_________________________________________________________________ Title: The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 12: Philip II-Reuss 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 12 Philip II to Reuss New York: ROBERT APPLETON COMPANY Imprimatur JOHN M. FARLEY ARCHBISHOP OF NEW YORK _________________________________________________________________ Philip II Philip II (Augustus) King of France, born 22 or 25 August, 1165; died at Mantes, 14 July, 1223, son of Louis VII and Alix de Champagne. He was saved from a serious illness after a pilgrimage made by his father to the tomb of Thomas à Becket; he succeeded to the throne 18 September, 1180. His marriage with Isabella of Hainault, niece of the Count of Flanders, the conflicts which he afterwards sustained against the latter, and the deaths of the Countess (1182) and Count of Flanders (1185), increased the royal power in the north of France. His strife with Henry II of England in concert with the sons of that monarch, Henry, Richard, and John, resulted in 1189 in the Treaty of Azay-sur-Cher, which enhanced the royal power in the centre of France. The struggle with the Plantagenets was the ruling idea of Philip II's whole policy. Richard Cœur de Lion having become King of England, 6 July, 1189, was at first on amicable terms with Philip. Together they undertook the Third Crusade, but quarreled in Palestine, and on his return Philip II accused Richard of having attempted to poison him. As Richard had supported in Sicily the claims of Tancred of Lecce against those of the Emperor Henry VI, the latter resolved to be avenged. Richard, having been taken captive on his return from the Crusade by the Duke of Austria, was delivered to Henry VI, who held him prisoner. Philip II sent William, Archbishop of Reims, to Henry VI to request that Richard should remain the captive of Germany or that he should be delivered to Philip as his prisoner. Without loss of time Philip reached an agreement with John Lackland, Richard's brother. Normandy was delivered up by a secret treaty and John acknowledged himself Philip's vassal. But, when in February, 1194, Richard was set free by Henry VI, John Lackland became reconciled with him and endless conflict followed between Richard and Philip. On 13 January, 1199, Innocent III imposed on them a truce of five years. Shortly after this Richard died. Subsequently Philip defended against John, Richard's successor, the claims of the young Arthur of Brittany, and then those of Hugh de Lusignan, Count of La Marche, whose betrothed had been abducted by John. The war between Philip and John, interrupted by the truces imposed by the papal legates, became a national war; and in 1206 John lost his possessions in central France. Philip was sometimes displeased with the pontifical intervention between France and the Plantagenets, but the prestige of Innocent III forced him to accept it. Protracted difficulties took place between him and the pope owing to the tenacity with which Innocent III compelled respect for the indissolubility of even royal marriages. In 1190 Philip lost his wife, Isabella of Hainault, whom he had married in order to inherit Artois, and in 1193 he married Ingeburga, sister of Canute VI, King of Denmark. As he immediately desired to repudiate her, an assembly of complaisant barons and bishops pronounced the divorce, but Ingeburga appealed to Rome. Despite the remonstrances of Celestine III, Philip, having imprisoned Ingeburga, married Agnes de Méran, daughter of a Bavarian nobleman. Innocent III, recently elected, called upon him to repudiate Agnes and take back Ingeburga, and on the king's refusal the legate, Peter of Capua, placed the kingdom under an interdict (1198). Most of the bishops refused to publish the sentence. The Bishops of Paris and Senlis, who published it, were punished by having their goods confiscated. At the end of nine months Philip appeared to yield; he feigned reconciliation with Ingeburga, first before the legate, Octavian, and then before the Council of Soissons (May, 1201), but he did not dismiss Agnes de Méran. She died in August, 1201, and Innocent III consented to legitimize the two children she had borne the king, but Philip persisted that Rome should pronounce his divorce from Ingeburga, whom he held prisoner at Etampes. Rome refused and Philip dismissed the papal legate (1209). In 1210 he thought of marrying a princess of Thuringia, and in 1212 renewed his importunities for the divorce with the legate, Robert de Courçon. Then, in 1213, having need of the aid of the pope and the King of Denmark, he suddenly restored Ingeburga to her station as queen. Another question which at first caused discord between Philip II and Innocent III, and regarding which they had later a common policy, was the question of Germany. Otto of Brunswick, who was Innocent III's candidate for the dignity of emperor, was the nephew of Richard and John Lackland. This was sufficient to cause Philip to interfere in favour of Philip of Suabia. They formed an alliance in June, 1198, and when Philip of Suabia was assassinated in 1208 Philip put forward the candidacy of Henry of Brabant. However, the whole of Germany rallied to Otto of Brunswick, who became emperor as Otto IV, and in 1209 Philip feared that the new emperor would invade France. But Otto IV quarrelled with Innocent III and was excommunicated and the pope by an unexpected move called upon Philip for subsidies and troops to aid him against Otto. They agreed to proclaim as emperor Frederick of Hohenstaufen, the future Frederick II, Philip giving Frederick 20,000 "marcs" to defray the cost of his election (November, 1212). Thus was inaugurated the policy by which France meddled in the affairs of Germany and for the first time the French king claimed, like the pope, to have a voice in the imperial election. The accord established between Innocent and Philip with regard to the affairs of Germany subsequently extended to those of England. Throughout his reign Philip dreamed of a landing in England. As early as 1209 he had negotiated with the English barons who were hostile to John Lackland, and in 1212 with the Irish and the Welsh. When John lackland subjected to cruel persecution the English bishops who, in spite of him, recognized Stephen Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury. Innocent III in 1212 placed England under interdict, and the legate, Pandulphus, declared that John Lackland had forfeited his throne. Then Philip, who received at his court all the exiles from England, consented to go to England in the name of Innocent III to take away the crown from John Lackland. It was to be given to his son, the future Louis VIII. On 22 May, 1213, the French expedition was to embark at Gravelines, when it was learned that John Lackland had become reconciled with Rome, and some months later he became a vassal of the pope. Thus failed, on the eve of its realization, the project of the French invasion of England. But the legate of Innocent III induced Philip to punish Ferrand, Count of Flanders, who was the ally of all the enemies of the king. At the battle of Bouvines (27 July, 1214) Ferrand, who supported Otto IV, was taken prisoner. This battle is regarded as the first French national victory. Philip II, asserting that he had on both sides two great and terrible lions, Otto and John, excused himself from taking part in the Crusade against the Albigenses. He permitted his son Louis to make two expeditions into Languedoc to support Simon de Montfort in 1215, and Amaury de Montfort in 1219, and again in 1222 he sent Amaury de Montfort two hundred knights and ten thousand foot soldiers under the Archbishop of Bourges and the Count of La Marche. He foresaw that the French monarchy would profit by the defeat of the Albigenses. Philip's reign was characterized by a gigantic advance of the French monarchy. Before his time the King of France reigned only over the Ile de France and Berri, and had no communication with the sea. To this patrimony Philip II added Artois, Amienois, Valois, Vernandois, a large portion of Beauvaisis, Normandy, Maine, Anjou, Touraine, and a part of Poitou and Saintonge. His bailiffs and seneschals established the royal power firmly in those countries. Paris became a fortified city and attracted to its university students from different countries. Thanks to the possession of Dieppe, Rouen, and certain parts of Saintonge, the French monarchy became a maritime and commercial power, and Philip invited foreign merchants to France. Flanders, Ponthieu, and Auvergne became subject fiefs, supervised by agents of the king. He exercised a sort of protectorate over Champagne and Burgundy. Brittany was in the hands of Pierre de Dreux, a Capetian of the younger branch. "History", writes M. Luchaire, "does not present so many, such rapid, and such complete changes in the fortune of a State". Philip Augustus did not interfere in episcopal elections. In Normandy, where the Plantagenets had assumed the custom of directly nominating the bishops, he did not follow their example. Guillaume Le Breton, in his poem the "Philippide", makes him say: "I leave to the men of God the things that pertain to the service of God." He favoured the emancipation of communes, desiring to be liked by the middle classes of the districts he annexed. He often exacted a tax in exchange for the communal charter. But he did not allow the communes to infringe on the property of clerics or the episcopal right of jurisdiction. At Noyen he intervened formally in behalf of the bishop, who was threatened by the commune. He undertook a campaign in defence of the bishops and abbots against certain feudal lords whom he himself desired to humiliate or weaken. In 1180, before he was king, he undertook an expedition into Berri to punish the Lord of Charenton, the enemy of the monks, and into Burgundy where the Count of Chalon and the Lord of Beaujeu were persecuting the Church. In 1186, on the complaint of the monks, he took possession of Chatillon-sur-Seine, in the Duchy of Burgundy, and forced the duke to repair the wrongs he had committed against the Church. In 1210 he sent troops to protect the Bishop of Clermont, who was threatened by the Count of Auvergne. But on the other hand, in virtue of the preponderance which he wished royalty to have over feudalism, he exacted of the bishops and abbots the performance of all their feudal duties, including military service; although for certain territories he was the vassal of the bishops of Picardy, he refused to pay them homage. Moreover, he declared with regard to Manasses, bishop of Orléans, that the royal court was entitled to judge at the trials of bishops, and he made common cause with lay feudalism in the endless discussions regarding the province of ecclesiastical tribunals, which at the beginning of the thirteenth century were disposed to extend their jurisdiction. An ordinance issued about 1205 at the instance of the king, executed in Normandy and perhaps elsewhere, stipulated that in certain cases lay judges might arrest and try guilty clerics, that the right of asylum of religious buildings should be limited, that the Church might not excommunicate those who did business on Sunday or held intercourse with Jews, and that a citizen having several children should not give more than half of his estate to that one of his sons who was a cleric. Finally he imposed on the clergy heavy financial exactions. He was the first king who endeavoured to compel clerics to pay the king a tenth of their income. In 1188 the archdeacon Peter of Blois defeated this claim, but in 1215 and 1218 Philip renewed it, and by degrees the resistance of the clergy gave way. Philip, however, was pious in his own way, and in the advice which St. Louis gave to his son he said that Philip, because of "God's goodness and mercy would rather lose his throne than dispute with the servants of Holy Church". Thus the reputation left by Philip II was quite different from that of Philip IV, or Frederick II of Germany. He never carried out towards the Church a policy of trickery or petty vexations, on the contrary he regarded it as his collaborator in the foundation of French unity. Le Breton, La Philippide, ed. Delaborde (Paris, 1883-5); Rigord and Le Breton, Chroniques; Delisle, Catalogue des actes de Philippe-Auguste (Paris, 1856); Luchaire, Philippe-Auguste in Lavisse, Hist. de France, III (Paris, 1901); Luchaire, L'Université de Paris sous Philippe-Auguste (Paris, 1899); Gautier, La France sous Philippe-Auguste (Tours, 1899); Cartellieri, Philipp II August, König von Frankreich (3 vols., Leipzig, 1899-1909); Davidsohn, Philipp August von Frankreich und Ingeborg (1888); Walker, On the increase of royal power in France under Philip Augustus (1888); Hutton, Philip Augustus (London, 1896). Georges Goyau Philip II (King of Spain) Philip II King of Spain, only son of the Emperor Charles V, and Isabella of Portugal, b. at Valladolid, 21 May, 1527; d. at the Escorial, 13 Sept., 1598. He was carefully educated in the sciences, learned French and Latin, though he never spoke anything but Castilian, and also showed much interest in architecture and music. In 1543 he married his cousin, Maria of Portugal, who died at the birth of Don Carlos (1545). He was appointed regent of Spain with a council by Charles V. In 1554 he married Mary Tudor, Queen of England, who was eleven years his senior. This political marriage gave Spain an indirect influence on affairs of England, recently restored to Catholicism; but in 1555 Philip was summoned to the Low Countries, and Mary's death in the same year severed the connection between the two countries. At a solemn conference held at Brussels, 22 Oct., 1555, Charles V ceded to Philip the Low Countries, the crowns of Castille, Aragon, and Sicily, on 16 Jan., 1556, and the countship of Burgundy on the tenth of June. He even thought of securing for him the imperial crown, but the opposition of his brother Ferdinand caused him to abandon that project. Having become king, Philip, devoted to Catholicism, defended the Faith throughout the world and opposed the progress of heresy, and these two things are the key to his whole reign. He did both by means of absolutism. His reign began unpleasantly for a Catholic sovereign. He had signed with France the Treaty of Vaucelles (5 Feb., 1556), but it was soon broken by France, which joined Paul IV against him. Like Julius II this pope longed to drive the foreigners out of Italy. Philip had two wars on his hands at the same time, in Italy and in the Low Countries. In Italy the Duke of Alva, Viceroy of Naples, defeated the Duke of Guise and reduced the pope to such distress that he was forced to make peace. Philip granted this on the most favourable terms and the Duke of Alva was even obliged to ask the pope's pardon for having invaded the Pontifical States. In the Low Countries Philip defeated the French at Saint Quentin (1557) and Gravelines (1558) and afterwards signed the Peace of Cateau-Cambresis (3 April, 1559), which was sealed by his marriage with Elizabeth of Valois, daughter of Henry II. Peace concluded, Philip, who had been detained in the Low Countries, returned to Spain. For more than forty years he directed from the Prince of Orange decided to proclaim Philip's his cabinet the affairs of the monarchy. He resided alternately at Madrid which he made the capital of the kingdom and in villégiatures, the most famous of which is the Escorial, which he built in fulfillment of a vow made at the time of the battle of Saint Quentin. In Spain, Philip continued the policy of the Catholic Ferdinand and Isabella. He was merciless in the supression of the Lutheran heresy, which had appeared in various parts of the country, notably at Valladolid and Seville. "If my own son were guilty like you", he replied to a gentleman condemned to death for heresy who had reproached him for his cruelty, "I should lead him with my own hands to the stake". He succeeded in exterminating Protestantism in Spain, but encountered another enemy no less dangerous. The Moriscoes of the ancient Kingdom of Granada had been conquered, but they remained the implacable enemies of their conquerors, from whom they were separated by religion, language, dress, and manners, and they plotted incessantly with the Mussulmans outside the country. Philip wished to force them to renounce their language and dress, whereupon they revolted and engagedin a bloody struggle against Spain which lasted three years (1567-70) until ended by Don Juan, natural son of Charles V. The defeated Moriscoes were transplanted in great numbers to the interior of the country. Another event of historical importance in Philip's reign was the conquest of Portugal in 1580. After the death of the young King Sebastian at the battle of Alcazar (1578) and that of his successor the aged Cardinal Henry (1580), Philip II, who through his mother was a grandson of King Emmanuel, pleaded his title of heir and sent the Duke of Alva to occupy the country. This was the only conquest of the reign. Iberian unity, thus realized, lasted from 1580 to 1640. Other events were the troubles in Aragon, which were fomented by Antonio Perez, former secretary of the king. Being pursued for high treason he sought refuge in his native country, and appealed for protection to its fueros that he might not be delivered to the Castilian judges, nor to the Inquisition. The inhabitants of Saragossa defended him by force of arms and he succeeded in escaping abroad, but Philip sent an army to punish Aragon, infringed on the fueros and established absolutism in the Kingdom of Aragon, hitherto proud of its freedom (1592). In the Low Countries, where Philip had committed the government to his aunt, Margaret of Parma, the nobles, chafed because of their want of influence, plotted and trumped up grievances. They protested against the presence in the country of several thousands of Spanish soldiers, against Cardinal de Granvelle's influence with the regent, and against the severity of Charles V's decrees against heresy. Philip recalled the Spanish soldiers and the Cardinal de Greavelle, but he refused to mitigate the decrees and declared that he did not wish to reign over a nation of heretics. The difficulties with the Iconoclasts having broken out he swore to punish them and sent thither the Duke of Alva with an army, whereupon Margaret of Parma resigned. Alva behaved as though in a conquered country, caused the arrest and execution of Count Egmont and de Hornes, who were accused of complicity with the rebels, created the Council of Troubles, which was popularly styled the "Council of Blood", defeated the Prince of Orange and his brother who had invaded the country with German mercenaries, but could not prevent the "Sea-beggars" from capturing Brille. He followed up his military successes but was recalled in 1573. His successor Requesens could not recover Leyden. Influenced by the Prince of Orange the provinces concluded the "Pacification of Ghent" which regulated the religious situation in the Low Countries without royal intervention. The new governor, Don Juan, upset the calculations of Orange by accepting the "Pacification ", and finally the Prince of Orange decided to proclaim Philip's deposition by the revolted provinces. The king replied by placing the prince under the ban; shortly afterwards he was slain by an assassin (1584). Nevertheless, the united provinces did not submit and were lost to Spain. Those of the South, however, were recovered one after another by the new governor, Alexander Farnese, Prince of Parma. But he having died in 1592 and the war becoming more difficult against the rebels, led by the great general Maurice of Nassau, son of William of Orange, Philip II realized that he must change his policy and ceded the Low Countries to his daughter Isabella, whom he espoused to the Archduke Albert of Austria, with the provision that the provinces would be returned to Spain in case there were no children by this union (1598). (See ALVA; EGMONT; GRANVELLE; NETHERLANDS.) The object of Philip's reign was only partly realized. He had safeguarded the religious unity of Spain and had exterminated heresy in the southern Low Countries, but the northern Low Countries were lost to him forever. Philip had three enemies to contend with abroad, Islam, England, and France. Islam was master of the Mediterranean, being in possession of the Balkan Peninsula, Asia Minor, Egypt, all the coast of northern Africa (Tunis, Algiers, Morocco); it had just conquered the Island of Cyprus and laid siege to the Island of Malta (1505), which had valiantly repulsed the assault. Dragut, the Ottoman admiral, was the terror of the Mediterranean. On several occasions Philip had fought against the Mussulman peril, meeting alternately with success and defeat. He therefore eagerly joined the Holy League organized by Pius V to resist Islam, and which Venice consented to join. The fleet of the League, commanded by Don Juan, brother of Philip II, inflicted on the Turkish fleet the terrible defeat of Lepanto (7 Oct., 1571), the results of which would have been greater had Venice not proved false and if Pius V had not died in 1572. Nevertheless, the Turkish domination of the Mediterranean was ended and in 1578 Philip concluded a treaty with the Turks which lasted till the end of his reign. Relations of intimacy with England had ceased at the death of Mary Tudor. Philip attempted to renew them by his chimerical project of marriage with Elizabeth, who had not yet become the cruel persecutor of Catholicism. When she constituted herself the protectress of Protestant interests throughout the world and did all in her power to encourage the revolt of the Low Countries, Philip thought of contending with her in her own country by espousing the cause of Mary Stuart, but Elizabeth did away with the latter in 1587, and furnished relief to the Low Countries against Philip, who thereupon armed an immense fleet (the Invincible Armada) against England. But being led by an incompetent commander it accomplished nothing and was almost wholly destroyed by storms (1588). This was an irreparable disaster which inaugurated Spain's naval decline. The English corsairs could with impunity pillage her colonies and under Drake even her own coast; in 1596 the Duke of Essex pillaged the flourishing town of Cadiz, and the sceptre of the seas passed from Spain to England. From 1559 Philip II had been at peace with France, and had contented himself with urging it to crush out heresy. French intervention in favour of the Low Countries did not cause him to change his attitude, but when at the death of Henry III in 1589 the Protestant Henry of Bourbon became heir to the throne of France, Philip II allied himself with the Guises, who were at the head of the League, supplied them with money and men, and on several occasions sent to their relief his great general Alexander Farnese. He even dreamed of obtaining the crown of France for his daughter Isabella, but this daring project was not realized. The conversion of Henry IV (1593). to Catholicism removed the last obstacle to his accession to the French throne. Apparently Philip II failed to grasp the situation, since he continued for two years more the war against Henry IV, but his fruitless efforts were finally terminated in 1595 by the absolution of Henry IV by Clement VIII. No sovereign has been the object of such diverse judgments. While the Spaniards regarded him as their Solomon and called him "the prudent king" (el rey prudente), to Protestants he was the "demon of the south" (dæmon meridianus) and most cruel of tyrants. This was because, having constituted himself the defender of Catholicism throughout the world, he encountered innumerable enemies, not to mention such adversaries as Antonio Perez and William of Orange who maligned him so as to justify their