was used to designate the act and the ceremonies by which princes granted to bishops and abbots, besides their titles, the possessions which constituted their benefices, and the political rights which they were to exercise (see INVESTITURES, CONFLICT OF). The putting in possession was done after the investiture by enthronization (q. v.). The decretals use the word investitura to signify the concession of an ecclesiastical benefice; only since the thirteenth century has it signified the act of putting one in possession of such a benefice. This is the sense in which it is now used; it is synonymous with Institutio corporalis. (See INSTITUTION, CANONICAL; INSTALLATION.) HINSCHIUS, System des katholischen Kirchenrechts (Berlin, 1878), II, 654; KAULEN in Kirchenlex., s.v. Investitur, VI (Freiburg im Br., 1889), 843-44. A. VAN HOVE Conflict of Investitures Conflict of Investitures (Ger. Investiturstreit.) The terminus technicus for the great struggle between the popes and the German kings Henry IV and Henry V, during the period 1075-1122. The prohibition of investiture was in truth only the occasion of this conflict; the real issue, at least at the height of the contest, was whether the imperial or the papal power was to be supreme in Christendom. The powerful and ardent pope, Gregory VII, sought in all earnestness to realize the Kingdom of God on earth under the guidance of the papacy. As successor of the Apostles of Christ, he claimed supreme authority in both spiritual and secular affairs. It seemed to this noble idealism that the successor of Peter could never act otherwise than according to the dictates of justice, goodness, and truth. In this spirit he claimed for the papacy supremacy over emperor, kings, and princes. But during the Middle Ages a rivalry had always existed between the popes and the emperors, twin representatives, so to speak, of authority. Henry III, the father of the young king, had even reduced the papacy to complete submission, a situation which Gregory now strove to reverse by crushing the imperial power and setting in its place the papacy. A long and bitter struggle was therefore unavoidable. It first arose through the prohibition of investitures, `a propos of the ecclesiastical reforms set afoot by Gregory. In 1074 he had renewed under heavier penalties the prohibition of simony and marriage of the clergy, but encountered at once great opposition from the German bishops and priests. To secure the necessary influence in the appointment of bishops, to set aside lay pretensions to the administration of the property of the Church, and thus to break down the opposition of the clergy, Gregory at the Lenten (Roman) Synod of 1075 withdrew "from the king the right of disposing of bishoprics in future, and relieved all lay persons of the investiture of churches". As early as the Synod of Reims (1049) anti-investiture legislation had been enacted, but had never been enforced. Investiture at this period meant that on the death of a bishop or abbot, the king was accustomed to select a successor and to bestow on him the ring and staff with the words: Accipe ecclesiam (accept this church). Henry III was wont to consider the ecclesiastical fitness of the candidate; Henry IV, on the other hand, declared in 1073: "We have sold the churches". Since Otto the Great (936-72) the bishops had been princes of the empire, had secured many privileges, and had become to a great extent feudal lords over great districts of the imperial territory. The control of these great units of economic and military power was for the king a question of primary importance, affecting as it did the foundations and even the existence of the imperial authority; in those days men had not yet learned to distinguish between the grant of the episcopal office and the grant of its temporalities (regalia). Thus minded, Henry IV held that it was impossible for him to acknowledge the papal prohibition of investiture. We must bear carefully in mind that in the given circumstances there was a certain justification for both parties: the pope's object was to save the Church from the dangers that arose from the undue influence of the laity, and especially of the king, in strictly ecclesiastical affairs; the king, on the other hand, considered that he was contending for the indispensable means of civil government, apart from which his supreme authority was at that period inconceivable. Ignoring the prohibition of Gregory, as also the latter's effort at a mitigation of the same, Henry continued to appoint bishops in Germany and in Italy. Towards the end of December, 1075, Gregory delivered his ultimatum: the king was called upon to observe the papal decree, as based on the laws and teachings of the Fathers; otherwise, at the following Lenten Synod, he would be not only "excommunicated until he had given proper satisfaction, but also deprived of his kingdom without hope of recovering it". Sharp reproval of his libertinism was added. If the pope had given way somewhat too freely to his feelings, the king gave still freer vent to his anger. At the Diet of Worms (January, 1076), Gregory, amid atrocious calumnies, was deposed by twenty-six bishops on the ground that his elevation was irregular, and that consequently he had never been pope. Henry therefore addressed a letter to "Hildebrand, no longer pope but a false monk" : -- "I, Henry, king by the grace of God, with all my bishops say to thee: 'Descend! Descend, thou ever accursed!'" If the king believed that such a deposition, which he was unable to enforce, was of any effect, he must have been very blind. At the next Lenten Synod in Rome (1076) Gregory sat in judgment upon the king, and in a prayer to Peter, Prince of the Apostles, declared: "I depose him from the government of the whole Kingdom of Germany and Italy, release all Christians from their oath of allegiance, forbid him to be obeyed as king . . . and as thy successor bind him with the fetters of anathema". It availed little that the king answered ban with ban. His domestic enemies, the Saxons and the lay princes of the empire, espoused the cause of the pope, while his bishops were divided in their allegiance, and the mass of his people deserted him. The age was yet too deeply conscious that there could be no Christian Church without communion with Rome. The royal supporters grew ever fewer; in October a diet of the princes at Tribur obliged Henry to apologize humbly to the pope, to promise for the future obedience and reparation, and to refrain from all actual government, seeing that he was excommunicate. They decreed also that if within a year and a day the excommunication was not removed, Henry should forfeit his crown. Finally, they resolved that the pope should be invited to visit Germany in the following spring to settle the conflict between the king and the princes. Elated at this victory Gregory set out immediately for the north. To the general astonishment, Henry now proposed to present himself as a penitent before the pope, and thereby obtain pardon. He crossed Mont Cenis in the depth of winter and was soon at the Castle of Canossa, whither Gregory had withdrawn on learning of the king's approach. Henry spent three days at the entrance to the fortress, barefoot and in the garb of a penitent. That he actually stood the whole time on ice and snow is of course a romantic exaggeration. He was finally admitted to the papal presence, and pledged himself to recognize the mediation and decision of the pope in the quarrel with the princes, and was then freed from excommunication (January, 1077). This famous event has been countless times described, and from very divergent points of view. Through Bismarck, Canossa became a proverbial term to indicate the humiliation of the civil power before the ambitious and masterful Church. Recently, on the other hand, not a few have seen in it a glorious triumph for Henry. When the facts are carefully weighed, it will appear that in his priestly capacity the pope yielded reluctantly and unwillingly, while, on the other hand, the political success of his concession was null. Henry had now the advantage, since, released from excommunication, he was again free to act. Comparing, however, the power which thirty years earlier Henry III had exercised over the papacy, we may yet agree with those historians who see in Canossa the acme of the career of Gregory VII. The German supporters of the pope ignored the reconciliation, and proceeded in March, 1077, to elect a new king, Rudolf of Rheinfelden. This was the signal for the civil war during which Gregory sought to act as arbiter between the rival kings and as their overlord to award the crown. By artful diplomacy Henry held off, until 1080, any decisive action. Considering his position sufficiently secure, he then demanded that the pope should excommunicate his rival, otherwise he would set up an antipope. Gregory answered by excommunicating and deposing Henry for the second time at the Lenten Synod of 1080. It was declared at the same time that clergy and people should ignore all civil interference and all civil claims on ecclesiastical property, and should canonically elect all the candidates for ecclesiastical office. The effect of this second excommunication was inconsiderable. During the preceding years the king had collected a strong party; the bishops preferred to depend on the king rather than on the pope; moreover, it was believed that the second excommunication was not justified. Gregory's party was thus greatly weakened, At the Synod of Brixen (June, 1080) the king's bishops listened to ridiculous charges and exaggerations, and deposed the pope, excommunicated him, and elected as antipope Guibert, Archbishop of Ravenna, otherwise a learned and blameless man. Gregory had relied on the support of the Normans in Southern Italy and of the German enemies of the king, but the former sent him assistance. Thus when in October, 1080, his rival for the throne was slain in battle, Henry turned his thoughts on the papal capital. Four times, from 1081 to 1084, he assaulted Rome, in 1083 captured the Leonine City, and in 1084, after an unsuccessful attempt at a compromise, gained possession of the entire city. The deposition of Gregory and the election of Guibert, who now called himself Clement III, was confirmed by a synod, and in March, 1084, Henry was crowned emperor by his antipope. The Normans arrived too late to prevent these events, and moreover proceeded to plunder the town so mercilessly that Gregory lost the allegiance of the Romans and was compelled to withdraw southward with his Norman allies. He had suffered a complete defeat, and died at Salerno (25 May, 1085), after another ineffectual renewal of excommunication against his opponents. Though he died amid disappointment and failure, he had done indispensable pioneer work and set in motion forces and principles that were to dominate succeeding centuries. There was now much confusion on all sides. In 1081 a new rival for the crown, the insignificant Count Herman of Salm, had been chosen, but he died in 1088. Most of the bishops held with the king, and were thus excommunicate; in Saxony only was the Gregorian party dominant. Many dioceses had two occupants. Both parties called their rivals perjurers and traitors, nor did either side discriminate nicely in the choice and use of weapons. Negotiations met with no success, while the synod of the Gregorians at Quedlinburg (April, 1085) showed no inclination to modify the principles which they represented. The king, therefore, resolved to crush his rivals by force. At the Council of Mainz (April, 1085) fifteen Gregorian bishops were deposed, and their sees entrusted to adherents of the royal party. A fresh rebellion of the Saxons and Bavarians forced the king's bishops to fly, but the death of the most eminent and a general inclination towards peace led to a truce, so that about 1090 the empire entered on an interval of peace, far different, however, from what Henry had contemplated. The Gregorian bishops recognized the king, who consequently withdrew his support from his own nominees. But the truce was a purely political one; in ecclesiastical matters the opposition continued unabated, and recognition of the antipope was not to be thought of. Indeed, the political tranquillity served only to bring out more definitely the hopeless antithesis between the clergy who held with Gregory and those who sided with the king. There are yet extant numerous contemporary polemical treatises that enable us to follow the warfare of opinions after 1080 (of the preceding period few such documents remain). These writings, usually short and acrimonious, were widely scattered, were read privately or publicly, and were distributed on court and market-days. They are now collected as the "Libelli de lite imperatorum et pontificum", and are to be found in the Monumenta Germaniae historica". It is but natural that the principles advocated in these writings should be diametrically opposed to one another. The writers of Gregory's party maintain that unconditional obedience to the pope is necessary, and that, even when unjust, his excommunication is valid. The king's writers, on the other hand, declare that their master is above responsibility for his actions, being the representative of God on earth, and as such overlord of the pope. Prominent on the papal side were the unbending Saxon Bernhard, who would hear of no compromise and preferred death to violation of the canons, the Swabian Bernold of St. Blasien, author of numerous but unimportant letters and memorials, and the rude, fanatical Manegold of Lautenbach, for whom obedience to the pope was the supreme duty of all mankind, and who maintained that the people could depose a bad ruler as rightfully as one would dismiss a swineherd who had failed to protect the drove entrusted to his care. On the side of the king stood Wenrich of Trier, calm in diction, but resolute, Wido of Osnabrueck, a solid writer, afterwards bishop, whose heart was set on peace between the emperor and the pope, but who opposed Gregory for having unlawfully excommunicated the king and for inducing the latter's feudatories to break their oath of allegiance. On the royal side, also, was a monk of Hersfeld, otherwise unknown, who reveals a clear grasp of the real issue in his pamphlet "De unitate ecclesiae", wherein he indicates the matter of supremacy as the real source of the conflict. Monarchy, he said, comes directly from God; consequently, to Him alone is the king responsible. The Church, on the other hand, is the totality of the faithful, united in one society by the spirit of peace and love. The Church, he goes on, is not called to exercise temporal authority; she bears only the spiritual sword, that is, the Word of God. Here, however, the monk went far beyond the age in which he lived. In Italy the adherents of Gregory outmatched their rivals intellectually. Among their number was Bonizo of Sutri, the historian of the papal side, a valuable writer for the preceding decades of the conflict, naturally from the standpoint of the pontiff and his adherents. Anselm, Bishop of Lucca, and Cardinal Deusdedit, at Gregory's request, compiled collections of canons, whence in later times the ideas of Gregory drew substantial support. To the royal party belonged the vacillating Cardinal Beno, the personal enemy of Gregory and author of scandalous pamphlets against the pope, also the mendacious Benzo, Bishop of Alba, for whom, as for most courtiers, the king was answerable only to God, while the pope was the king's vassal. Guido of Ferrara held more temperate opinions, and endeavoured to persuade the moderate Gregorians to adopt a policy of compromise. Petrus Crassus, the only layman engaged in the controversy, represented the youthful science of jurisprudence and strongly advocated the autonomy of the State, maintaining that, as the sovereign authority was from God, it was a crime to war upon the king. He claimed for the king all the rights of the Roman emperors, consequently the right to sit in judgment on the pope. In 1086 Gregory was succeeded by a milder character, Victor III, who had no desire to compete for the supreme authority, and drew back to the position that the whole strife was purely a question of ecclesiastical administration. He died in 1087, and the contest entered on a new period with Urban II (1088-99). He shared fully all the ideas of Gregory, but endeavoured to conciliate the king and his party and to facilitate their return to the views of the ecclesiastical party. Henry might perhaps have come to some arrangement with Victor, had he been willing to set aside the antipope, but he clung closely to the man from whom he had received the imperial crown. In this way war soon broke out again, during which the cause of the king suffered a decline. The antipope's bishops gradually deserted him in answer to Urban's advantageous offers of reconciliation; the royal authority in Italy disappeared, while in the defection of his son Conrad and of his second wife Henry suffered an additional humiliation. The new crusading movement, on the other hand, rallied many to the assistance of the papacy. In 1094 and 1095 Urban renewed the excommunication of Henry, Guibert, and their supporters. When the pope died (1099), followed by the antipope (1100), the papacy, so far as ecclesiastical matters were concerned, had won a complete victory. The subsequent antipopes of the Guibertian party in Italy were of no importance. Urban was succeeded by a less able ruler, Paschal II (1099-1118), whom Henry at first inclined to recognize. The political horizon meanwhile began to look more favourable for the king, who was now universally acknowledged in Germany. He was anxious to secure in addition ecclesiastical peace, sought to procure the removal of his excommunication, and publicly declared his intention of making a pilgrimage to the Holy Sepulchre. This, however, did not satisfy the pope, who demanded the renunciation of the right of investiture, still obstinately claimed by Henry. In 1102 Paschal renewed the anathema against the emperor. The revolt of his son (Henry V), and the latter's alliance with the princes who were dissatisfied with the imperial policy, brought matters to a crisis and occasioned the greatest suffering to the sorely tried emperor, who was now ignominiously outwitted and overcome by his son. A decisive struggle was rendered unnecessary by the death of Henry IV in 1106. He had untiringly defended the inherited rights of the royal office, and had never sacrificed any of them. From the beginning Henry V had enjoyed the support of the pope, who had relieved him of excommunication and had set aside his oath of allegiance to his father. At and after the Pentecost Synod of Nordhausen, in 1105, the king dispelled the last remnants of the schism by deposing the imperial occupants of the episcopal sees. The questions, however, which lay at the root of the whole conflict were not yet decided, and time soon showed that, in the matter of investitures, Henry was the true heir of his father's policy. Cold, calculating, and ambitious, the new monarch had no idea of withdrawing the royal claims in this respect. Notwithstanding repeated prohibitions (at Guastalla in 1106, and at Troyes in 1107), he continued to invest with ostentation the bishops of his choice. The German clergy raised no protest, and made it evident in this way that their earlier refusal of obedience to the emperor arose from the fact of his excommunication, not from any resentment occasioned by his interference in the affairs of the Church. In 1108 excommunication was pronounced upon the giver and receiver (dans et accipiens) of investiture, and thus affected the king himself. As Henry had now set his heart on being crowned emperor, this decision precipitated the final struggle. In 1111 the king marched with a strong army on Rome. Eager to avoid another conflict, Paschal attempted a radical solution of the question at issue; the German clergy, he decided, were to restore to the king all their estates and privileges and to maintain themselves on tithes and donations; under these circumstances the monarchy, which was interested only in the overlordship of these domains, might easily dispense with the investiture of the clergy. On this understanding peace was established at Sutri between pope and king. Paschal, who had been a monk before his elevation, undoubtedly executed in good faith this renunciation of the secular power of the Church. It was but a short step to the idea that the Church was a spiritual institution, and as such had no concern with earthly affairs. The king, however, cannot have doubted for a moment that the papal renunciation would fall before the opposition of both ecclesiastical and secular princes. Henry V was mean and deceitful, and sought to entrap the pope. The king having renounced his claim to investiture, the pope promulgated in St. Peter's on 12 February, 1112, the return of all temporalities to the Crown, but thereby raised (as Henry had foreseen) such a storm of opposition from the German princes that he was forced to recognize the futility of this attempt at settlement. The king then demanded that the right of investiture be restored, and that he should be crowned emperor; on the pope's refusal, he treacherously seized him and thirteen cardinals, and hurried them away from the now infuriated city. To regain his freedom, Paschal was forced, after two months imprisonment, to accede to Henry's demands. He granted the king unconditional investiture as an imperial privilege, crowned him emperor, and promised on oath not to excommunicate him for what had occurred. Henry had thus secured by force a notable success, but it could have no long duration. The more ardent members of the Gregorian party rebuked the "heretical" pope, and compelled him to retire step by step from the position into which he had been forced. The Lateran Synod of 1112 renewed the decrees of Gregory and Urban against investiture. Paschal did not wish to withdraw his promise directly, but the Council of Vienna, having declared the imperial privilegium (privilege, derivatively, a private law) a pravilegium (a vicious law), and as such null and void, it also excommunicated the emperor. The pope did not, however, break off all intercourse with Henry, for whom the struggle began to assume a threatening aspect, since now, as previously under his father, the difficulties raised by ecclesiastical opposition were aggravated by rebellion of the princes. The inconsiderate selfishness of the emperor, his mean and odious personality, made enemies on every side. Even his bishops now opposed him, seeing themselves threatened by him and believing him set on sole mastery. In 1114 at Beauvais, and in 1116 at Reims, Cologne, Goslar, and a second time at Cologne, excommunication of the emperor was repeated by papal legates. Imperial and irresolute bishops, who refused to join the papal party, were removed from their sees. The emperor's forces were defeated simultaneously on the Rhine and in Saxony. In 1116 Henry attempted to enter into negotiations with the pope in Italy, but no agreement was arrived at, as on this occasion Paschal refused to enter into a conference with the emperor. After Paschal's death (1118) even his tolerant successor, Gelasius II (1118-19), could not prevent the situation from becoming daily more entangled. Having demanded recognition of the privilege of 1111 and been referred by Gelasius to a general council, Henry made a hopeless attempt to revive the universally detested schism by appointing as antipope, under the name of Gregory VIII, Burdinus, Archbishop of Braga (Portugal), and was accordingly excommunicated by the pope. In 1119 Gelasius was succeeded by Guido of Vienna as Callistus II (1119-24); he had already excommunicated the emperor in 1112. Reconciliation seemed, therefore, more remote than ever. Callistus, however, regarded the peace of the Church as of prime importance, and as the emperor, already on better terms with the German princes, was likewise eager for peace, negotiations were opened. A basis for compromise lay in the distinction between the ecclesiastical and the secular elements in the appointment of bishops. This mode of settlement had already been discussed in various forms in Italy and in France, e. g. by Ivo of Chartres, as early as 1099. The bestowal of the ecclesiastical office was sharply distinguished from the investiture with imperial domains. As symbols of ecclesiastical installation, the ring and staff were suggested; the sceptre served as the symbol of investiture with the temporalities of the see. The chronological order of the formalities raised a new difficulty; on the imperial side it was demanded that investiture with the temporalities should precede consecration, while the papal representatives naturally claimed that consecration should precede investiture. If the investiture were to precede, the emperor by refusing the temporalities could prevent consecration; in the other case, investiture was merely a confirmation of the appointment. By 1119 the articles of peace were agreed upon at Mouzon and were to be ratified by the Synod of Reims. At the last moment, however, negotiations were broken off, and the pope renewed the excommunication of the emperor. But the German princes succeeded in reopening the proceedings, and peace was finally arranged between the legates of the pope, the emperor and the princes on 23 September, 1122. This peace is usually known as the Concordat of Worms, or the "Pactum Calixtinum". In the document of peace, Henry yields up "to God and his Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and to the Holy Catholic Church all investitures with ring and staff, and allows in all Churches of his kingdom and empire ecclesiastical election and free consecration". On the other hand, the pope grants to "his beloved son Henry, by the Grace of God Roman Emperor, that the election of bishops and abbots in the German Empire in so far as they belong to the Kingdom of Germany, shall take place in his presence, without simony or the employment of any constraint. Should any discord arise between the parties, the emperor shall, after hearing the advice and verdict of the metropolitans and other bishops of the province lend his approval and support to the better side. The elected candidate shall receive from him the temporalities (regalia) with the sceptre, and shall discharge all obligations entailed by such reception. In other portions of the empire, the consecrated candidate shall within six months receive the regalia by means of the sceptre, and shall fulfil towards him the obligations implied by this ceremony. From these arrangements is excepted all that belongs to the Roman Church" (i. e. the Papal States). The different parts of the empire were therefore differently treated; in Germany the investiture was to precede the consecration, while in Italy and Burgundy it followed the consecration and within the succeeding six months. The king was deprived of his unrestricted power in the appointment of bishops, but the Church also failed to secure the full exclusion of every alien influence from canonical elections. The Concordat of Worms was a compromise, in which each party made concessions. Important for the king were the toleration of his presence at the election (proesentia regis), which lent him a possible influence over the electors, and of investiture before consecration, whereby the elevation of an obnoxious candidate was rendered difficult or even impossible. The extreme ecclesiastical party, who condemned investitures and secular influence in elections under any form, were dissatisfied with these concessions from the very outset and would have been highly pleased, if Callistus had refused to confirm the Concordat. In appraising the significance of this agreement it remains to be seen whether it was intended as a temporary truce or an enduring peace. Doubts might very well be (and indeed have been) entertained on this matter, since formally the document is drawn up only for Henry V. But a close examination of our sources of information and of contemporary documents has shown that it is erroneous to maintain that the Concordat enjoyed but a passing recognition and was of small importance. Not only by the contracting parties, but also by their contemporaries, the compact was regarded as an enduring fundamental law. It was solemnly recognized not only as an imperial statute, but as a law of the Church by the Lateran OEcumenical Council of 1123. We also know from Gerhoh of Reichersberg, who was present at the council, that in addition to the imperial document, which it has been held was alone read, that of the pope was also read and sanctioned. As Gerhoh was one of the chief opponents of the Concordat, his evidence in favour of an unpleasant truth cannot be doubted. That the agreement was to possess perpetual binding power, neither party, of course, intended -- and the Concordat was very far from securing such continued recognition, since it reveals at most the anxiety of the Church for peace, under the pressure of certain circumstances. By new legislative act the provisions were modified. Under King Lothair (1125-37) and at the beginning of the reign of Conrad III (1138-52) the Concordat was still unchallenged and was observed in its entirety. In 1139, however, Innocent II, in the twenty-eighth canon of the Council of Rome, confined the privilege of electing the bishop to the cathedral chapter and the representatives of the regular clergy, and made no mention of lay participation in the election. The ecclesiastical party assumed that this provision annulled the king's participation in elections and his right to decide in the case of an equally divided vote of the electors. If their opinion was correct, the Church alone had withdrawn on this point from the compact, and the kings had no need to take cognizance of the fact. In truth the latter retained their right in this respect, though they used it sparingly, and frequently waived it. They had ample opportunity to make their influence felt in other ways. Frederick I (1152-90) was again complete master of the Church in Germany, and was generally able to secure the election of the candidate he favoured. In case of disagreement he took a bold stand and compelled the recognition of his candidate. Innocent III (1198-1216) was the first to succeed in introducing free and canonical election into the German Church. Royal investiture after his time was an empty survival, a ceremony without meaning. Such was the course and the consequence of the investiture conflict in the German Empire. In England and France, the strife never assumed the same proportions nor the same bitterness. It was owing to the importance of the German Empire and the imperial power that they had in the first instance to bear the brunt of the fight. Had they suffered defeat, the others could never have engaged in the contest with the Church. The Conflict in England In England the conflict is part of the history of Anselm of Canterbury (q. v.). As primate of England (1093-1109), he fought almost singlehanded for the canon law against king nobility and clergy. William the Conqueror (1066-87) had constituted himself sovereign lord of the Church in England; he ratified the decisions of the synods, appointed bishops and abbots, determined how far the pope should be recognized, and forbade all intercourse without his permission. The Church in England was therefore practically a national Church, in spite of its nominal dependence on Rome. Anselm's contest with William II (1087-1100) was concerned with other matters, but during his residence in France and Italy he was one of the supporters of ecclesiastical reform, and, being required on his return to take the oath of fealty to the new king (Henry I, 1100-35) and receive the bishopric from his hands, he refused to comply. This led to the outbreak of the investiture quarrel. The king despatched successive embassies to the pope to uphold his right to investiture, but without success. In his replies to the king and in his letters to Anselm, Paschal strictly forbade both the oath of fealty and all investitures by laymen. Henry then forbade Anselm, who was visiting Rome, to return to England, and seized his revenues, whereupon, in 1105, the pope excommunicated the councillors of the king and all prelates who received investiture at his hands. In the same year, however, an agreement was arrived at, and was ratified by the pope in 1106, and by the Parliament in London in 1107. According to this concordat the king renounced his claims to investiture, but the oath of fealty was still exacted. In the appointment of the higher dignitaries of the Church, however, the king still retained the greatest influence. The election took place in the royal palace, and, whenever a candidate obnoxious to the king was proposed, he simply proposed another, who was then always elected. The chosen candidate thereupon swore the oath of fealty, which always preceded the consecration. The separation of the ecclesiastical office from the bestowal of the temporalities was the sole object attained, an achievement of no very great importance. In France the question of investiture was not of such importance for the State as to give rise to any violent contention. The bishops had neither such power nor such extensive domains as in Germany, and but a certain number of the bishops and abbots were invested by the king, while many others were appointed and invested by the nobles of the kingdom, the counts and the dukes (i. e. for the so-called mediate bishoprics). The bishoprics were often dealt with in a very arbitrary manner, being frequently sold, presented as a gift, and bestowed upon kinsmen. After the reconciliation between the pope and king, in 1104, the right of appointment was tacitly renounced by the kings, and free election became the established rule. The king retained, however, the right of ratification, and exacted, usually after the consecration, the oath of fealty from the candidate before he entered on the use of the temporalities. After some minor conflicts, these conditions were extended to the mediate bishoprics. In some cases, e. g. in Gascony and Aquitaine, the bishop entered into immediate possession of the temporalities on the ratification of his election. It was in France, therefore, that the requirements of the Church were most completely fulfilled. MEYER VON KNONAU, Jahrbuecher des deutschen Reiches unter Heinrich IV und Heinrich V, I-VII (Leipzig, 1890-1909); RICHTER, Annalen des deutschen Reiches im Zeitalter der Ottonen und Salier, II (Halle, 1897-98); HAMPE, Deutsche Kaisergeschichte in der Zeit der Salier und Staufer (Leipzig, 1909); HEFELE-KNOePFLER, Conciliengeschichte, V (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1886); HAUCK, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands im Mittelalter, III (3rd and 4th eds., Leipzig, 1906); GFROeRER, Papst Gregorius VII, I-VII (Schaffhausen, 1859-61); MARTENS, Gregor VII., I, II (Leipzig, 1894); SCHAeFER, Zur Beurteilung des Wormser Konkordats, in Abhandlungen der Berliner Akademie, phil.