treason. Subsequently poets (Schiller in his "Don Carlos"), romance-writers, and publicists repeated these calumnies. As a matter of fact Philip II joined great qualities to great faults. He was industrious, tenacious, devoted to study, serious, simple-mannered, generous to those who served him, the friend and patron of arts. He was a dutiful son, a loving husband and father, whose family worshipped him. His piety was fervent, he had a boundless devotion to the Catholic Faith and was, moreover, a zealous lover of Justice. His stoical strength in adversity and the courage with which he endured the sufferings of his last illness are worthy of admiration. On the other hand he was cold, suspicious, secretive, scrupulous to excess, indecisive and procrastinating, little disposed to clemency or forgetfulness of wrongs. His religion was austere and sombre. He could not understand opposition to heresy except by force. Imbued with ideas of absolutism, as were all the rulers of his time, he was led into acts disapproved by the moral law. His cabinet policy, always behind-hand with regard to events and ill-informed concerning the true situation, explains his failures to a great extent. To sum up we may cite the opinion of Baumstark: "He was a sinner, as we all are, but he was also a king and a Christian king in the full sense of the term". GACHARD, Correspondance de Philippe II sur les affaires des Pays Bas (Brussels and Ghent, 1848-1851); IDEM, Lettres de Philippe II a ses filles (Paris, 1884); IDEM, Don Carlos et Philippe II (Paris, 1863); PRESCOTT, History of the reign of Philip II, King of Spain (London, 1855); CORDOBA, Felipe II, rey de Espana (Madrid, 1876-78); BAUMSTARK, Philippe II, Konig von Spanien (Freiburg, 1875), tr. into French, KURTH (1877); MONTANA, Nueva luz y juicio verdadero sobre Felipe II (Madrid, 1882); FORNERON, Histoire de Philippe II (Paris, 1882); HUME, Philip II of Spain (London, 1897). GODEFROID KURTH Philip IV (The Fair) Philip IV Surnamed Le Bel (the Fair) King of France, b. at Fontainebleau, 1268; d. there, 29 Nov., 1314; son of Philip III and Isabel of Aragon; became king, 5 Oct. 1285, on the death of his father, and was consecrated at Reims, 6 Jan., 1286, with his wife Jeanne, daughter of Henry I, King of Navarre, Count of Champagne and Brie; this marriage united these territories to the royal domain. Having taken Viviers and Lyons from the empire, Valenciennes, the inhabitants of which united themselves voluntarily with France, La Marche and Angoumois, which he seized from the lawful heirs of Hugues de Lusigan, Philip whished to expel Edward I of England from Guienne, all of which province, with the exception of Bordeaux and Bayonne, was occupied in 1294 and 1295. By the Treaty of Montreuil, negotiated by Boniface VIII, he gave Guienne as a gift to his daughter Isabel, who married the son of Edward I, on condition that this young prince should hold the province as Philip's vassal. Philip wished to punish Count Guy of Flanders, an ally of England, and caused Charles of Valois to invade his territory, but he was defeated at Coutrai by the Flemings, who were roused by the heavy taxes imposed on them by Philip; he took his revenge on the Flemings at the naval victory of Zierichzee and the land victory of Mons en Puelle; then in 1305 he recognized Robert, Guy's son, as his vassal and retained possession of Lille, Douai, Orchies and Valenciennes. Having thus extended his kingdom, Philip endeavored energetically to centralize the government and impose a very rigorous fiscal system. Legists like Enguerrand, Philippe de Marigny, Pierre de Latilly, Pierre Flotte, Raoul de Presle, and Guillaume de Plassan, helped him to establish firmly this royal absolutism and set up a tyrannical power. These legists were called the chevaliers de l'hôtel, the chevaliers ès lois, the milites regis; they were not nobles, neither did they bear arms, but they ranked as knights. The appearance of these legists in the Government of France is one of the leading events of the reign of Philip IV. Renan explains its significance in these words: "An entirely new class of politicians, owing their fortune entirely to their own merit and personal efforts, unreservedly devoted to the king who had made them, and rivals of the Church, whose place they hoped to fill in many matters, thus appeared in the history of France, and were destined to work a profound change in the conduct of public affairs." It was these legists who incited and supported Philip IV in his conflict with the papacy and the trial of the Templars. In the articles Boniface VIII; Clement V; Molai; Templars, will be found an account of the relations of Philip IV with the Holy See; M. Lizerand, in 1910, has given us a study on Philip IV and Clement V, containing thirty-seven unpublished letters written by the two sovereigns. The principal adviser of Philip in his hostile relations with the Curia was the legist Guillaume de Nogaret (q.v.). Renan, who made a close study of Nogaret's dealings with Boniface VIII, Clement V, and the Templars, thinks that despite his ardent profession of Catholic fidelity he was somewhat hypocritical, at all events "he was not an honest man," and that "he could not have been deceived by the false testimony which he stirred up and the sophisms he provoked." Nogaret's methods of combating Boniface VIII and the Templars are better understood when we examine, in Gaston Paris's work, the curious trial of Guichard, Bishop of Troyes, for witchcraft. Another important personage whose curious writings must be read to understand the policy of Philip correctly is Pierre Dubois. He had been a pupil of St. Thomas Aquinas at the University of Paris, and was a lawyer at Coutances. In 1300 Dubois wrote a work on the means of shortening the wars and conflicts of France; in 1302 he published several virulent pamphlets against Boniface VIII; between 1304 and 1308, he wrote a very important work "De recuperatione Terrae Sanctae"; in 1309 alone, he wrote on the question of the Holy Roman Empire, on the Eastern question, and against the Templars. Dubois started from the idea that France ought to subdue the papacy, after which ti would be easy for the King of France to use the papal influence for his own advantage. He whished his king to become master of the Papal States, to administer them, to reduce the castles and cities of this state to his obedience, and to force Tuscany, Sicily, England, and Aragon, vassal countries of the Holy See, to do homage to the King of France; in return the king was to grant the pope the revenues of the Papal States. "It depends on the pope," wrote he in his work of 1302, "to rid himself of his worldly occupations and to preserve his revenues without having any trouble about them; if he does not wish to accept such an advantageous offer, he will incur universal reproach for his cupidity, pride, and rash presumption." "Clement V," continued Dubois in his treatise "De recuperation Terrae Sanctae," "after having given up his temporal possessions to the King of France, would be protected against the miasma of Rome, and would live long in good health, in his native land of France, where he would create a sufficient number of French cardinals to preserve the papacy from the rapacious hands of the Romans." Dubois desired not only that the King of France should subjugate the papacy, but that the empire should be forced to cede to France the left bank of the Rhine, Provence, Savoy, and all its rights in Liguria, Venice and Lombardy. In 1308, after the death of the Emperor Albert I, he even thought of having the pope confer the imperial crown on the French Capets. He also devised plans for subjugating Spain. Thus reorganized by France Christian Europe was (in the mind of Pierre Dubois) to undertake the Crusade; the Holy Land would be reconquered, and on the return, the Palaeologi, who reigned at Constantinople, would be replaced by the Capetian, Charles of Valois, representing the rights of Catherine de Courtenay to the Latin Empire of Constantinople. The personal influence of Pierre Dubois on Philip IV must not be exaggerated. Although all his writings were presented to the king, Dubois never had an official place in Philips's council. However, there is an indisputable parallelism between his ideas and certain political maneuvers of Philip IV. For instance on 9 June, 1308, Philip wrote to Henry of Carinthia, King of Bohemia, to propose Charles of Valois as a candidate for the crown of Germany; and on 11 June he sent three knights into Germany to offer money to the electors. This was fruitless labour, however, for Henry of Luxemburg was elected and Clement V, less subservient to the King of France than certain enemies of the papacy have said, hastened to confirm the election. Philip IV was not really a free-thinker; he was religious, and even made pilgrimages: his attitude toward the inquisition is not that of a free-thinker, as is especially apparent in the trial of the Franciscan Bernard Délicieux. The latter brought the deputies of Carcassonne and Albi to Philip IV at Senlis, to complain of the Dominican inquisitors of Languedoc; the result of his action was an ordinance of Philip putting the Dominican inquisitors under the control of the bishops. On the receipt of this news Languedoc became inflamed against the Dominicans; Bernard Délicieux in 1303 headed the movement in Carcassonne, and when in 1304 Philip and the queen visited Toulouse and Carcassonne, he organized tumultuous manifestations. The king was displeased, and discontinued his proceedings against the Dominicans. Then Bernard Délicieux and some of the people of Carcassonne conspired to deliver the town into the hands of Prince Fernand, Infant of Majorca; Philip caused sixteen of the inhabitants to be hanged, and imposed a heavy fine on the town; and this conspiracy of Bernard Délicieux against the king and the Inquisition was one of the reasons of his condemnation later in 1318 to perpetual In Pace, or monastic imprisonment. Philip IV was not therefore in any way a systematic adversary of the inquisition. On the other hand, recently published documents show that he was sincerely attached to the idea of a Crusade. From the memoirs of Rabban Cauma, ambassador of Argoun, King of the Tatars, translated from the Syriac by Abbe Chabot, we learn that Philip said to Rabban in Sept., 1287: "If the Mongolians, who are not Christians, fight to capture Jerusalem, we have much more reason n to fight; if it be God's will, we will go with an army." And the news of the fall of Saint-Jean d'Acre (1291), which induced so many provincial councils to express a desire for a new crusade was certainly calculated to strengthen this resolution of the king. We have referred to Dubois's zeal for the conquest of the Holy Land; Nogaret was perhaps a still stronger advocate of the project; but in the plan which he outlined about 1310, the first step, according to him, was to place all the money of the Church of France in the king's hands. The French Church under Philip IV displayed very little independence; it was in reality enslaved to the royal will. Almost every year it contributed to the treasury with or without the pope's approval, a tenth and sometimes a fifth of its revenues; these pecuniary sacrifices were consented to by the clergy in the provincial councils, which in return asked certain concessions or favors of the king; but Philip's fiscal agents, if they met with resistance, laid down the principle that the king could by his own authority collect from all his subjects, especially in case of necessity, whatever taxes he wished. His officers frequently harassed the clergy in a monstrous manner; and the documents by which Philip confirmed the immunities of the Church always contained subtle restrictions which enabled the king's agents to violate them. A list of the gravamina of the Churches and the clerics, discussed at the Council of Vienne (1311), contains ample proof of the abuse of authority to which the Church was subjected, and the writer of the poem "Avisemens pour le roy Loys," composed in 1315 for Louis X, exhorted this new king to live in peace with the Church, which Philip IV had not done. To concentrate in his hands all the wealth of the French Church for the Crusade, and then to endeavor to make an agreement with the papacy for the control and disposition of the income of the Universal Church, was the peculiar policy of Philip IV. Recently some verses have been discovered, written by a contemporary on a leaf of register of the deliberations of Notre-Dame de Chartres, which reveal the impression produced by this policy on the minds of certain contemporaries: Jam Petri navais titubat, racio quia clavis. Errat; rex, papa, facti sunt unica capa, Declarant, do des Pilatus et alter Herodes. Philip IV, by his formal condemnation of the memory of Boniface VIII, appointed himself judge of the orthodoxy of the popes. It was laid down as a principle, says Geoffrey of Paris, that "the king is to submit to the spiritual power only if the pope is in the right faith." The adversaries of the "theocracy" of the Middle Ages hail Philip IV as its destroyer; and in their enthusiasm for him, by an extraordinary error, they proclaim him a precursor of modern liberty. On the contrary he was an absolutist in the fullest sense of the term. The Etats généraux of 1302, in which the Third Estate declared that the king had no superior on earth, were the precursors of the false Gallican theories of Divine right, so favorable to the absolutism of sovereigns. The civilization of the Middle Ages was based on a great principle, an essentially liberal principle, from which arose the political liberty of England; according to that principle, taxes before being raised by royal authority, ought to be approved by the tax-payers. Boniface VIII in the conflict of 1302 was only maintaining this principle, when he insisted on the consent of the clergy to the collection of the tithes. In the struggle between Philip and Boniface, Philip represents absolutism, Boniface the old medieval ideas of autonomy. "The reign of Philip IV," writes Renan, "is the reign which contributed most to form the France of the five succeeding centuries, with its good and bad qualities. The milites regis, those ennobled plebeians, became the agents of all important political business; the princes of the royal blood alone remained superior to or on an equality with them; the real nobility, which elsewhere established the parliamentary governments, was excluded from participating in the public policy." Renan is right in declaring that the first act of the French magistracy was "to diminish the power of the Church per fas et nefas" to establish the absolutism of the king; and that such conduct was for this magistracy "an original sin." Historiens de la France t. XX, XXIII; Langlois in Lavisse, Histoire de France, III (Paris 1903); Boutaric, La France sous Philippe le Bel (Paris, 1861); Renan, Etudes sur l'histoire religieuse du regne de Philippe le Bel (Paris, 1899); Wenck, Philippe der Schone von Frankreich, seine Personlichkeit und das Urteil der Zeitgenossen (Marbourg, 1905); Finke, Zur Charakteristik Philipps des Schonen in Mitteilungen des Instituts fur osterreichische Geschichte, XXVI (1905); Melanges sur le Regne de Philippe le Bel: recueil d'articles extraits du Moyen Age (Chalon-sur-Saone, 1906); Holtzman, Wilhelm von Nogaret (Freiburg im Br., 1897); Paris, Un proces criminel sous Philippe le Bel in Revue du Palais (Aug., 1908); Langlois, Les papiers de G. de Nogaret et de G. de Plaisians Tresor des Chartes (Notices et extraits des manuscrits), XXXIV; Langlois, Doleances du cleerge de France au temps de Philippe le Bel in Revue Bleue (9 Sept., and 14 Oct., 1905); Lizerand, Clement V et Philippe IV le Bel (Paris 1910); Arguillere, L'Appel au concile sous Philippe le Bel et la genese des theories conciliares in Revue des Questions Historiques (1911). GEORGES GOYAU St. Philip of Jesus St. Philip of Jesus Born in Mexico, date unknown; died at Nagasaki early in February, 1597. Though unusually frivolous as a boy, he joined the Discalced Franciscans of the Province of St. Didacus, founded by St. Peter Baptista, with whom he suffered martyrdom later. After some months in the Order, Philip grew tired of monastic life, left the Franciscans in 1589, took up a mercantile career, and went to the Philippines, where he led a life of pleasure. Later he desired to re-enter the Franciscans and was again admitted at Manila in 1590. After some years he was to have been ordained at the monastery in Mexico, the episcopal See of Manila being at that time vacant. He sailed, 12 July, 1596, but a storm drove the vessel upon the coast of Japan. The governor of the province confiscated the ship and imprisoned its crew and passengers, among whom were another Franciscan, Juan de Zamorra, two Augustinians, and a Dominican. The discovery of soldiers, cannon, and ammunition on the ship led to the suspicion that it was intended for the conquest of Japan, and that the missionaries were merely to prepare the way for the soldiers. This was also said, falsely and unwarrantably, by one of the crew (cf. JAPAN, CHRISTIANITY IN JAPAN, Catholicism). This enraged the Japanese Emperor Hideyoshi, generally called Taicosama by Europeans. He commanded, 8 December, 1596, the arrest of the Franciscans in the monastery at Miako, now Kyoto, whither St. Philip had gone. The religious were kept prisoners in the monastery until 30 December, when they were transferred to the city prison. There were six Franciscans, seventeen Japanese tertiaries, and the Japanese Jesuit, Paul Miki, with his two native servants. The ears of the prisoners were cropped on 3 January, 1597, and they were paraded through the streets of Kyoto; on 21 January they were taken to Osaka, and thence to Nagasaki, which they reached on 5 February. They were taken to a mountain near the city, "Mount of the Martyrs", bound upon crosses, after which they were pierced with spears. St. Philip was beatified in 1627 by Urban VIII, and, with his companions, canonized 8 June, 1862, by Pius IX. He is the patron saint of the city of Mexico. RIBADENEGRA, Historia de las Islas del Archipielago y Reynos de la Gran China, Tartaria . . . y Japon, V, VI (Barcelona, 1601); these are sometimes wrongly cited as Actas del martirio de San Pedro Bautista y sus companeros (Barcelona, 1601); Archivum franc. hist., I (Quaracchi, 1908), 536 sqq.; FRANCISCO DE S. ANTONIO, Chron. de la apostol. prov. de S. Gregorio . . . in Las Islas Philipinas, III (Manila, 1743), 31 sqq.; Acta SS., Feb.I, 723 sqq.; GERONIMO DE JESUS, Hist. della Christandad del Japon (1601); DA CIVEZZA, Saggio di Bibliog. Sanfrancesc. (Prato, 1879), 250, 590 sqq., 523; IDEM, Storia univ. delle missioni franc., VII, ii (Prato, 1891), 883 sqq.; DA ORIMA, Storia dei ventitre Martiri Giapponesi dell' Ord. Min. Osserv. (Rome, 1862); MELCHIORRI, Annal. Ord. Min. (Ancona, l869), 101 sqq. 218 sqq., 260 sqq. MICHAEL BIHL Philip of the Blessed Trinity Philip of the Blessed Trinity (ESPRIT JULIEN). Discalced Carmelite, theologian, born at Malaucene, near Avignon, 1603; died at Naples, 28 February, 1671. He took the habit at Lyons where he made his profession, 8 September, 1621. Choosing the missionary life, he studied two years at the seminary in Rome and proceeded in February, 1629, to the Holy Land and Persia, and thence to Goa where he became prior, and teacher of philosophy and theology. After the martyrdom of Dionysius, a Nativitate, his pupil, and Redemptus a Cruce, 29 Nov., 1638, Philip collected all available evidence and set out for Rome to introduce the cause of their beatification which, however, only terminated in 1900. He did not return to the mission, but was entrusted with important offices in France, in 1665, was elected general of the order with residence in Rome, and three years later, re-elected. While visiting all the provinces of his order, he was caught in a terrific gale off the coast of Calabria, and reached Naples in dying condition. Besides the classical languages he spoke fluently French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Persian, and Arabic. Of his numerous works the following have lasting value: "Summa philosophiae", 4 vols., Lyons, 1648, in which he follows not only the spirit but also the method of St. Thomas Aquinas; "Summa theologiae thomisticae", 5 vols., Lyons, 1653; "Summa theologiae mysticae", Lyons, 1656; reprinted in 3 vols., Paris, 1884; "Itinerarium orientale", Lyons, 1649, also in Italian and French; "Decor Carmeli religiosi", the lives of the saints and saintly members of his Order, Lyons, 1665; "Theologia carmelitana", Rome, 1665. The two last named and some smaller works dealing to some extent with historical matters of a controversial nature, called forth a reply from Pierre-Joseph de Haitze, under the titles "Des Moines empruntéz", and "Des Moines travestis". HENRICUS A SS.SACRAMENTO, Collectio Scriptorum Ord. Carmel. Excalc.II (Savona, 1884), 110. B. ZIMMERMAN Philippi Philippi (Gr. Phílippoi, Lat. Philippi). Philippi was a Macedonian town, on the borders of Thracia. Situated on the summit of a hill, it dominated a large and fertile plain, intersected by the Egnatian Way. It was north-west of Mount Pangea, near the River Gangites, and the Ægean Sea. In 358 b.c. it was taken, enlarged, and fortified by the King of Macedonia, Philip II, hence its name Philippi. Octavius Augustus (42 b.c.) conferred on it his jus Italicum (Acts, xiv, 12), which made the town a miniature Rome, and granted it the institutions and privileges of the citizens of Rome. That is why we find at Philippi, along with a remnant of the Macedonians, Roman colonists together with some Jews, the latter, however, so few that they had no synagogue, but only a place of prayer (proseuché). Philippi was the first European town in which St. Paul preached the Faith. He arrived there with Silas, Timothy, and Luke about the end of 52 a.d., on the occasion of his second Apostolic voyage. The Acts mention in particular a woman called Lydia of Thyatira, a seller of purple, in whose house St. Paul probably dwelt during his stay at Philippi. His labours were rewarded by many conversions (Acts, xvi), the most important taking place among women of rank, who seem to have retained their influence for a long time. The Epistle to the Philippians deals in a special manner with a dispute that arose between two of them, Evodia and Syntyche (iv, 2). In a disturbance of the populace, Paul and Silas were beaten with rods and cast into prison, from which being miraculously delivered, they set out for Thessalonica. Luke, however, continued to work for five years. The Philippians remained very attached and grateful to their Apostle and on several occasions sent him pecuniary aid (twice to Thessalonica, Phil., iv, 14-16; once to Corinth, II Cor., xi, 8-9; and once to Rome, Phil., iv, 10-18). See EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS). Paul returned there later; he visited them on his second journey, about 58, after leaving Ephesus (Acts, xx, 1-2). It is believed that he wrote his Second Epistle to the Corinthinas at Philippi, whither he returned on his way back to Jerusalem, passing Easter week there (Acts, xx, 5-6). He always kept in close communication with the inhabitants. Having been arrested at Cæsarea and brought to Rome, he wrote to them the Epistle we have in the New Testament, in which he dwells at great length on his predilection for them (i, 3, 7; iv, 1; etc.). Paul probably wrote them more letters than we possess; Polycarp, in his epistle to thte Philippians (II, 1 sq.), seems to allude to several letters (though the Greek word, ’epistolaí, is used also in speaking of a single letter), and Paul himself (Phil., iii, 1) seems to refer to previous writings. He hoped (i, 26; ii, 24) to revisit Philippi after his captivity, and he