-hist. Klasse, I (1905), 1-95; BERNHEIM, Das Wormser Konkordat (Breslau, 1906); RUDORFF, Zur Erklaerung des Wormser Konkordats (Weimar, 1906); SCHARNAGL, Der Begriff der Investitur (Stuttgart, 1908); SCHMITZ, Der englische Investiturstreit (Innsbruck, 1884); LIEBERMANN, Anselm von Canterbury und Hugo von Lyon in Hist. Aufsaetze dem Andenken an G. Waitzgewidmet (Hanover, 1886); RULE, Life and Times of St. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury (London, 1882); CHURCH, St. Anselm (London, 1888); IMBART DE LA TOUR, Les elections episcopales dans l'eglise de France du IXe au XIIe siecle (Paris, 1890). KLEMENS LOeFFLER Invitatorium Invitatorium The Invitatorium, as the word implies, is the invitation addressed to the faithful to come and take part in the Divine Office. The psalm "Venite" has been used for this purpose from the earliest times. In the life of St. Porphyrius of Gaza we read that this saint, wishing the people to join in prayer, caused the "Venite exultemus Domino" to be sung, and the people replied "Alleluia" after each verse. In the Benedictine Office the "Venite exultemus Domino" is recited daily at the beginning of the nocturns in the night Office and is called the Invitatorium. It is never omitted, but the antiphons that follow each verse are changed according to whether it is a ferial or a saint's Office that is being recited. These antiphons are repeated twice before the psalm and once after the "Gloria Patri ". The Rule of St. Benedict calls this psalm the Invitatorium, while the Rule of the Master (Magister Anonymus, a Frankish author of the seventh century) calls it the Responsorium hortationis. The Mozarabic Liturgy makes use of an expressive word: sonus, as if to signify the bell that calls to the church. The most ancient Roman Liturgy we know of did not contain an Invitatorium; for it is omitted in the primitive liturgy, which is represented in our days by that of the last three days of Holy Week. If we find it in the Office of the Dead, it is because it was introduced at a later period. The Council of Aachen (816) mentions the invitatory psalm "Venite" and forbids its use in the Office of the Dead. This same canon, in speaking of the manner of reciting the Invitatorium, employs the very words of the Rule of St. Benedict, which shows clearly that the use of this psalm was closely connected with the monastic Office. The Invitatorium was purposely said slowly, like the preceding psalm: "Domine quid multiplicati sunt". This was to enable the monks who were coming to the vigil to arrive in time for the beginning of the Office. Indeed, it really seems that these two preliminary psalms (Ps. iii and xciv) were the prayers said privately by the monks while rising and coming to choir: "Ego dormivi et soporatus sum et exsurrexi." It is possible that in the course of time the custom was introduced of reciting them aloud in choir, while awaiting the arrival of those who were late, and thus, after a while, they were inserted in the Office itself. In effect, the psalm "Venite" would seem to be addressed to those who were to come to the vigil rather than to those who were already there. At Rome, on the feast of the Epiphany, there was no Invitatorium. The psalmody began, and still begins, with the psalms of the first nocturn and their antiphons. "Hodie non cantamus Invitatorium sed absolute incipimus" (To-day we chant no Invitatory but begin without it) is an instruction in a rubric of the Vatican antiphonary. The psalm "Venite" was recited with its own antiphon in its proper place, that is to say, the last of the psalms of the second nocturn. Later this psalm became the first psalm of the third nocturn, and the antiphon was repeated just as when it was used at the Invitatorium. Amalarius and Durandus of Mende try as usual to explain it mystically, but the most probable explanation is that the Invitatorium was suppressed because the psalm was recited later and they did not wish to recite it twice in the same Office. The Benedictine Breviary, which had hymns for its third nocturn, had not the same reason for excluding it and so retained it on the feast of the Epiphany. We see, nevertheless, that, before the ninth century, the Roman Liturgy had not the Invitatorium, at least not as regularly as the Benedictine Liturgy. It is likely that it was first introduced out of imitation of the monastic practice, on those days alone on which the people assisted at the vigil, when the Invitatorium would thus be addressed to some one. The "Ordines Romani" inform us that, on great festivals, two nocturnal offices were celebrated: one, without the Invitatorium, was recited by the priests of the papal chapel in their chapel; the other with the Invitatorium, at which the people assisted. Amalarius tells us that in his time only the Office for the vigil of Sunday had the Invitatorium, the ferial Office had not, because the people did not assist at it. On the feast of the Commemoration of the Dead the Invitatorium was recited, because the faithful came that day to pray for the deceased, but this brings us to a much later date. Most likely the origin of the Invitatorium is to be found in the call by which the monks were awakened: "Venite adoremus Dominum", which soon became the anthem or the refrain of the psalm "Venite exultemus Domino" which this prayer naturally recalled. Amalarius calls our attention to a peculiar fact. On week-days the Invitatorium was recited without the insertion of the antiphons: "Invitatorium diebus festivis hebdomadibus sine modulatione Antiphone solet dici." The version of the psalm "Venite exultemus" used in the Breviary is that of the ancient Roman psalter, which differs in some passages from the Vulgate. H. LECLERCQ School of Iona School of Iona Iona is the modern name derived by change of letter from Adamnan's Ioua; in Bede it is Hii; the Gaelic form is always I or Y, which becomes Hy by prefixing the euphonic h. This rugged, storm-swept island, three miles long and one in average breadth, and about a mile distant from the Ross of Mull, was next to Armagh the greatest centre of Gaelic Christianity -- the latter was Patrick's city and primatial see; the former Columba's monastic city, a "primatial island", and the light of all the North. Yet closely connected with Ireland for at least 600 years it may be described as an Irish island in the Scottish seas. Columba, born in 521 landed with twelve of his monks at the southern extremity of the island -- ever since called Porta Churraich, or the Bay of the Island -- on Whitsun Eve 12 May, 563. Whether he came to do penance for his share in the battle of Cuildreinhne two years before, or, as the Irish "Life" says, "to preach the Gospel to the men of Alba and to the Britons and to the Saxons" -- which in any case was his primary purpose -- we cannot now determine. It appears that he got a grant of the island from his relative Conall King of Dalriada. which was afterwards confirmed by Brude, King of the Picts, when the latter was converted by the preaching of Columba, who immediately set to work to build his monastery, more Scottorum of earth, timber, and wicker-work. Hence not a trace now remains of those perishable buildings -- all the existing ruins are medieval. A Celtic monastery consisted of a group of beehive cells around a central church or oratory, the other principal buildings being the common refectory or kitchen, the library or scriptorium, the abbot's house, and the guest-house. Adamnan, after Columba himself the brightest ornament of the School of Iona, in his "Life" of the founder, makes explicit references to the tabulae, waxen tablets for writing; to the pens and styles, graphia and calami, and to the ink-horn, cornicula atramenti, to be found in the scriptorium. Columba was certainly a most accomplished scribe if the "Book of Kells" be his own work, and he was engaged in copying one of the psalms when, overtaken by mortal illness, he directed his nephew Baithen to write the rest. And we are told, too, that Baithen during his brief abbacy of three years in succession to Columba was, like his master engaged in "writing, praying and teaching up to the hour of his happy death". When asked about the learning of Baithen, Fintan one of his monks replied: "Be assured that he had no equal on this side of the Alps in his knowledge of Sacred Scripture, and in the profundity of his science" -- and he was at once a pupil and a professor of the School of Iona. Language like this might be considered exaggerated if we did not possess the writings of Adamnan, the ninth abbot and the most illustrious scholar of Iona. Adamnan, otherwise Eunan, a native of Drumhome, in County Donegal, and a tribal relative of Columba, was educated from his youth in Iona, and it may be said that all his learning was the learning of Iona. His "Life of Columba", written at the request of the brotherhood, in Latin, not in Gaelic, is on the whole one of the most valuable works of the Western Church of the seventh century that have come down to us. He gives us more accurate and authentic information of the Gaelic Churches in Ireland and Scotland than any other writer, not excepting even Venerable Bede, who described him as "a good and wise man, and most nobly instructed in the knowledge of the Scriptures". But he was much more. We know from his writings that he was an accomplished Latin scholar, a Gaelic scholar too-Gaelic was his mother tongue-while he had a considerable acquaintance with Greek and some even with Hebrew. He was, moreover, painstaking, judicious, and careful in citing his authorities. He has also left us an admirable treatise "On the Holy Places" in Palestine which he compiled from the narrative of a shipwrecked French bishop named Arculfus, who returning from the Holy Land was cast on the shores of Iona. This is an invaluable treatise from which Bede has extracted long passages for his history, showing that its authority was as great in his own day as it has ever since continued to be in the estimation of scholars. This learned man was a true monk, and like Columba himself took a share in the manual labour of the monastery. With his own strong arms he helped to cut down as many oak trees in one of the neighbouring islands -- perhaps Erraid -- as sufficed to load twelve boats, and no doubt he had a share in building the boats and framing the monastic cells, like the cell of Columba, which was, he tells us, tabulis suffulta, framed of planks, and harundine tecta, thatched with reeds. During the century that closed with the death of Adamnan, Iona was in its glory, Columba and his monks had converted to the faith the whole of Pictland with its rulers. It sent three famous prelates to found and rule over Lindisfarne, second only to Iona itself as a centre of religious learning and influence in the North of Saxonland. Aidan, Finan, and Colman are men whose well-deserved eulogy has been recorded by Venerable Bede. The unhappy disputes about the frontal tonsure and the true time for celebrating Easter, caused much disturbance during the seventh century both in Iona itself and in its daughter houses. Even when Ireland and England had given up the strife and adopted the Roman Easter, the monks of Iona, true to the traditions of their sainted founder, still clung tenaciously to the old Easter. And so late as 716, when Iona itself conformed to the Roman usage, some of the daughter houses in Pictland stubbornly held to the ancient discipline. This stubbornness brought about a few years later the expulsion of the Columban monks from Pictland by Nectan, King of the Picts, who had accepted the Roman discipline. The ninth century brought woe and disaster to both Iona and Lindisfarne from the pagan Danes who ravaged all the British coasts. In 793 they destroyed the church of Lindisfarne with great rapine and slaughter. In 795 they made their first attack on Iona, but the monks on that occasion appear to have escaped with their lives. But in 806 sixty-eight of the community were slain at Port na Mairtir on the eastern shore of the island, and the white sands somewhat north were the scene of the massacre of another band of martyrs. A few years later again, in 814, Abbot Cellach found it necessary to transfer the primacy of the Columban Order from Iona-which Adamnan calls "this our primatial island"-to the monastery of Kells in Ireland, bringing with him the shrine containing Columba's relics which was however brought back later on. In 825 there was a further massacre of Iona monks, namely of St. Blaithmac who refused to give up the shrine, and his holy companions. Blaithmac's heroic death was celebrated in Latin verse by Walafridus Strabo, Abbot of Reichenau, South Germany. In 908 St. Andrews was formally recognized as the primatial see of Scotland, from which year we may date the disappearance of Iona's insular primacy. In the beginning of the thirteenth century, 1204, the ancient Celtic monastery finally disappeared, and a new Benedictine one was established by authority of the pope; but the original graveyard -- the Reilig Odhrain -- was still regarded as the holiest ground in Scotland, and is now crowded with the inscribed tombstones of the kings, chieftains and prelates who rest beneath. JOHN HEALY Ionian Islands Ionian Islands A group of seven islands (whence the name Heptanesus, by which they are also designated) and a number of islets scattered over the Ionian Sea to the west of Greece, between 36 deg. and 40 deg. N. lat., and 19 deg. and 23.5 deg. E. long. The seven islands are: Corfu (Kerkyra, Corcyra), Paxos, Leucadia or Santa Maura, Ithaca or Thiaki, Cephalonia, Zante or Zacynthus, and Cerigo or Cythera. Of the islets the most important are: Antipaxos, Othronos, and Anticythera or Cerigotto. The Ionian Isles have a total area of about 1095 square miles. The population amounts to 261,930, among them being 6615 Catholics of the Latin Rite, while the remainder, with the exception of a few thousand Jews and a small number of Mussulmans, belong to the Greek Orthodox Church. The climate of the islands is in general very mild and salubrious, and, in spite of the mountainous character of the land, there is a fairly extensive output of cotton, wine, oil, and raisins. The Ionian Isles are frequently mentioned or described by the ancient Greek and Latin authors, for whom they had many mythological associations. Many remains of antiquity are even to-day found on these islands (Rieman, "Recherches archeologiques sur les iles ioniennes," Paris, 1879-80). They all remained under Byzantine rule until about the end of the eleventh century, when the Normans of the Two Sicilies obtained possession of Corfu. In 1386 Venice took the islands, and retained them until the end of the eighteenth century. The Treaty of Campo Formio in 1797 gave them to France, which formed them into the three provinces of Ithaca, Corfu, and the Aegean Sea. In 1799 the Russian fleet seized the Ionian Isles, and they were constituted a small state tributary to Turkey, but in 1802 the Treaty of Amiens declared them free under the protectorate of Russia. In 1807 the Peace of Tilsit gave them back to France, and General Berthier was installed as their governor. The Second Treaty of Paris (November, 1815) placed them under English protection. An aristocratic government was then once more organized; the legislative functions were vested in a chamber of seventy deputies, eleven nominated by the Government and fifty-nine elected by the people; the executive power belonged to a Senate consisting of a president, appointed by the protecting power, and five senators elected for five years by the deputies from their own body. An English lord commissioner controlled foreign relations and the police. England enjoyed the right of garrisoning the forts and of military administration. After the French Revolution of 1848, an insurrection broke out in Cephalonia with the object of uniting the islands to Greece, but was rigorously repressed by England in 1849. From that time, however, the first vote of the Chamber, whenever it assembled, was in favour of the union with Greece, after which vote it was immediately dissolved. The English Government, after sending Mr. Gladstone to investigate the feeling of the population, at last decided to surrender the islands to Greece. King George I, upon ascending the throne at Athens, in 1863, consented to succeed Otho I only upon England's undertaking to cede the Ionian Archipelago to the Hellenic Kingdom. This cession was effected between 21 May and 2 June, 1864. The Ionian Isles have since then formed the three nomarchies, or departments, of Corfu, Cephalonia, and Zante. Cerigo alone has been incorporated in the continental nomarchy of Messenia. The Ionian Isles must have received the Gospel at a comparatively early date. The first known Bishop of Corfu is Apollodorus, or Alethodorus, who assisted at the Council of Nicaea in 325 (Gelzer, "Patrum nicaenorum nomina," LXIII, no. 168; see also the list of ancient Greek bishops in Le Quien, II, 232-5.) After the consummation of the Eastern Schism, the Ionian bishoprics remained in the power of the schismatics. Until 1260 the archipelago of the seven islands counted scarcely any Catholics. Under the domination of the House of Anjou, Catholicism made some progress there, and this was continued from 1386 to 1797, under Venetian rule. In the thirteenth century Zante and Cephalonia were made Latin bishoprics, suffragan to Corinth until 1386. These two dioceses (Zante and Cephalonia) were then made one and suffragan to Corfu, which was then raised to the status of an archbishopric (see the list of Latin bishops of the three sees in Le Quien, III, 877-82, 889-92; completed by Gams, 399, 430, and Eubel, I, 217). The political vicissitudes through which the Ionian Archipelago passed during the nineteenth century brought adversity to the Catholic missions, which, however, suffered less after 1850. At the time of the cession of the islands to Greece in 1864, the Hellenic Government promised to secure to the three Latin bishoprics their former rights and privileges. The archdiocese of Corfu (which besides the island of that name, comprises the islands and islets of Merlera, Phano, Samothrace, Paxos, and Antipaxos, as well as a few places in Epirus on the mainland between the towns of Parga and Sasina) is now governed by a resident archbishop, who is at the same time Administrator Apostolic of the Diocese of Zante-Cephalonia. This last diocese comprises, besides the two islands from which it derives its name, those of Santa Maura Leucas (or Leucadia), Ithaca, and Cerigo. The archdiocese numbers about 6000 Catholics, all of the Latin Rite; the Diocese of Zante-Cephalonia, 615 (Missiones catholicae, 1907, 145-7). (See CORFU, ARCHDIOCESE OF; ZANTE-CEPHALONIA, DIOCESE OF.) The Orthodox hierarchy until 1900 consisted of seven dioceses, one for each of the principal islands of the Ionian Archipelago; since then it has numbered but five, that of Paxos having been suppressed, and the two titles of Leucas and Ithaca united into one. Formerly dependent on the Phanar of Constantinople, the ecclesiastical eparchies of the ancient septinsular republic became connected in 1866 with the Holy Synod of Athens, to which they are still subject [Thearvic, "L'Eglise de Grece" in Echos d'Orient," III (1899-1900), 288 sqq.]. (See GREECE.) BONDELMONTE, Liber insularum Archipelagi, written in fifteenth century and published by Sinner in 1824; KENDRICK, The Ionian Islands (London, 1822); MURRAY, Handbook for Travellers in the Ionian Islands (London, 1840); D'ISTRIA, Les iles Ioniennes sous la domination venitienne et le protectorat anglais (Athens, 1859); WHYTE-JERVIS, The Ionian Islands during the present century (London, 1864); LENORMANT, L'annexion des iles Ioniennes in Revue des Deux Mondes (Jan., 1864); KIRCKWALL, Four Years in the Ionian Islands (London, 1864); BURSIAN, Geographie von Griechenland, II (Leipzig, 1872); CHIOTIS, Historia tou Hioniou kratous (Athens, 1874); NOLHAC, La Damatie, les iles Ioniennes et le mont Athos (Paris, 1882); RIEMANN, Recherches archeologiques sur les iles Ioniennes (Paris, 1879-80); MAVROGIANNIS, Historia ton Hionion nesov (Athens, 1899). S. SALAVILLE Ionian School of Philosophy Ionian School of Philosophy The Ionian School includes the earliest Greek philosophers, who lived at Miletus, an Ionian colony in Asia Minor, during the sixth century B.C., and a group of philosophers who lived about one hundred years later and modified the doctrines of their predecessors in several respects. It is usual to distinguish, therefore, the Earlier Ionians and the Later Ionians. Earlier Ionians This group includes Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes, with whom the history of philosophy in Greece begins. They are called by Aristotle the first "physiologists", that is "students of nature". So far as we know they confined their philosophical enquiry to the problem of the origin and laws of the physical universe. They taught that the world originated from a primitive substance, which was at once the matter out of which the world was made and the force by which the world was formed. Thales said that this primitive substance was water; Anaximander said that it was "the boundless" (to apeiron); Anaximenes said that it was air, or atmospheric vapour (aer). They agreed in teaching that in this primitive substance there is an inherent force, or vital power. Hence they are said to be Hylozoists and Dynamists. Hylozoism is the doctrine of animated matter, and Dynamism the doctrine that the original cosmothetic force was not distinct from, but identical with, the matter out of which the universe was made. From the scanty materials that have come down to us -- a few fragments of the writings of the early Ionians, and allusions in Aristotle's writings -- it is impossible to determine whether these first philosophers were Theists or Pantheists, although one may perhaps infer from their hylozoistic cosmology that they believed God to be at once the substance and the formative force in the universe. Later Ionians This group includes Heraclitus Empedocles, and Anaxagoras, who lived in the fifth century B.C. These philosophers, like the early Ionians, were deeply interested in the problem of the origin and nature of the universe. But, unlike their predecessors, they distinguished the primitive world forming force from the primitive matter of which the world was made. In Heraclitus, however, and, to a certain degree, in Empedocles, this mechanism -- the doctrine that force is distinct from matter -- is expressed hesitatingly and in figurative language. Anaxagoras is the first Greek philosopher to assert definitely and unhesitatingly that the world was formed from a primitive substance by the operation of a force called Intellect. For this reason he is said by Aristotle to be "distinguished from the crowd of random talkers who preceded him" as the "first sober man" among the Greeks. Heraclitus was so impressed with the prevalence of change among physical things that he laid down the principle of panmetabolism: panta rei, "all things are in a constant flux". Empedocles has the distinction of having introduced into philosophy the doctrine of four elements, or four "roots", as he calls them, namely, fire, air, earth, and water, out of which the centripetal force of love and the centrifugal force of hatred made all things, and are even now making and unmaking all things. Anaxagoras, as has been said, introduced the doctrine of nous, or Intellect. He is blamed however, by Socrates and Plato for having neglected to make the most obvious application of that doctrine to the interpretation of nature as it now is. Having postulated a world-forming Mind, he should they pointed out, have proceeded to the principle of teleology, that the Mind presiding over natural processes does all things for the best. None of these early philosophers devoted attention to the problems of epistemology and ethics. Socrates was the first to conduct a systematic inquiry into the conditions of human knowledge and the principles of human conduct. WILLIAM TURNER Ionopolis Ionopolis A titular see in the province of Paphlagonia, suffragan of Gangres. The city was founded by a colony from Miletus already established at Sinope, and at first took the name of Abonouteichos. There, in the second century A.D., was born the false prophet Alexander, who caused the erection of a large temple to Apollo, and thus secured rich revenues. The city was afterwards called Ionopolis. Le Quien (Oriens Christ., I, 555) mentions eight bishops between 325 and 878; it had others since then, for the see is mentioned in the later "Notitiae episcopatuum." Ionopolis, to-day called Ineboli, is a Black Sea port, numbering 9000 inhabitants, 1650 of whom are Greek schismatics, and 230 Armenians; all the remainder are Turks. It is a caza of the sanjak and the vilayet of Castamouni, and enjoys a very healthy and pleasant climate. CUINET, La Turquie d'Asie, IV (Paris, 1894), 466-69. S. VAILHE Iowa Iowa Iowa is one of the North Central States of the American Union, and is about midway between the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans. It lies between two great rivers, the Mississippi and the Missouri, the Mississippi forming its eastern boundary and separating it from the States of Illinois and Wisconsin; the Missouri and its chief tributary, the Big Sioux, forming its western boundary, and separating it from the States of Nebraska and South Dakota. It extends from 40 deg. 36 min. to 43 deg. 30 min. north latitude. In the south-east corner, in Lee County, the boundary projects below the parallel, following the channel of the Des Moines River down to its junction with the Mississippi. The state is 310 miles from east to west and 210 miles from north to south, and has an area of 56,025 square miles, or 35,856,000 acres, being nearly the same size as Wisconsin or Illinois. Physical Characteristics The surface of the state is an undulating prairie, part of the Great Central Plain of North America. It rises gradually from the south-east corner, where the lowest point is but 444 feet above the sea-level, towards the north-west, to the Divide (an elevated plain beginning in Dickinson County in the north-western part of the state), where the highest point (1694 feet) is reached. The ridge then crosses the state from north to south, parallel with the western boundary and about 60 miles east of it, until it reaches Adair County, whence it sweeps eastwards to Appanoose County. That part of the state east of the Divide, comprising over two-thirds of its surface, is drained by rivers flowing in a southeasterly direction into the Mississippi and its tributaries. The principal rivers of this system are the upper Iowa, Turkey, Maquoketa, Wapsipinicon, Cedar, Skunk, and Des Moines. Of these the Des Moines is by far the largest and most important, rising in Minnesota and flowing diagonally across the entire state. West of the Divide the rivers flow southwesterly into the Missouri and its tributaries, and, as the watershed is near the western boundary of the state, the rivers have shorter courses and a more rapid flow than those of the eastern system. The principal western rivers are the Big Sioux, Rock, Floyd, Little Sioux, Boyer, and Nishnabotna. The principal lakes of Iowa are Spirit Lake, which is the largest, Lake Okoboji, a popular summer resort, Clear Lake, and Storm Lake. These are small but beautiful sheets of water situated in the north-western part of the state which is an extension of the lake region of Minnesota. Along the largest rivers are valleys from one to ten miles in width, bordered by irregular lines of bluffs. The picturesque ravines and bold rocky bluffs, ranging in height from 200 to 400 feet, along the Mississippi from Dubuque northwards, lend to that portion of the river a striking beauty all its own. There is but little native forest in the state, the timber being chiefly confined to the valleys of the rivers and the bordering bluffs. It was found, however, that all deciduous trees throve on the soil of the prairies; by special legislation, offering fiscal privileges, the farmers were encouraged to plant, and now woodland groves near the farmhouses are seen in all parts of the state, adding picturesqueness to the scenery. The principal trees are the cottonwood, ash, elm, maple, hickory, black walnut, poplar, box elder, cedar, and varieties of oak. There are no miasmatic bottomlands in the state; the air is dry and invigorating, and the general climatic influences salubrious. During the last ten years (1899 to 1908 inclusive) the average extremes of temperature were 102 deg. above to 31 deg. below zero; the average mean temperature was 48 deg. above zero. During the same time the average rainfall was 33 inches. For the year 1908, the mean temperature was 49.5 deg.; the highest temperature was 101 deg. (3 August) in Mahaska and Wapello Counties in the southern part of the state; the lowest temperature reported for the year was 18 deg. below zero (29 January) in Emmet and Winnebago Counties in the northern part of the state. The average amount of rain and melted snow for the year was 35.26 inches. Industries and General Social Conditions Iowa has less waste land than any other of the United States, 97 per cent of its surface being tillable. The soil of the greater part of the state consists of a dark drift loam from two to five feet deep and of wonderful fertility. In the western part of the state is found the bluff soil, or loess, believed to be the deposit of the winds from the plains of Kansas and Dakota; this soil is deep and very rich, and is peculiarly adapted to the growth of fruit trees. The soil of the river valleys consists of waste carried down from higher levels, and