may have written there his First Epistle to Timothy (Tim., i, 3). Little is known of the subsequent history of the town. Later it was destroyed by the Turks; to-day nothing remains but some ruins. For bibliography see EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. A. Vander Herren Philippi, Titular See of Philippi A titular metropolitan see in Macedonia. As early as the sixth century b.c. we learn of a region called Datos, overrun by the inhabitants of Thasos, in which there was an outlying post called Crenides (the little springs), and a seaport, Neapolis or Cavala. About 460 b.c. Crenides and the country lying inland fell into the hands of the Thracians, who doubtless were its original inhabitants. In 360 b.c. the Thasians, aided by Callistratus the Athenian and other exiles, re-established the town of Datos, just when the discovery of auriferous deposits was exciting the neighbouring peoples. Philip of Macedonia took possession of it, and gave it his name, Philippi in the plural, as there were different sections of the town scattered at the foot of Mount Pangæus. He erected there a fortress barring the road between the Pangæus and the Hæmus. The gold mines, called Asyla, which were energetically worked, gave Philip an annual revenue of more than 1000 talents. In 168 b.c. the Romans captured the place. In the autumn of 42 b.c. the celebrated battle between the triumvirs and Brutus and Cassius was fought on the neighbouring marshy plain. In the first conflict Brutus triumphed over Octavius, whilst Antony repulsed Cassius, who committed suicide. Unable to maintain discipline in his army, and defeated twenty days later, Brutus also took his life. The same year a Roman colony was established there, which after the battle of Actium took the name of Colonia Augusta Julia Philippensis. When St. Ignatius of Antioch and the martyrs Zosimus and Rufus were passing through Philippi, St. Ignatius told the Christians of that town to send a letter of congratulation to the faithful of Antioch. They therefore wrote to Polycarp of Smyrna, asking him at the same time for the writings of St. Ignatius. Polycarp answered them in a letter, still extant, which was written before the death of St. Ignatius. Although the Church of Philippi was of Apostolic origin, it was never very important; it was a suffragan bishopric of Thessalonica. Towards the end of the ninth century it ranked as a metropolitan see and had six suffragan dioceses; in the fifteenth century it had only one, the See of Eleutheropolis. The Archdiocese of Cavala was reunited to the metropolis in December, 1616. In 1619, after a violent dispute with the Metropolitan of Drama, Clement, the titular of Philippi, got permission to assume the title of Drama also, and this was retained by the Metropolitan of Philippi until after 1721, when it was suppressed and the metropolis of Drama alone continued. In the "Echos d'Orient", III, 262-72, the writer of this article compiled a critical list of the Greek titulars of Philippi, containing sixty-two names, whereas only eighteen are given in Le Quien, "Oriens christianus", II, 67-70. Some Latin titulars are cited in Eubel, "Hierarchia catholica medii ævi", I, 418; II, 238; III, 291; Le Quien, op. cit., III, 1045. In the middle of the fourteenth century, Philippi is mentioned in connexion with the wars between John V, Palæologus, and Cantacuzenus, who has left a description of it (P. G., CLIV, 336). The ruins of Philippi lie near the deserted hamlet of Filibedjik, fifteen kilometres from Cavala, in the vilayet of Salonica; they contain the remains of the acropolis, a theatre anterior to the Roman occupations, a temple of Sylvanus, and numerous sculptured rocks bearing inscriptions. LEAKE, Northern Greece, III, 215-23; SMITH, Dict, of Gr. and Rom. Geog., s. v.; SEGNITZ, De Philippensibus tanquam luminaria in mundo (Leipzig, 1728); HOOG, De cœtus christianorum Philippensis conditione prima (Leyden, 1823); HEUZEY, Mission archéologique de Macédoine (Paris, 1876), 1-124; MERTZIDÈS, Philippes (Constantinople, 1897), in Greek; TOMASCHEK, Zur Kunde der Hœmus-Halbinsel (Vienna, 1897), 77; FILLION in Dict. de la Bible. s. v. S. VAILHÉ. Philippine Islands Philippine Islands Situation and Area. The Philippine Islands lie between 116° 40' and 126° and 34' E. long., and 4° 40' and 21° 10' N. lat. The islands are washed by the China Sea on the north and the west, the Pacific Ocean on the east, and the Sea of Celebes on the south. They are nearly south of Japan, and north of Borneo and the Celebes, with which they are connected by three partly-submerged isthmuses. The archipelago belongs to the same geographic region as Borneo, Sumatra, and Java, and therefore to Asia rather than to Oceanica. In all there are 3141 islands; 1668 of them are listed by name. Luzon has an area of 40,969 sq. miles; Mindanao, 36,292 sq. m. Nine islands have an area between 1000-10,000 sq m; 20 between 100 and 1000 sq. m.; 73 between 10 and 100 sq. m.; and 262 between 1 and 10 sq. m. The remaining 2775 islands are each less than 1 sq. m. The total area of the islands is 115,026 sq. m. The extent of the Earth's surface included by the boundaries of the treaty lines is about 800,000 sq.m. Physical Geography -- Fauna and Flora. The scenery of the islands, especially Luzon, is very beautiful. The greatest known elevation, Mt. Apo, in Mindanao, is over 10,000 ft.; it was ascended for the first time by Father Mateo Gisbert, S.J., accompanied by two laymen, in 1880. There are twenty well-known and recent volcanic cones, twelve of them more or less active. Mayon Volcano, about 8000 ft., is probably the most beautiful symmetrical volcanic cone in the world. There are no very large rivers; the Cagayan of northern Luzon and the Rio Grande and the Agusan, both in Mindanao, are more than 200 miles in length. The largest lakes are Laguna de Bay, near Manila, and Laguna de Lanao, in Mindanao; the surface of the latter is 2200 ft above sea-level. Laguna de Bombon, in Batangas Province, Luzon, is the crater of an immense volcano, of roughly elliptical shape, seventeen by twelve miles. On an island in the lake is the active volcano of Taal. The fauna of the Philippines resembles that of the neighboring Malayan Islands to a certain extent. Two-thirds of the birds of the Philippines are peculiar to them; what is more strange is that 286 species of birds found in Luzon, at least fifty-one are not to be met with in any other part of the archipelago. The flora of the islands is similar to that of Java, Sumatra, and Borneo, but with differences sufficiently numerous to give it a marked individuality. Forests form seven-tenths of the area of the archipelago; they embrace a great variety of woods, many of them highly valuable. Mineral Resources. Coal is found in many parts of the islands. two mines are now in operation on the small island of Batan, Albay Province, Southern Luzon. The total output in the Philippines during 1909 was valued at nearly $100,000. About $250,000 worth of gold was mined the same year. Iron is also found, the product in 1909 being worth a little more than $15,000. Climate. The climate is, generally speaking, tropical, although there are points in the islands where it cannot strictly be so termed. The mean temperature in Manila during the period 1883-1902 was 80°F.; the average maximum during the same time was 97° and minimum 63°. The average rainfall in Manila is something more than 75 inches. Baguio, Province of Benguet, has been called the Simla of the Philippines. Climatic conditions are so favourable that the commission and assembly held their sessions there this year (1910) during the warm months. The mean minimum temperatures of four months of the year are lower in Baguio than at Simla, and almost equal for two other months. The monthly means are nearly equal for the two places during five months. Railways. Railway lines are in operation in Luzon, Panay, Cebu, and Negros, about four hundred miles in all. Population. A census of the islands taken in 1903 estimates the population at 7,635,426, of whom 6,987,686 are classed as civilized and 647,740 are wild. There are no question in Spanish times about the number of Christians; but a difference in opinion prevails about the number of the wild people. An estimate published in Madrid in 1891 puts down the non-civilized tribes (Moros included) at 1,400,000. According to the Director of the Census of 1903, there has been tendency to exaggerate; he admits that the number 647,740 is possibly too small, but that it is probably within ten per cent of the true number. Wild Tribes. The Negritos are believed to have been the aborigines of the islands. There remains about 23,000 of these, leading to-day a primitive life, nomadic within a certain district, living in groups of twenty or thirty under a chief. They are a race of dwarfs, four feet eight inches in height. They are of sooty black colour, their hair woolly, their toes almost as prehensile as fingers. The Negritos, it is thought, once occupied the entire archipelago, but were driven back into the mountains by the Malays. Among other wild tribes may be mentioned the Igorottes in Northern Luzon, some of whom are head-hunters. They are an industrious and warlike race. Belgian missionaries have been working among them in the past few years with considerable fruit. The Ibilao or Ilongot is noted for his bloodthirsty propensities; the Ifugaos are said to resemble the Japanese in appearance. They use the lasso with great dexterity, and with it capture the luckless traveler, decapitate him, and add the head to their collection. They wear as many rings in their ears as they have taken heads. In Palawan (Paragua) the most numerous tribe is that of the Tagbanuas, many of whom have been Christianized. The Manguianes occupy the interior of Mindoro; they are a docile race and do not flee from civilized man. Among the wild tribes of Mindanao may be mentioned the Manobos, Bagobos, Bukidnons, Tirurays, and Subanos. They are classed as Indonesians by some ethnologists. Slavery is practised, and human sacrifices are known to have taken place within the past few years. The Moros or Mohammedan Malays chiefly inhabit Mindanao and the Sulu archipelago, though they are found also in Basilan and Palawan. They were professional pirates, and advanced as far as Manila at the time of the arrival of the Spaniards. They killed large numbers of Filipinos, and carried others into slavery. Until within about sixty years ago, when Spanish gunboats of light draught were introduced, they made marauding excursions into the Visayan islands (Panay, Negros, Cebu, Bohol, Leyte, Samar, etc.), carrying off a thousand captives as slaves annually. They were the great obstacle to the civilization of Mindanao. The Moro is possessed of much physical strength, is indifferent to bloodshed, too proud to work, and extremely fanatical. Many of them build their towns in the water, with movable bamboo bridges connected with the shore. Flanking their settlements they build cottas or forts. The walls of some of these were twenty-four feet thick and thirty feet high. The United States Government respects the Moro custom of discarding the hat, by permitting the Moro Constabulary (military police) to wear a Turkish fex and to go barefoot. Extensive missionary work has been done by the Jesuits in Mindanao. Previous to the American occupation, they ministered to 200,000 Christians in various parts of the islands. Even among the Moros their efforts were successful and in one year (1892) they baptized 3000 Moros in the district of Davao. They established two large orphan asylums, one for boys and the other for girls, at Tamontaca, where liberated slave-children were trained to a useful life, and which later formed the basis of new Christian villages. For lack of support, a great deal of this work had to be abandoned with the withdrawal of Spanish sovereignty from the islands. Christian Tribes. The inhabitants of Luzon and adjacent islands are the Tagalogs, Pampangans, Bicols, Pangasinans, Ilocanos, Ibanags or Cagayanes, and Zambales. The most important of these are the Tagalogs, who number about a million and a half; the Pampangans, about 400,000, excel in agriculture; the Bicols in South-eastern Luzon were, according to Blumentritt, the first Malays in the Philippines; the Pangasinans, in the province of that name, number about 300,000; the Ilocanos, an industrious race, occupy the north-western coast of Luzon; the Ibanags, said to be the finest race and the most valiant men in the islands (Sawyer), dwell in the Northern and Eastern Luzon. The Zambales were famous head-hunters at the time of the Spanish conquest, and made drinking-cups out of their enemies' skulls. They number about 100,000. The Visayan Islands are inhabited by the Visayas, the most numerous tribe of the Philippines. Fewer wild people are found among them than in other portions of the archipelago. The population is about 3,000,000. There is a strong resemblance, mentally, morally, and physically, between individuals of the Visayas, but there is a great difference in their languages, a Visayan in Cebu, for instance will not understand a Visayan of Panay. For all that, it is said that the Filipinos had a common racial origin and at one time a common language. Physically, the Filipinos are of medium height, although tall men are to be found among them; especially in the mountain districts. Generally speaking, they are of a brownish colour, with black eyes, prominent cheek bones, the nose flat rather than arched or straight, nostrils wide and full mouth inclined to be large, lips full, good teeth, and round chin. The following estimates of the Filipinos are selected from the United States Census Report of 1903. The first gives an appreciation of the people shortly after the arrival of the Spaniards and before they were Christianized. The second and third are the views of an American and an Englishman, respectively, of the Christianized Filipino before and at the time of the American occupation. (1) Legaspi, after four years' residence, writes thus of the natives of Cebu: "They are a crafty and treacherous race....They are a people extremely vicious, fickle, untruthful, and full of other superstitions. No law binds relative to relative, parents to children, or brother to brother....If a man in some time of need shelters a relative or a brother in his house, supports him, and provides him with food for a few days, he will consider that relative as his slave from that time on....At times they sell their own children....Privateering and robbery have a natural attraction to them....I believe that these natives could be easily subdued by good treatment and the display of kindness". (2) Hon. Dean C. Worcester was in the Philippines in 1887-88 and 1890-93. He says: "The traveler cannot fail to be impressed by his (the Filipino's) open-handed and cheerful hospitality. He will go to any amount of trouble, and often to no little expense, in order to accommodate some perfect stranger. If cleanliness be next to godliness, he has much to recommend him. Hardly less noticeable than the almost universal hospitality are the well-regulated homes and the happy family life which one soon finds to be the rule. Children are orderly, respectful, and obedient to their parents. The native is self-respecting and self-restrained to a remarkable degree....he is patient under misfortune and forbearing under provocation....He is a kind father and a dutiful son. His aged relatives are never left in want, but are brought to his home and are welcome to share the best that it affords to the end of their days". (3) Frederick H. Sawyer lived for fourteen years in the Philippines; he writes: "The Filipino possessed a great deal of self-respect, and his demeanour is quiet and decorous. He is polite to others and expects to be treated politely himself. He is averse to rowdyism or horseplay of any kind, and avoids giving offence. For an inhabitant of the tropics, he is fairly industrious, sometimes even very hard-working. Those who have seen him poling cascos against the stream of the Pasig will admit this. He is a keen sportsman, and will readily put his money on his favourite horse or gamecock; he is also addicted to other forms of gambling. The position taken by women in a community is often considered as a test of the degree of civilization it has attained. Measured by this standard, the Filipinos come out well, for among them the wife exerts great influence in the family and the husband rarely completes any important business without her concurrence. "The Filipinos treat their children with great kindness and forbearance. Those who are well-off show much anxiety to secure a good education for their sons and even for their daughters. Parental authority extends to the latest period in life. I have seen a man of fifty years come as respectfully as a child to kiss the hands of his aged parents when the vesper bell sounded, and this notwithstanding the presence of several European visitors in the house. Children, in return, show great respect to both parents, and some morning and evening to kiss their hands. They are trained in good manners from their earliest youth, both by precept and example". History. The islands were discovered 16 March, 1521, by Ferdinand Magellan. Several other expeditions followed, but they were fruitless. In 1564 Legaspi sailed from Mexico for the Philippines. He was accompanied by the Augustinian friar Urdaneta. As a layman this celebrated priest had accompanied the expedition of Loaisa in 1524, which visited Mindanao and the Moluccas. Legaspi landed in Cebu in 1565. The islands had been called San Lazaro by Magellan; Villalobos, who commanded an expedition from Mexico, called the island at which he touched Filipina, in honour of Prince Philip. This name was extended to the whole archipelago by Legaspi, who was sent out by the former prince then ruling as Philip II. Though there were not wanting indications of hostility and distrust towards the Spaniards from the inhabitants of Cebu, Legaspi succeeded in winning their friendship after a few months. Later, in 1569, he removed the seat of government to Iloilo. He sent his nephew Juan Salcedo to explore the islands to the north. Salcedo's report to his uncle was favourable and in 1571 Legaspi, leaving the affairs of government in the hands of the natives, proceeded north and founded the city of Maynila, later Manila. Legaspi immediately set about the organization of the new colony; he appointed rulers of provinces, arranged for yearly voyages to New Spain, and other matters pertaining to the welfare of the country. In his work for pacification he was greatly aided by the friars who were then beginning the work of Christian civilization in the Philippines which was to go on for several centuries. Legaspi died in 1574. To him belongs the glory of founding the Spanish sovereignty in the islands. He was succeeded by Lavezares. About this time, the Chinese pirate Li-ma-hon invaded Luzon, with a fleet of over sixty vessels and about 6000 people. A storm that met the fleet as it neared Manila wrecked some of his boats, but Li-ma-hon proceeded on his journey and landed 1500 men. Repulsed in two attacks by the Spaniards, Li-ma-hon went north and settled in Pangasinan province. The following year (1575) Salcedo was sent against them; he defeated them and drove the fleeing Chinese into the mountains. A few years later the arrival of the first bishop is chronicled, the Dominican Salazar, one of the greatest figures in the history of the Philippines; he was accompanied by a few Jesuits (1581). The Augustinians had come with Legaspi, the Franciscans arrived in 1577, and the Dominicans in 1587. By unanimous vote of the entire colony the Jesuit Sanchez was sent to Spain to explain to Philip II the true state of affairs in the islands. His mission was entirely successful; Philip was persuaded to retain his new possessions, which many of his advisers were counseling him to relinquish. In 1591 an ambassador came from Japan demanding that tribute be paid that country. This the new governor Dasmarinas refused, but the drew up a treaty instead that was satisfactory to both parties. An expedition that started out against the Moluccas in 1593 ended disastrously. On the voyage some of the Chinese crew mutinied, killed Dasmarinas and took the ship to China. Dasmarinas built the fortress of Santiago, Manila, and fortified the city with stone walls. He was succeeded by his son Luis. During his governorship the convent of Santa Isabel, a school and home for children of Spanish soldiers was founded (1594). It exists to this day. The Audiencia or Supreme Court was re-established about this time. As it was appointed from Mexico and supported from the islands it had proved too great a drain on the resources of the colony, and so had been suppressed after the visit of the Jesuit Sanchez to Philip II. The last years of the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth centuries were marked by the seizure, by the Japanese, of the richly-laden Spanish vessel from the islands. It had sought shelter in a storm in a port of that country. The crew were put to death. Then there was a fruitless expedition against Cambodia; a naval fight against two Dutch pirate-ships, one of which was captured; and a conspiracy of the Chinese against the Spaniards. The force of the latter, 130 in number, was defeated, and every man of them decapitated. The Chinese were repulsed later, and it is said that 23,000 of them were killed. The Recollect Fathers arrived in Manila in 1606. During the first half of the seventeenth century the colony had to struggle against internal and external foes; the Dutch in particular, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Moros, the natives of Bohol, Leyte, and Cagayan. A severe earthquake destroyed Manila in 1645. In spite of the difficulties against which the islands had to struggle, the work of the evangelization went rapidly forward. The members of the various religious orders, with a heroism rarely paralleled even in the annals of Christian missions, penetrated farther and farther into the interior of the country, and established their missions in what had been centres of Paganism. The natives were won by the self-sacrificing lives of the missionaries, and accepted the teachings of Christianity in great numbers. Books were written in the native dialects, schools were everywhere established, and every effort employed for the material and moral improvement of the people. From the time of the fearless Salazar, the missionaries had always espoused the cause of the natives against the injustices and exactions of the individual rulers. It is not strange, therefore, that trouble arose at times between the civil and ecclesiastical authorities. As these misunderstandings grew from the mistakes of individuals, they were not of long duration, and they did not in any way interfere with the firmer control of the islands which Spain was year by year obtaining, or with the healthy growth of the Church throughout the archipelago. Spanish sovereignty in the Philippines was threatened by the capture of Manila by the British under Draper in 1762. There were only 600 Spanish soldiers to resist a force of 6000 British with their Indian allies. Their depredations were so dreadful that Draper put a stop to them after three days. The city remained under British sovereignty until 1764. There were several uprisings by the natives during the beginning of the nineteenth century. One of the most serious of these was that headed by Apolinario de la Cruz, who called himself King of the Tagalogs. By attributing to himself supernatural power, he gathered about him a large number of deluded fanatics, men, women, and children. He was apprehended and put to death. An event of great importance was the introduction in 1860 of shallow-draught steel gunboats to be used against the piratical Moros of Mindanao. For centuries they had ravaged the Visayan islands, carrying off annually about a thousand prisoners. A severe earthquake in Manila in 1863 destroyed the chief public buildings, the cathedral, and other churches, except that of San Agustin. Some native clergy participated in a serious revolt against Spanish authority which occurred in Cavite in 1872. Three Filipino priests who were implicated in the uprising, Gomez, Zamora, and Burgos, were executed. It is said that the spirit of insurrection which manifested itself so strongly during the last quarter of the nineteenth century was the result of the establishment of certain secret societies. The first Masonic lodge of the Philippines was founded in Cavite in 1860. Lodges were later formed at Zamboanga (in Mindanao), Manila, and Cebu. Europeans only were admitted at first, but afterwards natives were received. The lodges were founded by anti-clericals, and naturally anti-clericals flocked largely to the standard. There was no idea then of separation from the mother country, but only of a more liberal form of government. After the insurrection at Cavite in 1872, the Spanish Masons separated themselves from the revolutionary ones. New societies were gradually formed, the most celebrated being the Liga Filipina, founded by the popular hero Dr. Rizal. Practically all the members were Masons, and men of means and education. A more powerful society and a powerful factor in the insurrection of 1896, recalling the American Ku Klux Klan, was the Katipunan. Its symbol KKK was literally anti-Spanish, for there is no K in Spanish. The full title of the society was "The Sovereign Worshipful Association of the Sons of the Country". The members (from 10,000 to 50,000) were poor people who subscribed little sums monthly for the purchase of arms, etc. Later a woman's lodge was organized. According to Sawyer "the Katipunan adopted some of the Masonic paraphernalia, and some of its initiatory ceremonies, but were in no sense Masonic lodges" (p.83). In 1896 another insurrection broke out near Manila, in Cavite province. Aguinaldo, a young school teacher, became prominent about this time. The spirit of revolt spread through the neighbouring provinces; there were several engagements, until finally, Aguinaldo, at the head of the remnant of rebels, left Cavite and took refuge near Angat in the Province of Bulacan. As it would have taken a long time to dislodge them, a method of conciliation was adopted. The result was the pact of Biak-na-bato, signed 14 Dec., 1897. By the terms of this agreement the Filipinos were not to plot against Spanish sovereignty for a period of three years; Aguinaldo and other followers were to be deported, for a period to be fixed by Spain. In return they were to receive the sum of $500,000 as indemnity; and those who had not taken up arms were to be given $350,000 as reimbursement for the losses they had incurred. The leaders of the insurrection of 1896 exercised despotic power, and ill-treated and robbed those of their countrymen who would not join them. Andres Bonifacio, the president of the Katipunan, ultimately became a victim of these despots. Thirty thousand Filipinos are reported to have lost their lives in the rebellion of 1896. In 1898 hostilities broke out between Spain and the United States. On 24 April, 1898, Aguinaldo met the American Consul at Singapore, Mr. Pratt; two days later he proceeded to Hong Kong. The American squadron under Commodore (now Admiral) Dewey destroyed the Spanish ships in Manila Bay. Aguinaldo and seventeen followers landed at Cavite from the United States vessel Hugh McCullough and were furnished arms by Dewey. Aguinaldo proclaimed dictatorial government, and asked recognition from foreign powers. The American troops took Manila on 13 August. A treaty of peace was signed at Paris by the terms of which the Philippines were ceded to the United States, and the latter paid Spain the sum of $20,000,000. It was later discovered that certain islands near Borneo were not included in the boundaries fixed by the peace commission. These were also ceded to the United States, which paid an additional $100,000. The Filipinos had organized a government of their own, the capital being Malolos, in the Province of Bulacan. Fighting between them and the Americans began on 4 Feb., 1899; but by the end of the year, all organized opposition was practically at an end. Aguinaldo was captured in April, 1901, and on 1 July of the same year the insurrection was declared to be extinct, the administration was turned over to the civil Government, and Judge Taft (now President) was appointed governor. American Government: General. The Spanish laws remain in force to-day, except as changed by military order, Act of Congress, or Act of the Philippine Commission. The first Philippine Commission was appointed by President McKinley Jan., 1899. The second Philippine Commission was sent to the islands in 1900. Its object was to establish a civil government based on the recommendations of the first commission. The principles that were to guide this commission are thus expressed in the following instructions given them: "The Commission should bear in mind that the government that they are establishing is designed not for our satisfaction or for the expression of our theoretical views, but for the happiness, peace, and prosperity of the people of the Philippine Islands, and the measures adopted should be made to conform to their customs, their habits, and even their prejudices, to the fullest extent consistent with the indispensable requisites of just and effective government." "No laws shall be made respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship without discrimination or preference shall for ever be allowed." This was confirmed by Act of Congress 1 July, 1902, in almost identical words (section 5). The members of the commission are appointed by the president, with the consent of the Senate; their tenure of office is at the pleasure of the president. There are nine commissioners, one of whom is the governor-general (the chief executive of the Philippine Islands), and four are secretaries of the departments of the Interior, of Commerce and Police, of Finance and Justice, and of Public Instruction. Each of these departments is divided into bureaus of which there are twenty-three in all. Through these the actual administration of the affairs of the Government is carried on. On 16 Oct., 1907, the Philippine Assembly was inaugurated. The assembly shares legislative power with the commission over all parts of the islands "not inhabited by the Moros or other non-Christian tribes". Over the Moros and the non-Christian tribes the commission alone has power. The legislative power of the commission and assembly over the Christian tribes is equal. No law may be made without the approval of both houses. If at any session the annual appropriation for the support of the Government shall not have been made, an amount equal to the last annual appropriation is considered thereby appropriated for the ensuing year. The members of the assembly are elected by popular vote. The right to this suffrage is extended to all male citizens of the Philippine Islands or of the United States, over twenty-three years of age, who possess at least one of the following qualifications: (1) ability to speak, read, and write English or Spanish; (2) ownership of real property to the value of $250 or the payment of $15 annually of the established taxes; (3) holding of municipal office under the Spanish Government in the Philippines. All acts passed by the commission and by the assembly are enacted by the authority of the United States Congress, which reserves the power and authority to annul them. The assembly may consist of not less than fifty nor more than a hundred members. Each province is entitled to one delegate; and if its population is more than 90,000, to an additional member for every extra 90,000 and major fraction thereof. There are at present eighty delegates, Manila is counted as a province. Thirty-one delegates are from the Visayan Islands, and forty-four from Luzon. The commission and assembly are authorized to send two commissioners to the United States to represent the interests of the Philippines at Washington. American Government: Provincial. According to their form of government, the islands are divided into three classes: the Christian provinces, the non-Christian provinces, and the Moro provinces. The officers of the Christian province are the governor, the treasurer, the third member of the provincial board, and the fiscal or district attorney. The governor and third member are elected to office; the treasurer and fiscal are appointed by the governor of the Philippine Islands with the consent of the Commission; the tenure of their office depends upon the governor-general. Any provincial officer may be suspended or removed from office by the governor-general for sufficient cause. The provincial governor, the treasurer, and the third member form the provincial board, which legislates in a limited way for the province. The non-Christian tribes are under a governor, secretary, treasurer, supervisor and fiscal. In some provinces there is also a lieutenant-governor. These officers are appointed by the governor-general with the consent of the commission. The Moro province includes the greater part of Mindanao, the whole of the Sulu Archipelago, and smaller groups of islands. The inhabitants number 500,000, half of them Moros; the remainder, with the exception of some thousand Christians, are wild tribes. The Government of the Moro province is civil-military. It is divided into five districts, each with its governor and secretary, appointed by the governor of the province. On the legislative council of the entire province there is, besides the governor, a secretary, treasurer, and attorney. While the governor-general appoints these officers, the two first named are usually officers of the United States army detailed for this purpose. The district officers are also usually detailed from the army. Courts of Justice. There is no trial by jury in the Philippine Islands. There are three classes of courts of justice: justice-of-the-peace courts, courts of first instance, and the supreme court; a justice of the peace must be at least twenty-three years of age. he is appointed by the governor from a number of individuals whose names are presented by a judge of the court of first instance, and by the director of education. Among his powers is that of performing marriage ceremonies. The courts of first instance try appeals from the lower court and cases in which they have original jurisdiction. These judges are appointed by the governor with the approval of the commission. Supreme Court. This court is composed of one chief justice and six associates. Important cases may be appealed from it to the Supreme Court of the United States. The supreme court rarely hears witnesses, but examines the written testimony made before the lower court, and listens to arguments of the opposing lawyers. The supreme court may not merely reverse or affirm the decision of the lower court, but it may even change the degree and kind of punishment. A defendant, for instance, sentenced to imprisonment for life or for twenty years may, and sometimes does, have his sentence changed on appeal to the supreme court to the death penalty. Religion. Before the arrival of the Spaniards the religion of the islands was similar to that of the majority of the Chinese, Japanese, and Malayans. They were worshippers of the souls of their ancestors, of the sun, the moon, the stars, plants, birds, and animals. Among the deities of the Tagalogs were: a blue bird, called Bathala (divinity); the crow, called Maylupa (lord of the earth); the alligator, called Nono (grandfather). They adored in common with other Malayans the tree Balete, which they did not dare cut. They had idols in their houses, called anito, and by the Visayans, diuata. There were anitos of the country who permitted them to pass over it; anitos of the fields who gave fertility to the soil; anitos of the sea who fed the fishes and guarded boats; and anitos to look after the house and newly-born infants. The anitos were supposed to be the souls of their ancestors. Their story of the origin of the world was that the sky and the water were walking together; a kite came between them, and in order to keep the waters from rising to the sky, placed upon them the islands, the Filipinos' idea of the world. The origin of man came about in the following manner: a piece of bamboo was floating on the water; the water cast it at the feet of a kite; the kite in anger broke the bamboo with its beak; out of one piece came man, and out of the other woman. The souls of the dead were supposed to feed on rice and tuba (a native liquor), thus food was placed at the graves of the dead, a custom which still survives among some of the uncivilized tribes of Mindanao. The ministers of religion were priestesses -- crafty and diabolical old women, who offered sacrifices of animals and even of human beings. Sacrifices of animals still occur among the tribes; and accounts of recent human sacrifice will be found in the reports of the Philippine Commission. The superstitions of the Filipinos were numerous. In Supreme Case no. 5381 there is given the testimony of Igorottes, who before starting to murder a man, a couple of years ago, killed some chickens and examined their entrails to discover if the time was favourable for the slaying of a man. The hooting of owls, the hissing of lizards, and the sight of a serpent had a supernatural signification. One of the most feared of the evil spirits was the asuang, which was supposed to capture children or lonely travelers. A fuller description of these superstitions is given in Delgado, "Historia General de las Islas Filipinas" (Manila, 1894), bk. III, xvi, xvii, and in Blumentritt, "Mythological Dictionary". As might be expected from idolatrous tribes in a tropical climate, the state of morality was low; wives were bought and sold, and children did not hesitate to enslave their own parents. It was on material such as this that the Spanish missionaries had to work. A Christian Malay race, a people that from the lower grade of savagery had advanced to the highest form of civilization, was the result of their efforts. Up to the year 1896 the Augustinians had founded 242 towns, with a population of more than 2,000,000. There were 310 religious of the order; this includes (and the same applies to the following figures) lay brothers, students, and invalids. The Franciscans number 455 in 153 towns, with a population of a little more than a million; there were 206 Dominicans in 69 towns, with about 700,000 inhabitants; 192 Recollects in 194 towns, with a population of 1,175,000; 167 Jesuits who ministered to about 200,000 Christians in the missions of Mindanao. The total religious therefore in 1906 was 1330 to look after a Catholic population of more than 5,000,000 while secular clergy were in charge of nearly a million more. The members of the religious orders in the Philippines in 1906 did not amount to 500. The condition of the Filipino people, as they were prior to the revolution of 1896, forms the best argument in favour of the labours of the religious orders. The islands were not conquered by force; the greater part of the fighting was to protect the natives from enemies from without. It was not until 1822 that there was a garrison of Spanish troops in the archipelago. And, as all impartial historians admit, the small number of troops needed was due solely to the religious influence of the priests over the people. The total strength of American regiments in the Philippines in 1910, including the Philippine Scouts, was 17,102. To this should be added more than 4000 members of the Philippine Constabulary, a military police necessary for the maintenance of order. Besides their far-reaching influence for peace, the religious orders did notable work in literature and science. Father Manuel Blance, an Augustinian, was the author of "Flora Filipina", a monumental work in four folio volumes, illustrated with hundreds of coloured plates reproduced from water-colour paintings of the plants of the Philippines. Father Rodrigo Aganduru Moriz, a Recollect (Augustinian Discalced), (1584-1626), after evangelizing the natives of Bataan, and founding houses of his order in Manila and Cebu, and missions in Mindanao, set sail from the Philippines. He spent some time in Persia, where he brought back numerous schismatics to the Faith and converted many infidels. Arriving in Rome, Urban VIII wished to send him back to Persia as Apostolic delegate with some religious of his order, but he died a few months later at the age of forty-two. Among his works are: "A General History of the Philippines", in two volumes; "The Persecution in Japan"; a book of sermons; a grammar and dictionary of a native dialect; "Origin of the Oriental Empires"; "Chronology of Oriental Kings and Kingdoms"; a narrative of his travels written for Urban VIII; a collection of maps of various islands, seas, and provinces; the work of the Augustinians (Discalced) in the conversion of the Philippines and of Japan; a family book of medicine for the use of Filipinos. The number of Augustinian authors alone, until 1780 was 131, and the books published by them more than 200 in nine native dialects, more than 100 in Spanish, besides a number of volumes in the Chinese and Japanese languages. How extensive and how varied were the missionary, literary, and scientific works of the members of the religious orders may be gathered from their chronicles. The Philippines constitute an ecclesiastical province, of which the Archbishop of Manila is the metropolitan. The suffragan sees are: Jaro; Nueva Caceres; Nueva Segovia; Cebu, Calbayog; Lipa; Tuguegarao; Zamboanga; and the Prefecture Apostolic of Palawan. There are over a thousand priests, and a Catholic population of 6,000,000. (See Cebu; Jaro; Manila, Archdiocese of; Manila Observatory; Nueva Caceres; Nueva Segovia; Palawan; Samar and Leyte; Tuguegarao; Zamboanga.) The Diocese of Lipa (Lipensis). The Diocese of Lipa, erected 10 April, 1910, comprises the Provinces of Batangas, La Laguna, Tayabas (with the Districts of Infanta and Principe), Mindoro, and the sub-Province of Marinduque, formerly parts of the Archdiocese of Manila. Rt. Rev Joseph Petrelli, D.D., the first bishop, was appointed 12 April, 1910, and consecrated at Manila, 12 June, 1910. There are 95 parishes; the Discalced Augustinians have charge of 14, and the Capuchins of 6. The diocese comprises 12,208 sq.m.; about 640,000 Christians; and 9000 non-Christians. Aglipayanism. The Aglipayano sect caused more annoyance than damage to the Church in the Philippines. The originator of the schism was a native priest, Gregorio Aglipay. He was employed as a servant in the Augustinian house, Manila, and being of ingratiating manners was educated and ordained priest. Later he took the field as an insurgent general. Being hard pressed by the American troops he surrendered and was paroled in 1901. In 1902 he arrogated himself the title of "Pontifex Maximus", and through friendship or fear drew to his allegiance some native priests. Those of the latter who were his friends he nominated "bishops". Simeon Mandac, one of the two lay pillars of the movement, is now serving a term of twenty years in the penitentiary for murder and rebellion. At first the schism seemed to make headway in the north, chiefly for political reasons. With the restoration of the churches under order of the Supreme Court in 1906-07 the schism began to dwindle, and its adherents are now inconsiderable. Religious Policy of the Government. Freedom of worship and separation of Church and State is a principle of the American Government. In a country where there was the strictest union of Church and State for more than three centuries, this policy is not without serious difficulties. At times ignorant officials may act as if the Church must be separated from her rights as a lawful corporation existing in the State. In some such way as this several Catholic churches were seized, with the connivance or the open consent of municipal officers, by adherents of the Aglipayano sect. It required time and considerable outlay of money for the Church to regain possession of her property through the courts. And even then the aggressors often succeeded in damaging as much as possible the church buildings or its belongings before surrendering them. There is no distinction or privilege accorded clergymen, except that they are precluded from being municipal councilors. However: "there shall be exempt from taxation burying grounds, church and their adjacent parsonages or convents, and lands and buildings used exclusively for religious charitable, scientific, or educational purposes and not for private profit". This does not apply to land or buildings owned by the Church to procure revenue for religious purposes, e.g. the support of a hospital, orphan asylum, etc., so that glebe land is taxable. The only exception made in the matter of free imports for church purposes is that Bibles and hymn books are admitted free of duty. Practically everything needed in the services of the Catholic Church, vestments, sacred vessels, altars, statues, pictures, etc. pay duty, if such goods are not purchased from or manufactured in the United States. Religious corporations or associations, of whatever sect or denomination, were authorized to hold land by an act of the commission passed in October, 1901. In April, 1906, the law of corporations came into force. Under this Act (no. 1459) a bishop, chief, priest, or presiding elder of any religious denomination, can become a corporation sole by filing articles of incorporation holding property in trust for the denomination. Authority is also given to any religious society or order, or any diocese, synod, or organization to incorporate under specified conditions to administer its temporalities. The same act empowers colleges and institutes of learning to incorporate. All cemeteries are under the control of the Bureau of Health. By an Act passed in Feb., 1906, existing cemeteries and burial grounds were to be closed unless authorized by the director of health; municipalities were empowered, subject to the same authority, to set apart land for a municipal burial ground, and to make by-laws without discriminating against race, nationality, or religion. The church burial grounds had generally to be enlarged or new ones consecrated, and individual graves indicated and allotted. The right to hold public funerals and to take the remains into church was not to be abridged or interfered with, except in times of epidemics or in case of contagious or infectious diseases, when a public funeral might be held at the grave after an hour had elapsed from the actual interment. The right of civil marriage was established in 1898, by order of General Otis. The certificate of marriage, by whomsoever celebrated, must be filed with the civil authorities. The forbidden degrees extend to half-blood and step-parents. A subsequent marriage while husband or wife is alive is illegal and void, unless the former marriage has been annulled or dissolved, or by presumption of death after seven years' absence. There is no express provision for divorce; but marriages may be annulled by order of judges of the court of first instance for impediments existing at the time of marriage, such as being under the age of consent (fourteen years for boys, twelve years for girls), insanity, etc. The local health officer shall report to the municipal president "all births that may come to his knowledge", the date, and names of parents. The parochial