is known as alluvium; it is the richest soil in the state. Because of the richness of its soil Iowa has long held a leading place among the agricultural states of the Union. Travellers over the state cannot but be impressed by the sight of its vast fields of Indian corn and oats. More than one-half of its population are engaged in farming. The value of the agricultural products of the state in 1908, according to the United States Department of Agriculture, was $376,076,646. This includes 287,456,000 bushels of Indian corn, valued at $149,477,000, and 110,444,000 bushels of oats, valued at $46,386,000. The state ranks first in the production of oats and in the number of swine; second only to Illinois in the production of corn, second to Texas in the number of meat cattle, second to New York in the number of dairy cows, and second to Illinois in the number of horses. Iowa is famous for its dairy products, and the State Department of Agriculture estimates the value of these products for the year 1908 at $44,500,000. The most important mineral deposit in the state is bituminous coal; the coal-fields include an area of approximately 20,000 square miles in the southern and central parts of the state. The output in 1908 was 7,149,517 tons, valued at $11,772,228. Gypsum for stucco and plaster is found in Webster County, and clay for tile- and brick-making is abundant. In the year 1908 the value of clay products was $4,078,627. The mines in the vicinity of Dubuque, which attracted the first white people to the state, and which became known as the Mines of Spain, are still yielding lead and zinc ore. The manufactures of the state are steadily increasing, because of its growth and prosperity, and the possession of native coal. The value of the output of manufactures for the last statistical year, 1905, was $160,572,313. The Mississippi is now the only river navigable for large boats, the shifting channel and sand-bars of the Missouri constituting great obstacles to navigation. But the facilities for transportation are excellent, the state being covered by a network of railways, including seven great trunk lines. The total mileage of railways in the state, in 1908, was 9886.2 and the total mileage of electric interurban railways was 245.18. According to Federal estimates made in 1908, the population of Iowa was 2,196,970. By the last State Census (1905) the population -- 2,210,050 -- was made up of: 1,264,443 native whites of native parentage; 648,532 native whites of foreign parentage; 282,296 foreign-born whites; 14,831 coloured. There were only 53 Chinese in the state; but 39 per cent of the foreign-born population were born in Germany. Added to the immigrants from Germany, those from Sweden, Norway, and Denmark make 63.69 per cent of the foreign-born population derived from Teutonic races. Eight per cent of the foreign-born came from Ireland. Most of the native-born population are descendants of immigrants from the New England States, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Illinois. There were many Frenchmen among the earliest settlers (Bishop Loras preached sermons in the cathedral in French as well as in English), but there are now but few descendants of French families in the state. Prior to 1852, the immigrants from foreign countries were largely from Ireland and Germany, with the Irish in the majority; these immigrants settled in the eastern part of the state, and there were among them a large proportion of Catholics. But since that year the immigration has been largely from the Teutonic nations. The State Census of 1905 gives the membership of the four leading Churches as follows: Methodist Episcopal, 162,688; Catholic, 158,000; Lutheran, 91,889; Presbyterian, 47,765. According to Federal estimates in 1908, Des Moines, the capital and largest city, had a population of 83,717; the next largest cities in order are Dubuque, Sioux City, and Davenport. An admirably organized system of public schools exists throughout the state, generous provision for that purpose having been made by the State Constitution. The schools are supported chiefly by local taxation and the interest on the permanent school fund. Education is compulsory, the parents and guardians of children between the ages of seven and fourteen years inclusive being compelled to send them to some public, parochial, or private school for at least sixteen consecutive weeks during each school year. By statute passed in 1909, the attendance of the children during these sixteen weeks is excused for such time as they are attending religious service or receiving religious instruction. The State Superintendent of Public Instruction has general supervision of the public schools. In each county there is elected a county superintendent. Some of the townships of the counties constitute each a single district having one or two central schools, but generally the townships are subdivided into subdistricts and independent districts, where the latter consist of cities, the schools are managed by boards of education. No religious instruction is given, the Bible is not excluded from any public school or institution, but no pupil can be required to read it contrary to the wishes of his parent or guardian. In 1908 the number of schoolhouses was 13,914, the number of teachers 27,950, the enrolment of pupils 526,269, and the total appropriation for educational purposes for the year $1,936,363. There are 534 high schools in the state in which the course of study, generally speaking, covers four years. The State University, the head of the public school system is located at Iowa City. It was established in 1847; in 1908 it had 164 professors and instructors, and 2315 students enrolled. The State also maintains the College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts, at Ames, and the Normal School at Cedar Falls. There are in the state 276 private denominational and higher educational institutions. The Juvenile Court Law has been for several years in force in Iowa. Under the provisions of the law, offending children under the age of sixteen years are no longer treated as criminals, nor confined in jails. They, as well as neglected children, are treated as wards of the state and, under the supervision of probationary officers, are kept in their own or other homes, or sent to the State Industrial Schools. Many girls are sent to the Houses of the Good Shepherd. Catholic Education Through the unremitting zeal of the present Archbishop of Dubuque and his predecessors in office, and their labours among the clergy and people, the cause of Catholic religious education has so advanced that parochial schools exist in all the parishes of considerable size in the state, and are taught chiefly by religious orders. In the year 1909, there are in the state 36,942 pupils attending the parochial schools. These schools are supplemented by 36 academies and high schools in which 5812 students are taught; and to complete the system are two diocesan colleges: St. Joseph's College, at Dubuque, with 280 students, and St. Ambrose College, at Davenport, with 167 students. At Dubuque, the metropolitan city of the archdiocese, where the enrolled number of pupils attending the public schools is 4084, the number attending the parochial schools is 3000. The city is surrounded by a cordon of Catholic institutions, educational and charitable, and has become widely known as a centre of Catholic education. History The first white men who saw Iowa were the French Jesuit Father Marquette and Louis Joliet, who on the 17th day of June, 1673, coming down the mouth of the Wisconsin River, discovered the Mississippi and faced the picturesque bluffs of the Iowa shore. The first landing on Iowa territory recorded by Father Marquette in his journal was near Montrose, in Lee County, where he had a peaceful and memorable meeting with the natives. One hundred and fifteen years passed away from the time of Father Marquette's discovery until the first white settlement was made within the limits of the state. In 1788 Julien Dubuque, a French Canadian trader, obtained from the Indians a grant of land, in which to mine for lead; it extended seven leagues along the west bank of the Mississippi and was three leagues in width, including the territory on which now stands the city of Dubuque. This grant was afterwards confirmed by Baron de Carondelet, the Spanish governor of the province of Louisiana, and the strip of land became known as the Mines of Spain. Here Dubuque, with ten other Canadians, and aided by the Indians, operated the mines until his death in 1810, when the whites were driven out. Dubuque was buried on the top of an isolated bluff just below the present limits of the city of Dubuque, and a large cross marked his grave for many years. This became a well-known landmark to river men on the upper Mississippi, and is mentioned in books of travel. In 1832, in the territory east of the Mississippi, occurred the war with the Indians known as the Black Hawk War. This resulted in a treaty, made in the same year, by which the Indians relinquished that part of Iowa known as the Black Hawk Purchase, containing six million acres of land, lying immediately west of the Mississippi River, about ninety miles in width, and north of the Missouri State line. Although this was not the first concession of territory in Iowa by the Indians, it was the first which opened any portion of the land for settlement by the whites. Settlements were made in 1833 at Dubuque and at other points near the Mississippi River. Within ten years the title to practically all of the state was secured by treaties with the Indians. Attracted by glowing accounts of the richness of the soil, immigrants came pouring in from the New England states, New York, Illinois, Ohio, Kentucky, North Carolina, Missouri, and other states. In 1834 that part of the Louisiana Purchase now included in the State of Iowa was made a part of the Territory of Michigan; in 1836 it was attached to, and made a part of, the new Territory of Wisconsin, and in 1838 was established separately as the Territory of Iowa. On 28 December, 1846, it was admitted to the Union as the twenty-ninth State, being the fourth state created out of the Louisiana Purchase. In 1854 the first railroad was built from Davenport west, and railroad-building then extended rapidly. In the same year was passed a law, prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors which, with some changes, is still on the statute books. In 1857 the state adopted a revised Constitution which, with a few amendments, is still the law. The progress of the state was checked by the Civil War, at the close of which, however, immigration recommenced, and population and wealth increased. Although the population in 1860 was less than 700,000, the state furnished, during the Civil War, 75,519 volunteers. The Church in Iowa The first Mass celebrated within the limits of Iowa was said in the year 1833, by the Rev. C.P. Fitzmorris, of Galena, Illinois, in the home of Patrick Quigley in the city of Dubuque, and the first Catholic church in the state was built at Dubuque by the celebrated Dominican missionary, Samuel Mazzuchelli, in 1836. On 10 December, 1837, the Very Rev. Mathias Loras, Vicar-General of the Diocese of Mobile, Alabama, was consecrated first Bishop of Dubuque. Bishop Loras was a native of Lyons, France, and was a worthy comrade of Bl. Jean Baptiste Vianney, the celebrated Cure of Ars. Going to France for priests and financial aid, Bishop Loras arrived in Dubuque with two priests and four deacons on the 19th day of April, 1839. His diocese included all the territory between the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers, from the northern limit of the State of Missouri to the British Possessions. In his diocese he found but three churches and one priest, Father Mazzuchelli. The indefatigable labours of Bishop Loras in personally attending to the spiritual wants of the scattered settlers in his vast territory, in building churches and procuring funds, and in inducing immigration from the Eastern States and from Europe, have secured him a high rank among the pioneer missionaries and church-builders of this country. In 1843, he brought from Philadelphia the Sisters of Charity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, who established their mother-house near Dubuque and have become widely known as successful teachers. In 1849 he gave a home to the Trappist monks from Mount Melleray, Ireland, who founded the Abbey of New Melleray, still in existence, twelve miles from Dubuque. When he died (19 February, 1858) there were within the limits of the State of Iowa, 48 priests, 60 churches, and a Catholic population of 54,000. In 1850 the territory north of the State of Iowa had been formed into the Diocese of St. Paul. He was succeeded by his coadjutor, the Rt. Rev. Clement Smyth, who had been Prior of New Melleray Abbey. Bishop Smyth was a man of great scholarly attainments and was the founder of the school for young men which still flourishes in the Abbey of Mount Melleray, Ireland. His uniform courtesy and gentleness won all hearts, and he was noted for his ardent patriotism during the strenuous days of the Civil War. During his short episcopacy he cemented and greatly extended the work of Bishop Loras and died 23 September, 1865, lamented by priests and people. On 30 September, 1866, in St. Raphael's Cathedral, Dubuque, the Rev. John Hennessy, pastor of St. Joseph's church, St. Joseph, Missouri, was consecrated Bishop of Dubuque. Bishop Hennessy was renowned as a pulpit orator, and was a man of rare executive ability. The thirty-four years of his episcopacy were an era of great progress for the Diocese of Dubuque. Priests and teachers, churches and schools were multiplied in all parts of the state, new religious orders were introduced, and hospitals and asylums founded. The work became too great for one man, and in 1881 the diocese was divided, and the new Diocese of Davenport founded, comprising the southern portion of the state. In 1893 Bishop Hennessy was made first Archbishop of Dubuque; he died 4 March, 1900. On 24 July, 1900, Rome selected as successor to Archbishop Hennessy, the Most Rev. John J. Keane, titular Archbishop of Damascus, at one time Bishop of Richmond, Va., and first rector of the Catholic University of America. The results of his great ability and wide experience are shown in the marvelous growth of the Church within the limits of the state since his arrival. In the Archdiocese of Dubuque, he has thoroughly organized his clergy, increased the number of priests and parishes, and, by his episcopal visitations, has become acquainted with all parts of his territory. The cause of religious education has been the object of his special care, and the flourishing state of St. Joseph's College and other institutions of higher learning, and the number of children attending the parochial schools demonstrate the success of his labours. He expends all the revenues from the property of the archdiocese in the building of churches and schools. Among new orders introduced by him are: the Sisters of the Good Shepherd, who have two houses, one in Dubuque, the other in Sioux City; the Sisters of the Order of St. Dominie; the Brothers of Mary. He has also organized an apostolate band of diocesan priests. An enthusiastic advocate of temperance, many temperance societies have been formed at his instance. At his advent, in the cities in the eastern part of the state, the provisions of the modified liquor law, known as the Mulct Law, were entirely ignored, and saloons were open on Sundays. Archbishop Keane, by his sermons and addresses, and attendance at public meetings, aroused public sentiment in favour of the law, with the result that now, in all parts of the state, the Mulct Law is strictly carried out, and the observance of Sundays enforced. In 1902, at the instance of the archbishop, twenty-four counties in the north-western part of the state were separated from the archdiocese and formed into the Diocese of Sioux City. The province of Dubuque includes the States of Iowa, Nebraska, and Wyoming. The State of Iowa is divided into three dioceses. (1) The Archdiocese of Dubuque occupies that part of the state north of the counties of Polk, Jasper, Poweshiek, Iowa, Johnson, Cedar, and Scott, and east of the counties of Kossuth, Humboldt, Webster, and Boone, and has an area of 18,048 square miles. (2) The Diocese of Sioux City comprises 24 counties in the north-western part of the state, west of Winnebago, Hancock, Wright, Hamilton, and Story Counties, and north of Harrison Shelby, Audubon, Guthrie, and Dallas Counties, its area being 14,518 square miles. The present Bishop of Sioux City is the Rt. Rev. Philip Joseph Garrigan, residing at Sioux City, Iowa. (3) The Diocese of Davenport, with an area of 22,873 square miles, comprises all that portion of the state south of the other two dioceses and extends from the Mississippi River to the Missouri River. The present Bishop of Davenport is the Rt. Rev. James Davis, Davenport, Iowa. In 1909, according to the Wiltzius "Official Catholic Directory," there were in the state 579 churches, 492 priests, 27 different religious orders, 28 hospitals and asylums, and a total of 37,154 children being taken care of in schools and other institutions. The Catholic population of the state is as follows: Diocese of Dubuque 111,112; Diocese of Davenport, 75,518; Diocese of Sioux City, 54,543. Total Catholic population, 241,173. The best of feeling exists amongst the different denominations, and there is but little bigotry anywhere in the state. The Constitution provides that the General Assembly shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and that no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office, or public trust, and no person shall be deprived of any of his rights, privileges, or capacities, or disqualified from the performance of any of his public or private duties, or rendered incompetent to give evidence in any court of law or equity in consequence of his opinions on the subject of religion. By statute, the disturbance of public worship is punished by fine or imprisonment, and the breach of Sunday by "carrying firearms, dancing, hunting, shooting, horse racing, or in any manner disturbing a worshipping assembly or private family, or buying or selling property of any kind, or engaging in any labour except that of necessity or charity" is punished by fine and imprisonment. In general all stores in cities and towns are closed on Sunday. The customary form of oath is: "I do solemnly swear." Placing the hand on the Bible is not required. A person conscientiously opposed to taking an oath may affirm. The use of blasphemous or obscene language is prohibited under penalty of fine and imprisonment. By custom, a chaplain is appointed by each branch of the Legislature, and the daily sessions are opened with prayer. In addition to Sunday, the only days which are recognized as religious holidays are Christmas and Thanksgiving Day. By statute, no minister of the Gospel, or priest of any denomination is allowed, in giving testimony, to disclose any confidential communications properly entrusted to him in his professional capacity and proper to enable him to discharge the functions of his office according to the usual course of practice or discipline. The statutes of the state provide that any three or more persons of full age, a majority of whom shall be citizens, may incorporate themselves for the establishment of churches, colleges, seminaries, temperance societies, or organizations of a benevolent, charitable, or religious character. Any corporation so organized may take and hold by gift, purchase, devise, or bequest, real and personal property for purposes appropriate to its creation. The corporation shall endure for fifty years and may be then reincorporated. As a rule, real estate in the State of Iowa belonging to the Catholic Church is held in each diocese in the name of the bishop. All grounds and buildings used for benevolent and religious institutions and societies devoted to the appropriate objects of these institutions, not exceeding 160 acres in extent, and not leased or otherwise used with a view to pecuniary profit, are exempt from taxation. Cemeteries are also exempt. The State imposes what is called a collateral inheritance tax of 5 per cent on all property within the state which passes, by will, or by the statutes of inheritance, or by deed to take effect after the death of the grantor, to collateral heirs or strangers to the blood. From this tax are exempt bequests or deeds to charitable, educational, or religious institutions within the state, and, by a statute passed in 1909, there is also exempt from this tax "any bequest not to exceed $500 to and in favour of any person having for its purpose the performance of any religious service to be performed for and in behalf of decedent or any person named in his or her last will, or any cemetery associations," thus exempting bequests for Masses. Clergymen are excused from jury service, and the Constitution of the State provides "that no person having conscientious scruples against bearing arms shall be compelled to do military duty in time of peace." Prohibition of the sale of intoxicating liquors is still the law of the state, but in cities where a majority of the voters consent, liquors may be sold by complying with the "Mulct Law," the principal conditions imposed by which are: the written consent of the owners of property situated within fifty feet of the proposed place of sale; the payment of a tax of $600 annually to the state; the giving of a bond of $3000. The liquors must be sold in one room, having but one exit, with no tables or chairs therein and no curtains on the windows to obstruct the view; there must be no sales to minors or drunkards, nor after ten o'clock at night; the place must be closed on Sundays and legal holidays, and in no case shall the business be conducted within 300 feet of a church building or schoolhouse. In the state penitentiaries, each warden is required to appoint "some suitable minister of the Gospel as chaplain" and all regular officiating ministers of the Gospel are authorized to visit the penitentiaries at pleasure. This privilege is, in fact, true of all public institutions of the state. Marriage is regarded as a civil contract, and, outside of the usual degrees of consanguinity, is valid between a male of sixteen years and a female of fourteen years. It can be solemnized by any minister of the Gospel or civil magistrate. Previous to the solemnization, a licence must be obtained from the clerk of the district court of the county in which the marriage is to be performed. If the parties are minors the written consent of their parents or guardians is required. Divorces can be granted by the district court for any of the following causes: desertion, adultery, felony, habitual drunkenness, cruel and inhuman treatment. In no case can either of the parties divorced marry again within a year, unless specially permitted to do so by the decree. Any person of full age and of sound mind can make a valid testamentary disposition of all his property subject to the homestead and dower right of his wife and the payment of his debts. But no devise or bequest to any corporation organized for religious, charitable, or educational purposes or for any purpose of a similar character, is valid in excess of one-fourth of the testator's estate after payment of debts, in case a wife, child, or parent survive the testator. The will must be in writing, signed by the testator in presence of two witnesses, who must attest the same in writing, except that verbal wills of personal property to the value of three hundred dollars are valid. Associations for cemetery purposes may be incorporated under statutes provided for that purpose, and the land so occupied is exempt from tax, but throughout the state Catholic cemeteries, like all other church property, is held in the name of the bishop of the diocese. For reasons, none of which had anything to do with religion, Catholics have generally allied themselves with the Democratic party which has for many years been the minority party in the state, and therefore few of them have attained political eminence. The following Catholic laymen have been prominent in the history of the state: George W. Jones, first delegate to Congress from Michigan Territory, introduced in Congress bills creating the Territory of Wisconsin and the Territory of Iowa, afterwards U.S. Senator from Iowa for twelve years, and Minister to Bogota; Patrick Quigley, pioneer benefactor of the Church; Charles Corkery, postmaster of Dubuque under President Buchanan, and prominent in colonization work; D.A. Mahony, founder and first editor of the Telegraph-Herald, and imprisoned in Fort Lafayette by order of Secretary Stanton; John S. Murphy, a brilliant editor of the same paper; William J. Knight, one of the leaders of the Bar of the state and counsel for two railways; M.J. Wade, Representative in Congress; M.D. O'Connell, Solicitor of the Treasury, Washington; Jerry B. Sullivan, Democratic candidate for Governor. GUE, History of Iowa (New York, 1903); SALTER, Iowa (Chicago, 1905); DE CAILLY, Life of Bishop Loras (New York, 1897); Census of Iowa, 1905 (Des Moines); Statistical Abstract of U.S., 1908 (Washington); Census of Manufactures, 1905, Iowa Bulletin No. 32 (Washington, 1906); Climatological Service, Iowa Section, Report for December, 1908 (Washington); Crop Reporter, Department of Agriculture, December, 1908 (Washington); Biennial Report, Department of Public Instruction (Des Moines, 1909). JOHN I. MULLANY Arnold Ipolyi Arnold Ipolyi (Family name originally STUMMER) Bishop of Grosswardein (Nagy-Varad), b. at Ipoly-Keszi, 20 Oct., 1823; d. at Grosswardein, 2 December 1886. At the age of thirteen years he entered the ranks of the alumni of the Archdiocese of Gran (Esztergom), studied two years in the Emericianum at Presburg (Pozsony) and later at Tyrnau (Nagy-Szombat), and finished at the Pazmaneum at Vienna, where he attended lectures on theology for four years. In 1844 he entered the seminary of Gran, took minor orders in 1845, and was ordained priest in 1847. From 1845 to 1847 he acted as tutor in the family of Baron Mednyanszky, was then curate at Komorn-Sankt-Peter (Komarom-Szen-Peter), in 1848 preacher at Presburg, in 1849 spent a short time as tutor in the family of Count Palffy, and became in this year parish priest of Zohor. Even before his ordination he concerned himself with historical and art-historical matters. In 1854 his "Ungarische Mythologic" came out, as the firstfruit of his work, in which he treats of the ancient religion of Hungary. Although the work won the prize offered by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, the author afterwards withdrew it from the press, so that at the present time it is very rare. In 1860 Ipolyi became parish priest at Toeroek-Szent-Miklos. Accompanied by Franz Kubinyi and Emerich Henszlmann, he made in 1862 a journey to Constantinople, where he discovered the remainder of the library of Matthias Corvinus. In 1863 he was made canon of Eger, and in 1869 director of the Central Ecclesiastical Seminary at Pesth; in 1871 he became Bishop of Neusohl (Besztereze-Banya), and in 1886 Bishop of Grosswardein where he died on 2 December of the same year. Ipolyi was member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, as well as a member of different learned Societies at home and abroad. He was one of the founders and at first vice-president, then president of the Hungarian Historical Society. His literary activity extended into the provinces of history, art-history, archaeology, and Christian art. He enriched the Hungarian National Gallery with sixty valuable paintings. He bequeathed to Grosswardein in his will, for the purpose of founding a museum, his collections which had been brought together with a great expert knowledge of art. Of his literary works, in addition to his "Mythologie", the following are well known: "Biography of Michael Veresmarti", an author of the seventeenth century (Budapest, 1875); the "Codex epistolaris Nicolai Olah", in tyhe "Monumenta Hungariae Historica: Scriptorum", XXV (Budapest, 1876); the "Biographie der Christina Nyary von Bedez" (Budapest, 1887), in Hungarian; also the "Historische und kunsthistorische Beschreibung der ungarischen Kronisignien" (Budapest, 1886), in Hungarian. A collection of his lesser works has appeared in five volumes (Budapest, 1887). SZINNYEY, Leben und Werke ungarischer Schriftsteller, V, 145-158; POR, Leben und Werke A. Ipolyyis, Bischofs von Grosswardein (Presburg, 1886); also the memorial oration on Ipolyi by FRAKNOI in Jahrbuch der Ung. Akademie der Wissenschaften, XVII, 1888 (all in Hungarian). A. ALDASY Bl. Ippolito Galantini Blessed Ippolito Galantini Founder of the Congregation of Christian Doctrine of Florence; b. at Florence of obscure parentage, 12 October. 