clergy have generally complete and carefully-kept registers of baptisms, and furnish certified copies to those who need them. The property of deceased persons was in general formerly distributed at a family council, with the approval of the courts. But it appears that at the present time the estates of deceased persons must be administered under direction of the courts of first instance. Testaments are made and property devolves in accordance with the provisions of the Spanish civil code. Education. The Spanish missionaries established schools immediately on reaching the islands. Wherever they penetrated, church and school went together. The Jesuits had two universities in Manila, besides colleges at Cavite, Marinduque, Arevalo, Cebu, and Zamboanga. The Dominicans had their flourishing University of S. Tomas, Manila, existing to this day, and their colleges in other large towns. There was no Christian village without its school; all the young people attended. On the Jesuits' return to the islands in 1859, the cause of higher education received a new impetus. They established the college of the Ateneo de Manila, where nearly all those who have been prominent in the history of their country during the last half-century were educated. They opened a normal school which sent its trained Filipino teachers over all parts of the islands. The normal school graduated during the thirty years of its existence 1948 teachers. After the American occupation a public-school system, modeled on that of the United States, was established by the Government. The total number of schools in operation for 1909-10 was 4531, an increase of 107 over the preceding year. The total annual enrolment was 587,317, plus 4946 in the schools of the Moro Province. The average monthly enrolment however was 427,165 and the average monthly attendance only 337,307; of these, 2300 were pupils of secondary schools, 15,487 of intermediate schools and 319,520 of primary schools. There were 732 American teachers, 8130 Filipino teachers, and 145 Filipino apprentices -- teachers who serve without pay. Act 74, sec. 16, provides: "No teacher or other person shall teach or criticize the doctrines of any church, religious sect, or denomination, or shall attempt to influence pupils for or against any church or religious sect in any public school. If any teacher shall intentionally violate this section he or she shall, after due hearing, be dismissed from the public service; provided: however, that it shall be lawful for the priest or minister of any church established in the town wherein a public school is situated, either in person or by a designated teacher of religion, to teach for one-half hour three times a week, in the school building, to those public-school pupils whose parents or guardians desire it and express their desire therefor in writing filed with the principal teacher of the school, to be forwarded to the division superintendent, who shall fix the hours and rooms for such teaching. But no public-school teachers shall either conduct religious exercises, or teach religion, or act as a designated religious teacher in the school building under the foregoing authority, and no pupil shall be required by any public-school teacher to attend and receive the religious instruction herein permitted. Should the opportunity thus given to teach religion be used by the priest, minister, or religious teacher for the purpose of arousing disloyalty to the United States, or of discouraging the attendance of pupils at any such public school, or creating a disturbance of public order, or of interfering with the discipline of the school, the division superintendent, subject to the approval of the director of education, may, after due investigation and hearing, forbid such offending priest, minister, or religious teacher from entering the public-school building thereafter." That the religion of the Filipino people must inevitably suffer from the present system of education is evident to anyone conversant with existing conditions. To the religious disadvantages common to the public school of the United States must be added the imitative habit characteristic of the Filipino, and the proselytizing efforts of American Protestant missionaries. The place in which the greatest amount of harm can be done to the religion of the Filipino is the secondary school. Despite the best intentions on the part of the Government, the very fact that the vast majority of the American teachers in these schools are not Catholics incapacitates a great number of them from giving the Catholic interpretation of points of history connected with the Reformation, the preaching of indulgences, the reading of the Bible, etc. Accustomed to identify his religion and his Government, the step towards concluding that the American Government must be a Protestant Government is an easy one for the young Filipino. Further, as the secondary schools are only situated in the provincial capitals, the students leave home to live in the capital of their province. It is among these young people particularly that the American Protestant missionary works. Even though he does not make the student a member of this or that particular sect, a spirit of indifferentism is generated which does not bode well for the future of the country, temporally or spiritually. A nation that is only three centuries distant from habits of idolatry and savagery cannot be removed from daily religious education and still be expected to prosper. That the majority of the Filipino people desires a Christian education for their children may be seen from this, that the Catholic colleges, academics, and school established in all the dioceses are overcrowded. For the present, and for many years to come, the majority of Filipinos cannot afford to pay a double school tax, and hence must accept the educational system imposed upon them by the United States. PHILIP M. FINEGAN Philippopolis, Titular Metropolitan of Philippopolis A titular metropolitan see of Thracia Secunda. The city was founded by Philip of Macedon in 342 b.c. on the site of the legendary Eumolpins. As he sent thither 2000 culprits in addition to the colony of veterans, the town was for some time known as Poniropolis as well as by its official designation. During Alexander's expedition, the entire country fell again under the sway of Seuthes III, King of the Odrysians, and it was only in 313 that the Hellenic supremacy was re-established by Lysimachus. In 200 b.c. the Thracians, for a brief interval it is true, drove back the Macedonian garrisons; later they passed under the protectorate and afterwards the domination of Rome in the time of Tiberius, The city was now called Trimontium, but only for a very short time (Pliny, "Hist. Nat.", IV, xviii). From the reign of Septimius Severus, Philippopolis bears the title of metropolis on coins and in inscriptions. It was there that the conventus of Thrace assembled. In 172 Marcus Aurelius fortified the city with walls; in 248 Philip granted it the title of colony, two years before its destruction by the Goths, who slaughtered 100,000 men there (Ammianus Marcellinus, XXVI, x). Restored again, it became the metropolis of Thracia Secunda. The exact date of the establishment of Christianity in this town is unknown; the oldest testimony, quite open to criticism, however, is in connexion with thirty-seven martyrs, whose feast is celebrated on 20 August, and who are said to have been natives of Philippopolis, though other towns of Thrace are frequently given as their native place. In 344 was held at Philippopolis the conciliabulum of the Eusebians, which brought together 76 bishops separated from their colleagues of Sardica, or Sofia, and adversaries of St. Athanasius and his friends. Among its most celebrated ancient metropolitans is Silvanus, who asked the Patriarch Proclus to transfer him to Troas on account of the severity of the climate, and whose name was inserted by Baronius in the Roman Martyrology for 2 December. Philippopolis, which from the fifth century at the latest was the ecclesiastical metropolis of Thracia Secunda and dependent on the Patriarchate of Constantinople, had three suffragan bishoprics in the middle of the seventh century (Gelzer, "Ungedruckte . . . Texte der Notitiæ episcopatuum", 542); in the tenth century it had ten (ibid., 577); towards the end of the fifteenth century it had none (ibid.). The Greek metropolitan see has continued to exist, in spite of the occupation of the Bulgarians. The latter, however, have erected there an orthodox metropolitan see of their own. Though generally held by the Byzantines Philippopolis was often captured by other peoples — Huns, Avars, Slavs, Bulgarians, and the Franks who retained it from 1204 till 1235. It was taken by the Turks in 1370 and finally came under the sway of the Bulgarians in 1885. By transporting thither on several occasions Armenian and Syrian colonists, the Byzantines made it an advanced fortress to oppose the Bulgarians; unfortunately these colonists were nearly all Monophysites and especially Paulicians, so the city became the great centre of Manichæism in the Middle Ages. These heretics converted by the Capuchins in the seventeenth century have become fervent Catholics of the Latin rite. The city called Plovdif in Bulgarian contains at present 47,000 inhabitants, of whom about 4000 are Catholics. The Greeks and Turks are fairly numerous; the Catholic parish is in charge of secular priests; there is a seminary, which however has only from 20 to 25 students. The Assumptionists, who number about 30, have had since 1884 a college with a commercial department, attended by 250 pupils; the primary school for boys was established in 1863 by the Assumptionist Sisters; the Sisters of St. Joseph have a boarding-school and a primary school for girls; the Sisters of Charity of Agram have an hospital. LE QUIEN, Oriens. christ., I, 1155-62; TSOUKALAS, Description historico-géographique de l'éparchie de Philippopolis (Vienna, 1851), in Greek; MÜLLER, Ptolemœi Geographia, I (Paris), 483; JIRECEK, Das Fürstenthum Bulgarien (Prague, 1891), 378-87; DUPUY-PÉYOU, La Bulgarie aux Bulgares (Paris, 1896), 142-8, 291-8; Revue franco-bulgare (1910), 10-18. S. VAILHÉ. Philippopolis Philippopolis Titular see in Arabia, suffragan of Bostra. Its bishop, Hormisdas, was present at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (LeQuien, "Oriens christianus", II, 861). An inscription makes known another bishop, Basil, in 553 ("Echos d'Orient", XII, 1909, 103). Philippopolis figures as a see in the "Notitiae Episcopatuum" in the sixth century (op. cit., X, 1907, 145). There were also several titular bishops in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries (Eubel, "Hierarchia catholica medii aevi", II, 238; III, 291). The ancient name of this place is unknown. The Emperor Philip (244-9) founded this town and gave it his name (Aurelius Victor, "De Caesar.", 28). Thenceforth it grew very rapidly as evidenced by the fine ruins, remains of the colonnades of a temple and colossal baths, discovered on its site at Shohba in the Hauran. WADDINGTON, Inscriptions grecques et latines recueillies en Grece et en Asie Mineure, 490-3; GELZER, Georgii Cyprii Descriptio orbis romani, 204; Revue biblique, VII (1898), 601-3; Echos d'Orient, II (1899), 175. S. VAILHÉ St. Philip Romolo Neri St. Philip Romolo Neri THE APOSTLE OF ROME. Born at Florence, Italy, 22 July, 1515; died 27 May, 1595. Philip's family originally came from Castelfranco but had lived for many generations in Florence, where not a few of its members had practised the learned professions, and therefore took rank with the Tuscan nobility. Among these was Philip's own father, Francesco Neri, who eked out an insufficient private fortune with what he earned as a notary. A circumstance which had no small influence on the life of the saint was Francesco's friendship with the Dominicans; for it was from the friars of S. Marco, amid the memories of Savonarola, that Philip received many of his early religious impressions. Besides a younger brother, who died in early childhood, Philip had two younger sisters, Caterina and Elisabetta. It was with them that "the good Pippo", as he soon began to be called, committed his only known fault. He gave a slight push to Caterina, because she kept interrupting him and Elisabetta, while they were reciting psalms together, a practice of which, as a boy, he was remakably fond. One incident of his childhood is dear to his early biographers as the first visible intervention of Providence on his behalf, and perhaps dearer still to his modern disciples, because it reveals the human characteristics of a boy amid the supernatural graces of a saint. When about eight years old he was left alone in a courtyard to amuse himself; seeing a donkey laden with fruit, he jumped on its back; the beast bolted, and both tumbled into a deep cellar. His parents hastened to the spot and extricated the child, not dead, as they feared, but entirely uninjured. From the first it was evident that Philip's career would run on no conventional lines; when shown his family pedigree he tore it up, and the burning of his father's house left him unconcerned. Having studied the humanities under the best scholars of a scholarly generation, at the age of sixteen he was sent to help his father's cousin in business at S. Germano, near Monte Cassino. He applied himself with diligence, and his kinsman soon determined to make him his heir. But he would often withdraw for prayer to a little mountain chapel belonging to the Benedictines of Monte Cassino, built above the harbour of Gaeta in a cleft of rock which tradition says was among those rent at the hour of Our Lord's death. It was here that his vocation became definite: he was called to be the Apostle of Rome. In 1533 he arrived in Rome without any money. He had not informed his father of the step he was taking, and he had deliberately cut himself off from his kinsman's patronage. He was, however, at once befriended by Galeotto Caccia, a Florentine resident, who gave him a room in his house and an allowance of flour, in return for which he undertook the education of his two sons. For seventeen years Philip lived as a layman in Rome, probably without thinking of becoming a priest. It was perhaps while tutor to the boys, that he wrote most of the poetry which he composed both in Latin and in Italian. Before his death he burned all his writings, and only a few of his sonnets have come down to us. He spent some three years, beginning about 1535, in the study of philosophy at the Sapienza, and of theology in the school of the Augustinians. When he considered that he had learnt enough, he sold his books, and gave the price to the poor. Though he never again made study his regular occupation, whenever he was called upon to cast aside his habitual reticence, he would surprise the most learned with the depth and clearness of his theological knowledge. He now devoted himself entirely to the sanctification of his own soul and the good of his neighbour. His active apostolate began with solitary and unobtrusive visits to the hospitals. Next he induced others to accompany him. Then he began to frequent the shops, warehouses, banks, and public places of Rome, melting the hearts of those whom he chanced to meet, and exhorting them to serve God. In 1544, or later, he became the friend of St. Ignatius. Many of his disciples tried and found their vocations in the infant Society of Jesus; but the majority remained in the world, and formed the nucleus of what afterwards became the Brotherhood of the Little Oratory. Though he "appeared not fasting to men", his private life was that of a hermit. His single daily meal was of bread and water, to which a few herbs were sometimes added, the furniture of his room consisted of a bed, to which he usually preferred the floor, a table, a few chairs, and a rope to hang his clothes on; and he disciplined himself frequently with small chains. Tried by fierce temptations, diabolical as well as human, he passed through them all unscathed, and the purity of his soul manifested itself in certain striking physical traits. He prayed at first mostly in the church of S. Eustachio, hard by Caccia's house. Next he took to visiting the Seven Churches. But it was in the catacomb of S. Sebastiano -- confounded by early biographers with that of S. Callisto -- that he kept the longest vigils and received the most abundant consolations. In this catacomb, a few days before Pentecost in 1544, the well-known miracle of his heart took place. Bacci describes it thus: "While he was with the greatest earnestness asking of the Holy Ghost His gifts, there appeared to him a globe of fire, which entered into his mouth and lodged in his breast; and thereupon he was suddenly surprised with such a fire of love, that, unable to bear it, he threw himself on the ground, and, like one trying to cool himself, bared his breast to temper in some measure the flame which he felt. When he had remained so for some time, and was a little recovered, he rose up full of unwonted joy, and immediately all his body began to shake with a violent tremour; and putting his hand to his bosom, he felt by the side of his heart, a swelling about as big as a man's fist, but neither then nor afterwards was it attended with the slightest pain or wound." The cause of this swelling was discovered by the doctors who examined his body after death. The saint's heart had been dilated under the sudden impulse of love, and in order that it might have sufficient room to move, two ribs had been broken, and curved in the form of an arch. From the time of the miracle till his death, his heart would palpitate violently whenever he performed any spiritual action. During his last years as a layman, Philip's apostolate spread rapidly. In 1548, together with his confessor, Persiano Rosa, he founded the Confraternity of the Most Holy Trinity for looking after pilgrims and convalescents. Its members met for Communion, prayer, and other spiritual exercises in the church of S. Salvatore, and the saint himself introduced exposition of the Blessed Sacrament once a month (see FORTY HOURS' DEVOTION). At these devotions Philip preached, though still a layman, and we learn that on one occasion alone he converted no less than thirty dissolute youths. In 1550 a doubt occurred to him as to whether he should not discontinue his active work and retire into absolute solitude. His perplexity was set at rest by a vision of St. John the Baptist, and by another vision of two souls in glory, one of whom was eating a roll of bread, signifying God's will that he should live in Rome for the good of souls as though he were in a desert, abstaining as far as possible from the use of meat. In 1551, however, he received a true vocation from God. At the bidding of his confessor -- nothing short of this would overcome his humility -- he entered the priesthood, and went to live at S. Girolamo, where a staff of chaplains was supported by the Confraternity of Charity. Each priest had two rooms assigned to him, in which he lived, slept, and ate, under no rule save that of living in charity with his brethren. Among Philip's new companions, besides Persiano Rosa, was Buonsignore Cacciaguerra (see "A Precursor of St. Philip" by Lady Amabel Kerr, London), a remarkable penitent, who was at that time carrying on a vigorous propaganda in favour of frequent Communion. Philip, who as a layman had been quietly encouraging the frequent reception of the sacraments, expended the whole of his priestly energy in promoting the same cause; but unlike his precursor, he recommended the young especially to confess more often than they communicated. The church of S. Girolamo was much frequented even before the coming of Philip, and his confessional there soon became the centre of a mighty apostolate. He stayed in church, hearing confessions or ready to hear them, from daybreak till nearly midday, and not content with this, he usually confessed some forty persons in his room before dawn. Thus he laboured untiringly throughout his long priesthood. As a physician of souls he received marvellous gifts from God. He would sometimes tell a penitent his most secret sins without his confessing them; and once he converted a young nobleman by showing him a vision of hell. Shortly before noon he would leave his confessional to say Mass. His devotion to the Blessed Sacrament, like the miracle of his heart, is one of those manifestations of sanctity which are peculiarly his own. So great was the fervour of his charity, that, instead of recollecting himself before Mass, he had to use deliberate means of distraction in order to attend to the external rite. During the last five years of his life he had permission to celebrate privately in a little chapel close to his room. At the "Agnus Dei" the server went out, locked the doors, and hung up a notice: "Silence, the Father is saying Mass". When he returned in two hours or more, the saint was so absorbed in God that he seemed to be at the point of death. Philip devoted his afternoons to men and boys, inviting them to informal meetings in his room, taking them to visit churches, interesting himself in their amusements, hallowing with his sweet influence every department of their lives. At one time he had a longing desire to follow the example of St. Francis Xavier, and go to India. With this end in view, he hastened the ordination of some of his companions. But in 1557 he sought the counsel of a Cistercian at Tre Fontane; and as on a former occasion he had been told to make Rome his desert, so now the monk communicated to him a revelation he had had from St. John the Evangelist, that Rome was to be his India. Philip at once abandoned the idea of going abroad, and in the following year the informal meetings in his room developed into regular spiritual exercises in an oratory, which he built over the church. At these exercises laymen preached and the excellence of the discourses, the high quality of the music, and the charm of Philip's personality attracted not only the humble and lowly, but men of the highest rank and distinction in Church and State. Of these, in 1590, Cardinal Nicolo Sfondrato, became Pope Gregory XIV, and the extreme reluctance of the saint alone prevented the pontiff from forcing him to accept the cardinalate. In 1559, Philip began to organize regular visits to the Seven Churches, in company with crowds of men, priests and religious, and laymen of every rank and condition. These visits were the occasion of a short but sharp persecution on the part of a certain malicious faction, who denounced him as "a setter-up of new sects". The cardinal vicar himself summoned him, and without listening to his defence, rebuked him in the harshest terms. For a fortnight the saint was suspended from hearing confessions; but at the end of that time he made his defence, and cleared himself before the ecclesiastical authorities. In 1562, the Florentines in Rome begged him to accept the office of rector of their church, S. Giovanni dei Fiorentini, but he was reluctant to leave S. Girolamo. At length the matter was brought before Pius IV, and a compromise was arrived at (1564). While remaining himself at S. Girolamo, Philip became rector of S. Giovanni, and sent five priests, one of whom was Baronius, to represent him there. They lived in community under Philip as their superior, taking their meals together, and regularly attending the exercises at S. Girolamo. In 1574, however, the exercises began to be held in an oratory at S. Giovanni. Meanwhile the community was increasing in size, and in 1575 it was formally recognised by Gregory XIII as the Congregation of the Oratory, and given the church of S. Maria in Vallicella. The fathers came to live there in 1577, in which year they opened the Chiesa Nuova, built on the site of the old