1565; d. 20 March, 1619. While still a child a wonderful cure turned his thoughts towards the service of God, and he devoted himself to teaching the truths of the Christian religion in the Jesuit church of Florence. He was only twelve years old when he attracted the attention of the Archbishop Alexander de' Medici (afterwards Leo XI), who gave him the church of Sta Lucia al Prato in which to carry on his work. He divided his time between his trade of silk-weaving and the religious instruction of poor children and adults, and at sixteen felt impelled to found a society for this purpose. The opposition aroused by his solicitude for the poor he overcame by the exercise of wonderful patience. Generous benefactors made it possible for him to erect an oratory, which Clement VIII dedicated in honour of St. Francis, in 1602, and in which the work begun at Sta Lucia was continued. The foundation was called the Congregation of Christian Doctrine under the invocation of Sts. Francis and Lucy. It was divided into fifteen classes, according to the age and religious knowledge of the pupils, each class being governed by special rules and assisting in the instruction of the class below. The members of the first class were admitted to the congregation after a good confession. Ippolito was indefatigable in his work, collecting alms from the wealthy Florentines, which he distributed among the poor, founding and reorganizing branches of his congregation, which spread to Volterra, Lucca, Pistoia, Modena, etc. He introduced the practice of nocturnal adoration to draw the people from the theatre and sinful amusements. In Florence, the members of his congregation, by reason of their modesty, were called Van Chetoni. Ippolito was the object of violent persecution, envy and malice accusing him of sharing the errors of Luther, of introducing new rules and reforms. One of his spiritual sons accused him before the pope and Grand Duke Cosimo of excessive severity, but the charge was not sustained, and Ippolito's congregation was declared to be for God's glory and the public good. Shortly before the holy man's death the grand duke founded a perpetual chaplaincy for the order. Ippolito made a pilgrimage to Loreto to place his foundation under the protection of the Blessed Virgin. The statutes of the congregation were approved by the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, and confirmed by Leo XII in a decree of 17 September, 1824. The founder was beatified by the same pontiff, 13 May, 1825. His ascetical works, written for the government and direction of his congregation, had been approved by Benedict XIV in 1747, and were published at Rome in 1831, together with a brief life of the saint by Canon Antonio Santelli. BRISCHAR in Kirchenlex., s.v. Doctrinarier. BLANCHE M. KELLY Ipsus Ipsus A titular see of Phrygia Salutaris, suffragan of Synnada. The locality was famous as the scene of the great battle fought in 301 B.C.between the successors of Alexander, in which Antigonus was slain and his kingdom divided between his rivals. As Ipsos or Hypsos the city is mentioned by Hierocles and George of Cyprus and in most of the medieval "Notitiae Epicopatuum". Le Quien (Oriens Christianus, I, 840-4I), names four of its bishops; Lucian, at the Council of Chalcedon in 451; George, at the Seventh Council in 787, Photius and Thomas at the Councils of Constantinople in 868 and 878. The city was situated at the junction of two roads, one leading to Byzantium and the other towards Sardeis; the exact site has not been discovered. Modern geographers identify it with the ruins of Ipsili-Hissar; others, like Ramsay ("Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia", Oxford, 1897, 748), with those of Tchai, 82 miles from Apamea. S. VAILHE Ireland Ireland GEOGRAPHY Ireland lies in the Atlantic Ocean, west of Great Britain, from which it is separated in the north-east by the North Channel, in the east by the Irish Sea, and in the south-east by St. George's Channel. Situated between the fifty-first and fifty-sixth degrees of latitude, and between the fifth and eleventh parallels of longitude (Greenwich), its greatest length is 302 miles, its greatest breadth 174 miles, its area 32,535 square miles. It is divided into four provinces, these being subdivided into thirty-two counties. In the centre the country is a level plain; towards the coast there are several detached mountain chains. Its rivers and bays are numerous, also its bogs; its climate is mild, though unduly moist. In minerals it is not wealthy like Great Britain, but is soil is generally more fertile, and is specially suitable for agriculture and pasturage. EARLY HISTORY In ancient times it was known by the various names of Ierna, Juverna, Hibernia, Ogygia, and Inisfail or the Isle of Destiny. It was also called Banba and Erin, and lastly Scotia, or the country of the Scots. From the eleventh century, however, the name Scotia was exclusively applied to Caledonia, the latter country having been peopled in the sixth century by a Scottish colony from Ireland. Henceforth Ireland was often called Scotia Major and sometimes Ireland, until, after the eleventh century, the name Scotia was dropped and Ireland alone remained. Even yet it is sometimes called Erin--chiefly by orators and poets. Situated in the far west, out of the beaten paths of commercial activity, it was little known to the ancients. Festus Avienus wrote that it was two days' sail from Britain. Pliny thought that it was part of Britain and not an island at all; Strabo that it was near Britain, and that its inhabitants were cannibals; and all that Caesar knew was that it was west of Britain, and about half its size. Agricola beheld its coastline from the opposite shores of Caledonia, and had thought of accepting the invitation of an Irish chief to come and conquer it, believing he could do so with a single legion. But he left Ireland unvisited and unconquered, and Tacitus could only record that in soil and climate it resembled Britain, and that its harbours were then well known to foreign merchants. But if we have not any detailed description from his lively pen, the native chroniclers have furnished us with abundant materials, and, if all they say be true, we can understand the remark of Camden that Ireland was rightly called Ogygia, or the Ancient Island, because in comparison, the antiquity of all other nations is in its infancy. Passing by the absurd story that it was peopled before the Deluge, we are told that, beginning with the time of Abraham, several successive waves of colonization rolled westward to its shores. First came Parthalon with 1000 followers; after which came the Nemedians, the Firbolgs, and the Tuatha-de-Dananns, and lastly the Milesians or Scots. In addition, there were the Fomorians, a people of uncertain origin, whose chief occupation was piracy and war, and whose attacks on the various settlers were incessant. These and the Milesians excepted, the different colonists came from Greece, and all were of the same race. The Milesians came from Scythia; and from that country to Egypt, from Egypt to Spain, from Spain to Ireland their adventures are recorded in detail. The name Scot which they bore was derived from Scota, daughter of Pharaoh of Egypt, the wife of one of their chiefs; from their chief Miledh they got the name Milesians, and from another chief Goidel they were sometimes called Gadelians, or Gaels. The wars and battles of these colonists are largely fabulous, and the Partholanians, Nemedians, and Fomorians belong rather to mythology than to history. So also do the Dananns, though sometimes they are taken as a real people, of superior knowledge and skill, the builders of those prehistoric sepulchral mounds by the Boyne, at Dowth, Knowth, and Newgrange. The Firbolgs however most probably existed, and were kindred perhaps to those warlike Belgae of Gaul whom Caesar encountered in battle. And the Milesians certainly belong to history, though the date of their arrival in Ireland is unknown. They were Celts, and probably came from Gaul to Britain, and from Britain to Ireland, rather than direct from Spain. Under the leadership of Heremon and Heber they soon became masters of the island. Some of the Firbolgs, it is said, crossed the seas to the Isles of Arran, where they built the fort of Dun Engus, which still stands and which tradition still associates with their name. Heber and Heremon soon quarrelled, and, Heber falling in battle, Heremon became sole ruler, the first in a long line of kings. This list of kings, however, is not reliable, and we are warned by Tighearnach, the most trustworthy of Irish chroniclers, that all events before the reign of Cimbaeth (300 B.C.) are uncertain. Even after the dawn of the Christian Era fact and fiction are interwoven and events are often shrouded in shadows and mists. Such, for instance, are the exploits of Cuchullain and Finn Macumhael. Nor have many of these early kinds been remarkable, if we except Conn of the Hundred Battles, who lived in the first century after Christ; Cormac, who lived a century later; Tuathal, who established the Feis of Tara; Niall, who invaded Britain; and Dathi, who in the fifth century lost his life at the foot of the Alps. The Irish were then pagans, but not barbarians. Their roads were indeed ill-constructed, their wooden dwellings rude, the dress of their lower orders scanty, their implements of agriculture and war primitive, and so were their land vehicles, and the boats in which they traversed the sea. On the other hand, some of their swords and shields showed some skill in metal-working, and their war-like and commercial voyages to Britain and Gaul argue some proficiency in shipbuilding and navigation. They certainly loved music; and, besides their inscribed Ogham writing, they had a knowledge of letters. There was a high-king of Ireland (ardri), and subject to him were the provincial kings and chiefs of tribes. Each of these received tribute from his immediate inferior, and even in a sept the political and legal administration was complete. There was the druid who explained religion, the brehon who dispensed justice, the brughaid or public hospitaller, the bard who sang the praises of his chief or urged his kinsman to battle; and each was an official and had his appointed allotment of land. Kings, though taken from one family, were elective, the tanist or heir-apparent being frequently not the nearest relation of him who reigned. This peculiarity, together with gavelkind by which the lands were periodically redistributed, impeded industry and settled government. Nor was there any legislative assembly, and the Brehon law under which Ireland lived was judge-made law. Sometimes the ardri's tribute remained unpaid and his authority nominal; but if he was a strong man he exacted obedience and tribute. The Boru tribute levied on the King of Leinster was excessive and unjust, and led to many evils. The pagan Irish believed in Druidism, resembling somewhat the Druidism Caesar saw in Gaul; but the pagan creed of the Irish was indefinite and their gods do not stand out clear. They held the immortality and the transmigration of souls, worshipped the sun and moon, and, with an inferior worship, mountains, rivers, and wells. And they sacrificed to idols, one of which, Crom Cruach, they are said to have propitiated with human sacrifices. They also believed in fairies, holding that the Tuatha-de-Dananns, when defeated by the Milesians, retired into the bosom of the mountains, where they held their fairy revels. One of the women fairies (the banshee) watched the fortunes of great families, and when some great misfortune was impending, the doomed family was warned at night by her mournful wail. EARLY CHRISTIAN PERIOD Intercourse with Britain and the Continent through commerce and war sufficiently accounts for the introduction of Christianity before the fifth century. There must have been then a considerable number of Christians in Ireland; for in 430 Palladius, a bishop and native of Britain, was sent by Pope Celestine "to the Scots believing in Christ". Palladius, however, did little, and almost immediately returned to Britain, and in 432 the same pope sent St. Patrick. He is the Apostle of Ireland, but this does not imply that he found Ireland altogether pagan and left it altogether Christian. It is however quite true that when St. Patrick did come paganism was the predominant belief, and that at his death it had been supplanted as such by Christianity. The extraordinary work which St. Patrick did, as well as his own attractive personal character, has furnished him with many biographers; and even in recent years his life and works have engaged erudite and able pens. But in spite of all that has been written many things in his life are still doubtful and obscure. It is doubtful when and where he was born, how he spent his life between his first leaving Ireland and his return, and in what year he died. It has been maintained that he never existed; that he and Palladius were the same man; that there were two St. Patricks; again, some, like Jocelin, have multiplied his miracles beyond belief. These contradictions and exaggerations have encouraged the scoffer to sneer; and Gibbon was sure that in the sixty-six lives of St. Patrick there must have been sixty-six thousand lies. In reality there seems no solid reason for rejecting the traditional account, viz., that St. Patrick was born at Dumbarton in Scotland about 372; that he was captured and brought to Ireland by the Irish king, Nial; that he was sold as a slave to an Ulster chief Milcho, whom he served for six years; that he then escaped and went back to his own people; that in repeated visions he, a pious Christian, heard the plaintive cry of the pagan Irish inviting him to come amongst them; that, believing he was called by God to do so, he went first to the monastery of St. Martin of Tours, then to that of St. Germanus of Auxerre, after which he went to Lerins and to Rome; and then, being consecrated bishop, he was sent by Pope Celestine to Ireland, where he arrived in 432. From Wicklow, where he landed, his course is traced to Antrim; back by Downpatrick, near which he converted Dichu and got from him a grant of land for his first church at Saul; then by Dundalk, where Benignus was converted; and to Slane, where in sight of Tara itself he lighted the paschal fire. The enraged druids pointed out to the ardri the heinousness of the offence, for during the great pagan festival then being celebrated it was death to light any fire except at Tara. But St. Patrick came to Tara itself, baptized the chief poet, and even the ardri; then marched north and destroyed at Leitrim the idol, Crom Cruach, after which he entered Connaught, and remained there for seven years. Passing through Connaught to Ulster, he went through Donegal, Tyrone, and Antrim, consecrated Macarten Bishop of Monaghan, and Fiace Bishop of Sletty; after which he entered Munster. Finally he returned to Ulster, and died at Saul in 493. His early captivity in Ireland interfered seriously with his education, and in his Confession and in his Epistle to Caroticus, both of which have survived the wreck of ages, we can discover no graces of style. But we see his great familiarity with the Scripture. And the man himself stands revealed; his piety, his spirit of prayer, his confidence in God, his zeal, his invincible courage. But while putting his entire trust in God, and giving Him all the glory, he rejected no human aid. Entering into a pagan territory he first preached to the chief men, knowing that when they were converted the people would follow. Wonderful indeed was his labour, and wonderful its results. He preached in almost every district in Ireland, confounded in argument the druids and won the people from their side; he built, it is said, 365 churches and consecrated an equal number of bishops, established schools and convents, and held synods; and when he died the whole machinery of a powerful Church was in operation, fully equal to the task of confirming in the faith those already converted and of bringing those yet in darkness into the Christian fold. One of the apostle's first anxieties was to provide a native ministry. For this purpose he selected the leading men--chiefs, brehons, bards--men likely to attract the respect of the people, and these, after little training, and often with little education, he had ordained. Thus equipped the priest went among the people, with his catechism, missal, and ritual, the bishop in addition his crosier and bell. In a short time, however, these primitive conditions ceased. Abut 450 a college was established at Armagh under Benignus; other schools arose at Kildare, Noendrum, and Louth; and by the end of the fifth century these colleges sent forth a sufficient supply of trained priests. Supported by a grant of land from the chief of the clan or sept and by voluntary offerings, bishop and priests lived together, preached to the people, administered the sacraments, settled their disputes, sat in their banquet halls. To many ardent natures this state of things was abhorrent. Fleeing from men, they sought for solitude and silence, by the banks of a river, in the recesses of a wood, and, with the scantiest allowance of food, the water for their drink, a few wattles covered with sods for their houses, they spent their time in mortification and prayer. Literally they were monks, for they were alone with God. But their retreats were soon invaded by others anxious to share their penances and their vigils, and to learn wisdom at their feet. Each newcomer built his little hut, a church was erected, a grant of land obtained, their master became abbot, and perhaps bishop; and thus arose monastic establishments the fame of which soon spread throughout Europe. Noted examples in the sixth century were Clonard, founded by St. Finian, Clonfert by St. Brendan, Bangor by St. Comgall, Clonmacnoise by St. Kieran, Arran by St. Enda; and, in the seventh century, Lismore by St. Carthage and Glendalough by St. Kevin. There were still bardic schools, as there was still paganism, but in the seventh century paganism had all but disappeared, and the bardic were overshadowed by the monastic schools. Frequented by the best of the Irish, and by students from abroad, these latter diffused knowledge over western Europe, and Ireland received and merited the title of Island of Saints and Scholars. The holy men who laboured with St. Patrick and immediately succeeded him were mostly bishops and founders of churches; those of the sixth century were of the monastic order; those of the seventh century were mostly anchorites who loved solitude, silence, continued prayer, and the most rigid austerities. Nor were the women behindhand in this contest for holiness. St. Brigid is a name still dear to Ireland, and she, as well as St. Ita, St. Fanchea and others, founded many convents tenanted by pious women, whose sanctity and sacrifices it would be indeed difficult to surpass. Nor was the Irish Church, as has been sometimes asserted, out of communion with the See of Rome. The Roman and Irish tonsures differed, it is true, and the methods of computing Easter, and it may be that Pelagianism found some few adherents, though Arianism did not, nor the errors as to the natures and wills of Christ. In the number of its sacraments, in its veneration for the Blessed Virgin, in its belief in the Mass and in Purgatory, in its obedience to the See of Rome, the creed of the early Irish Church was the Catholic creed of to-day (see CELTIC RITE). Abroad as well as at home Irish Christian zeal was displayed. In 563 St. Columba, a native of Donegal, accompanied by a few companions, crossed the sea to Caledonia and founded a monastery on the desolate island of Iona. Fresh arrivals came from Ireland; the monastery with Columba as its abbot was soon a flourishing institution, from which the Dalriadian Scots in the south and the Piets beyond the Grampians were evangelized; and when Columba died in 597, Christianity had been preached and received in every district in Caledonia, and in every island along its west coast. In the next century Iona had so prospered that its abbot, St. Adamnan, wrote in excellent Latin the "Life of St. Columba", the best biography of which the Middle Ages can boast. From Iona had gone south the Irish Aidan and his Irish companions to compete with and even exceed in zeal the Roman missionaries under St. Augustine, and to evangelize Northumbria, Mercia, and Essex; and if Irish zeal had already been displayed in Iona, equal zeal was now displayed on the desolate isle of Lindisfarne. Nor was this all. In 590 St. Columbanus, a student of Bangor, accompanied by twelve companions, arrived in France and established the monastery of Luxeuil, the parent of many monasteries, then laboured at Bregenz, and finally founded the monastery of Bobbio, which as a centre of knowledge and piety was long the light of northern Italy. And meantime his friend and fellow-student St. Gall laboured with conspicuous success in Switzerland, St. Fridolin along the Rhine, St. Fiacre near Meaux, St. Kilian at Wurzburg, St. Livinus in Brabant, St. Fursey on the Marne, St. Cataldus in southern Italy. And when Charlemagne reigned (771-814), Irishmen were at his court, "men incomparably skilled in human learning". In the civil history of the period only a few facts stand out prominently. About 560, in consequence of a quarrel with the ardri Diarmuid about the right of sanctuary, St. Columba and Rhodanus (Reudan) of Lorrha publicly cursed Tara, an unpatriotic act which dealt a fatal blow at the prospect of a strong central government by blighting with maledictions its acknowledged seat. Nearly thirty years later the National Convention of Drumceat restrained the insolence and curtailed the privileges of the bards. In 684 Ireland was invaded by the King of Northumbria, though no permanent conquest followed. And in 697 the last Feis of Tara was held, at which, through the influence of Adamnan, women were interdicted from taking part in actual battle. At the same time the ardri Finactha, at the instance of St. Moling, renounced for himself and his successors the Boru tribute. As the eighth century neared its close, religion and learning still flourished; but unexpected dangers approached and a new enemy came, before whose assaults monk and monastery and saint and scholar disappeared. These invaders were the Danes from the coasts of Scandinavia. Pagans and pirates, they loved plunder and war, and both on land and sea were formidable foes. Like the fabled Fomorians of earlier times they had a genius for devastation. Descending from their ships along the coast of western Europe, they murdered the inhabitants or made them captives and slaves. In Ireland as elsewhere they attacked the monasteries and churches, desecrated the altars, carried away the gold and silver vessels, and smoking ruins and murdered monks attested the fury of their assaults. Armagh and Bangor, Kildare and Clonmacnoise, Iona and Lindisfarne thus fell before their fury. Favoured by disunion among the Irish chiefs, they crept inland, effected permanent settlements at Waterford and Limerick and established a powerful kingdom at Dublin; and, had their able chief Turgesius lived much longer, they might perhaps have subdued the whole island. For a century after his death in 845 victory and defeat alternated in their wars; but they clung tenaciously to their seaport possessions, and kept the neighbouring Irish in cruel bondage. They were, however, signally defeated by the Ardri Malachy in 980, and Dublin was compelled to pay him tribute. But, able as Malachy was, an abler man soon supplanted him in the supreme position. Step by step Brian Boru had risen from being chief of Thomond to be undisputed ruler of Munster. Its chiefs were his tributaries and his allies; the Danes he had repeatedly chastised, and in 1002 he compelled Malachy to abdicate in his favour. It was a bitter humiliation for Malachy thus to lay down the sceptre which for 600 years had been in the hands of his family. It gave Ireland, however, the greatest of her high-kings and unbroken peace for some years. War came when the elements of discontent coalesced. Brian had irritated Leinster by reviving the Boru tribute; he had crushed the Danes; and these, with the Danes of the Isle of Man and those of Sweden and the Scottish Isles, joined together, and on Good Friday, 1014, the united strength of Danes and Leinstermen faced Brian's army at Clontarf. The victory gained by the latter was great; but it was dearly bought by the loss of Brian as well as his son and grandson. The century and a half which followed was a weary waste of turbulence and war. Brian's usurpation encouraged others to ignore the claims of descent. O'Loughlin and O'Neill in the North, O'Brien in the South, and O'Connor beyond the Shannon fought for the national throne with equal energy and persistence; and as one set of disputants disappeared, others replaced them, equally determined to prevail. The lesser chiefs were similarly engaged. This ceaseless strife completed the work begun by the Danes. Under native and Christian chiefs churches were destroyed, church lands appropriated by laymen, monastic schools deserted, lay abbots ruled at Armagh and elsewhere. Bishops were consecrated without sees and conferred orders for money, there was chaos in church government and corruption everywhere. In a series of synods beginning with Rathbreasail (1118) and including Kells, at which the pope's legate presided, many salutary enactments were passed, and for the first time diocesan episcopacy was established. Meanwhile, St. Malachy, Archbishop of Armagh, had done very remarkable work in his own diocese and elsewhere. His early death in 1148 was a heavy blow to the cause of church reform. Nor could so many evils be cured in a single life, or by the labours of a single man; and in spite of his efforts and the efforts of others the decrees of synods were often flouted, and the new diocesan boundaries ignored. THE ANGLO-NORMANS In Henry II of England an unexpected reformer appeared. The murderer of Thomas a' Becket seemed ill-fitted for the role, but he undertook it, and in the first year of his reign (1154) he procured a Bull from the English-born Pope Adrian IV authorizing him to proceed to Ireland "to check the torrent of wickedness to reform evil manners, to sow the seeds of virtue." The many troubles of his extensive kingdom thwarted his plans for years. But in 1168 Macmurrogh, King of Leinster, driven from his kingdom sought Henry's aid, and then Adrian's Bull was remembered. a first contingent of Anglo-Normans came to Ireland in 1169 under Fitzgerald, a stronger force under Strongbow (de Clare, Earl of Pembroke) in 1170, and in 1171 Henry himself landed at Waterford and proceeded to Dublin, where he spent the winter, and received the submission of all the Irish chiefs, except those of Tyrconnell and Tyrowen. These submissions, however, aggravated rather than lessened existing ills. The Irish chiefs submitted to Henry as to a powerful ardri, still preserving their privileges and rights under Brehon law. Henry, on his side, regarded them as vassals holding the lands of their tribes by military service and in accordance with feudal law. Thus a conflict between the clan system and feudalism arose. Exercising his supposed rights, Henry divided the country into so many great fiefs, giving Meath to be Lacy, Leinster to Strongbow, while de Courcy was encouraged to conquer Ulster, and deCogan Connaught. At a later date the deBurgos settled in Galway, the Fitzgeralds in Kildare and Desmond, the Butlers in Ossory. Discord enfeebled the capacity of the Irish chiefs for resistance; nor were kernes and gallowglasses equal to mail-clad knights, nor the battle-axe to the Norman lance, and in a short time large tracts had passed from native to foreign hands. The new Anglo-Irish lords soon outgrew the position of English subjects, and to the natives became tyrannical and overbearing. Ignoring the many evidences of culture in Ireland, her Romanesque architecture, her high crosses, her illuminated manuscripts, her shrines and crosiers, the scholars that had shed lustre on her schools, the saints that had hallowed her fame throughout Europe--ignoring all these, they despised the Irish as rude and barbarous, despised their language, their laws, their dress, their arms; and, while not recognizing the Brehon law, they refused Irishmen the status of English subjects or the protection of English law. At last, despairing of union among their own chiefs, or of justice from Irish viceroy or English king, the oppressed Irish invited Edward Bruce from Scotland. In 1315 he landed in Ireland and was crowned king. Successful at first, his allies beyond the Shannon were almost annihilated in the battle of Athenry (1316); and two years later he was himself defeated and slain at Faughart. His ruin had been effected by a combination of the Anglo-Irish lords, and this still further inflated their pride. Titles rewarded them. Birmingham became Lord of Athenry and Earl of Louth, Fitzgerald Earl of Kildare, his kinsman Earl of Desmond, de Burgo Earl of Ulster, Butler Earl of Ormond. But these titles only increased their insolence and disloyalty. Favoured by the weakness of the viceroy's government the native chiefs recovered most of the ground they had lost. Meanwhile the De Burgos in Connaught changed their name to Burke, and became Irish chiefs; many others followed their example; even the ennobled Butlers and Fitzgeralds used the Irish language, dress, and customs, and were as turbulent as the worst of the native chiefs. To recall these colonists to their allegiance the Statute of Kilkenny made it penal to use Irish customs, language, or law, forbade intermarriage with the mere Irish, or the conferring of benefices on the native-born. But the barriers of race could not be maintained, and the intermarrying of Irish with Anglo-Irish went on. The long war with France, followed by the Wars of the Roses, diverted the attention of England from Irish affairs; and the viceroy, feebly supported from England, was too weak to chastise these powerful lords or put penal laws in force. The hostility of native chiefs was bought off by the payment of "black rents". The loyal colonists confined to a small district near Dublin, called "the Pale", shivered behind its encircling rampart; and when the sixteenth century dawned, English power in Ireland had almost disappeared. Those within the Pale were impoverished by grasping officials and by the payment of "black rents". Outside the Pale the country was held by sixty chiefs of Irish descent and thirty of English descent, each making peace or war as he pleased. Lawlessness and irreligion were everywhere. The clergy of Irish quarrelled with those of English descent; the religious houses were corrupt, their priors and abbots great landholders with seats in Parliament, and more attached to secular than to religious concerns; the great monastic schools had disappeared, the greatest of them all, Clonmacnoise, being in ruins; preaching was neglected except by the mendicant orders, and these were utterly unable to cope with the disorders which prevailed. THE TUDOR PERIOD Occupied with English and Continental affairs, Henry VIII, in the beginning of his reign, bestowed but little attention on Ireland, and not until he was a quarter of a century on the throne were Irish affairs taken seriously in hand. The king was then in middle age, no longer the defender of the Faith against Luther, but, like Luther, a rebel against Rome; no longer generous or attractive in character, but rather a cruel capricious tyrant whom it was dangerous to provoke and fatal to disobey. In England his hands were reddened with the best blood of the land; and in Ireland the fate of the Fitzgeralds, following the rebellion of Silken Thomas, struck Irish and Anglo-Irish alike with such terror that all hastened to make peace. O'Neill, renouncing the inheritance of his ancestors, became Earl of Tyrone; Burke became Earl of Clanrickard, O'Brien Earl of Thomond, Fitzpatrick Lord of Ossory; the Earl of Desmond and the other Anglo-Irish nobles were pardoned all their offences, and at a Parliament in Dublin (1541) Anglo-Irish and Irish attended. And Henry, who like his predecessors had been hitherto but Lord of Ireland (Dominus Hiberniae), was now unanimously given the higher title of king. This Parliament also passed the Act of Supremacy by which Henry was invested with spiritual jurisdiction, and, in substitution for the pope, proclaimed head of the Church. As the proctors of the clergy refused to agree to this measure, the irate monarch deprived them of the right of voting, and in revenge confiscated church lands and suppressed monasteries, in some cases shed the blood of their inmates, in the remaining cases sent them forth homeless and poor. These severities, however, did not win the people from their faith. The apostate friar Browne, whom Henry made Archbishop of Dublin, the apostate Staples, Bishop of Meath, and Henry himself, stained with so many adulteries and murders, had but poor credentials as preachers of reform; whatever time-serving chiefs might do, the clergy and people were unwilling to make Henry pope, or to subscribe to the varying tenets of his creed. His successor, an ardent Protestant, tried hard to make Ireland Protestant, but the sickly plant which he sowed was uprooted by the Catholic Mary, and at Elizabeth's accession all Ireland was Catholic. Like her father Henry, the young queen was a cruel and capricious tyrant, and in her war with Shane O'Neill, the ablest of the Irish chiefs, she did not scruple to employ assassins. She was neither a sincere Protestant nor a willing persecutor of the Catholics; and though she re-enacted the Act of Supremacy and passed the Act of Uniformity, making Protestantism the state creed, she refused to have these acts rigorously enforced. But when the pope and the Spanish king declared against her, and the Irish Catholics were found in alliance with both, she yielded to her ministers and concluded, with them, that a Catholic was necessarily a disloyal subject. Henceforth toleration gave way to persecution. The tortures inflicted on O'Hurley, Archbishop of Cashel, and O'Hely, Bishop of Mayo, the Spaniards murdered in cold blood at Smerwick, the desolation of Munster during Desmond's rebellion, showed how cruel her rule could be. Far more formidable than the rebellion of Desmond, or even than that of Shane O'Neill, was the rebellion of Hugh O'Neill, Early of Tyrone. No such able Irish chief had appeared since Brian Boru. Cool, cautious, vigilant, he laid his plans with care and knew how to wait patiently for results. Never impulsive, never boastful, wise in council and wary in speech, from his long residence in London in his youth he learned dissimulation, and was as crafty as the craftiest English minister. Repeatedly he foiled the queen's diplomatists in council as he did her generals in the field, and at the Yellow Ford (1598) gained the greatest victory ever won in Ireland over English arms. What he might have done had he been loyally supported it is hard to say. For nearly ten years he continued the war; he continued it after his Spanish allies had brought upon him the disaster of Kinsale; after his chief assistant, O'Donnell, had been struck down by an assassin's hand; after Carew had subdued Munster, and Mountjoy had turned Ulster into a desert; after the Irish chiefs had gone over to the enemy. And when he submitted it was only on condition of being guaranteed his titles and lands; and by that time Elizabeth, who hated him so much and so longed for his destruction, had breathed her last. UNDER THE STUARTS James I (1603-25) was the first of the Stuart line, and from the son of Mary Stuart the Irish Catholics expected much. They were doomed, however, to an early disappointment. The cities which rejoiced that "Jezabel was dead", and that now they could practise their religion openly, were warned by Mountjoy that James was a good Protestant and as such would have no toleration of popery. Salisbury, who had poisoned the mind of the queen against the Catholics, was equally successful with her successor, with the result that persecution continued. Proclamations were issued ordering the clergy to quit the kingdom; those who remained were hunted down; O'Devany, Bishop of Down, and others were done to death. The Acts of Supremacy and uniformity were rigorously enforced. The Act of Oblivion, under which participants in the late rebellion were pardoned, was often forgotten or ignored. English law, which for the first time was extended to all Ireland, was used by corrupt officials to oppress rather than to protect the people. The Earl of Tyrone and the Early of Tyroconnell (Rory O'Donnell) was so spied upon and worried by false charges of disloyalty that they fled the country, believing that their lives were in danger; and to all their pleas for justice the king's response was to slander their characters and confiscate their lands. It is indeed true that Irish juries found the earls guilty of high treason, and an Irish Parliament, representing all Ireland, attained them. But these results were obtained by carefully packing the juries, and by the creation of small boroughs which sent creatures of the king to represent them in Parliament. And the Catholic members acquiesced under threat of having enacted a fresh batch of penal laws. Thus, aided by corrupt juries and a complaisant Parliament, James I was enabled to plant the confiscated lands of Ulster with English Protestants and Scotch Presbyterians. Other plantations had fared badly. That of King's and Queen's County in Mary's reign had decayed; and the plantation of Munster after the Desmond war had been swept away in the tide of O'Neill's victories. The plantation of Ulster was more thorough and effective than either of these. Whole districts were given to the settlers, and these, supported by a Protestant Government, soon grew into a powerful and prosperous colony, while the despoiled Catholics, driven from the richer to the poorer lands, looked helplessly on, hating those colonists for whose sake they had been despoiled. Under the new king, Charles I (1625-49), the policy of persecution and plantation was continued. Under pretence of advancing the public interest and increasing the king's revenue, a crowd of hungry adventurers spread themselves over the land, inquiring into the title by which lands were held. With venal judges, venal juries, and sympathetic officials to aid them, good titles were declared bad, and lands seized, and the adventurers were made sharers in the spoil. The O'Byrnes were thus deprived of their lands in Wicklow, and similar confiscations and plantations took place in Wexford, King's County, Leitrim, Westmeath, and Longford. Hoping to protect themselves against such robbery, the Catholics offered the king a subsidy of -L-120,000 in exchange for certain privileges called "graces", which among other things would give them indefeasible titles to their estates. These "graces" granted by the king, were to have the sanction of Parliament to make them good. The money was paid, but the "graces" were withheld, and the viceroy, Strafford, proceeded to Connaught to confiscate and plant the whole province. The projected plantation was ultimately abandoned; but the sense of injustice remained. All over the country were insecurity, anxiety, unrest, and disaffection; Irish and Anglo-Irish were equally menaced. Seeing the futility of appealing to a helpless Parliament, a despotic viceroy, or a perfidious king, the nation took up arms. To describe the rebellion as the "massacre of 1641" is unjust. The details of cruel murders committed and horrible tortures inflicted by the rebels are mischievously untrue. On the other hand, it is true that the Protestants suffered grievous wrong, and that many of them lost their lives, exclusive of those who fell in war. The Catholics wanted the planters' lands; when driven away in wintry weather, without money, or food, or sufficient clothes, many planters perished of hunger and cold. Others fell by the avenging hand of some infuriated Catholic whom they might have wronged in the days of their power. Many fell defending their property or the property and lives of their friends. The plan of the rebel leaders, of whom Roger Moore was chief, was to capture the garrison towns by a simultaneous attack. But they failed to capture Dublin Castle, containing large stores of arms, owing to the imprudence of Colonel MacMahon. He imparted the secret to a disreputable Irishman named O'Connolly, who at once informed the Castle authorities, with the result that the Castle defences were strengthened, and MacMahon and others arrested and subsequently executed. In Ulster, however, the whole open country and many towns fell into the rebels' hands, and Munster and Connaught soon joined the rebellion, as did the Catholics of the Pale, unable to obtain any toleration of their religion, or security of their property, or even of their lives. Before the new year was far advanced the Catholic Bishops declared the rebellion just, and the Catholics formed a confederation which, from its meeting place, was called the "Confederation of Kilkenny". Composed of clergy and laity its members swore to be loyal to the king, to strive for the free exercise of their religion, and to defend the lives, liberties, and possessions of all who took the Confederate oath. Supreme executive authority was vested in a supreme council; there were provincial councils also, all these bodies deriving their powers from an elective body called the "General Assembly". The Supreme Council exercised all the powers of government, administered justice, raised taxes, formed armies, appointed generals. One of the best-known of these officers was General Preston, who commanded in Leinster, having come from abroad with a good supply of arms and ammunition, and with 500 trained officers. A more remarkable man still was General Owen Roe O'Neill, nephew of the great Earl of Tyrone, who took command in Ulster, and whose defence of Arras against the French caused him to be recognized as one of the first soldiers in Europe. He also, like Preston, brought officers, arms, and ammunition to Ireland. At a later state came Rinuccini, the pope's nuncio, bringing with him a supply of money. Meanwhile, civil war raged in England between king and Parliament; the Government at Dublin, ill supplied from across the Channel, was ill fitted to crush a powerful rebellion, and, in 1646, O'Neill won the great victory of Benburb. But the strength of which this victory was the outcome was counterbalanced by elements of weakness. The Catholics of Ulster and those of the Pale did not agree; neither did Generals O'Neill and Preston. The Supreme Council, with a feeble old man, Lord Mountgarret, at its head, and four provincial generals instead of a commander-in-chief, was ill-suited for the vigorous prosecution of a war. Moreover, the influence of the Marquis of Ormond was a fatal cause of discord. A personal friend of the king, and charged by him with the command of his army and with the conduct of negotiations, a Protestant with Catholic friends on the Supreme Council, his desire ought to have been to bring Catholic and Royalist together. But his hatred of the Catholics was such that he would grant them no terms, even when ordered to do so by His Majesty. The Catholics' professions of loyalty he despised, and his great diplomatic abilities were used to sow dissensions in their councils and to thwart their plans. Yet the Supreme Council, dominated by an Ormondist faction, continued fruitless negotiations with him, agreed to a cessation when they themselves were strong and their opponents weak, and agreed to a peace with him in spite of the victory of Benburb, and in spite of the remonstrances of the nuncio and of General O'Neill. Nor did they cease these relations with him even after he had treacherously surrendered Dublin to the Parliament (1647), and left the country. On the contrary, they still put faith in him, entered into a fresh peace with him in 1648, and when he returned to Ireland as the Royalist viceroy they received him in state at Kilkenny. In disgust, General O'Neill came to a temporary agreement with the Parliamentary general, and Rinuccini, despairing of Ireland, returned to Rome. The Civil War in England was then over. The Royalists had been vanquished, the king executed, the monarchy replaced by a commonwealth; and in August, 1649, Oliver Cromwell came to Ireland with 10,000 men. Ormond meanwhile had rallied his supporters, and, with the greater part of the Catholics of Leinster, Munster, and Connaught, the Protestants of the Pale and of Munster, and great part of the Ulster Presbyterians, his strength was considerable. His obstinate bigotry would not allow him to make terms with the Ulster army, and he thus lost the support of General O'Neill at a critical time. Early in August he had been disastrously beaten by the Puritan general Jones, at Rathmines; in consequence he offered no opposition to Cromwell's landing and made no attempt to relieve Drogheda. It was soon captured by Cromwell and its garrison put to the sword. A month later the same fate befell Wexford. Waterford repelled Cromwell's attack, and Clonmel and Kilkenny offered him a stout resistance; but other towns were easily captured, or voluntarily surrendered; and when he left Ireland, in May, 1650, Munster and Leinster were in his hands. His successors, Ireton and Ludlow, within two years reduced the remaining provinces. Meanwhile Owen Roe O'Neill had died after making terms with Ormond, but before meeting with Cromwell. The Catholic Bishops, however, repudiated Ormond, who then left Ireland. Some negotiations subsequently between Lord Clanricarde and the Duke of Lorraine came to nothing, and the long war was ended in which more than half the inhabitants of the country had lost their lives. In the beginning of the rebellion many Englishmen subscribed money to put it down, stipulating in return for a share of the lands to be forfeited, and thus hatred of the Catholics was mingled with hope of gain. The English Parliament accepted the money on the terms proposed, and the subscribers became known as "adventurers", because they adventured their money on Irish land. When the rebellion was over, the problem was to provide the lands promised, and also to provide lands for the soldiers who were in arrears of pay. It was a difficult problem. There was an Act for Settling Ireland, and and Act for the Satisfaction of Adventurers in Lands and Arrears due to the soldiers and other public Debts; there was a High Court of Justice to determine who were guilty of rebellion; there were soldiers who had got special terms when laying down their arms; and there were those who had never had a share in the rebellion, but had merely lived in the rebel quarters during the war. The best of the lands east of the Shannon were for the adventurers and soldiers, the dispossessed being driven to Connaught. To determine where the planters were to be settled and where the transplanted, and what amount they were to get, there were commissions, and committees, and surveys, and court of claims. Nor was it till 1658 that the Cromwellian Settlement was complete, and even then many of the transplanted protested their innocence of any share in the rebellion, and many of the adventurers and soldiers complained that they had been defrauded of their due. In the amount of suffering it entailed and wrong inflicted the whole scheme far exceeded the plantation of Ulster. But it failed to make Ireland either English or Protestant, and in setting up a system of alien landlords and native tenants it proved the curse of Ireland and the fruitful parent of many ills. To the Irish Cromwell's death in 1658 was welcome news, all the more so because Charles II (1860-85) was restored. For their attachment to the cause of the latter they had suffered much; and now the Catholic landlord in his Connaught cabin and the Irish soldier abroad felt equally assured that the recovery of their lands and homes was at hand. They soon learned that Stuart gratitude meant little and that Stuart promises were written on sand. Had Charles been free to act, the Cromwellian Settlement would not have endured; for he loved the Catholics much more than he loved the Puritans. But the planters were a dangerous body to provoke, sustained as they were by the English Parliament and by the king's chief adviser, Ormond, who indeed hated the Cromwellians, but hated the Catholics much more. Some attempt, however, was made to right the wrong that had been done, and by the Act of Settlement, six hundred innocent Catholics were restored to their lands. Many more would have been restored had the court of claims been allowed to continue its sittings. The irate planters wanted to know what was to become of them if the despoiled papist thus back their lands; utterings threats and even breaking out into rebellion they alarmed the king. Under Ormond's advice the Act of Explanation was then passed (1665) and the court of claims set up by the Act of Settlement closed its doors, though three thousand cases remained untried. Thus the Cromwellians who had murdered the king's father were, with few exceptions, left unmolested while the Catholics were abandoned to their fate. Before the rebellion two-thirds of the lands of the country were in the hands of the latter; after the Act of Explanation scarcely one-third was left them, a sweeping confiscation especially in the case of men who were denied even the justice of a trial. After this the toleration of the Catholics was but a small concession. Not, however, during the whole of Charles's reign; for Ormond, now a duke, filled the office of viceroy for many years; he at least would maintain Protestant ascendancy, and exclude the Catholics from the bench and the corporations. In the English Council and in Parliament he bitterly attacked and defeated the proposed revision of the Act of Settlement. He does not appear to have had any sympathy with the lying tales of Oates and Bedloe, or with the storm of persecution which followed, and he disapproved of the judicial murder of Oliver Plunket. But his aversion from the Catholics continued, and was in no way chilled by advancing age. One of the last acts of Charles was to dismiss him from office as an enemy to toleration. The king himself soon after died in the Catholic Faith, and James II, an avowed Catholic, succeeded, the first Catholic sovereign since the death of Mary Tudor. Religious toleration had then made little progress throughout Europe, and England, aggressively Protestant, looked with special disfavour on Catholicism. In these circumstances James II should have moved with caution. He should have taken account of national prejudices and the temper of the times, and respected established institutions; while conscientiously practising his own religion, he should have sought for no favour for it, at least until the nation was in a more tolerant and yielding mood. Instead of this, and in defiance of English bigotry and English law, he appointed Catholics to high civil and military offices, opened the corporations and the universities to them, had a papal nuncio at his court, and issued a declaration of Indulgence suspending the penal laws. When the Protestant bishops refused to have this declaration read from their pulpits he prosecuted them. Their acquittal was the signal for revolt, and James, deserted by all classes, fled to France leaving the English throne to William of Orange, whom the Protestants invited from Holland. Meanwhile sweeping changes had been effected in Ireland by the viceroy, the Duke of Tyreconnell, a militant Catholic and a special favourite of King James. Protestant magistrates, sheriffs, and judges had been displaced to make room for Catholics; the army and corporations underwent similar changes; and the Act of Settlement was to be repealed. Timid Protestants trembling for their lives fled to England; others formed centres of resistance to the viceroy in Munster and Connaught, and, in Ulster, Derry and Enniskillen expelled the Catholics and closed their gates against the viceroy's troops. This was rebellion, for James, though repudiated in England, was still King of Ireland. In March, 1689, he arrived at Kinsale from France to subdue these rebels. But the task was beyond his strength. Derry and Enniskillen defied all his attacks, and a Wiliamite force, issuing from the latter town, almost annihilated a Jacobite army at Newton-Butler. Disaffection became general among the Protestants when the Irish Parliament repealed the Act of Settlement and attained eighteen hundred persons who had fled to England through fear; and when, in August, a Williamite force of twenty thousand landed at Carrickfergus, the Protestants everywhere welcomed it. This great force, however, effected nothing, and in June, 1690, William himself came and encountered James on the banks of the Boyne. The battle was fought on 1 July, and resulted in the defeat of James. Hastening to Dublin he told the Duchess of Tyrconnell that the Irish soldiers had shamefully run away, to which the lady is said to have replied; "But your Majesty won the race." The retort was just. The Irish cavalry behaved with conspicuous gallantry, as did the greater part of the infantry. Some of the latter did run away, but not so fast as James himself, who fled taking the ablest of the Irish generals, Sarsfield, with him. That the Irish were no cowards was soon shown by their defence of Athlone and the still more glorious defence of Limerick. After being compelled to raise the siege of the latter city, King Williams left for England, committing the civil authority to lords justices and the military command to General Ginkel. In the following year Ginkel captured Athlone, owing to the carelessness of the Jacobite general, St-Ruth; and on 12 July, 1691, the last great battle of the war was fought at Aughrim. The Irish were not inferior to their opponents in numbers, discipline, or valour, and though overmatched in heavy guns they had the advantage of position. Nor was St-Ruth inferior to Ginkel in military capacity. His dispositions were excellent, and after several hours' desperate fighting Ginkel was driven back at every point. Just then St-Ruth was struck down by a cannon ball. Panic-stricken, the Irish fell back, allowing their opponents to advance and inflict on them a crushing defeat. The surrender of Galway and Sligo followed, and in a short time Ginkel and his whole army were before the walls of Limerick. When he had effectually surrounded it and made a breach in the walls, further resistance was seen to be hopeless, and Sarsfield and his friends made terms. By the end of the year the war was over, King William had triumphed, and Protestant ascendancy was secure. THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY By the Treaty of Limerick the Catholic soldiers of King James were pardoned, protected against forfeiture of their estates, and were free to go abroad if they chose. All Catholics might substitute an oath of allegiance for the oath of supremacy, and were to have such privileges "as were consistent with the laws of Ireland, or as they did enjoy in the reign of Charles II". King William also promised to have the Irish Parliament grant a further relaxation of the penal laws in force. This treaty, however, was soon torn to shreds, and in spite of William's appeals the Irish Parliament refused to ratify it, and embarked on fresh penal legislation. Under these new laws Catholics were excluded from Parliament, from the bench and bar, from the army and navy, from all civil offices, from the corporations, and even from the corporate towns. They could not have Catholic schools at home or attend foreign schools, or inherit landed property, or hold land under lease, or act as executors or administrators, or have arms or ammunition, or a horse worth -L-5. Neither could they bury their dead in Catholic ruins, or make pilgrimages to holy wells, or observe Catholic holidays. They could not intermarry with the Protestants, the clergyman assisting at such marriages being liable to death. The wife of a Catholic landlord turning Protestant got separate maintenance; the son turning Protestant got the whole estate; and the Catholic landlord having only Catholic children was obliged at death to divide his estate among his children in equal shares. All the regular clergy, as well as bishops and vicars-general should quit the kingdom. The secular clergy might remain, but must be registered, nor could they have on their churches either steeple or bell. This was the Penal Code, elaborated through nearly half a century with patience, and care, and ingenuity, perhaps the most infamous code ever elaborated by civilized man. Such legislation does not generate conviction, and, in spite of all, the Catholics clung to their Faith. Deprived of schools at home, the young clerical student sought the halls of Continental colleges, and being ordained returned to Ireland, disguised perhaps as a sailor and carried in a smuggler's craft. And in secrecy and obscurity he preached, taught, lived, and died, leaving another generation equally persecuted to carry on the good fight. Poverty was his portion, and frequently the prison and the scaffold; and yet, while Protestantism made no progress, Catholicism more than held its own. In 1728 the Catholics were to the Protestants as five to one, and half a century later Young calculated that to make Ireland Protestant would take 4000 years. Indeed the Protestant clergy made no serious effort to convert the Catholics; nor was this the object of the Penal Code. Passed by Protestants possessing confiscated Catholic lands, it object was to impoverish, to debase, to degrade, to leave the despoiled Catholics incapable of rebellion and ignorant of their wrongs. In this respect it succeeded. A few Catholics, with the connivance of some friendly Protestants, managed to hold their estates; the remainder gradually sank to the level of cottiers and day-labourers, living in cabins, clothed in rags, always on the verge of famine. Shut out from every position of influence, rackrented by absentee landlords, insulted by grasping agents and drunken squireens, paying tithes to a Church they abhorred, hating the Government which oppressed them and the law which made them slaves, their condition was the worst of any peasantry in Europe. From a land blighted by such laws the enterprising and ambitious fled, seeking an outlet for their enterprise and ambition in happier lands. In the time of Elizabeth and James, and still more in Cromwell's time, thousands joined the army of Spain. But in the latter half of the seventeenth century the stream was diverted to France, then the greatest military power in Europe. Thither Sarsfield and his men went after the fall of Limerick, and in the fifty years which followed 450,000 Irish died in the service of France. They fought and fell in Spain and Italy, in the passes of the Alps, in the streets of Cremona, at Ramillies and Malplaquet, at Blenheim and Fontenoy. Irishmen were marshals of France; an Irishman commanded the armies of Maria Theresa; another the army of Russia; and there were Irish statesmen, generals, and ambassadors all over Europe. Beyond the Atlantic, Irish had settled in Pennsylvania and Maryland, in Kentucky and Carolina and the New England states; Irish names were appended to the Declaration of Independence; and Irish soldiers fought throughout the War of Independence. Now were soldiers and statesmen the only Irish exiles whom penal laws had sent abroad. The decay of schools and colleges continued from the eleventh to the sixteenth century; nor did Ireland in that period produce a single great scholar, except Duns Scotus, who was partly educated broad. Any hope of a revival of learning in the sixteenth century was blasted by the suppression of monasteries and the penal laws; early in the seventeenth century, however, Irish colleges were already established at Louvain, Salamanca, and Seville, at Lisbon, Paris, and Rome. In these colleges the brightest Irish intellects learned and taught, and Colgan and O'Clery, Lynch and Rothe, Wadding and Keating recalled the greatest glories of their country's past. At home Trinity College had been established (1593) to wean the Irish from "Popery and other ill qualities"' but the Catholics held aloof, and either went abroad or frequented the few Catholic schools left. The children of the poor, avoiding the Protestant schools, met in the open air, with only some friendly hedge to protect them from the blast; but they met in fear and trembling, for the hedge-school and its master were proscribed. Thus was the lamp of learning kept burning during the long night of the penal times. In the Irish Parliament meanwhile a spirit of independence appeared. As the Parliament of the Pale it had been so often used for factious purposes that in 1496 Poyning's Law was passed, providing that henceforth no Irish Parliament could meet, and no law could be proposed, without the previous consent of both the Irish and English Privy Councils. Further, the English Parliament claimed the right to legislate for Ireland; and in the laws prohibiting the importation of Irish cattle (1665), and Irish woollen manufactures (1698), and that dealing with the Irish forfeited estates (1700), it asserted its supposed right. The Irish Parliament, dominated by bigotry and self-interest, had not the courage to protest, and when one member, Molyneux, did, the English Parliament condemned him, and ordered his book to be burned by the common hangman. Moreover, it passed an Act in 1719 expressly declaring that it had power to legislate for Ireland, taking away also the appellate jurisdiction of the Irish House of Lords. The fight made by Swift against Wood's halfpence showed that, though Molyneux was dead, his spirit lived; Lucas continued the fight, and Grattan in 1782 obtained legislative independence. England was then beaten by the American colonies; an Irish volunteer force had been raised to defend Ireland against a possible invasion, and it seems certain that legislative independence was won less by Grattan's eloquence than by the swords of the Volunteers. These events favoured the growth of toleration. The Catholics, in sympathizing with Grattan and in subscribing money to equip the Protestant Volunteers, earned the goodwill of the Protestant Nationalists; in consequence the penal laws were less rigorously enforced, and from the middle of the century penal legislation ceased. In 1771 came the turn of the tide, when Catholics were allowed to hold reclaimed bog under lease. The grudging concession was followed in 1774 by an Act substituting an oath of allegiance for the oath of supremacy; in 1778 by an Act enabling Catholics to hold all lands under lease; and in 1782 by a further Act allowing them to erect Catholic schools, with the permission of the Protestant bishop of the diocese, to own a horse worth more than -L-5, and to assist at Mass without being compelled to accuse the officiating priest. Nor were Catholic bishops any longer compelled to quit the kingdom, nor Catholic children specially rewarded if they turned Protestant. Not for ten years was there any further concession, and then an Act was passed allowing Catholics to erect schools without seeking Protestant permission, admitting Catholics to the Bar, and legalizing marriages between Protestants and Catholics. Much more important was the Act of 1793 giving the Catholics the Parliamentary and municipal franchise, admitting them to the universities and to military and civil offices, and removing all restrictions in regard to the tenure of land. They were still excluded from Parliament, from the inner Bar, and from a few of the higher civil and military offices. Always in favour of religious liberty, Grattan would have swept away every vestige of the Penal code. But, in 1782, he mistakenly thought that his work was done when legislative independence was conceded. He forgot that the executive was still left independent of Parliament, answerable only to the English ministry; and that, with rotten boroughs controlled by a few great families, with an extremely limited franchise in the counties, and with pensioners and placement filling so many seats, the Irish Parliament was but a mockery of representation. Like Grattan, Flood and Charlemont favoured Parliamentary reform, but, unlike him, they were opposed to Catholic concessions. As for Foster and Fitzgibbon, who led the forces of corruption and bigotry, they opposed every attempt at reform, and consented to the Act of 1793 only under strong pressure from Pitt and Dundas. These English ministers, alarmed at the progress of French revolutionary principles in Ireland, fearing a foreign invasion, wished to have the Catholics contented. In 1795 further concessions seemed imminent. In that year an illiberal viceroy, Lord Westmoreland, was replaced by the liberal-minded Lord Fitzwilliam, who came understanding it to be the wish of Pitt that the Catholic claims were to be conceded. He at once dismissed from office a rapacious office-holder named Beresford, so powerful that he was called the "King of Ireland"; he refused to consult Lord Chancellor Fitzgibbon or Foster, the Speaker; he took Grattan and Ponsonby into his confidence, and declared his intention to support Grattan's bill admitting Catholics to Parliament. The high hopes raised by these events were dashed to the earth when Fitzwilliam was suddenly recalled, after having been allowed to go so far without any protest from Portland, the home secretary, or from the premier, Pitt. The latter, disliking the Irish Parliament because it had rejected his commercial propositions in 1785, and disagreed with him on the regency in 1789, already mediated a legislative union, and felt that the admission of Catholics to Parliament would thwart his plans. He was probably also influenced by Beresford, who had powerful friends in England, and by the king, whom Fitzgibbon had mischievously convinced that to admit Catholics to Parliament would be to violate his coronation oath. Possibly, other causes concurred with these to bring about the sudden and disastrous change which filled Catholic Ireland with grief, and the whole nation with dismay. The new viceroy, Lord Camden, was instructed to conciliate the Catholic bishops by setting up a Catholic college for the training of Irish priests; this was done by the establishment of Maynooth College. But he was to set his face against all Parliamentary reform and all Catholic concessions. These things he did with a will. He at once restored Beresford to office and Foster and Fitzgibbon to favour, the latter being made Earl of Clare. And he stirred up but too successfully the dying embers of sectarian hate, with the result that the Ulster factions, the Protestant "Peep-of-Day Boys" and the Catholic "Defenders", became embittered with a change of names. The latter, turning to republican and revolutionary ways, joined the United Irish Society; the former became merged in the recently formed Orange Society, taking its name from William of Orange and having Protestant ascendancy and hatred of Catholicism as its battle cries. Extending from Ulster, these rival societies brought into the other provinces the curse of sectarian strife. Instead of putting down both, the Government took sides with the Orangemen; and, while their lawless acts were condoned, the Catholics were hunted down. An Arms' Act, an Insurrection Act, an Indemnity Act, a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act placed them outside the pale of law. An undisciplined soldiery, recruited from the Orange lodges, were than let loose among them. Martial law, free quarters, flogging, picketing, half-hanging, destruction of Catholic property and life, outrages on women followed, until at last Catholic blood was turned into flame. Then Wexford rose. Looking back, it now seems certain that, had Hoche landed at Bantry in 1796, had even a small force landed at Wexford in 1798, or a few other counties displayed the heroism of Wexford, English power in Ireland would, temporarily at least, have been destroyed. But one county could not