S. Maria, and transferred the exercises to a new oratory. Philip himself remained at S. Girolamo till 1583, and it was only in obedience to Gregory XIII that he then left his old home and came to live at the Vallicella. The last years of his life were marked by alternate sickness and recovery. In 1593, he showed the true greatness of one who knows the limits of his own endurance, and resigned the office of superior which had been conferred on him for life. In 1594, when he was in an agony of pain, the Blessed Virgin appeared to him, and cured him. At the end of March, 1595, he had a severe attack of fever, which lasted throughout April; but in answer to his special prayer God gave him strength to say Mass on 1 May in honour of SS. Philip and James. On the following 12 May he was seized with a violent haemorrhage, and Cardinal Baronius, who had succeeded him as superior, gave him Extreme Unction. After that he seemed to revive a little and his friend Cardinal Frederick Borromeo brought him the Viaticum, which he received with loud protestations of his own unworthiness. On the next day he was perfectly well, and till the actual day of his death went about his usual duties, even reciting the Divine Office, from which he was dispensed. But on 15 May he predicted that he had only ten more days to live. On 25 May, the feast of Corpus Christi, he went to say Mass in his little chapel, two hours earlier than usual. "At the beginning of his Mass", writes Bacci, "he remained for some time looking fixedly at the hill of S. Onofrio, which was visible from the chapel, just as if he saw some great vision. On coming to the Gloria in Excelsis he began to sing, which was an unusual thing for him, and sang the whole of it with the greatest joy and devotion, and all the rest of the Mass he said with extraordinary exultation, and as if singing." He was in perfect health for the rest of that day, and made his usual night prayer; but when in bed, he predicted the hour of the night at which he would die. About an hour after midnight Father Antonio Gallonio, who slept under him, heard him walking up and down, and went to his room. He found him lying on the bed, suffering from another haemorrhage. "Antonio, I am going", he said; Gallonio thereupon fetched the medical men and the fathers of the congregation. Cardinal Baronius made the commendation of his soul, and asked him to give the fathers his final blessing. The saint raised his hand slightly, and looked up to heaven. Then inclining his head towards the fathers, he breathed his last. Philip was beatified by Paul V in 1615, and canonized by Gregory XV in 1622. It is perhaps by the method of contrast that the distinctive characteristics of St. Philip and his work are brought home to us most forcibly (see Newman, "Sermons on Various Occasions", n. xii; "Historical Sketches", III, end of ch. vii). We hail him as the patient reformer, who leaves outward things alone and works from within, depending rather on the hidden might of sacrament and prayer than on drastic policies of external improvement; the director of souls who attaches more value to mortification of the reason than to bodily austerities, protests that men may become saints in the world no less than in the cloister, dwells on the importance of serving God in a cheerful spirit, and gives a quaintly humorous turn to the maxims of ascetical theology; the silent watcher of the times, who takes no active part in ecclesiastical controversies and is yet a motive force in their development, now encouraging the use of ecclesiastical history as a bulwark against Protestantism, now insisting on the absolution of a monarch, whom other counsellors would fain exclude from the sacraments (see BARONIUS), now praying that God may avert a threatened condemnation (see SAVONAROLA) and receiving a miraculous assurance that his prayer is heard (see Letter of Ercolani referred to by Capecelatro); the founder of a Congregation, which relies more on personal influence than on disciplinary organization, and prefers the spontaneous practice of counsels of perfection to their enforcement by means of vows; above all, the saint of God, who is so irresistibly attractive, so eminently lovable in himself, as to win the title of the "Amabile santo". GALLONIO, companion of the saint was the first to produce a Life of St. Philip, published in Latin (1600) and in Italian (1601), written with great precision, and following a strictly chronological order. Several medical treatises were written on the saint's palpitation and fractured ribs, e. g. ANGELO DA BAGNAREA's Medica disputatio de palpitatione cordis, fractura costarum, aliisque affectionibus B. Philippi Nerii. . .qua ostenditur praedictas affectiones fuisse supra naturam, dedicated to Card. Frederick Borromeo (Rome, 1613). BACCI wrote an Italian Life and dedicated it to Gregory XV (1622). His work is the outcome of a minute examination of the processes of canonization, and contains important matter not found in GALLONIO. BROCCHI's Life of St. Philip, contained in his Vite de' santi e beati Fiorentini (Florence, 1742), includes the saint's pedigree, and gives the Florentine tradition of his early years; for certain chronological discrepancies between GALLONIO, BACCI, and BROCCHI, see notes on the chronology in ANTROBUS' ed. of BACCI. Other Lives are by RICCI (Rome, 1670), whose work was an enlargement of BACCI, and includes his own Lives of the Companions of St. Philip; MARCIANO (1693); SONZONIO (1727); BERNABEI (d. 1662), whose work is published for the first time by the BOLLANDISTS (Acta SS., May, VII); RAMIREZ, who adapts the language of Scripture to St. Philip in a Latin work called the Via lactea, dedicated to Innocent XI (Valencia, 1682); and BAYLE (1859). GEOTHE at the end of his Italien. Reise (Italian Journey) gives a sketch of the saint, entitled Filippo Neri, der humoristische Heilige. The most important modern Life is that of CAPECELATRO (1879), treating fully of the saint's relations with the persons and events of his time. There is an English Life by HOPE (London, New York, Cincinnati, Chicago). An abridged English translation of BACCI appeared in penal times (Paris, 1656), a fact which shows our Catholic forefathers' continued remembrance of the saint, who used to greet the English College students with the words, "Salvete, flores martyrum." FABER's Modern Saints (1847) includes translations of an enlarged ed. of BACCI, and of RICCI's Lives of the Companions. Of the former there is a new and revised edition by ANTROBUS (London, 1902). CAPECELATRO's work has been translated by POPE (London, 1882). English renderings of two of St. Philip's sonnets by RYDER are published at the end of the recent editions of BACCI and CAPECELATRO, together with translations of St. Philip's letters. These were originally published in BISCONI's Raccolta di lettere di santi e beati Fiorentini (Florence, 1737); but since that time twelve other letters have come to light. C. SEBASTIAN RITCHIE Peter Philips Peter Philips (Also known as PETRUS PHILIPPUS, PIETRO PHILLIPO.) Born in England about 1560; date and place of death unknown. It is generally accepted that Philips, remaining faithful to the Church, left England for the Netherlands, whence he went to Rome, and afterwards, returning to Antwerp, became organist at the court of the governor, Duke Albert. Having entered Holy orders, he held a canonry at Bethune, in Flanders, which he exchanged for a similar honour at Soignes in 1612. It has been pointed out that the title-pages of his published works are the best index to his movements and abiding places, and they are various. Philips ranks in importance as a musician with Tallys, Byrd, Morley, and Orlando Gibbons, and is considered one of the great masters of his time. Besides canzoni and madrigals for six and eight voices, he left innumerable instrumental works which have been preserved in the libraries of Antwerp, Leyden, Strasburg, and London. Nineteen of these are contained in "The Fitz-William Virginal Book" by J. A. Fuller- Maitland and W. B. Squire. To the Church, however, Philips devoted his best efforts. Besides single numbers found in various collections of his period, a volume of five-part motets; another of similar works for eight voices; "Gemmulae sacrae" for two and three voices and figured bass; "Les rossignols spirituels", a collection of two- and four-part pieces, some to Latin words, but most of them to French; "Deliciae sacrae", forty-one compositions for two and three parts, are preserved in the British Museum. The library of John IV of Portugal contains Philips's posthumous works -- masses for six, eight, and nine voices, and motets for eight voices. His "Cantiones sacrae" have recently been made available for modern use, and have been added to the repertoire of the choir of Westminster Cathedral. BERGMANS, L'Organiste des archiducs Albert et Isabelle (Ghent, 1903); SQUIRE in GROVE, Dictionary of Music, s.v. JOSEPH OTTEN Philip the Arabian Philip the Arabian (Philippus) Emperor of Rome (244-249), the son of an Arab sheik, born in Bosra. He rose to be an influential officer of the Roman army. In 243 the Emperor Gordianus III was at war with Persia; the administration of the army and the empire were directed with great success by his father-in-law Timesitheus. Timesitheus, however, died in 243 and the helpless Gordianus, a minor, appointed Marcus Julius Philippus as his successor. By causing a scarcity of provisions Philip increased the exasperation of the soldiers against the emperor and they proclaimed Philip emperor. Philip now had Gordianus secretly executed. However, as he erected a monument to Gordianus on the Euphrates and deified him, he deceived the Senate and obtained recognition as emperor. He abandoned the advantages Timesitheus had won from the Persian King Sapor. He withdrew from Asia, and recalled a large number of divisions of the army from Dacia, Rhaetia, and Britain to northern Italy to protect it against incursions from the East. On account of invasions by the Capri he hastened to the lower Danube, where he was successful in two battles. Consequently on coins he bears the surname of Carpicus Maximus. Philip gave high offices of State to his relations who misused these positions. He also made his son Philip, when seven years of age, co-ruler. The most important event of his reign was the celebration of the thousandth year of the existence of Rome in April, 248. The insecurity of his authority in the outlying districts showed itself in the appearance of rival emperors proclaimed by the legions stationed there. The Goths sought to settle permanently in Roman territory; and as the army of the Danube could not defend itself without a centralized control, the soldiers, at the close of 248, forced Decius, sent to suppress the mutinies, to accept the position of emperor. Decius advanced into Italy, where he defeated Philip near Verona. Philip and his son were killed. During Philip's reign Christians were not disturbed. The emperor also issued police regulations for the maintenance of public morality. A statement of St. Jerome's caused Philip to be regarded in the Middle Ages as the first Christian Emperor of Rome. MOMMSEN, Rom. Gesch. V (Berlin, 1885); for further bibliography, see PERTINAX. KARL HOEBER Philistines Philistines (Septuagint phylistieim in the Pentateuch and Josue, elsewhere allophyloi, "foreigners"). In the Biblical account the Philistines come into prominence as the inhabitants of the maritime plain of Palestine from the time of the Judges onward. They are mentioned in the genealogy of the nations (Genesis 10:14; cf. I Par. 1:11-12), where together with the Caphtorim they are set down as descendants of Mesraim. It is conjectured with probability that they came originally from Crete, sometimes identified with Caphtor, and that they belonged to a piratical, seafaring people. They make their first appearance in Biblical history late in the period of the Judges in connection with the prophesied birth of the hero Samson. The angel appearing to Saraa, wife of Manue of the race of Dan, tells her that, though barren, she shall bear a son who "shall begin to deliver Israel from the hands of the Philistines" (Judges 13:1-5); and we are informed in the same passage that the domination of the Philistines over Israel had lasted forty years. In the subsequent chapters graphic accounts are given of the encounters between Samson and these enemies of his nation who were encroaching upon Israel's western border. In the early days of Samuel we find the Philistines trying to make themselves masters of the interior of Palestine, and in one of the ensuing battles they succeeded in capturing the Ark of the Covenant (I Kings 4). The coming of a pestilence upon them, however, induced them to return it, and it remained for many years in the house of Abinadab in Cariathiarim (I Kings 5; 6; 7). After Saul became king the Philistines tried to break his power, but were unsuccessful, chiefly owing to the bravery of Jonathan (I Kings 13; 14). Their progress was not, however, permanently checked, for we are told (I Kings 14:52) that there was a "great war against the Philistines all the days of Saul", and at the end of the latter's reign we find their army still in possession of the rich plain of Jezrael including the city of Bethsan on its eastern border (I Kings 31:10). They met with a severe defeat, however, early in the reign of David (II Kings 5:20-25), who succeeded in reducing them to a state of vassalage (II Kings 8:1). Prior to this date the power of the Philistines seems to have been concentrated in the hands of the rulers of the cities of Gaza, Ascalon, Azotus (Ashdod), Accaron, and Geth, and a peculiar title signifying "Lord of the Philistines" was borne by each of these petty kings. The Philistines regained their independence at the end of the reign of David, probably about the time of the schism, for we find the Kings of Israel in the ninth century endeavouring to wrest from them Gebbethon, a city on the border of the maritime plain (III Kings 15:27; 16:15). Towards the close of the same century the Assyrian ruler, King Adad-Nirari, placed them under tribute and began the long series of Assyrian interference in Philistine affairs. In Amos (1:6, 8) we find a denunciation of the Philistine monarchies as among the independent kingdoms of the time. During the latter part of the eighth century and during the whole of the seventh the history of the Philistines is made up of a continual series of conspiracies, conquests, and rebellions. Their principal foes were the Assyrians on the one side and the Egyptians on the other. In the year of the fall of Samaria (721 B.C.) they became vassals of Sargon. They rebelled, however, ten years later under the leadership of Ashdod, but without permanent success. Another attempt was made to shake off the Assyrian yoke at the end of the reign of Sennacherib. In this conflict the Philistine King of Accaron, who remained faithful to Sennacherib, was cast into prison by King Ezechias of Juda. The allies who were thus brought together were defeated at Eltekeh and the result was the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib (IV Kings 18; 19). Esarhaddon and Asurbanipal in their western campaigns crossed the territory of the Philistines and held it in subjection, and after the decline of Assyria the encroachments of the Assyrians gave place to those of the Egyptians under the Twenty-sixth Dynasty. It is probable that the Philistines suffered defeat at the hands of Nabuchodonosor, though no record of his conquest of them has been preserved. The old title "Lords of the Philistines" has now disappeared, and the title "King" is bestowed by the Assyrians on the Philistine rulers. The siege of Gaza, which held out against Alexander the Great, is famous, and we find the Ptolemies and Seleucids frequently fighting over Philistine territory. The land finally passed under Roman rule, and its cities had subsequently an important history. After the time of the Assyrians the Philistines cease to be mentioned by this name. Thus Herodotus speaks of the "Arabians" as being in possession of the lower Mediterranean coast in the time of Cambyses. From this it is inferred by some that at that time the Philistines had been supplanted. In the ebb and flow of warring nations over this land it is more than probable that they were gradually absorbed and lost their identity. It is generally supposed that the Philistines adopted in the main the religion and civilization of the Chanaanites. In I Kings 5:2, we read: "And the Philistines took the ark of God, and brought it into the temple of Dragon, and set it by Dragon", from which we infer that their chief god was this Semitic deity. The latter appears in the Tel el-Amarna Letters and also in the Babylonian inscriptions. At Ascalon likewise there was a temple dedicated to the Semitic goddess Ishtar, and as the religion of the Philistines was thus evidently Semitic, so also were probably the other features of their civilization. Besides the standard Commentaries see MASPERO, Histoire ancienne des peuples de l'Orient (6th ed., Paris, 1904), tr., The Dawn of Civilization (4th ed., London, 1901); BRUGSCH, Egypt under the Pharaohs (tr., London, 1880), ix-xiv. JAMES F. DRISCOLL Robert Phillip Robert Phillip Priest, d. at Paris, 4 Jan., 1647. He was descended from the Scottish family of Phillip of Sanquhar, but nothing is known of his early life. Ordained in Rome, he returned in 1612 to Scotland where he was betrayed by his father, seized while saying Mass, and tried at Edinburgh as a seminary priest, 14 Sept., 1613. The sentence of death was commuted to banishment, and he withdrew to France, where he joined the French Oratory recently founded by Cardinal de Bérulle. In 1628 he went to England as confessor to Queen Henrietta Maria, and at her request he besought the pope for financial aid against the king's enemies. The subsequent negotiations were discovered, and Phillip was impeached on the charge of being a papal spy and of having endeavoured to pervert Prince Charles, but proceedings dropped owing to the displeasure of Richelieu at the introduction of his own name into the matter. Later he was committed to the Tower for refusing to be sworn on the Anglican Bible on 2 Nov., 1641, when he had been summoned by the Lords' committee to be examined touching State matters. Released through the queen's influence, he accompanied her to The Hague in March, 1642, and remained with her in Paris till his death. NALSON, Collection of Affairs of State, II (London, 1682-3); BERINGTON, Memoirs of Panzani (Birmingham, 1793); STOTHERT; Catholic Church in Scotland, ed. GORDON (Glasgow, 1869); FOLEY, Records of Eng. Jesuits, V (London, 1879); SECCOMBE in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v. PHILIPS, ROBERT; GILLOW, Bible. Dict. Eng. Cath., s.v. EDWIN BURTON Phillips, George George Phillips A canonist, born at Königsberg, 6 Sept., 1804; died at Vienna, 6 September, 1872, was the son of James Phillips, an Englishman who had acquired wealth as a merchant in Königsberg, and of a Scotchwoman née Hay. On completing his course at the gymnasium, George studied law at the Universities of Berlin and Göttingen (1822-24); his principal teachers were von Savigny and Eichhorn, and, under the influence of the latter, he devoted himself mainly to the study of Germanic law. After obtaining the degree of Doctor of Law at Göttingen in 1824, he paid a long visit to England. In 1826 he qualified at Berlin as Privatdozent (tutor) for German law, and in 1827 was appointed professor extraordinary in this faculty. In the same year he married Charlotte Housselle, who belonged to a French Protestant family settled in Berlin. Phillips formed a close friendship with his colleague K. E. Jarcke, professor at Berlin since 1825, who had entered the Catholic Church in 1824. Jarcke's influence and his own searching studies into medieval Germany led to the conversion of Phillips and his wife in 1828 (14 May). Jarcke having removed to Vienna in 1832, Phillips accepted in 1833 a call to Munich as counsel in the Bavarian Ministry of the Interior. In 1834 he was named professor of history, and a few months later professor of law at the University of Munich. He now joined that circle of illustrious men including the two Görres, Möhler, Döllinger, and Ringseis, who, filled with enthusiasm for the Church, laboured for the renewal of the religious life, the defence of Catholic rights and religious freedom, and the revival of Catholic scholarship. In 1838 he founded with Guido Görres the still flourishing militant "Historischpolitische Blätter". His lectures, notable for their excellence and form, treated with unusual fullness subjects connected with ecclesiastical interests. In consequence of the Lola Montez affair, in connexion with which Phillips signed, with six other Munich professors, an address of sympathy with the dismissed minister Abel, he was relieved of his chair in 1847. In 1848 he was elected deputy of a Münster district for the National Assembly of Frankfort, at which he energetically upheld the Catholic interests. In 1850, after declining a call as professor to Würzburg, he accepted the chair of German law at Innsbruck, and there resumed his academic activity. Invited to fill the same chair in Vienna in 1851, he removed to the Austrian capital, and remained there until his death. Once (1862-7) he accepted a long leave of absence to complete his "Kirchenrecht". He always maintained his relations with his friends in Munich and other cities of Germany, and never relaxed his activity in furthering Catholic interests. As a writer, his labours lay in the domain of German law, canon law, and their respective histories. At first his activity was directed mainly to the first-mentioned, his principal contributions on the subject being: "Versuch einer Darstellung des angelsächsischen Rechtes" (Göttingen, 1825); "Englische Reichs- und Rechtsgeschichte", of which two volumes (dealing with the period 1066-1189) appeared (Berlin, 1827-8); "Deutsche Geschichte mit besonderer Rücksicht auf Religion, Recht und Verfassung", of which two volumes alone were issued (Berlin, 1832-4), deals with Merovingian and Carlovingian times; "Grundsätze des gemeinen deutschen Privatrechts mit Einschluss des Lehnrechts" (Berlin, 1838); "Deutsche Reichs- und Rechtsgeschichte" (Munich, 1845). After his call to Munich, however, Phillips recognized his chief task in the treatment of canon law from the strictly Catholic standpoint. In addition to numerous smaller treatises, he published in this domain: "Die Diözesansynode" (Freiburg, 1849), and especially his great "Kirchenrecht", which appeared in seven volumes (Ratisbon, 1845-72), and was continued by Vering (vol. VIII, i, Ratisbon, 1889). This comprehensive and important work exercised a great influence on the study of canon law and its principles. Phillips also published a "Lehrbuch des Kirchenrechts" (Ratisbon, 1859-62; 3rd ed. by Moufang, 1881) and "Vermischte Schriften" (3 vols., Ratisbon, 1856-60). ROSENTHAL, Konvertitenbilder, I (2nd ad.), 478 sqq., SCHULTE in Allg. deutsche Biogr., XXVI (Leipzig, 1888), 80 sqq.; WURZBACH, Biogr. Lex. d. Kaisertums Oesterreich, XXII, 211 sqq. J. P. KIRSCH. Philo Judaeus Philo Judæus Born about 25 b.c.. His family, of a sacerdotal line, was one of the most powerful of the populous Jewish colony of Alexandria. His brother Alexander Lysimachus was steward to Anthony's second daughter, and married one of his sons to the daughter of Herod Agrippa, whom he had put under financial obligations. Alexander's son, Tiberius Alexander, apostatized and became procurator of Judea and Prefect of Egypt. Philo must have received a Jewish education, studying the laws and national traditions, but he followed also the Greek plan of studies (grammar with reading of the