fight the British Empire, and the rebellion was soon quenched in blood. Camden's place was then given to Lord Cornwallis, who came to Ireland for the express purpose of carrying a Legislative Union. Foster refused to support him and joined the opposition. Fitzgibbon, however, aided Cornwallis, and so did Castlereagh, who for some time had discharged the duties of chief secretary in the absence of Mr. Pelham, and who was now formally appointed to the office. And then began one of the most shameful chapters in Irish history. Even the corrupt Irish Parliament was reluctant to vote away its existence, and in 1799 the opposition was too strong for Castlereagh. But Pitt directed him to persevere, and the great struggle went on. On one side were eloquence and debating power, patriotism, and public virtue, Grattan, Plunket, and Bushe, Foster, Fitzgerald, Ponsonby, and Moore, a truly formidable combination. On the other side were the baser elements of in Parliament, the needy, the spendthrift, the meanly ambitious, operated upon by Castlereagh, with the whole resources of the British Empire at his command. The pensioners and placemen who voted against him at once lost their places and pensions, the military officer was refused promotion, the magistrate was turned off the bench. And while anti-Unionists were unsparingly punished, the Unionists got lavish rewards. The impecunious got well-paid sinecures; the briefless barrister was made a judge or a commissioner; the rich man, ambitious of social distinction, got a peerage, and places and pensions for his friends; and the owners of rotten boroughs to large sums for their interests. The Catholics were promised emancipation in a united Parliament, and in consequence many bishops, some clergy, and a few of the laity supported the Union, not grudging to end an assembly so bigoted and corrupt as the Irish Parliament. By these means Castlereagh triumphed, and in 1801 the United Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland opened its doors. SINCE THE UNION The next quarter of a century was a period of baffled hopes. Anxious to stand well with the Government, Dr. Troy, the Archbishop of Dublin, had been a strong advocate of the Union, and had induced nine of his brother bishops to concede to the king a veto on episcopal appointments. In return, he wanted emancipation linked with the Union, and Castlereagh was not averse; but Pitt was non-committal and vague, though the Catholic Unionists had no doubt that he favoured immediate concession. Disappointment came when nothing was done in the first session of the United Parliament, and it was increased when Pitt resigned office and was succeeded by Addington, a narrow-minded bigot. Cornwallis, however, assured Dr. Troy that Pitt had resigned, unable to overcome the prejudices of the king, and that he would never again take office if emancipation were not conceded. Yet, in spite of this, he became premier in 1804, no longer an advocate of emancipation but an opponent, pledged never again to raise the question in Parliament, during the lifetime of the king. To this pledge he was as faithful as he had been false to his former assurances; and when Fox presented the Catholic petition in 1805, Pitt opposed it. After 1806, when both Pitt and Fox died, the Catholic champion was Grattan, who had entered the British Parliament in 1805. In the vain hope of conciliating opponents he was willing, in 1808, to concede the veto. Dr. Troy and the higher Catholics acquiesced; but the other bishops were unwilling, and neither they nor the clergy, still less the people, wanted a state-paid clergy or state-appointed bishops. The agitation of the question, however, did not cease, and for many years it distracted Catholic plans and weakened Catholic effort. Further complications arose when, in 1814, the prefect of the Propaganda, Quarantotti, issued a rescript favouring the veto. He acted, however, beyond his powers in the absence of Pius VII, who was in France, and when the pope returned to Rome, after the fall of Napoleon, the rescript was disavowed. In these years the Catholics badly needed a leader. John Keogh, the able leader of 1793, was then old, and Lords Fingall and Gormanstone, Mr. Scully and Dr. Dromgoole, were not the men to grapple with great difficulties and powerful opponents. An abler and more vigorous leader was required, one with less faith in petitions and protestations of loyalty. Such a leader was found in Daniel O'Connell, a Catholic barrister whose first public appearance in 1800 was on an anti-Unionist platform. A great lawyer and orator, a great debater, of boundless courage and resources, he took a prominent part on Catholic committees, and from 1810 he held the first place in Catholic esteem. Yet the Catholic cause advanced slowly, and, when Grattan died in 1820, emancipation had not come. Nor would the House of Lords accept Plunket's Bill of 1821, even though it passed the House of Commons and conceded the veto. At last O'Connell determined to rouse the masses, and in 1823, with the help of Richard Lalor Sheil, he founded the Catholic Association. Its progress at first was slow, but gradually it gathered strength. Dr. Murray, the new Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, joined it, and Dr. Doyle, the great Bishop of Kildare; other bishops followed; the clergy and people also came in; and thus rose a great national organization, supervising from its central office in Dublin subsidiary associations in every parish; maintained by a Catholic rent; watching over local and national affairs, discharging, as Mr. Canning described it, "all the functions of a regular government, and having obtained a complete mastery and control over the masses of the Irish people". The Association was suppressed in 1825 by Act of Parliament; but O'Connell merely changed the name; and the New Catholic Association with its New Catholic rent continued the work of agitation as of old. Nor was this all. By the Catholic Relief Act of 1793 the forty-shilling freeholders obtained the franchise. These freeholders, being so poor, were necessarily in the power of the landlords and were wont to be driven to the pools like so many sheep. But now, protected by a powerful association, and encouraged by the priests and by O'Connell, the freeholders broke their chains, and in Waterford, Louth, Meath, and elsewhere they voted for the nominees of the Catholic Association at elections, and in placing them at the head of the pool humbled the landlords. When they returned O'Connell himself for Clare in 1828, the crisis had come. The Tory ministers, Welllington and Peel, would have still resisted; but the people were not to be restrained: it must be concession or civil war, and rather than have the latter the ministers hauled down the flag of no surrender, and passed the Catholic Relief Bill of 1829. The forty-shilling freeholders were disfranchised, and there were some vexations provisions excluding Catholics from a few of the higher civil and military offices, prohibiting priests from wearing vestments outside their churches, bishops from assuming the titles of their sees, regulars form obtaining charitable bequests. In other respects Catholics were placed on a level with other denominations, and at last were admitted within the pale of the constitution. From that hour O'Connell was the uncrowned king of Ireland. Where he led the people followed. They cheered him when he praised Lord Anglesey and when he attacked him; when he supported the Whigs and when he described them as "base, brutal and bloody"; when he advocated the Repeal of the Union and when he abandoned the Repeal agitation; and when, after long years of waiting for concessions that never came, he again unfurled the flag of Repeal, they flocked to hear him, and laughed or wept with him, responsive to his every mood. Finally, to leave him free to devote his whole time to public affairs they subscribed yearly to the O'Connell tribute, given him thus an income which never fell below -L-16,000 and often went far beyond that figure. And yet the legislative results of nearly twenty years of such devotion and sacrifice were poor. The National Education system, established in 1831, required much amendment before it worked smoothly, and even now is far from being an ideal system. The Commutation of Tithes Act only transferred the odium of collection from the parson to the landlord, but gave little relief to the people. The Poor Law system, though it often relieved destitution, too often encouraged idleness and immorality. And the Corporation Act, while reforming a few of the corporations, abolished many. Nor could anything be more complete than the failure of the Repeal agitation. The explanation is not far to seek. O'Connell had a wretched party, men without capacity or patriotism. His acceptance of offices for his friends and his alliances with the Whigs was surely not a sound policy. And when he took up Repeal in earnest he was already old, with the shadow of death upon him. Lastly, as he neared the end, he lost the support of the Young Irelanders, the most vigorous and capable section of his followers. These things embittered his last days and hastened his death in 1847. Meantime the shadow of famine had fallen upon the land. The potato blight first appeared in Wexford, in 1845, whence it marched with stealthy tread all over the country, poisoning the potato fields as it passed. The stalks withered and died, the potatoes beneath the soil became putrid, and when they were dug and the sound ones separated from the unsound ones and put into pits, it was soon discovered that disease had entered the pits. The reckless creation of forty-shilling freeholders by the landlords for political purposes, the reckless subdivision of holdings by the tenants, had so augmented the population that in 1845 the inhabitants of Ireland were well beyond 8,000,000, most of them living in abject poverty with the potato as their only food. And now, with half the crop of 1845 gone and with the loss of the whole crop in the two succeeding years, millions were face to face with hunger. To cope with such a calamity required heroic measures, and O'Connell urged that distilleries should be closed, the export of provisions prohibited, public granaries set up, and reproductive works set on foot. But the premier, Peer, minimized the extent of the famine, and Lord John Russell, who succeeded him in 1846 was equally sceptical. He would neither stop distilling nor the export of provisions, nor build railways; and when he set up public works they were not reproductive, and the money expended on them, largely levied on the rates, was squandered by corrupt officials. Ultimately indeed he set up government stores, and in many cases food was distributed free. Charity supplemented the efforts of Government, and with no niggard hand. There were Quaker, Evangelical, and Baptist relief committees, and subscriptions from Great Britain and from Continental Europe, from Australia and from the West Indies. But America was generous most of all. In every city from Boston to New Orleans meetings were held and subscriptions given. Philadelphia sent eight vessels loaded with provisions; Mississippi and Alabama large consignments of Indian corn; railroads and shipping companies carried relief parcels free; and the Government turned some of the war vessels into transports to carry food to the starving millions beyond the Atlantic. Yet were the sufferings of the people great, and the number of deaths from famine and famine-fever appalling. Thousands lived for weeks on cabbage and a little meal, on cabbage and seaweed, on turnips, on diseased horse and ass flesh; and one case is recorded where a woman ate her dead child. Men died from cold as well as from hunger. They died on the roads and in the fields, at the relief works and on their way to them, at the workhouses and at the workhouse doors. They died in their cabins unattended, often surrounded by the dying and frequently by the dead. Flying from the country they died in the hospitals of Liverpool or Glasgow, or on board the sailing vessels to America. And thousands who crossed the ocean reached America only to die. In 1848 and in 1849 the famine was only partial, but in the latter year cholera appeared. In 1851 the famine was over, and such was the havoc wrought that a population, which at the previous rate of increase should have been 9,000,000, was reduced to 6,500,000. The conduct of the landlords during this terrible time was selfish and cruel. With few exceptions they gave no employment and no subscriptions to the relief funds. Unable to get rents from tenants unable to pay, they used their right to evict, and in thousands of cases the horrors of eviction were added to the horrors of famine. Retribution soon followed. The evictors, without rents and crushed by poor-rates, became hopelessly insolvent. The British Parliament considered them a nuisance and a curse, and in 1849 passed the Encumbered Estates Act, under which a creditor might petition to have the estate sold and his debt paid. Insolvent landlords were thus sent adrift, and solvent men took their places, and to such an extent that in a few years land to the value of -L-20,000,000 changed hands. But the new landlords were no better than the old. They raised rents, confiscated the tenant's improvements, worried him with vexatious estate rules, evicted him cruelly; and from 1850 to 1870 was the period of the great clearances. The necessary result was a constant and ever-increasing stream of emigration from Ireland, chiefly to America. Nor would British statesmen do anything to stem the tide, Lord John Russell would not interfere with the rights of property by passing a Land Act. Lord Derby was a landlord with a landlord's strong prejudices. Lord Palmerston declared that tenant right was landlord wrong. Nothing could be expected from the Irish members. Sadleir and Keogh broke up the Tenant Right party; Lucas was dead; Duffy in despair went to Australia; Moore was out of Parliament; and from 1855 to 1870 the Irish members were but placehunters and traitors. In these circumstances the Irish peasant joined the Ribbon Society, which was secret and oath-bound, and specially charged to defend the tenants' interests. Agrarian outrages naturally followed. The landlord evicted, the Ribbonman shot him down, and the evictor fell unpitied by the people, who refused to condemn the assassin. After 1860 the Robbonmen were gradually merged in the Fenian Society, which extended to America and England, and had national rather than agrarian objects in view. The Irish are not good conspirators, and the attempted Fenian insurrection in 1867 came to nothing. But the mediated assault on Chester Castle, the Clerkenwell explosion, and the Fenian raids into Canada showed the extent and intrepidity of Irish disaffection. An increasing number of Englishmen began to think that the non possumus attitude of Lord Palmerston was no longer wise; and with the advent to power of Mr. Gladstone in 1868, at the head of a large Liberal majority, the case of Ireland was taken up. The Catholic masses had a threefold grievance calling urgently for redress: the state Church, landlordism, and educational inequality. Mr. Gladstone called them the three branches of the Irish ascendancy upas tree. Commencing with the Church, he introduced a Bill disendowing and disestablishing it. Commissioners were appointed to wind it up, taking charge of its enormous property, computed at more than -L-15,000,000 ($75,000,000). Of this sum, -L-10,000,000, ultimately raised to -L-11,000,000, was given to the disestablished Church, part to the holders of existing offices, part to enable the Church to continue its work. A further sum of nearly -L-1,000,000 was distributed between Maynooth College, deprived of its annual grant, and the Presbyterian Church deprived of the Regium Donum, the latter getting twice as much as the former. The surplus was to be disposed of by Parliament for such public objects as it might determine. This was generous treatment for the state Church which had been so conspicuous a failure. Supported with an ample revenue, and by the whole power of the State, its business was to make Ireland Protestant and English. It succeeded only in intensifying their attachment to Catholicity and their hatred of Protestantism and England. In 1861, after the havoc wrought by the famine, the Catholics were seven times as numerous as the members of the state Church. There were many parishes without a single Protestant; and in a poor country a Church numbering but 600,000 persons had an income of nearly -L-700,000, mostly drawn from people of a different creed, who at the same time had their own Church to support. Yet there were members of Parliament who described Mr. Gladstone's Bill as robbery and sacrilege. The House of Lords, afraid to reject it altogether, emasculated it in committee. And Ulster Protestants declared that if it became law they would kick the Queen's crown into the Boyne. Ignoring these threats, Mr. Gladstone rejected the Lords' amendments, though on some minor points he gave way, and in spite of all opposition the Bill became law. And thus one branch of the upas tree came crashing to the earth. The Land Act of 1870 was well-meant, but in reality gave the tenants no protection against rackrenting or eviction. Two years later the Ballot Act freed the Irish tenant from the terrors of open voting. In 1873 the education question was reached. And first as to the primary schools. What the Catholic primary schools were in the early years of the nineteenth century we learn from Carleton. The teacher, the product of a local hedge-school and of a Munster classical school, or perhaps an ex-student of Maynooth, had first been employed as a tutor in some farmer's family. Then he became a hedge-schoolmaster, and the manner in which he attained to this position was peculiar. Challenging the schoolmaster already in possession to a public disputation, they met at the church gates on Sunday in presence of the congregation. The intellectual swordplay between the combatants was keenly relished, and, if the younger man won the applause of the audience by his depth of learning and readiness of reply, his opponent left the district and the victor was installed in his place. His school, built by the roadside by the people's voluntary efforts, was of earthen sods, with an earthen floor, a hole in the roof for a chimney, and stones for the pupils' seats. In many districts the teacher received little fees, but the people supplied him liberally with potatoes, meal, bacon, and turf, and entertained him at their houses. A century before Carleton's time the Charter schools were established, and endowed to educate the children of the destitute poor. They were to give industrial as well as literary training, and took religion and learning as their motto. But they became dens of infamy, with incompetent and immoral teachers, who taught the pupils nothing except to hate Catholicism. As such the schools were shunned by the Catholics, and were manifest failures, and yet till 1832 they received government grants. Such societies as the Society for Discountenancing Vice, the London Hibernian Association, and the Baptist Society were proselytizing institutions. The Kildare Street Society founded in 1811, though Protestant in its origin, was on different lines. The design was to have Catholics and Protestants educated together in secular subjects, leaving their religious training to the ministers of their religion outside of school hours. O'Connell favoured the scheme and joined the governing board, grants were obtained from Parliament, and for some years all went well. But again the bread of knowledge given to Catholics was steeped in the poison of proselytism. The bigots insisted on having the Bible read in the schools "without note or comment"; the Society was then vigorously assailed by John MacHale, at the time a young professor at Maynooth, and O'Connell retired from the board. Recognizing the failure of such a system, Lord Stanley; the Irish chief secretary, passed through Parliament in 1831 a bill empowering the lord lieutenant to constitute a National Board of Education with an annual grant for building schools, and for payment of teachers and inspectors. Religious instruction was to be given on one day of the week by ministers of the different religions to children of their own Faith. The schools were open to all denominations, and even "the suspicion of proselytism" was to be excluded. But the Catholics were treated unfairly. In spite of their numbers they were given but two of the seven members of the Board. Mr. Carlisle, a Presbyterian, was made resident commissioner, and as chief executive officer appointed non-Catholics to the principal offices; and he and his fellow-commissioner, Dr. Whately, the Protestant Archbishop of Dublin, compiled lesson-books, in which the history of Ireland and the Catholic religion were treated with injustice. In a few years the original rules of the Board were so changed that Catholic priests were entirely excluded from all Ulster schools under Presbyterian management. Outside of Ulster, a bigoted Protestant clergyman, named Stopford, was able in 1847 to abrogate the rule compelling Catholic child in Protestant schools to leave when the hour for religious instruction arrived. This left it optional with the children to remain, and brought much suffering on poor Catholics at the hands of tyrannical and bigoted landlords. Among the Catholic bishops there was toleration rather than approval of the National system. But Dr. MacHale, who had become Archbishop of Tuam in 1834, opposed the system from the first, believing that education not founded on religion was a curse. He preferred to have in his diocese the Christian Brothers' schools in which religious instruction was given the premier place. Dr. Murray of Dublin and Dr. Crolly of Armagh were not so hostile, and, when the matter was referred to Rome in 1841, the reply was that the National system might be given a further trial. The "Stopford Rule" strengthened MacHale's hands, as did a board rule in 1845 providing that all schools even partially erected by a board grant should be vested in the Board itself, and not as hitherto in the local manager, who in Catholic schools was usually the priest. MacHale also objected to the disproportionately small representation of Catholics on the Board, to the character of the lesson-books, to the large number of non-Catholics in the higher positions. These attacks told. In 1850 the Synod of Thurles condemned the National schools as then conducted. In 1852 Dr. Murray of Dublin died, and was succeeded by Dr. Cullen, who shared MacHale's views. The following year Whately's lesson-books were withdrawn from the Board's lists, and Whately in consequence resigned his seat. In 1860 the board was enlarged from seven to twenty, and thenceforth half of these were to be Catholics. The "Stopford Rule" and the rule regarding the vesting of schools were abrogated, and, with the resident commissioner a Catholic, the system became more acceptable to Catholics. For the training of teachers however there was only one Training College under non-Catholic control, but the Catholics established the Training College at Drumcondra, and in 1883 that at Baggot Street, Dublin, and since then they have established others at Belfast, Limerick, and Waterford. But even as the National system stood in 1873, Mr. Gladstone thought that the Catholics had no substantial grievance, and did nothing. Nor did he interfere with the state of things in intermediate education, though the inequality which existed was glaring. The diocesan free schools of Elizabeth, maintained by county contributions, and the free schools of James I and those of Erasmus Smith, maintained by confiscated Catholic lands, were under Protestant management and as such generally shunned by Catholics. Further, the Protestants were the richer classes, and, though their Church had been disestablished, it had been but partially disendowed. The Dissenters also had wealth and had well-equipped schools. But the Catholics, long prohibited from having any schools, got no help from the state even when the pressure of penal legislation had been removed. They had, however, set manfully to work, and, partly by private donations, principally by collections, had established colleges all over the land. Carlow College was founded in 1793, Navan College in 1802, St. Jarlath's College, Tuam, in 1817, Clongowes by the Jesuits in 1814, and others in the years that followed. but they could get no state assistance till 1879, when the Intermediate Education Act was passed. The yearly interest on -L-1,000,000 was then appropriated for prizes and exhibitions to pupils, and for result fees to colleges, and without distinction of creed, following competitive examinations to be annually held. The system, depending so much on examination and encouraging cramming, is certainly not ideal, but is has been of enormous assistance to struggling Catholic schools. It was in the field of higher education that Catholics suffered most. In 1795 Maynooth College had been founded for the education of the clergy. Its annual Parliamentary grant had been lost in 1869, but it nevertheless continued to flourish, and flourishes still as one of the first ecclesiastical colleges in the world. There were other ecclesiastical colleges at Carlow, Thurles, Waterford, and Drumcondra. But the laity had only Trinity College or the Queen's Colleges. The former had first opened its doors to Catholics in 1793, but would give them no share in its emoluments, nor did it abolish religious tests till 1873. The Queen's Colleges, three in number, one at Galway, one at Cork, and one at Belfast, were constituent colleges of the Queen's University, and were meant by Peel to do for higher education what Stanley had done for the primary schools. But the Catholic bishops' demand to have some adequate provision made for religious teaching, some voice in the appointment and dismissal of professors, and separate chairs in history and philosophy, not been acceded to, the Queen's Colleges were denounced by Dr. MacHale as godless colleges, and condemned by Rome as intrinsically dangerous to faith and morals; and at the Synod of Thurles, in 1850, it was resolved on the advice of Rome to set up a Catholic University. The model given was the University of Louvain. A committee was then appointed, subscriptions received both from Ireland and from abroad, a site was purchased in Stephen's Green, Dublin, Dr. Newman was made first rector, professors and lecturers were appointed, and in 1854 work was begun. But there were difficulties from the first. The nation still felt the effects of the famine, the secondary schools were but imperfectly organized and unable to furnish sufficient students, and Dr. MacHale and Dr. Cullen did not agree. Dr. MacHale complained that the administration was too centralized, that he could get no details of the expenditure, that there were too many Englishmen among the professors. He objected also to Dr. Newman. Though the great Oratorian loved Ireland, he was an Englishman with English ideas, and wanted Oxford and Cambridge men as his colleagues. MacHale, on the contrary, would have the whole atmosphere of the University Irish, and thus, trained by Irish teachers, Irish students would go forth to exhibit the highest capabilities of the Irish character. Dr. Cullen did not fully share these views, and generally agreed with Newman. Not always, however, for he objected to have Newman appointed an Irish bishop, and he disliked Newman's excessive partiality for professors trained in the English universities. This want of harmony was not conducive to enthusiasm or efficiency, and the pecuniary contributions obtained left the various faculties woefully undermanned. Nor could nay provision be made for students' residence or for tutorial superintendence. Most fatal of all, the Government refused to give a charter, and students could not be expected to frequent a university where they could get no degree. Unable to succeed where the elements of failure were so many, Newman resigned in 1857. In 1866 the Government of Earl Russell granted a supplemental charter making the Catholic University a constituent college of the queen's University, a sort of fourth Queen's College, but the charter was found to be illegal. Nor did Lord Mayo's attempt to settle the university question in 1868 succeed, and thus the Catholic University struggled painfully on. Nor was Mr. Gladstone's Bill of 1873 satisfying. He proposed to abolish the Queen's University and the Queen's College, Galway, and to have Dublin University separated from Trinity College, but with Trinity College, the Queen's Colleges at Belfast and Cork, Magee College and the Catholic University as constituent colleges. From Trinity College -L-12,000 a year would be taken and given to the Dublin University, which would have in all an income of -L-50,000, for the payment of examiners and professors and the founding of fellowships, scholarships, and prizes to be competed for by students of all the constituent colleges. There was to be a senate, at first wholly nominated by the Crown and subsequently half and half by the Crown and Senate. The endowment of the Queen's Colleges would remain, though the Catholic University would get nothing; nor would there be in any of the colleges any endowment for chairs of history, theology, or philosophy. This was perpetuating the inferior position of the Catholic University, as it was perpetuating the endowment of the godless colleges, and it would be almost impossible for the Catholics ever to have their proper share of representation in the Senate. Finally, men asked what sort of university that was which had no chairs of history or philosophy. The Bill in fact satisfied nobody, and Mr. Gladstone being defeated resigned office. It will be convenient here to anticipate. In 1879 the Queen's University was abolished and the Royal University took its place, empowered to give degrees to all comers who passed its examinations. The Queen's Colleges were left. In 1882 the Catholic University passed under Jesuit control, and of the twenty-eight fellowships of -L-400 a year founded by the Royal University fourteen were given to the Catholic University staff. With this slender indirect endowment it entered the lists with the Queen's Colleges and beat them all. Subsequently there were two University commissions, one dealing with the Royal University, the other with Trinity College, but nothing was done. Finally, in 1908, Mr. Birrell passed his Irish Universities Act leaving Trinity College untouched. Abolishing the Royal University, the Act sets up two new universities, the Queen's University with the Queen's College at Belfast, and the National University at Dublin, with the Queen's Colleges at Cork and Galway and a new college at Dublin as constituent colleges. In these colleges there are new governing bodies, largely Catholic and National, but religious services of any kind are prohibited within the precincts, and there are no religious tests. This change has resulted in the Jesuits severing their connection with the Catholic University, the buildings of which have been taken over by the new Dublin college. To go back, when Mr. Gladstone was replaced by the Tories, in 1874, a new Irish party had been already formed demanding an Irish Parliament, with full power to deal with purely domestic matters. It was called the Home Rule party, Mr. Butt, a Protestant lawyer of great ability, being its chief. At the general election in 1874, sixty Home Rulers were returned. But Mr. Butt accomplished nothing. His own methods of conciliation and argument were not the most effective. His party, nominal Home Rulers, were mostly place-hunters, and except the Intermediate Education Act of 1878 there were no legislative results. Mr. Butts died in 1879, and for a brief period the Home Rule leader was Mr. Shaw; but after the general election of 1880 Mr. Shaw was deposed, and a younger and more vigorous leader was appointed in the person of Charles Stewart Parnell. There had been a serious failure of the potato crop in 1877 and 1878, but in 1879 there was only half the average yield. The landlords unable to get their rents began to evict, and it seemed as if the horrors of 1847 were to be renewed. Large relief funds were collected and