poets, geometry, rhetoric, dialectics) which he reagarded as a preparation for philosophy. Notwithstanding the lack of direct information about his philosophical training, his works show that he had a first hand knowledge of the stoical theories then prevailing, Plato's dialogues, the neo-Pythagorean works, and the moral popular literature, the outcome of Cynicism. He remained, however, profoundly attached to the Jewish religion with all the practices which it implied among the Jews of the dispersion and of which the basis was the unity of worship at the Temple in Jerusalem. Toward the Alexandrine community and the duties which it required of him, his attitude was perhaps changeable; he possessed in his youth a taste for an exclusively contemplative life and solitary retreats; and he complains of an official function which forced him to abandon his studies. Later he became engrossed with the material and moral interests of the community. His "Allegorical Commentary" often alludes to the vocations to which the Alexandrine Jews were subjected; a special treatise is devoted to the persecution of Flaccus, Prefect of Egypt. The best-known episode of his life is the voyage he made to Rome in 39; he had been chosen as head of the embassy which was to lay before Emperor Caius Caligula the complaints of the Jews regarding the introduction of statues of the emperor in the synagogues. This hardship, due to the Alexandrians, was all the more grievous to the Jews, as they had long been known for their loyalty, and their attachment to the empire was doubtless one of the chief causes of anti-Semitism at Alexandria. The drawing up of the account of the embassy shortly after the death of Caius (41) is the latest known fact in the life of Philo. Writings These contain most valuable information, not only on the intellectual and moral situation of the Jewish community at Alexandria, but still more on the philosophical and religious syncretism prevailing in Greek civilization. They may be divided: (1) expositon of the Jewish Law; (2) apologetical works; (3) philosophical treatises. (1) The expositons of the Law are in three works of varied character: (a) "The Exposition of the Law", which begins by a treatise on the creation of the world (Commentaries on the first chapter of Genesis) and continues with treatises on Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph (those on Isaac and Jacob are lost). Each of the patriarchs is considered as a type of a virtue and the life as a natural or unwritten law. Then follows a series of treatises on the laws written by Moses, grouped in order according to the Ten Commandments. The Exposition closes with the laws referring to general virtues (On Justice and Courage), and a treatise on the reward reserved to those who obey the Law. (See "De Præmiis et Pœ;nis", §§ 1, 2.) (b) The great "Allegorical Commentary on Genesis" is the chief source of information regarding Philo's ideas; in it he applies systematically the method of allegorical interpretation. The commentary follows the order of verses from Gen., ii, 1, to iv, 17, with some more or less important lacunæ. It is not known whether the work began by a treatise on chapter 1, concerning creation; in any case, it can be seen from the allusions to this chapter that Philo had a system of interpretation on this point. Notwithstanding its form, this work is not a series of interpretations strung together verse by verse; the author considers Genesis in its entirety as a history of the soul from its formation in the intelligible world to the complete development of wisdom after its fall and its restoration by repentance (see ed. Mangey, "De Posteritate Caini", p. 259). The object of the allegorical method is to discern in each person and in his actions the symbol of some phase either in the fall or in the restoration of the soul. (c) "Questions and Solutions" are a series of questions set down at each verse of the Mosaic books. An Armenian translation has preserved the questions on Genesis (Gen., ii, 4- xxiii, 8, with lacunæ) and the questions on Exodus (Ex., xii, 2-xxviii, 38), some Greek fragments of these works and of the questions on Leviticus, a very mediocre Latin translation of the last part of the questions on Genesis (iv, 154 sq.). In Samson and Jonas, there is much less unity than in the preceding ones. This first group of works is addressed to readers already initiated in the Mosaic Law, i.e. to the author's coreligionists. (2) It is quite different with his apologetical writings. The "Life of Moses" is a résumé of the Jewish Law, intended for a larger public. The treatise "On Repentance" was written for the edification of the newly converted. The treatise "On Humanity" which followed that "On Piety" seems from its introduction to pertain to the "Life of Moses" and not to the "Exposition of the Law" as tradition and some contemporaneous scholars maintain. The Upothetiná (fragments in Eusebius, "Evangelical Preparation", VIII, v, vi) as well as the "Apology for the Jews" (ibid., VIII, x) were written to defend his coreligionists against calumnies, while the "Contemplative Life" was to cultivate the best fruits of the Mosaic worship. The "Against Flaccus" and the "Embassy to Caius", with another work lost in the persecution of Sejanus, were intended to establish the truth about the pretended impiety of the Jews. (3) Finally, we have purely philosophical treatises: "On the Liberty of the Wise", "On the Incorruptibility of the World" (authenticity contested by Bernays, but generally admitted now), "On Providence", "On Animals" (these last two in the Armenian translations). The small treatise "De Mundo" is merely a compilation of passages from other works. The question of chronology is more difficult than that of classification. The solution of the difficulty would be of great value especially for the subdivisions of the first group of writings, in order to understand the development of Philo's doctrines; but on this point there is a wide divergence of opinion. It is probable, however, that the "Exposition of the Law" with the frequent appeals to the authority of the masters and its cautious way of introducing the allegorical interpretation is anterior to the "Allegorical Commentary" which shows more assurance and independence of thought. Doctrine Philo's work belongs for the most part to the immense literature of commentaries on the Law, and it is especially as a commentator that he must be considered. But in this regard he holds a unique place. First of all, he uses the Greek translation of the Septuagint. The variations that have been pointed out between his text and that which we now possess of the Septuagint may be explained to our satisfaction, not by the reading of the Hebrew text (Ritter), but by the fact that our recension is of a later date than the one he used. Furthermore, his method of interpretation appears as something new and original among the juridical commentaries of the Palestinian rabbis. Eliminating what formed the common basis of all commentaries of this kind–the interpretation of the Hebrew proper names (Philo gives them at times a Greek etymology), the particular rules for the signs which indicate that Moses intended us to look beyond the literal sense (Siegfried), the oral traditions added to the account of the Pentateuch (and again, at the beginning of the "Life of Moses" these traditions are clearly of Alexandrine origin), and the prescriptions of the worship in Jerusalem–two essential features remain: first, the conviction that the Jewish law is identical with the natural; and then the allegorical interpretation. The first, according to which the acts of the prophets and the prescriptions of Moses are regarded as ideals conformable to nature (in the Stoic sense), gives to the Jewish religion a universality incompatible with the narrow national Messianism of the Jewish sibyls. Philo thus abandons entirely the Messianic promises; there is no national tradition to exclude the Gentile from Judaism. To find his precursors one must go back to the Prophets; tradition he revives, but only with serious modifications. To the idea of moral universality he adds the idea of nature which he received from the Stoics. His interpretation is wholly bent on identifying the Mosaic prescription with natural law. The second feature is the allegorical interpretation. Without doubt Philo had his predecessors among the Alexandrines. The proof of this is found not in the fragments of Aristobulus (which are grossly false and later than Philo), but in the work of Philo himself, which is based sometimes on the authority of his predecessors, in the "Wisdom of Solomon" (an Alexandrine work of the first century b.c., which contains some traces of this method), and finally in the description Philo has given us of the occupations of the Therapeutæ and the Essenes. The tradition, however, thus formed cannot have amounted to much, for it does not prevail against personal inspiration and it lacks unity. This interpretation appears to us rather as a day-by-day creation of that age, and in Philo's works we can follow an allegory in process of formation, e.g. the interpretation of man "after the image of God". The development of the interior moral life as Philo conceived it is always bound up with his allegorical method. This method differs from that of most of his Greek predecessors who sought an artificial means to bring out the philosophical conceptions in time-honoured texts, such as that of Homer. As a rule he does not search in the sacred text for any strictly philosophical theory; more often he puts forth these theories directly on their own merits. Though at times enthusiastic in his admiration of Greek philosophers, he does not try to represent them as unavowed disciples of Moses. What he seeks in Genesis is not this or that truth, but the description of the attitudes of the soul towards God, such as innocence, sin, repentance. The allegorical method of Philo neither proves nor attempts to prove anything. It is not a mode of apologetic; in the "Life of Moses" e.g. this method is seldom employed; the only apologetic feature is the presentation of the high moral import of the Jewish laws taken in their literal sense. But the method is indispensable for the interior life; it gives the concrete image which the mystic needs to explain his effusions, and it makes the Jewish books profitable in the spiritual life. The spiritual life consists in the feeling of confidence which gives us faith in God, a feeling which coincides with that of the nothingness of man left to his own strength. Faith in God is not in itself the condition but the end or crowning of this life, and human life oscillates between confidence in self and confidence in God. This God conceived in His relations with the moral needs of man has the omnipotence and infinite goodness of the God of the prophets; it is by no means the God of the Stoics, in direct relation with the cosmos rather than with man. Under this influence the Philonian cult became an eminently moral one: the originality of Philonism consists in its moral interpretation of the actions of the divinity upon the world, which till then had been regarded more in their physical aspect. The fundamental idea is here that of Divine power conceived according to the manner of the Jews as goodness and sovereignty in relation to man. It is remarkable that with this idea the cosmic power of philosophy or of Greek religion is transformed by Philo into moral power. Divine wisdom is without doubt like the Isis in Plutarch's treatise, mother of the world, but above all mother of goodness in the virtuous soul. The "Man of God" is the moral consciousness of man rather than the prototype or ideal. The Divine spirit is transformed from the material ether into the principle of moral inspiration. We recognize, it is true, the traces of the cosmic origin of the Divine intermediaries; the angels are material intermediaries as well as spiritual, and Philo accepts the belief in the power of the heavenly bodies as an inferior degree of wisdom. Nevertheless he did his best to suppress every material intermediary between man and God. This is quite evident in the celebrated theory of the Logos of God. This Logos, which according to the Stoics is the bond between the different parts of the world, and according to the Heracliteans the source of the cosmic oppositions, is regarded by Philo as the Divine word which reveals God to the soul and calms the passions (see Logos). It is finally from this point of view of the interior life that Philo transforms the moral conception of the Greeks which he knew mainly in the most popular forms (cynical diatribes); he discovers in them the idea of the moral conscience accepted though but slightly developed by philosophers up to that time. A very interesting point of view is the consideration of the various moral systems of the Greeks, not simply as true or false, but as so many indications of the soul's progress or recoil at different stages. Consult various editions of Philo's works: Mangey (2 vols., London, 1742); Cohn and Wendland, I-V (Berlin, 1896-1906); Cumont, De Æternitate Mundi (Berlin, 1891); Conybeare, Philo about Contemplative Life (Oxford, 1895); Harris, Fragments of Philo Judæus (Cambridge, 1886); Wendland, Neuentdeckte Fragmente Philos (Berlin, 1891). Writings: Grossmann, De Philonis operum continua serie, I (Leipzig, 1841), II (1842); Massebieau, Le Classement des Œuvres de Philon in Biblioth. de l'Ecole des hautes études, I (1889), 191; Massebieau and BrÉhier, Chronologie de la Vie et des Œuvres de Philon in Revue d'hist. des Relig. (1906), 1-3. Doctrine: Drummond, Philo Judæus (2 vols., London, 1888); Herriot, Philon le Juif; Essai sur l'Ecole Juive d'Alexandrie (Paris, 1898); Martin, Philon (Paris, 1907); BrÉhier, Les Idées Philosophiques et Religieuses de Philon d'Alexandrie (Paris, 1908); SchÜrer, Gesch. des Judischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi (3rd ed., Berlin, 1909); Siegfried, Philo v. Alexandria als Ausleger d. A. T. (Jena, 1875). Emile BrÉhier Philomelium Philomelium A titular see in Pisidia, suffragan of Antioch. According to ancient writers Philomelium was situated in the south-west of Phrygia near the frontier of Lycaonia, on the road from Synnada to Iconium. It formed part of the "conventus" of Synnada. Its coins show that it was allied with the neighbouring city of Mandropolis (now Mandra). In the sixth century it formed part of Pisidia, the inhabitants of which pronounced its name Philomede or Philomene. In the Middle Ages it is often mentioned by Byzantine historians in connexion with the wars with the Seljukian sultans of Iconium. In the twelfth century it was one of the chief cities of the sultanate; from this time it bore the Turkish name of Ak-Sheher (white city), and to-day is the chief town of the caza of the vilayet of Konieh, numbering 4000 inhabitants, nearly all Mussulmans, and is a station on the railway from Eski-Shehr to Konieh. The ancient ruins are unimportant; they include a few inscriptions, some of them Christian. In a suburb is the tomb of Nasr Eddin Hodja, famous for his sanctity among the Turks. Christianity was introduced into Philomelium at an early date. In 196 the Church of Smyrna wrote to the Church of Philomelium announcing the martyrdom of St. Polycarp (Eusebius "Hist. Eccl.", IV, xix). Seven of its bishops are known: Theosebius, present at the Council of Constantinople (381); Paul, at Chalcedon (451); Marcianus, who signed the letter to Emperor Leo from the bishops of Pisidia (458); Aristodemus, present at the Council of Constantinople (553); Marinus, at Constantinople (680 and 692); Sisinnius, at Nicæa (787); Euthymius at the Photian Council of Constantinople (879). In the Greek "Notitiæ episcopatuum" Philomelium is first mentioned among the suffragan sees of Antioch in Pisidia, and in the ninth century among those of Amorium in Phrygia. It receives mention until the thirteenth century. Acta SS., Jan,. III, 317; LE QUIEN, Oriens christ., I, 1059; HAMILTON, Researches, I, 472; II, 184; ARUNDELL, Discoveries, I, 282 sq.; TEXIER, Asie Mineure, 435; SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geogr., s. v., contains bibliography ot ancient authors; see also the notes of MÜLLER in Ptolemy, ed, DIDOT, I, 831. S. PÉTRIDÈS Saint Philomena St. Philomena On 25 May, 1802, during the quest for the graves of Roman martyrs in the Catacomb of Priscilla, a tomb was discovered and opened; as it contained a glass vessel it was assumed to be the grave of a martyr. The view, then erroneously entertained in Rome, that the presence of such vessels (supposed to have contained the martyr's blood) in a grave was a symbol of martyrdom, has been rejected in practice since the investigations of De Rossi (cf. Leclercq in "Dict. d.archéol. chrét. et de liturg.", s.v. Ampoules de sang). The remains found in the above-mentioned tomb were shown to be those of a young maiden, and, as the name Filumena was discovered on the earthenware slabs closing the grave, it was assumed that they were those of a virgin martyr named Philumena. On 8 June, 1805, the relics were translated to the church of Mungano, Diocese of Nola (near Naples), and enshrined under one of its altars. In 1827 Leo XII presented the church with the three earthenware tiles, with the inscription, which may be seen in the church even today. On the basis of alleged revelations to a nun in Naples, and of an entirely fanciful and indefensible explanation of the allegorical paintings, which were found on the slabs beside the inscription, a canon of the church in Mugnano, named Di Lucia, composed a purely fictitious and romantic account of the supposed martyrdom of St. Philomena, who is not mentioned in any of the ancient sources. In consequence of the wonderful favours received in answer to prayer before the relics of the saint at Mugnano, devotion to them spread rapidly, and, after instituting investigations into the question, Gregory XVI appointed a special feast to be held on 9 September, "in honorem s. Philumenae virginis et martyris" (cf. the lessons of this feast in the Roman Breviary). The earthenware plates were fixed in front of the grave as follows: LUMENA PAX TECUM FI. The plates were evidently inserted in the wrong order, and the inscription should doubtless read PAX TECUM FILUMENA. The letters are painted on the plates with red paint, and the inscription belongs to the primitive class of epigraphical memorials in the Catacomb of Priscilla, thus, dating from about the middle or second half of the second century. The disarrangement of the inscription proves that it must have been completed before the plates were put into position, although in the numerous other examples of this kind in the same catacomb the inscription was added only after the grave had been closed. Consequently, since the disarrangement of the plates can scarcely be explained as arising from an error, Marucchi seems justified in concluding that the inscription and plates originally belonged to an earlier grave, and were later employed (now in the wrong order) to close another. Apart from the letters, the plates contain three arrows, either as a decoration or a punctuation, a leaf as decoration, two anchors, and a palm as the well-known Christian symbols. Neither these signs nor the glass vessel discovered in the grave can be regarded as a proof of martyrdom. J.P. KIRSCH Philosophy Philosophy + I. Definition of Philosophy. + II. Division of Philosophy. + III. The Principal Systematic Solutions. + IV. Philosophical Methods. + V. The Great Historical Currents of Thought. + VI. Contemporary Orientations. + VII. Is Progress in Philosophy Indefinite, or Is there a Philosophia Perennis? + VIII. Philosophy and the Sciences. + IX. Philosophy and Religion. + X. The Catholic Church and Philosophy. + XI. The Teaching of Philosophy. + XII. Bibliography I. DEFINITION OF PHILOSOPHY Etymology According to its etymology, the word "philosophy" (philosophia, from philein, to love, and sophia, wisdom) means "the love of wisdom". This sense appears again in sapientia, the word used in the Middle Ages to designate philosophy. In the early stages of Greek, as of every other, civilization, the boundary line between philosophy and other departments of human knowledge was not sharply defined, and philosophy was understood to mean "every striving towards knowledge". This sense of the word survives in Herodotus (I, xxx) and Thucydides (II, xl). In the ninth century of our era, Alcuin, employing it in the same sense, says that philosophy is "naturarum inquisitio, rerum humanarum divinarumque cognitio quantum homini possibile est aestimare" -- investigation of nature, and such knowledge of things human and Divine as is possible for man (P.L., CI, 952). In its proper acceptation, philosophy does not mean the aggregate of the human sciences, but "the general science of things in the universe by their ultimate determinations and reasons"; or again, "the intimate knowledge of the causes and reasons of things", the profound knowledge of the universal order. Without here enumerating all the historic definitions of philosophy, some of the most significant may be given. Plato calls it "the acquisition of knowledge", ktêsis epistêmês (Euthydemus, 288 d). Aristotle, mightier than his master at compressing ideas, writes: tên onomazomenên sophian peri ta procirc;ta aitia kai tas archas hupolambanousi pantes -- "All men consider philosophy as concerned with first causes and principles" (Metaph., I, i). These notions were perpetuated in the post-Aristotelean schools (Stoicism, Epicureanism, neo-Platonism), with this difference, that the Stoics and Epicureans accentuated the moral bearing of philosophy ("Philosophia studium summae virtutis", says Seneca in "Epist.", lxxxix, 7), and the neo-Platonists its mystical bearing (see section V below). The Fathers of the Church and the first philosophers of the Middle Ages seem not to have had a very clear idea of philosophy for reasons which we will develop later on (section IX), but its conception emerges once more in all its purity among the Arabic philosophers at the end of the twelfth century and the masters of Scholasticism in the thirteenth. St. Thomas, adopting the Aristotelean idea, writes: "Sapientia est scientia quae considerat causas primas et universales causas; sapientia causas primas omnium causarum considerat" -- Wisdom [i.e. philosophy] is the science which considers first and universal causes; wisdom considers the first causes of all causes" (In Metaph., I, lect. ii). In general, modern philosophers may be said to have adopted this way of looking at it. Descartes regards philosophy as wisdom: "Philosophiae voce sapientiae studium denotamus" -- "By the term philosophy we denote the pursuit of wisdom" (Princ. philos., preface); and he understands by it "cognitio veritatis per primas suas causas" -- " knowledge of truth by its first causes" (ibid.). For Locke, philosophy is the true knowledge of things; for Berkeley, "the study of wisdom and truth" (Princ.). The many conceptions of philosophy given by Kant reduce it to that of a science of the general principles of knowledge and of the ultimate objects attainable by knowledge -- "Wissenschaft von den letzten Zwecken der menschlichen Vernunft". For the numerous German philosophers who derive their inspiration from his criticism -- Fichte, Hegel, Schelling, Schleiermacher, Schopenhauer, and the rest -- it is the general teaching of science (Wissenschaftslehre). Many contemporary authors regard it as the synthetic theory of the particular sciences: "Philosophy", says Herbert Spencer, "is completely unified knowledge" (First Principles, #37). Ostwald has the same idea. For Wundt, the object of philosophy is "the acquisition of such a general conception of the world and of life as will satisfy the exigencies of the reason