disbursed by the Duchess of Marlborough, the viceroy's wife, and by the Lord Mayor of Dublin; and Mr. Parnell went to America in the last days of 1879 and appealed in person to the friends of Ireland. He was accompanied by Mr. John Dillon, son of Mr. Dillon, the rebel of 1848. Within two months they addressed meetings in sixty-two cities, bringing back with them to Ireland -L-40,000 ($200,000). Nor would Mr. Parnell have come back in March but that the Tory premier, Lord Beaconsfield, had dissolved Parliament. Appealing to the county on an anti-Irish cry, his answer came in a crushing defeat, and in the return of Mr. Gladstone to power with a strong Liberal majority. Of the Home Rulers returned many were mere Whigs, but a sufficient number favoured an active policy to depose Mr. Shaw and put Mr. Parnell in his place. In 1879 the Torries had followed up the Intermediate Act by the Royal University Act, which left the Queen's Colleges and Trinity College untouched, but set up the Royal University, a mere examining board. But they would do nothing to restrain the landlords and nothing effective to relieve Irish distress. Better was expected from the new Liberal Government which included, besides Mr. Gladstone, such men as Bright, Chamberlain, and Forster, the latter appointed chief secretary for Ireland. Yet the Liberals were slow to move, and not until evictions had swelled to thousands did they introduce the Compensation for Disturbance Bill. It was thrown out in the Lords and not reintroduced. But the Irish peasants were in no humour to acquiesce in their own destruction and already a great land agitation was shaking Ireland from sea to sea. Begun in Mayor by Mr. Michael Davitt, the son of a Mayo peasant, and favoured by the prevailing distress and by the heartlessness of the landlords, it rapidly spread. Mr. Parnell soon joined it, and in October, 1979, the Land League was formed, its declared object being to protect tenants from eviction and to substitute peasant proprietary for the existing system of landlorism. Extending to America, many branches were formed there and large subscriptions sent home. In November, 1879, an abortive prosecution of Mr. Davitt and others only strengthened the League. In the new year a Mayo land agent, Captain Boycott, roused the ire of his tenants by issuing processes and threatening evictions; in consequence no servant would remain with him, no labourer would work for him, no shopkeeper would deal with him, no neighbour would speak to him. This system of ostracism became known as boycotting, and was freely used by the League against landlords, agents, and grabbers, with the result that they were compelled to make terms with the people. Government was unable to aid the boycotted, and before the end of 1880 the law of the League had supplanted the law of the land. These events changed Mr. Forster in a coercionist. He prosecuted Mr. Parnell and thirteen others in November, 1880, but failed to convict them. Then he asked for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. Mr. Gladstone reluctantly acquiesced, and early in 1881, after a fierce struggle with the Irish members, the measure passed. In a short time nearly two hundred persons were in jail without trial. Mr. Gladstone next passed a comprehensive Land Act, setting up courts to fix rents, and giving increased facilities to tenants to purchase their holdings. But the Irish members, angered because of the Coercion Act, received the Land Act without gratitude; and Mr. Parnell advised the tenants not to rush to the land courts, but rather go there with a limited number of test cases. Mr. Gladstone retorted by imprisoning Mr. Parnell and his principal lieutenants. For the next few months terror reigned supreme. Mr. Forster filled the jails, broke up meetings, suppressed newspapers, and yet succeeded so ill in pacifying the country that he felt compelled to ask for more drastic coercion. Mr. Gladstone, however, had had enough of coercion, and in May, 1882, Lord Cowper, the viceroy, and Mr. Forster were relieved of office, and Mr. Parnell and his colleagues were set free; and by an arrangement often called the Kilmainham Treaty an Arrears' Bill was to be introduced, while Parnell on his side, was to curb the agitation and gradually re-establish the reign of law. On the evening of 6 May these happy changes were fatally marred by the murder in the Phoenix Park, Dublin, of the under-secretary, Mr. Burke, and of the new chief secretary, Lord Frederick Cavendish. The assassins, entirely unconnected with the Land League, belonged to a secret society called the Invincibles. Mr. Parnell was stunned, the Irish cause grievously injured, and in England there was a cry of rage. A new Coercion Act was passed and vigorously enforced, and during the remainder of Gladstone's parliament between the Irish and the Liberals there was bitter enmity. But meanwhile Parnell's power increased. In place of the suppressed land League the National League was established, and spread over the United Kingdom and America. Mr. Parnell, while opposing Mr. Dillon's project of a renewed land agitation and Mr. Davitt's scheme of land nationalization, was aided by the Fenians; and though English intrigue succeeded in obtaining a papal rescript condemning a testimonial that was being raised for him, its only effect was to increase the subscriptions. Being friendly with the Tories, he joined with them to defeat Mr. Gladstone in 1885, and for a brief period Lord Salisbury was premier. He governed without coercion, and passed the Ashbourne Act, which advanced -L-5,000,000 to Irish tenants for the purchase of their holdings. In return, Mr. Parnell advised the Irish electors in Great Britain to vote for the Tories at the general election in October, 1885. But the Liberals were given a majority over the Tories, though not sufficient to form a government without the Irish. On the understanding that Home Rule was to be conceded, Liberals and Irish coalesced, the Tories were turned out, and Gladstone because premier and brought in his Home Rule Bill of 1886, setting up an Irish Parliament with an executive dependent on it. Deserted by a large section of his followers under Bright, Chamberlain, and Hartington, he was defeated, and going to the country was seriously defeated at the polls. In August Lord Salisbury was again in office at the head of the Tories and Liberal Unionists, and in overwhelming strength. The rejection of Mr. Parnell's Bill of 1886 providing for the admission of leasholders to the benefits of the Land Act of 1881, and for a revision of judicial rents to meet the recent heavy fall in prices, led to the starting of the Plan of Campaign by Messers. Dillon and O'Brien. The tenant was to offer his landlord a fair rent; and if it was refused he banked the money and fought the landlord, and was assisted by his fellow tenants throughout the land. The Plan was not approved or by Mr. Parnell, and it had the unfortunate effect of placing the perpetual Coercion Act of 1887 on the Statute Book. But it caused the Government to pass the very measure they had so lately rejected, and it compelled many of the poorer landlords to make terms with the tenants. While on the one hand the Plan was thus put in operation in Ireland, and on the other hand the Coercion Act, the Liberals and Irish worked well together in Parliament and on British platforms, the London "Times", always the bitter enemy of Ireland, became enraged, and in its anxiety to do harm published a series of articles on Parnellism and Crime. It relied, as it pretended, on authentic documents which connected Parnell and his colleagues with crime, and showed that Parnell himself condoned the Phoenix Park murders. A Special Commission appointed by Parliament discovered that the chief letters were forgeries and that the "Times" had been fooled by a disreputable Irishman named Richard Pigott. The forger confessed his crime and then committed suicide, and Parnell became the hero of the hour. When the Special Commission issued its report, early in 1890, the tide had turned with a vengeance against the Tories. Their majority was then seriously diminished, and when the general election came it was certain that nothing could prevent the triumph of Home Rule. In the midst of these bright hopes for Ireland there came the mournful wail of the banshee, and, even before the Special Commission report was issued, Captain O'Shea had filed a petition for divorce on the ground of his wife's adultery with Mr. Parnell. There was no defence, and could be none, and the decree was issued, Mr. Gladstone evidently expected that Mr. Parnell would have retired from the leadership, and, finding that he did not, intimated that his continuance in that position would wreck Home Rule. The Irish party which had re-elected Mr. Parnell were not prepared to go so far, and, as he would not retire even for a day, they deposed him. A minority still supported him, and at the head of these he appealed to the Irish people. Week after week he attended meetings and made speeches. But his health, already bad, could not stand the strain; the stubborn and reckless fight ended in his collapse, and at Brighton, on the 6th of October, 1891, the greatest Irish leader since O'Connell breathed his last. In the years that followed faction was lord of all. At the general election in 1892 the Parnellite members were reduced to nine, while the anti-Parnellites were seventy-two, and at the election in 1895 there was no material change. To argument and entreaty the minority refused to listen, and though the anti-Parnellite leaders, Mr. MacCarthy and Mr. Dillon, were ready to make any sacrifice for unity and peace, their opponents rejected all overtures; and under the shelter of Parnell's name they continued to shout Parnell's battle-cries. At last patriotism triumphed over faction, and in 1900 Mr. John Redmond, the Parnellite leader, was elected chairman of the reunited Irish party. Much had been lost during these years of discord in unity and strength, in national dignity and self-reliance. To faction it was due that the Liberal victory of 1892 was not more sweeping; that, in consequence, the Home Rule Bill of 1893 was rejected by the Lords; and that, in 1894, Mr. Gladstone retired, baffled and beaten, from the struggle. At the elections of 1895 and 1900 the Tories were victorious, and during their long term of power the Coercion Act was frequently enforced. But there were concessions also. In 1890, Mr. Balfour's Land Act provided -L-33,000,000 for Irish land purchase, and in 1891 the Congested Districts Board was established. In 1896, there was an amending Land Act; and in 1898, the Local Government Act transferred the government of counties and rural districts from the non-representative Grand Juries to popularly elected bodies. A further important Act was that of Mr. Wyndham, in 1903, providing more than -L-100,000,000 for the buying out of the whole landlord class. Mr. Wyndham also favoured a policy of devolution, that is a delegation to local bodies of larger powers. But nothing was done till the Liberals came into office in 1906, and they had nothing more generous to offer than Mr. Birrell's National Councils Bill, a measure so halting and meagre, that an Irish National Convention rejected it with scorn. Mr. Birrell has been more fortunate in his University Bill, which, though not establishing a purely Catholic University, provides one in which Catholic influences will predominate. In recent years also the programmes both in the national and secondary schools have been made more practical, facilities have been given for agricultural and technical education, and the great ecclesiastical college of Maynooth continues to maintain its reputation as the first ecclesiastical college in the world. RELATIONS BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE By the Catholic Relief Act of 1829 legal proscription ceased for the Catholic Church, as did legal ascendancy for the Protestant Church by Mr. Gladstone's Act of 1869. In practice, however, Protestant ascendancy largely remains still. Only within living memory was the first Catholic lord chancellor appointed in the person of Lord O'Hagan; Catholics are still excluded, except in rare instances, from the higher civil and military offices; and from the lord-lieutenancy they continue to be excluded by law. ECCLESIASTICAL ORGANIZATION The Catholic Church, divided into four provinces, not, however, corresponding with the civil divisions, is ruled by four archbishops and twenty-three bishops. But the number of dioceses is more than twenty-seven, for there have been amalgamations and absorptions. Cashel, for instance, has been joined with Emly, Waterford with Lismore, Kildare with Leighlin, Down with Connor, Ardagh with Clonmacnoise, Kilmacduagh with Galway, the bishop of Galway being also Apostolic Administrator of Kilfenora. In many dioceses there are chapters, in others none. The number of parishes is 1087. A few are governed by administrators, the remainder by parish priests, while the total number of the secular clergy--parish priests, administrators, curates, chaplains, and professors in colleges--amounts to 2967. There are also many houses of the regular clergy: Augustinians, Capuchins, Carmelites, Fathers of the Holy Ghost, Dominicans, Franciscans, Jesuits, Marists, Order of Charity, Oblates, Passionists, Redemptorists, and Vincentians. The total number of the regular clergy is 666. They are engaged either in teaching or in giving missions, but not charged with the government of parishes. There is, however, one exception--that of the Passionists of Belfast, who have charge of the parish of Holy Cross in the city. There are the two Cistercian abbeys of Mount Melleray and Roscrea, each ruled by a mitred abbot, and having forty-three professed priests. STATISTIC The population of Ireland has been steadily diminishing. In 1861, it was 5,798,564; in 1871, 5,412,377; in 1881, 5,174,836; in 1891, 4,704,751; in 1901, 4,458,775. The decrease is due to emigration, and as the great majority of the emigrants are Catholics, the Catholic population has suffered most. In 1861, it numbered 4,505,265; in 1871, 4,150,867; in 1881, 3,960,891; in 1891, 3,547,307; in 1901, 3,310,028. In the period from 1851 to 1901 the total number of emigrants, being natives of Ireland, who left Irish ports was 3,846,393. No less than 89 per cent went to the United States, the remainder going to Great Britain, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. The saddest feature of this exodus is that 82 per cent of the emigrants were between 15 and 35 years of age. The healthy and enterprising have gone, leaving the weaker in mind and body at home, one result being that the number of lunatics increased from 16,505 in 1871 to 21,188 in 1891. In the latter year the total number of primary schools was 9157, of which 8569 were under the National Board, 97 under the Christian Brothers and other communities, and 471 other primary schools. In 1908 the total number of National Board schools was 8538 under 3057 managers, of whom 2455 were clerical and 602 laymen. Of the clerical managers 1307 were Catholics, 713 were Protestant Episcopalians, 379 Presbyterians, 52 Methodists, and 4 unclassed. In 1901 the number of pupils in all the primary schools was 636,777, of whom 471,910 were Catholics. There has been a steady improvement in the matter of illiteracy. In 1841 the percentage of those above five years who could neither read not write was 53; in 1901 it had fallen to 14. Of the whole population 14 per cent could speak Irish. In 1901 there were 35,373 pupils in the Intermediate schools, the number of Catholics being 78 per cent of the total Catholic population. The Catholic girls in these schools were for the most part educated in the various convents. The boys were educated in the diocesan colleges, or in the colleges of the religious orders, and a proportion also in the Christian Brothers' schools. "In Colleges of Universities and other Colleges", in 1901, there were 3192 students, of whom 91 were females. The highest form of ecclesiastical education is obtained at Maynooth, other such colleges being All Hallows and Clonliffe in Dublin, Thurles, Waterford, and Carlow colleges. CHURCH PROPERTY, CHURCHES, SCHOOLS, CEMETERIES Church property is usually held in trust by the parish priest for the parish, the bishop for the diocese, the religious superior for his order, and often associated with other trustees. In many cases the title-deeds have been lost, but undisputed possession is considered sufficient, and the parish-priest or other superior for the time being is recognized as the legal owner of the church, church grounds, and cemetery, if there be such. New churches are built on land purchase out, or acquired free of rent or under very long lease, and church and ground are exempt from taxation. New cemeteries belong to the District Council, and many of the older cemeteries have been taken over by the same authority. Schools under the National Board are either vested or non-vested. If vested, they are held by trustees--usually the priest, who is manager, and two others--and in this case only two-thirds of the cost of building is granted by Government. In the case of non-vested schools, which are the property of the National Board itself, the full amount for building is granted by Government, and the school is also kept in repair, while in vested schools repairs have to be made by the manager. Both in vested and non-vested schools the National Board regulates the programme, selects the school books, and provides for the cost of examination and inspection. The appointment and dismissal of teachers rests with the manager, from whom in the Catholic schools there is an appeal to the bishop. All these are exempted from taxation. Clergymen of all denominations get loans from Government on easy terms to build residences. These houses, however, are not exempt from taxation, and belong to the clergyman and his successors, not to himself personally. PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS Prisons are under government management, and always have a Catholic chaplain, when there are Catholic inmates. So also have workhouses, asylums, and county hospital, which are under the local authority. Reformatories and industrial schools in the great majority of cases are under Catholic management, but they must be certified as suitable by a government official and are subject to government inspection from time to time. In 1900 there were in Ireland six reformatories and seventy industrial schools; the number of both sexes in the former being 624 and in the latter 8221. Both reformatories and industrial schools are maintained partly by a government grant and partly by the local rates. LEGAL STATUS OF THE CLERGY The clergy have, with some few exceptions, the usual rights of citizens. They can receive and dispose of property by will as all others, and they can vote at elections. But they are excluded by law from the House of Commons, though not from the House of Lords; and they are excluded from the County and District Councils, though not from the various committees appointed by these bodies. They are exempt from military service and from serving on juries. Public worship is free; but priests may not celebrate the Mass outside the churches or private houses, nor appear publicly in their vestments, nor have religious processions through the streets; nor many the regular clergy go abroad in the distinctive dress of their order. These laws, however, are not enforced and not infrequently processions do take place through the streets, and the regular clergy do go abroad in their distinctive dress. Similarly, it is illegal for religious orders of men to admit new members; but this provision of the Catholic Relief Act of 1829 has never been enforced. LAWS RELATING TO CHARITABLE BEQUESTS, MARRIAGE, DIVORCE Generally speaking, all bequests for the advancement of public worship are valid; but bequests for superstitious uses are void. A bequest, for instance, to maintain a light before an image for the good of one's soul is void; but the bequests for Masses are good, unless left to a member of a religious order as such, the reason being that religious orders are still technically illegal. For the validity of a will nothing is required but that the testor be of sound mind at the time, and free from undue influence, and that the document be signed by two witnesses. As to marriage, it is necessary that the contracting parties should be free, and that the mutual consent be given in the presence of two witnesses and a clergyman, or registrar duly appointed for the purpose. In the Irish courts no marriage can be dissolved; only a judicial separation can be obtained. When such a separation is obtained there is no difficulty in having a Bill passed through Parliament dissolving the marriage. THE PRESS There is no purely Catholic newspaper acting as the mouthpiece either of an individual diocese or of the Irish Church. There are, however, in most of the provincial towns weekly newspapers, often owned by Catholics, and always ready to voice Catholic opinion. In Cork and Belfast there are daily papers animated with the same spirit, and in Dublin the "Freeman's Journal" and the "Daily Independent". In Dublin also is the "Irish Catholic", which is a powerful champion of Catholicity; and there is the "Leader", not professedly Catholic, but with a vigorous and manly Catholic tone. These two are weeklies. Published monthly are the "Irish Monthly" under the Jesuits, the "Irish Rosary" under the Dominicans, the "Irish Educational Review", dealing with Catholic educational matters, and the "Irish Ecclesiastical Record", edited by Dr. Hogan of Maynooth, under episcopal supervision. There is also the "Irish Theological Quarterly", which, as its name implies, is published quarterly, and conducted by the professors of Maynooth College with an ability, an extent of knowledge, a grasp of the subjects treated, and a vigour and freshness of style worthy of Maynooth College in its palmiest days. Annals of the Four Masters (Dublin, 1856); Annals of Ulster (Dublin, 1887); Annals of Loch Ce (London, 1871); Annals of Clonmacnoise (Dublin, 1896); LELAND, History of Ireland (London, 1773); JOYCE, Short History of Ireland (London, 1893); KEATING, History of Ireland (Dublin, 1859); HAVERTY, History of Ireland (Dublin, 1860); FERGUSON, The Irish before the Conquest (London, 1868); RICHEY, Lectures on Irish History (London, 1860); HYDE, Literary History of Ireland (London, 1899); D'ALTON, History of Ireland (London, 1906). FOR THE PAGAN AND EARLY CHRISTIAN PERIODS:--Senchus Mor (Dublin, 1865-1901); O'CURRY, Manners and Customs of the Ancient Irish (Dublin, 1873); IDEM, MSS. Materials of Ancient Irish History (Dublin, 1861); JOYCE, Social History of Ancient Ireland (London, 1903); JUBAINVILLE, The Irish Mythological Cycle (Dublin, 1903); WARE, Works, ed. HARRIS (Dublin, 1739-64); O'DONOVAN, Book of Rights (Dublin, 1847); WALKER, History of the Irish Bards (Dublin, 1786); STOKES, Tripartite Life of St. Patrick (London, 1887); LANIGAN, Ecclesiastical Hist. of Ireland (Dublin, 1822); HEALY, Ancient Schools and Scholars (Dublin, 1896); IDEM, Life and Writings of St. Patrick (Dublin, 1905); BURY, St. Patrick and his Place in History (London, 1905); MORRIS, St. Patrick, Apostle of Ireland (London, 1890); ZIMMER, Celtic Church (London, 1902); MORAN, Essays on the Early Irish Church (Dublin, 1864); W. STOKES, Ireland and the Celtic Church (London, 1892); IDEM, Lives of the Saints from the Book of Lismore (London, 1890); IDEM, The Felire of Aengus (Dublin, 1880); USHER, Works (Dublin, 1847); OLDEN, Church of Ireland (London, 1892); ADAMNAN, Life of St. Columba (Dublin, 1857); ARCHDALL, Monasticon Hibernicum (Dublin, 1873); REEVES, The Culdees (Dublin, 1864); PETRIE, Round Towers (Dublin, 1845); O'FLAHERTY, Ogygia (Dublin, 1793); HALLIDAY, Scandinavian Kingdom of Dublin (Dublin, 1882); WORSAE, The Danes in England, Scotland and Ireland (London, 1852); TODD, Wars of the Gael and Gall (London, 1867); DASENT, Burnt Njal (Edinburgh, 1861); O'HANLON, Life of St. Malachy (Dublin, 1859); see also (in Migne's Patrologia) the works of ALCUIN, BEDE, ST. BERNARD, COGITOSUS, ST. COLUMBANUS, DONATUS, DUNGAL, ST. GALL, MARIANUS, SCOTUS, SCOTUS ERIUGENA; and for incidental references in the earlier part, the works of HERODOTUS, PLINY, STRABO, CAESAR, TACITUS, CLAUDIAN, and GIBBON. FOR THE PLANTAGENET AND TUDOR PERIODS:--SWEETMAN, Calendars of State Papers; GIRALDUS CAMBRENSIS, Work (London, 1861-91); LYNCH, Cambrensis Eversus (Dublin, 1855); MISS STOKES, Early Christian Art in Ireland (London, 1887); ORPEN, The Lay of Dermot and the Earl (London, 1892); THIERRY, Norman Conquest (Bohn Series); MALONE, Adian IV and Ireland (Dublin, 1899); GINNELL, The Doubtful Grant of Ireland (Dublin, 1899); GOSSELIN, Power of the Popes in the Middle Ages (London, 1853); KING, Church History of Ireland (Dublin, 1898); GILBERT, Viceroys of Ireland (Dublin, 1865); O'CONNOR DON, The O'Connors of Connaught (Dublin, 1891); WARE, Annals (Dublin, 1704); GILBERT, Historic and Municipal Documents (Dublin, 1870); COX, Hibernia Anglicana (London, 1689); Ancient Irish Histories (Dublin, 1809); LINGARD, History of England; O'FLAHERTY, Iar Connaught (Dublin, 1846); ORDERICUS VITALIS, History of England and Normandy (Bohn); STOKES, Ireland and the Anglo-Norman Church (London, 1897); MANT, History of the Church of Ireland (London, 1841); CLYNN AND DOWLING, Annals (Dublin, 1849); COLTON, Visitation Statute of Kilkenny (Dublin, 1843); DAVIES, Historical Tracts (London, 1786); MEEHAN, History of the Geraldines (Dublin, 1878); HARRIS, Hibernica (Dublin, 1770); FROISSART, Chronicle (London, 1895); Correspondence relating to Ireland (reign of Henry VIII), Hamilton's Calendars of State Papers (1509-1600); Carew Papers (1509-1624); BAGWELL, Ireland under the Tudors (London, 1885-90); GREEN, Short History of the English People (London, 1878); GASQUET, Edward VI and the Book of Common Prayer (London, 1891); IDEM, Henry VIII and the English Monasteries (London, 1899); Harleian Miscellany (London, 1808-13); D'ALTON, Archbishops of Dublin (Dublin, 1838); MORAN, Archbishops of Dublin (Dublin, 1864); MORRIN, Calendar of the Patent Rolls (Dublin, 1861); CAMDEN, Annals (London, 1635); FROUDE, History of England (London, 1898); O'SULLIVAN, Catholic History of Ireland (Eng. tr. Dublin, 1903); CARTE, Life of Ormond (London, 1736); HOLINSHED, Chronicle (London, 1574); O'CLERY, Life of Red Hugh O'Donnell (Dublin, 1893); FYNES MORYSON, Irish Wars (London, 1617); CUELLAR, Narrative (London, 1897); MACGEOGHEGAN, History of Ireland (Dublin, 1844); HOGAN, Ireland in 1598 (Dublin, 1878); Pacata Hibernia (London, 1896). FOR THE STUART PERIOD:--RUSSELL AND PRENDERGAST, Calendars (1603-25); GARDINER, History of England (1844); Stuart Tracts (London, 1903); MEEHAN, Earls of Tyrone and Tyroconnell (Dublin, date uncertain); HILL, Plantation of Ulster (Belfast, 1877); STRAFFORD, Letters (London, 1739); BELLING, History of the Irish Confederation (Dublin, 1882); HICKSON, Ireland in the 17th Century (London, 1884); CLANRICARDE, Memoirs (Dublin, 1744); MAHAFFY, Calendars of State Papers (625-60); PRENDERGAST, Cromwellian Settlement (London, 1870); TEMPLE, History of the Irish Rebellion (Dublin, 1724); WARNER, History of the Rebellion (London, 1767); CLARENDON, History of the Rebellion (London, 1720); PETTY, Tracts (Dublin, 1769); CASTLEHAVEN, Memoirs (Dublin, 1815); GILBERT, Contemporary History (1641-52), (Dublin, 1879); RINUCCINI, Letters (Dublin, 1873); MURPHY, Cromwell in Ireland (Dublin, 1897); MORLEY, Cromwell (London, 1900); GARDINER, Cromwell (London, 1897); IDEM, History of the Commonwealth (London, 1894-1901); Cromwell's Letters and Speeches (London, 1846); D'ALTON, History of Drogheda (Dublin, 1844); LENIHAN, History of Limerick (Dublin, 1866); RANKE, History of England in the 17th Century (Clarendon Press); The Down Survey (Dublin, 1851); MORAN, Persecutions under the Puritans (Callan, 1903); IDEM, Life of Oliver Plunkett (Dublin, 1870); MOUNTMORRES, Irish Parliament 1634-66 (London, 1792); Diaries of PEPYS and EVELYN; WALSH, Irish Remonstrance; CLARKE, James II (London, 1816); MACAULAY, History of England; SOMERS, Tracts; Jacobite Narrative of the War in Ireland (Dublin, 1892); Macariae Excidium (Dublin, 1851); STORY, Impartial History (London, 1691); STORY, Continuation of the War (London, 1693); Diary of Dean Davies (Camden Society); BELLINGHAM, Diary; The Rawdon Papers (London, 1819); MURPHY, Our Martyrs (Dublin, 1896); MEEHAN, Franciscan Monasteries of the 17th Century (Dublin, --); HOGAN, Hibernia Ignatiana (Dublin, 1880); MASON, Parliaments in Ireland (Dublin, 1891); PRENDERGAST, Ireland from 1660 to 1685 (London, 1887); KING, State of the Irish Protestants (Cork, 1768); COLGAN, Trias Thaumaturga (Louvain, 1647); Calendars of the Stuart Papers at Windsor; SCULLY, Penal Laws (Dublin, 1812). FOR THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY:--FROUDE, English in Ireland (London, 1895); LECKY, History of Ireland in the 18th Century (London, 1902); YOUNG, Tour in Ireland (London, 1892); SWIFT, Prose Works (London, 1905); BERKELEY, Works (Clarendon Press, 1871); O'CALLAGHAN, Irish Brigade in the Service of France; D'ALTON, King James's Army List (Dublin, 1855); SWIFT MACNEILL, The Irish Parliament (London, 1888); MOLYNEUX, Ireland's Case Stated (Dublin, 1698); LECKY, Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland; DELANEY, Autobiography (London, 1861); Charlemont Papers and HARDY, Lord Charlemont (London, 1810); BARRINGTON, Rise and Fall of the Irish Nation (Dublin, 1853); IDEM, Personal Sketches (London, 1827); GRATTAN, Speeches (London, 1822); Journals of the Irish House of Commons; Irish Parliamentary Debates (1781-97); BALL, Irish Legislative Systems (London, 1888); PLOWDEN, Historical Review (London, 1803); MOORE, Lord Edward Fitzgerald (London, 1897); WOLFE TONE, Autobiography (London, 1893); MADDEN, United Irishmen (Dublin, 1857); Secret Service under Pitt (London, 1892); HAY, History of the Rebellion, also the Histories of TELLING, CLONEY, GORDON, KAVANAGH, and MAXWELL; FITZPATRICK, Sham Squire (Dublin, 1895); IDEM, Ireland before the Union (Dublin, 1880); SEWARD, Collectanea Hibernica (Dublin, 1812); GRATTAN, Life and Times of Henry Grattan (London, 1839); MACNEVIN, Pieces of Irish History (New York, 1807); HOUT, Memoirs (London, 1838); Cornwallis Correspondence (London, 1859); GUILLON, La France et l'Irlande (Paris, 1888); STANHOPE, Pitt (London, 1861); ASHBOURNE, Pitt (London, 1898); COOTE, History of the Union (London, 1802); Castlereagh Correspondence (London, 1848). PERIOD SINCE THE UNION:--MITCHELL, History of Ireland (Glasgow, 1869); MACDONAGH, The Viceroy's Postbag (London, 1904); Lord Sidmouth's Life (London, 1847); COLCHESTER, Diary (London, 1861); CANNING, Correspondence (London, 1887); PLOWDEN, History, 1800-10 (Dublin, 1811); DUNLOP, Daniel O'Connell (London, 1900); MACDONAGH, Daniel O'Connell London, 1903); O'Connell's Correspondence (London, 1888); FITZPARTICK, Dr. Doyle (Dublin, 1880); DOYLE, Letters on the State of Ireland (Dublin, 1826); PEEL, Memoirs (London, 1856); CLONCURRY, Recollections (London, 1849); WYSE, History of the Catholic Association (London, 1829); SHEIL, Speeches (London, 1845); IDEM, Sketches (London, 1855); The Annual Register; O'BRIEN, Life of Drummond (London, 1889); JOHN O'CONNELL, Recollections (London, 1849); Halliday Pamphlets; O'RORKE, Irish Famine (Dublin, 1902); O'BRIEN, Fifty Years of Concessions to Ireland (London, 1885); O'CONNOR, The Parnell Movement (London, 1887); A. M. SULLIVAN, New Ireland; GREVILLE, Memoirs (London, 1888); Hansard's Parliamentary Reports; LUCAS, Life of F. Lucas (London, 1886); DUFFY, The League of North and South (London, 1886); IDEM, Four Years of Irish History (London, 1883); IDEM, Young Ireland (London, 1880); Devon Commission Report (Dublin, 1847); CARLISLE, Speeches (Dublin, 1865); O'LEARY, Fenians and Fenianism (London, 1896); BUTT, Land Tenure in Ireland (Dublin, 1866); MORLEY, Life of Gladstone (London, 1905); BARRY O'BRIEN, Life of Parnell (London, 1899); REID, Life of Foster (London, 1888); DAVITT, Fall of Feudalism in Ireland (London, 1904); PLUNKETT, Ireland in the New Century (London, 1904); O'RIORDAN, Catholicity and Progress in Ireland (London, 1905); MACCAFFREY, History of the Church in the Nineteenth Century (2 vols., Dublin, 1909); O'DEA, Maynooth and the University Question (Dublin, 1903). For Statistics see Thom's Directories and The Irish Catholic Directory. E.A. D'ALTON Irish Literature Irish Literature It is uncertain at what period and in what manner the Irish discovered the use of letters. It may have been through direct commerce with Gaul, but it is more probable, as McNeill has shown in his study of Irish oghams, that it was from the Romanized Britons that they first learned the art of writing. The Italian alphabet, however, was not the first to be employed in Ireland. Whoever the early Irish may have been who first discovered letters, whether from intercourse with Britain or with Gaul, they did not apparently bring either the Latin or the Greek alphabet back with them to Ireland, but they invented an entirely new one of their own, founded with considerable skill upon the Latin; this was used in very early times by the Irish Celts for inscriptions upon pillars and gravestones. This ogham script, as it is called, consists of lines, straight or slanting, long or short, drawn either over, under, or through a given straight line, which straight line is in lapidary inscriptions usually formed by the angular edge of a rectangular upright stone. Thus, four cuts to the right of the line stand for S, to the left of the line they mean C, and if they pass through the line they mean E. None of even the oldest Irish manuscripts preserved to us is anything like as ancient as these lapidary inscriptions. The language of the ogham stones is in fact centuries older than that of the very oldest vellums, and agrees to a large extent to what has been found of the old Gaulish linguistic monuments. Early Irish literature and the sagas relating to the pre-Christian period of Irish history abound with references to ogham writing, which was almost certainly of pagan origin, and which continued to be employed up to the Christianization of the island. It was eventually superseded by the Roman letters which were introduced by the Church and must have been propagated with all the prestige of the new religion behind them; but isolated ogham inscriptions exist on grave stones erected as late as the year 600. When the script was introduced into Ireland is uncertain, but it was probably about the second century. Although it answered well, indeed better than the rounded Roman letters, for lapidary inscriptions, yet it was too cumbrous an invention for the facile creation of a literature, though a professional poet may well have carried about with him on his "tablet-staves", as the manuscripts call them, the catchwords of many poems, sagas and genealogies. Over a couple of hundred inscribed ogham stones still exist, mostly in the south-west of Ireland, but they are to be found sporadically wherever the Irish Celt planted his colonies in Scotland, Wales, Devonshire, and even further East. Earliest Manuscripts. The earliest existing examples of the written Irish language as preserved in manuscripts do not go back farther than the eighth century; they are chiefly found in Scriptural glosses written between the lines or on the margins of religious works in Latin, preserved on the Continent, wither they were carried by early Irish missionaries in the numerous monasteries which they founded in Switzerland, Germany, France, and Italy. The oldest piece of consecutive Irish preserved in Ireland is found in the "Book of Armaugh", written about the year 812. These early glosses, though of little except philological interest yet show the wide learning of the commentators and the extraordinary development, even at that early period, of the language in which they wrote. Their language and style, says Kuno Meyer, stand on a high level in comparison with those of the Old High German glosses. "We find here", he writes, "a fully-formed learned prose style which allows even the finest shades of thought to be easily and perfectly expressed, from which we must conclude that there must have been a long previous culture [of the language] going back at the very least to the beginning of the sixth century" (Kultur der Gegenwart, part I, section xi, p. 80). These glosses are to be found at Wertzburg, St. Gall, Karlsruhe, Milan, Turin, St. Paul in Carinthia, and elsewhere. The "Liber Hymnorum" and the "Stowe Missal" are, after the glosses and the "Book of Armaugh" perhaps the most ancient manuscripts in which Irish is written. They date from about the year 900 to 1050. The oldest books of miscellaneous literature are the "Leabhar na h-Uidhre", or "Book of the Dun Cow", transcribed about the year 1100, and the "Book of Leinster", which dates from about fifty years later. Both these books are great miscellaneous literary collections. After them come many valuable vellums. The date at which these manuscripts were penned is no criterion of the date at which their contents were first written, for many of them contain literature which, from the ancient forms of words and other indications, must have been committed to writing as early as the seventh century at least. We cannot carry these pieces farther back linguistically, but it is evident from their contents that many of them must have been handed down orally for centuries before they were committed to writing. It must also be noted that a seventeenth century manuscript may sometimes give a more correct version of a seventh-century piece than a vellum many centuries older. Early Christian Scholars in Ireland. It happens that Ireland's first great saint is also the first person of whom it can be said without hesitation that some at least of the writings ascribed to him are really his. We actually possess a manuscript (Book of Armaugh) 1100 years old, containing his "Confession" or apology. There is no reason, however, for supposing that it was with St. Patrick that a knowledge of the Roman alphabet was first brought to Ireland. Before his arrival there were Christians in Munster. At the beginning of the third century there were British missionaries at work, according to Zimmer, in the southern province of the island. Bede says distinctly that Paladius was sent from Rome to the Irish who already believed in Christ "ad Scottos in christum credentes" (Eccl. Hist., bk. I, xiii). Pelagius, the subtle heresiarch who taught with such success at Rome, and who acquired great influence there, was of Irish descent. "Habet", says St. Jerome, "progenium Scotticae gentis de Brittanorum vicinia" (P.L., XXIV, 682, 758). He came probably from those Irish who had settled in Wales and South Britain. His friend and teacher Celestius is said by some to have been an Irishman also, but this is doubtful. Sedulius, however (Irish Siadal, now Shiel in English), the author of the "Carmen Paschale", who flourished in the first half of the fifth century, and who has been called the Virgil of theological poetry, was almost certainly an Irishman. Indeed the Irish geographer Dicuil in the eighth century calls him noster Sedulius, all of which shows that some Irish families at least were within the reach of a cosmopolitan literary education in the fourth and fifth centuries and that they were quick to grasp it. Existing Manuscript Literature. Although so many scholars have during the last fifty years given themselves up to Celtic studies, it remains true that the time has not yet come, nor can it come for many years when it will be possible to take anything like an accurate survey of the whole field of Irish literature. Enormous numbers of important MSS. still remain unedited; many gaps occur in the literature which have never been filled up, unless perhaps here and there by some short piece in a learned magazine; of many periods we know little or nothing. There are poets known to us at present practically only by name, whose work lies waiting to be unearthed and edited, and so vast is the field and so enormous the quantity of matter to be dealt with that there is room for an entire army of workers, and until much more pioneer work has been done, and further researches made in Irish grammar, prosody, and lexicography, it will be impossible to reduce the great mass of material into order, and to date it with anything like certainty. The exact number of Irish manuscripts still existing has never been accurately determined. The number in the Royal Irish Academy, Dublin, alone is enormous, probably amounting to some fifteen hundred. O'Curry, O'Longan, and O'Beirne catalogued a little more than half the manuscripts in the Academy, and the catalogue filled thirteen volumes containing 3448 pages; to these an alphabetic index of the pieces contained was made in three volumes, and an index of the principle names, etc. in thirteen volumes more. From an examination of these books one may roughly calculate that the pieces catalogued would number about eight or ten thousand, varying from long epic sagas to single quatrains or stanzas, and yet there remains a great deal more to be indexed, a work which after a delay of very many years is happily now at last in process of accomplishment. The library of Trinity College, Dublin, also contains a great number of valuable manuscripts of all ages, many of them vellums, probably about 160. The British Museum, the Bodeian Library at Oxford, the Advocates Library in Edinburgh, and the Bibliotheque Royale in Brussels are all repositories of a large number of valuable manuscripts. Contents of the Manuscripts. From what we know of the contents of the existing manuscripts we may set down as follows a rough classification of the literature contained in them. We may well begin with the ancient epics dating substantially from pagan times, probably first reduced to writing in the seventh century or even earlier. These epics are generally shot through with verses of poetry and often with whole poems, just as in the case of the French chantefable, "Aucassin et Nicollet". After the substantially pagan efforts may come the early Christian literature, especially the lives of the saints, which are both numerous and valuable, visions, homilies, commentaries on the Scriptures, monastic rules, prayers, hymns, and all possible kinds of religious and didactic poetry. After these we may place the many ancient annals, and there exists besides a great mass of genealogical books, tribal histories, and semi-historical romances. After this may come the bardic poetry of Ireland, the poetry of the hereditary poets attached to the great Gaelic families and the provincial kings, from the ninth century down to the seventeenth. Then follow the Brehon laws and other legal treaties, and an enormous quantity of writings on Irish and Latin grammar, glossaries of words, metrical tracts, astronomical, geographical, and medical works. Nor is there any lack of free translations from classical and medieval literature, such a Lucam's "Bellum Civile", Bede's "Historica Ecclesiastica", Mandeville's "Travels", Arthurian romances and the like. Finally there exists a rich poetical literature of the last three centuries, and certain prose works such as Keating's invaluable history of Ireland, with great quantities of keenes, hymns, love-songs, ranns, bacchanalian, Jacobite, poetical, and descriptive verses, of which thousands have still to be found, although an enormous number have perished. To this catalogue may perhaps be added the unwritten folk-lore of the island both in prose and verse which has only lately begun to be collected, but of which considerable collections have already been made. Such, then, is a brief and bald resume of what the student will find before him in the Irish language. There may be observed in this list two remarkable omissions. There is no epic handed down entirely in verse, and there is no dramatic literature. The Irish epic is in prose, though it is generally interwoven with numerous poems, for though many epopees exist in rhyme, such as some of the Ossianic poems, they are of modern date, and none of the great and ancient epics we constructed in this way. The absence of the drama, however, is more curious still. Highly cultivated as Irish literature undoubtedly was, and excellent scholars both in Greek and Latin as the early Irish were, nevertheless they do not seem to have produced even a miracle play. It has been alleged that some of the Ossianic poems, especially those containing a semi-humorous, semi-serious dialogue between the last of the great pagans, the poet Oisin (Ossian he is called in Scotland), and the first of the great Christian leaders, St. Patrick, were originally intended to be acted, or at least recited, by different people. If this be really so, then the Irish had at least the rudiments of a drama, but they never appear to have carried it beyond these rudiments, and the absence of all real dramatic attempt, however it may be accounted for, is one of the first things that is likely to strike with astonishment the student of comparative literature. Early Irish Epic or Saga. During the golden period of the Greek and Roman genius no one thought of writing a prose epic or a saga. Verse epics they left behind them, and history, but the saga of the Northmen, the sgeul or ursgeul of the Gael, was unknown to them. It was only in a time of decadence that a body of Greek prose romance appeared, and the Latin language produced in this line little of a higher character that the "Golden Ass" or the "Gesta Romanorum". In Ireland, on the other hand, the prose epic or saga developed to an abnormal degree, and kept on developing, to some extent at least, for well over a thousand years. It is probable that very many sagas existed before the coming of Christianity, but it is highly improbable that any of them were written down in full length. It was no doubt only after the full Christianization of the island, when it abounded in schools of learning, that the Irish experienced the desire to write down their primitive prose epics and as much as they could recapture of their ancient poetry. In the "Book of Leinster", a manuscript of the middle twelfth century, we find a list of the names of 187 epic sagas. The ollamh (ollav), or arch-poet, who was the highest dignitary among the poets, and whose training lasted for some twelve years, was obliged to learn two hundred and fifty of these prime sagas and one hundred secondary ones. The manuscripts themselves divide these prime sagas into the following romantic categories, from the very names of which we may get a glance of the genius of the early Gael, and form some conception of the tragic nature of his epic:--Destruction of Fortified Places, Cow Spoils (i.e., cattle-raids), Courtships or Wooing, Battles, Stories of Caves, Navigations, Tragical Deaths, Feasts, Sieges, Adventures of Travel, Elopements, Slaughters, Water-eruptions, Expeditions, Progresses, and Visions. "He is no poet", says the Book of Leinster, "who does not synchronize and harmonize all these stories." In addition to the names of 187 sagas in that book, there exist the names of many more that occur in the tenth or eleventh century tale of MacCoise, and all the known ones, with the exception of one added later and another in which there is evidently an error in transcription, refer to events prior to the year 650 or thereabouts. We may take it then that the list was drawn up in the seventh century. Who were the authors of these sagas? That is a question that cannot be answered. There is not a trace of authorship remaining, if, indeed, authorship be the right word for what is far more likely to have been the gradual growth of stories, woven around racial, or tribal, or even family history, and in some cases around incidents of early Celtic mythology, thus forming stories which were ever being told and retold, burnished up and added to by professional poets and saga-tellers, and which were, some of them, handed down for perhaps countless generations before they were ever put on parchments or before lists of their names and contents were made by scholars. Those which recount ancient tribal events or dynastic wars were probably much exaggerated, magnified, and undoubtedly distorted during the course of time; others, again, of more recent growth, give us perhaps fairly accurate accounts of real events. It seems quite certain that, as soon as Christianity had pervaded the island, and bardic schools and colleges had been formed alongside of the monasteries, there was no class of learning more popular than that which taught the great traditionary doings, exploits, and tragedies of the various tribes and families and races of Ireland. Then the peregrinations of the bards and the inter-communication among their colleges must have propagated throughout all Ireland any local traditions that were worthy of preservation. The very essence of the national life of the island was embodied in these stories, but, unfortunately, few only of their enormous number have survived to our days, and even these are mostly mutilated or preserved in mere digests. Some, however, exist at nearly full length, although probably in no case are they written down in the ancient vellums in just the same manner as they would have been recounted by the professional poet, for the writers of most of the early vellums were not the poets but generally Christian monks, who took an interest and a pride in preserving the early memorials of their race, and who cultivated the native language to such an amazing degree that at a very early period it was used alongside Latin, and soon almost displaced it, even in the domain of the Church itself. This patriotism of the Irish monks and this early cultivation of the vernacular are the more remarkable when we know that it is the very reverse of what took place throughout the rest of Europe, where the almost exclusive use of Latin by the Church was the principal means of destroying native and pagan tradition. In spite, however, of the irrevocable losses inflicted upon the Irish race by the Northmen from the end of the eighth to the middle of the eleventh century, and of the ravages of the Normans after their so-called conquest, and of the later and more ruthless destructions wrought wholesale and all over the island by the Elizabethan and Cromwellian English, O'Curry was able to assert that the content of the strictly historical tales known to him would be sufficient to fill up 4000 large quarto pages. He computes that the tales belonging to the Ossianic and the Fenian cycle would fill 3000 more, and that, in addition to these, the miscellaneous and imaginative cycles which are neither historical nor Fenian, would fill 5000, not to speak of the more recent and novel-like productions of the later Irish. Pagan Literature and Christian Sentiment. The bulk of the ancient stories and some of the ancient poems were probably, as we have seen, committed to writing by monks of the seventh century, but are themselves substantially pagan in origin, conception, and colouring. And yet there is scarcely one of them in which some Christian allusion to heaven, or hell, or the Deity, or some Biblical subject, does not appear. The reason of this seems to be that, when Christianity succeeded in gaining the upper hand over paganism, a kind of tacit compromise was arrived at, by means of which the bard, and the file (i.e., poet), and the representative of the old pagan learning were permitted by the sympathetic clerics to propagate their stories, tales, poems, and genealogies, at the price of tacking on to them a little Christian admixture, just as the vessels of some feudatory nations are compelled to fly at the masthead the flag of the suzerain power. But so badly has the dovetailing of the Christian into the pagan part been performed in most of the oldest romances that the pieces come away quite separate in the hands of even the least skilled analyser, and the pagan substratum stands forth entirely distinct from the Christian accretion. Thus, for example, in the evidently pagan saga called the "Wooing of Etain", we find the description of the pagan paradise given its literary passport, so to speak, by a cunningly interwoven allusion to Adam's fall. Etain was the wife of one of the Tuatha De Danann., who were gods. She is reborn as a mortal--the pagan Irish seem, like the Gaulish druids, to have believed in metempsychosis--and weds the king of Ireland. Her former husband of the Tuatha De Danann race still loves her, follows her into life as a mortal, and tries to win her back by singing to her a captivating description of the glowing unseen land to which he would lure her. "O lady fair, wouldst thou come with me" he cries "to the wondrous land that is ours", and he describes how "the crimson of the foxglove is in every brake--a beauty of land the land I speak of. youth never grows into old age there, warm sweet streams traverse the country", etc.: and then the evidently pagan description of this land of the gods is made passable by an added verse in which we are adroitly told that, though the inhabitants of this glorious country saw everyone, yet nobody saw them, "because the cloud of Adam's wrongdoing has concealed us". It is this easy analysis of the early Irish literature into its ante-Christian and post-Christian elements which lends to it an absorbing interest and a great value in the history of European thought. For, when all spurious accretions have been stripped off, we find in it a genuine picture of pagan life in Europe, such as we look for in vain elsewhere. "The church adopted [in Ireland] towards Pagan sagas the same position that it adopted toward Pagan law. . . . I see no reasons for doubting that really genuine pictures of a pre-Christian culture are preserved to us in the individual sagas" (Windisch, Irische Texte, I, 258). "The saga originated in Pagan and was propagated in Christian times, and that too without its seeking fresh nutriment, as a rule, from Christian elements. But we must ascribe it to the influence of Christianity that what is specifically pagan in Irish saga is blurred over and forced into the background. And yet there exist many whose contents are plainly mythological. The Christian monks were certainly not the first who reduced the ancient sagas to fixed form. but later on they copied them faithfully and promulgated them after Ireland had been converted to Christianity" (ibid., 62). Irish Literature and Early Europe. When it is understood that the ancient Irish sagas record, even though it be in a more or less distorted fashion, in some cases reminiscences of a past mythology, and in others real historical events, dating from the pagan times, then it needs only a moment's reflection to realize their value. "Nothing" writes Zimmer "except a spurious criticism which takes for original and primitive the most palpable nonsense of which Middle-Irish writers from the Twelfth to the Sixteenth century are guilty with regard to their own antiquity, which is in many respects strange and foreign to them, nothing but such a criticism can on the other hand make the attempt to doubt of the historical character of the chief persons of the saga cycles. For we believe that Meve, Conor MacNessa, Cuchulainn, and Finn MacCumhail (Cool) are just as much historical personalities as Arminius or Dietrich of Berne or Etzel, and their date is just as well determined." (Kelt-Studien, fasc. ii, 189.) The first three of these lived in the first century B.C., and Finn in the second or third century. D'Arbois de Jubainville expresses himself to the same effect. "We have no reason", he writes, "to doubt the reality of the principal role in this [cycle of Cuchulainn]" (Introduction `a l'etude de la litterature celtique, 217); and of the story of the Boru tribute imposed on Leinster in the first century he writes: "The story has real facts for a basis though certain details may have been created by the imagination"; and again, "Irish epic story, barbarous though it be, is, like Irish law, a monument of a civilization far superior to that of the most ancient Germans" (L'epopee celtique en Irlande, preface, p. xli.). "Ireland in fact", writes M. Darmesteter in his "English Studies", summing up his legitimate conclusions derived from the works of the great Celtic scholars, "has the peculiar privilege of a history continuous from the earliest centuries of our era to the present days. She has preserved in the infinite wealth of her literature a complete and faithful picture of the ancient civilization of the Celts. Irish literature is therefore the key which opens the Celtic world (Eng. tr., 1896, 182). But the Celtic world means a large portion of Europe and the key to its past history can be found at present nowhere else than in the Irish manuscripts. Without them we would have to view the past history of a great part of Europe through that distorting medium, the coloured glasses of the Greeks and Romans, to whom all outer nations were barbarians, into whose social life they had no motive for inquiring. Apart from Irish literature we would have no means of estimating what were the feelings, modes of life, manners, and habits of those great Celtic races who once possessed so large a part of the ancient world, Gaul, Belgium, North Italy, parts of Germany, Spain, Switzerland, and the British Isles, who burnt Rome, plundered Greece, and colonized Asia Minor. But in the ancient epics of Ireland we find another standard by which to measure, and through this early Irish medium we get a clear view of the life and manners of the race in one of its strongholds, and we find many characteristic customs of the continental Celts, which are just barely mentioned or alluded to by Greek and Roman writers, reappearing in all the circumstance and expansion of saga-telling. Of such is the custom of the "Hero's Bit", mentioned by Posidonius, upon which one of the most famous Irish sagas, "Bricriu's Feast", is founded. Again the chariot, which had become obsolete in Gaul a couple of hundred years before Caesar's invasion, is described repeatedly in the sagas of Ireland, and in the greatest of the epic cycles the warriors are always represented as fighting from their chariots. We find, as Diodorus Siculus mentions, that the bards had power to make battles cease by interposing with song between the combatants. Caesar says (Gallic War, bk. VI, xiv) the Gaulish druids spent twenty years in studying and learned a great number of verses, but Irish literature tells us what the arch-poet, probably the counterpart of the Gaulish druid, actually did learn. "The manners and customs in which the men of the time lived and moved are depicted", writes Windisch, "with a naive realism which leaves no room for doubt as to the former actuality of the scenes depicted. In matter of costume and weapons, eating and drinking, building and arrangement of the banqueting hall, manners observed at the feasts and much more, we find here the most valuable information" (Ir. Texte I, 252). "I insist", he says elsewhere, "that Irish saga is the only richly-flowing source of unbroken Celtism." "It is the ancient Irish language", says d'Arbois de Jubainville, "that forms the connecting point between the neo-Celtic languages and the Gaulish of the inscribed stones, coins, and proper names preserved in Greek and Roman literature." It is evident then that those of the great Continental nations of to-day whose ancestors were mostly Celtic, but whose language, literature, and traditions have completely disappeared, must, if they wish to study their own past, turn themselves to Ireland, and there they will find the dry bones of Posidonius and Caesar rise up before them in a ruddy covering of flesh and blood which, for the first time, will enable them to see what manner of men were their own forebears. Three Principal Saga Cycles. There are three great cycles in Irish story-telling, two of them very full, but the third, in many ways the most interesting, is now but scantily represented. This last cycle was the purely mythological one, dealing with the Tuatha De Danann, the gods of good, and the Fomorians, gods of darkness and evil, and giving us, under the apparently early history of the various races that colonized Ireland, really a distorted early Celtic pantheon. According to these accounts, the Nemedians first seized upon the islands and were oppressed by the Fomorians, who are described as African sea-robbers; these races nearly exterminated each other at the fight round Conning's Tower on Tory Island. Some of the Nemedians escaped to Greece and came back a couple of hundred years later calling themselves Firbolg. Others of the Nemedians who escaped came back later, calling themselves the Tuatha De Danann. These last fought the battle of North Moytura and beat the Firbolg. They fought the battle of South Moytura later and beat the Fomorians. They held the island until the Gaels, also called Milesians or Scoti, came in and vanquished them. From these Milesians the present Irish are mostly descended. Good sagas about both of these battles are preserved, each existing in only a single copy. Nearly all the rest of this most interesting cycle has been lost or is to be found merely in condensed summaries. These mythological pieces dealt with people, dynasties, and probably the struggle between good and evil principles. There is over it all a sense of vagueness and uncertainty. The heroic cycle (or Red Branch, Cuchulainn, or Ulster Cycle as it is variously called), on the other hand, deals with the history of the Milesians themselves within a brief but well-defined period, and we seem here to find ourselves not far removed from historical ground. The romances belonging to this cycle are sharply drawn, numerous, and ancient, many of them fine both in conception and execution. The time is about the birth of Christ, and the figures of Cuchulainn (Coohullin), King Conor Mac Nessa, Fergus, Naoise (Neesha), Meadhbh (Meve), Deirdre, Conall Cearnach, and their fellows, have far more circumstantially about them than the dim, mist-magnified, distorted forms of the mysterious Dagda, Nuada of the Silver Hand, Bres, Balor of the Evil Eye, Dana, and the other beings which we find in the mythological cycle. The best known and greatest of all these sagas is the "Tain Bo Chuailgne", or "Cattle-Raid of Cooley", a district in the county of Louth. It gives a full account of the struggle between Connacht and Ulster, and the hero of the piece, as indeed of the whole Red Branch cycle, is the youthful Cuchulainn, the Hector of Ireland, the most chivalrous of enemies. This long saga contains many episodes drawn together and formed into a single whole, a kind of Irish Iliad, and the state of society which it describes from the point of culture-development is considerably older and more primitive than that of the Greek epic. The number of stories that belong to this cycle is considerable. Standish Hayes O'Grady has reckoned ninety-six (appendix to Eleanor Hull's "Cuchulainn Saga"), of which eighteen seem now to be wholly lost, and many others very much abbreviated, though they were all doubtless at one time told at considerable length. After the Red Branch or heroic cycle we find a very comprehensive and even more popular body of romance woven round Finn Mac Cumhail (Cool), his son Oscar, his grandson Oisin or Ossian, Conn of the Hundred Battles of Ireland, his son Art the Lonely, and his grandson Cormac of the Liffey, in the second and third centuries. This cycle of romance is usually called the Fenian cycle because it deals so largely with Finn Mac Cumhail and his Fenian militia. These, according to Irish historians, were a body of Irish janissaries maintained by the Irish kings for the purpose of guarding their coasts and fighting their battles, but they ended by fighting the king himself and were destroyed by the famous cath (or battle of) Gabhra (Gowra). As the heroic cycle is often called the Ulster cycle, so this is also known as the Leinster cycle of sagas, because it may have had its origin, as MacNeill has suggested, amongst the Galeoin, a non-Milesian tribe and subject race, who dwelt around the Hill of Allen in Leinster. This whole body of romance is of later growth or rather expresses a much later state of civilization than the Cuchulainn stories. There is no mention of fighting in chariots, of the Hero's Bit, or of many other characteristics which mark the antiquity of the Ulster cycle. Very few pieces belonging to the Finn story are found in Old Irish, and the great mass of texts is of Middle and Late Irish growth. The extension of the story to all the Gaelic-speaking parts of the kingdom is placed by MacNeill bet