and the needs of the heart" -- "Gewinnung einer allgemeinen Welt -- und Lebensanschauung, welche die Forderungen unserer Vernunft und die Bedurfnisse unseres Gemüths befriedigen soll" (Einleit. in d. Philos., 1901, p. 5). This idea of philosophy as the ultimate science of values (Wert lehre) is emphasized by Windelband, Déring, and others. The list of conceptions and definitions might be indefinitely prolonged. All of them affirm the eminently synthetic character of philosophy. In the opinion of the present writer, the most exact and comprehensive definition is that of Aristotle. Face to face with nature and with himself, man reflects and endeavours to discover what the world is, and what he is himself. Having made the real the object of studies in detail, each of which constitutes science (see section VIII), he is led to a study of the whole, to inquire into the principles or reasons of the totality of things, a study which supplies the answers to the last Why's. The last Why of all rests upon all that is and all that becomes: it does not apply, as in any one particular science (e.g. chemistry), to this or that process of becoming, or to this or that being (e.g. the combination of two bodies), but to all being and all becoming. All being has within it its constituent principles, which account for its substance (constitutive material and formal causes); all becoming, or change, whether superficial or profound, is brought about by an efficient cause other than its subject; and lastly things and events have their bearings from a finality, or final cause. The harmony of principles, or causes, produces the universal order. And thus philosophy is the profound knowledge of the universal order, in the sense of having for its object the simplest and most general principles, by means of which all other objects of thought are, in the last resort, explained. By these principles, says Aristotle, we know other things, but other things do not suffice to make us know these principles (dia gar tauta kai ek toutôn t'alla gnôrizetai, all' ou tauta dia tôn hupokeimenôn -- Metaph., I). The expression universal order should be understood in the widest sense. Man is one part of it: hence the relations of man with the world of sense and with its Author belong to the domain of philosophy. Now man, on the one hand, is the responsible author of these relations, because he is free, but he is obliged by nature itself to reach an aim, which is his moral end. On the other hand, he has the power of reflecting upon the knowledge which he acquires of all things, and this leads him to study the logical structure of science. Thus philosophical knowledge leads to philosophical acquaintance with morality and logic. And hence we have this more comprehensive definition of philosophy: "The profound knowledge of the universal order, of the duties which that order imposes upon man, and of the knowledge which man acquires from reality" -- "La connaissance approfondie de l'ordre universel, des devoirs qui en résultent pour l'homme et de la science que l'homme acquiert de la rémite"' (Mercier, "Logique", 1904, p. 23). -- The development of these same ideas under another aspect will be found in section VIII of this article. II. DIVISIONS OF PHILOSOPHY Since the universal order falls within the scope of philosophy (which studies only its first principles, not its reasons in detail), philosophy is led to the consideration of all that is: the world, God (or its cause), and man himself (his nature, origin, operations, moral end, and scientific activities). It would be out of the question to enumerate here all the methods of dividing philosophy that have been given: we confine ourselves to those which have played a part in history and possess the deepest significance. A. In Greek Philosophy Two historical divisions dominate Greek philosophy: the Platonic and the Aristotelean. (1) Plato divides philosophy into dialectic, physics, and ethics. This division is not found in Plato's own writings, and it would be impossible to fit his dialogues into the triple frame, but it corresponds to the spirit of the Platonic philosophy. According to Zeller, Xenocrates (314 B.C.) his disciple, and the leading representative of the Old Academy, was the first to adopt this triadic division, which was destined to go down through the ages (Grundriss d. Geschichte d. griechischen Philosophie, 144), and Aristotle follows it in dividing his master's philosophy. Dialectic is the science of objective reality, i.e., of the Idea (idea eidos), so that by Platonic dialectic we must understand metaphysics. Physics is concerned with the manifestations of the Idea, or with the Real, in the sensible universe, to which Plato attributes no real value independent of that of the Idea. Ethics has for its object human acts. Plato deals with logic, but has no system of logic; this was a product of Aristotle's genius. Plato's classification was taken up by his school (the Academy), but it was not long in yielding to the influence of Aristotle's more complete division and according a place to logic. Following the inspirations of the old Academics, the Stoics divided philosophy into physics (the study of the real), logic (the study of the structure of science) and morals (the study of moral acts). This classification was perpetuated by the neo-Platonists, who transmitted it to the Fathers of the Church, and through them to the Middle Ages. (2) Aristotle, Plato's illustrious disciple, the most didactic, and at the same time the most synthetic, mind of the Greek worid, drew up a remarkable scheme of the divisions of philosophy. The philosophical sciences are divided into theoretic, practical, and poetic, according as their scope is pure speculative knowledge, or conduct (praxis), or external production (poiêsis). Theoretic philosophy comprises: (a) physics, or the study of corporeal things which are subject to change (achôrista men all' ouk akinêta) (b) mathematics, or the study of extension, i.e., of a corporeal property not subject to change and considered, by abstraction, apart from matter (akinêta men ou chôrista d'isôs, all' hôs en hulê); (c) metaphysics, called theology, or first philosophy, i.e. the study of being in its unchangeable and (whether naturally or by abstraction) incorporeal determinations (chôrista kau akinêt). Practical philosophy comprises ethics, economics, and politics, the second of these three often merging into the last. Poetic philosophy is concerned in general with the external works conceived by human intelligence. To these may conveniently be added logic, the vestibule of philosophy, which Aristotle studied at length, and of which he may be called the creator. To metaphysics Aristotle rightly accords the place of honour in the grouping of philosophical studies. He calls it "first philosophy". His classification was taken up by the Peripatetic School and was famous throughout antiquity; it was eclipsed by the Platonic classification during the Alexandrine period, but it reappeared during the Middle Ages. B. In the Middle Ages Though the division of philosophy into its branches is not uniform in the first period of the Middle Ages in the West, i.e. down to the end of the twelfth century, the classifications of this period are mostly akin to the Platonic division into logic, ethics, and physics. Aristotle's classification of the theoretic sciences, though made known by Boethius, exerted no influence for the reason that in the early Middle Ages the West knew nothing of Aristotle except his works on logic and some fragments of his speculative philosophy (see section V below). It should be added here that philosophy, reduced at first to dialectic, or logic, and placed as such in the Trivium, was not long in setting itself above the liberal arts. The Arab philosophers of the twelfth century (Avicenna, Averroes) accepted the Aristotelean classification, and when their works -- particularly their translations of Aristotle's great original treatises -- penetrated into the West, the Aristotelean division definitively took its place there. Its coming is heralded by Gundissalinus (see section XII), one of the Toletan translators of Aristotle, and author of a treatise, "De divisione philosophiae", which was imitated by Michael Scott and Robert Kilwardby. St. Thomas did no more than adopt it and give it a precise scientific form. Later on we shall see that, conformably with the medieval notion of sapientia, to each part of philosophy corresponds the preliminary study of a group of special sciences. The general scheme of the division of philosophy in the thirteenth century, with St. Thomas's commentary on it, is as follows: There are as many parts of philosophy as there are distinct domains in the order submitted to the philosopher's reflection. Now there is an order which the intelligence does not form but only considers; such is the order realized in nature. Another order, the practical, is formed either by the acts of our intelligence or by the acts of our will, or by the application of those acts to external things in the arts: e.g., the division of practical philosophy into logic, moral philosophy, and aesthetics, or the philosophy of the arts ("Ad philosophiam naturalem pertinet considerare ordinem rerum quem ratio humana considerat sed non facit; ita quod sub naturali philosophia comprehendamus et metaphysicam. Ordo autem quem ratio considerando facit in proprio actu, pertinet ad rationalem philosophiam, cujus est considerare ordinem partium orationis ad invicem et ordinem principiorum ad invicem et ad conclusiones. Ordo autem actionum voluntariarum pertinet ad considerationem moralis philosophiae. Ordo autem quem ratio considerando facit in rebus exterioribus per rationem humanam pertinet ad artes mechanicas." To natural philosophy pertains the consideration of the order of things which human reason considers but does not create -- just as we include metaphysics also under natural philosophy. But the order which reason creates of its own act by consideration pertains to rational philosophy, the office of which is to consider the order of the parts of speech with reference to one another and the order of the principles with reference to one another and to the conclusions. The order of voluntary actions pertains to the consideration of moral philosophy, while the order which the reason creates in external things through the human reason pertains to the mechanical arts. -- In "X Ethic. ad Nic.", I, lect. i). The philosophy of nature, or speculative philosophy, is divided into metaphysics, mathematics, and physics, according to the three stages traversed by the intelligence in its effort to attain a synthetic comprehension of the universal order, by abstracting from movement (physics), intelligible quantity (mathematics), being (metaphysics) (In lib. Boeth. de Trinitate, Q. v., a. 1). In this classification it is to be noted that, man being one element of the world of sense, psychology ranks as a part of physics. C. In Modern Philosophy The Scholastic classification may be said, generally speaking, to have lasted, with some exceptions, until the seventeenth century. Beginning with Descartes, we find a multitude of classifications arising, differing in the principles which inspire them. Kant, for instance, distinguishes metaphysics, moral philosophy, religion, and anthropology. The most widely accepted scheme, that which still governs the division of the branches of philosophy in teaching, is due to Wolff (1679-1755), a disciple of Leibniz, who has been called the educator of Germany in the eighteenth century. This scheme is as follows: 1. Logic. 2. Speculative Philosophy. o Ontology, or General Metaphysics. o Special Metaphysics. # Theodicy (the study of God). # Cosmology (the study of the World). # Psychology (the study of Man). 3. Practical Philosophy. o Ethics o Politics o Economics Wolff broke the ties binding the particular sciences to philosophy, and placed them by themselves; in his view philosophy must remain purely rational. It is easy to see that the members of Wolff's scheme are found in the Aristotelean classification, wherein theodicy is a chapter of metaphysics and psychology a chapter of physics. It may even be said that the Greek classification is better than Wolff's in regard to speculative philosophy, where the ancients were guided by the formal object of the study -- i.e. by the degree of abstraction to which the whole universe is subjected, while the moderns always look at the material object -- i.e., the three categories of being, which it is possible to study, God, the world of sense, and man. D. In Contemporary Philosophy The impulse received by philosophy during the last half-century gave rise to new philosophical sciences, in the sense that various branches have been detached from the main stems. In psychology this phenomenon has been remarkable: criteriology, or epistemology (the study of the certitude of knowledge) has developed into a special study. Other branches which have formed themselves into new psychological sciences are: physiological psychology or the study of the physiological concomitant of psychic activities; didactics, or the science of teaching; pedagogy, or the science of education; collective psychology and the psychology of people (Volkerpsychologie), studying the psychic phenomena observable in human groups as such, and in the different races. An important section of logic (called also noetic, or canonic) is tending to sever itself from the main body, viz., methodology, which studies the special logical formation of various sciences. On moral philosophy, in the wide sense, have been grafted the philosophy of law, the philosophy of society, or social philosophy (which is much the same as sociology), and the philosophies of religion and of history. III. THE PRINCIPAL SYSTEMATIC SOLUTIONS From what has been said above it is evident that philosophy is beset by a great number of questions It would not be possible here to enumerate all those questions, much less to detail the divers solutions which have been given to them. The solution of a philosophic question is called a philosophic doctrine or theory. A philosophic system (from sunistêmi, put together) is a complete and organized group of solutions. It is not an incoherent assemblage or an encyclopedic amalgamation of such solutions; it is dominated by an organic unity. Only those philosophic systems which are constructed conformably with the exigencies of organic unity are really powerful: such are the systems of the Upanishads, of Aristotle, of neo-Platonism, of Scholasticism, of Leibniz, Kant and Hume. So that one or several theories do not constitute a system; but some theories, i.e. answers to a philosophic question, are important enough to determine the solution of other important problems of a system. The scope of this section is to indicate some of these theories. A. Monism, or Pantheism, and Pluralism, Individualism, or Theism Are there many beings distinct in their reality, with one Supreme Being, God at the summit of the hierarchy; or is there but one reality (monas, hence monism), one All-God (pan-theos) of whom each individual is but a member or fragment (Substantialistic Pantheism), or else a force, or energy (Dynamic Pantheism)? Here we have an important question of metaphysics the solution of which reacts upon all other domains of philosophy. The system of Aristotle, of the Scholastics, and of Leibniz are Pluralistic and Theistic; the Indian, neo-Platonic, and Hegelian are Monistic. Monism is a fascinating explanation of the real, but it only postpones the difficulties which it imagines itself to be solving (e.g. the difficulty of the interaction of things), to say nothing of the objection, from the human point of view, that it runs counter to our most deep-rooted sentiments. B. Objectivism and Subjectivism Does being, whether one or many, possess its own life, independent of our mind, so that to be known by us is only accident to being, as in the objective system of metaphysics (e.g. Aristotle, the Scholastics, Spinoza)? Or is being no other reality than the mental and subjective presence which it acquires in our representation of it as in the Subjective system (e.g. Hume)? It is in this sense that the "Revue de métaphysique et de morale" (see bibliography) uses the term metaphysics in its title. Subjectivism cannot explain the passivity of our mental representations, which we do not draw out of ourselves, and which therefore oblige us to infer the reality of a non-ego. C. Substantialism and Phenomenism Is all reality a flux of phenomena (Heraclitus, Berkeley, Hume, Taine), or does the manifestation appear upon a basis, or substance, which manifests itself, and does the phenomenon demand a noumenon (the Scholastics)? Without an underlying substance, which we only know through the medium of the phenomenon, certain realities, as walking, talking, are inexplicable, and such facts as memory become absurd. D. Mechanism and Dynamism (Pure and Modified) Natural bodies are considered by some to be aggregations of homogeneous particles of matter (atoms) receiving a movement which is extrinsic to them, so that these bodies differ only in the number and arrangement of their atoms (the Atomism, or Mechanism, of Democritus, Descartes, and Hobbes). Others reduce them to specific, unextended, immaterial forces, of which extension is only the superficial manifestation (Leibniz). Between the two is Modified Dynamism (Aristotle), which distinguishes in bodies an immanent specific principle (form) and an indeterminate element (matter) which is the source of limitation and extension. This theory accounts for the specific characters of the entities in question as well as for the reality of their extension in space. E. Materialism, Agnosticism, and Spiritualism That everything real is material, that whatever might be immaterial would be unreal, such is the cardinal doctrine of Materialism (the Stoics, Hobbes, De Lamettrie). Contemporary Materialism is less outspoken: it is inspired by a Positivist ideology (see section VI), and asserts that, if anything supra-material exists, it is unknowable (Agnosticism, from a and gnôsis, knowledge. Spencer, Huxley). Spiritualism teaches that incorporeal, or immaterial, beings exist or that they are possible (Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, the Scholastics, Descartes, Leibniz). Some have even asserted that only spirits exist: Berkeley, Fichte, and Hegel are exaggerated Spiritualists. The truth is that there are bodies and spirits; among the latter we are acquainted (though less well than with bodies) with the nature of our soul, which is revealed by the nature of our immaterial acts, and with the nature of God, the infinite intelligence, whose existence is demontrated by the very existence of finite things. Side by side with these solutions relating to the problems of the real, there is another group of solutions, not less influential in the orientation of a system, and relating to psychical problems or those of the human ego. F. Sensualism and Rationalism, or Spiritualism These are the opposite poles of the ideogenetic question, the question of the origin of our knowledge. For Sensualism the only source of human knowledge is sensation: everything reduces to transformed sensations. This theory, long ago put forward in Greek philosophy (Stoicism, Epicureanism), was developed to the full by the English Sensualists (Locke, Berkeley, Hume) and the English Associationists (Brown, Hartley, Priestley); its modern form is Positivism (John Stuart Mill, Huxley, Spencer, Comte, Taine, Littré etc.). Were this theory true, it would follow that we can know only what falls under our senses, and therefore cannot pronounce upon the existence or non-existence, the reality or unreality, of the super-sensible. Positivism is more logical than Materialism. In the New World, the term Agnosticism has been very happily employed to indicate this attitude of reserve towards the super-sensible. Rationalism (from ratio, reason), or Spiritualism, establishes the existence in us of concepts higher than sensations, i.e. of abstract and general concepts (Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, the Scholastics, Descartes, Leibniz, Kant, Cousin etc.). Ideologic Spiritualism has won the adherence of humanity's greatest thinkers. Upon the spirituality, or immateriality, of our higher mental operations is based the proof of the spirituality of the principle from which they proceed and, hence, of the immortality of the soul. G. Scepticism, Dogmatism, and Criticism So many answers have been given to the question whether man can attain truth, and what is the foundation of certitude, that we will not attempt to enumerate them all. Scepticism declares reason incapable of arriving at the truth. and holds certitude to be a purely subjective affair (Sextus Empiricus, Ænesidemus). Dogmatism asserts that man can attain to truth, and that, in measure to be further determined, our cognitions are certain. The motive of certitude is, for the Traditionalists, a Divine revelation, for the Scotch School (Reid) it is an inclination of nature to affirm the principles of common sense; it is an irrational, but social, necessity of admitting certain principles for practical dogmatism (Balfour in his "Foundations of Belief" speaks of "non-rational impulse", while Mallock holds that "certitude is found to be the child, not of reason but of custom" and Brunetière writes about "the bankruptcy of science and the need of belief"); it is an affective sentiment, a necessity of wishing that certain things may be verities (Voluntarism; Kant's Moral Dogmatism), or the fact of living certain verities (contemporary Pragmatism and Humanism William James, Schiller). But for others -- and this is the theory which we accept -- the motive of certitude is the very evidence of the connection which appears between the predicate and the subject of a proposition, an evidence which the mind perceives, but which it does not create (Moderate Dogmatism). Lastly for Criticism, which is the Kantian solution of the problem of knowledge, evidence is created by the mind by means of the structural functions with which every human intellect is furnished (the categories of the understanding). In conformity with these functions we connect the impressions of the senses and construct the world. Knowledge, therefore, is valid only for the world as represented to the mind. Kantian Criticism ends in excessive Idealism, which is also called Subjectivism. or Phenomenalism, and according to which the mind draws all its representations out of itself, both the sensory impressions and the categories which connect them: the world becomes a mental poem, the object is created by the subject as representation (Fichte, Schelling, Hegel). H. Nominalism, Realism, and Conceptualism Nominalism, Realism, and Conceptualism are various answers to the question of the real objectivity of our predications, or of the relation of fidelity existing between our general representations and the external world. I. Determinism and Indeterminism Has every phenomenon or fact its adequate cause in an antecedent phenomenon or fact (Cosmic Determinism)? And, in respect to acts of the will, are they likewise determined in all their constituent elements (Moral Determinism, Stoicism, Spinoza)? If so, then liberty disappears, and with it human responsibility, merit and demerit. Or, on the contrary, is there a category of volitions which are not necessitated, and which depend upon the discretionary power of the will to act or not to act and in acting to follow freely chosen direction? Does liberty exist? Most Spiritualists of all schools have adopted a libertarian philosophy, holding that liberty alone gives the moral life an acceptable meaning; by various arguments they have confirmed the testimony of conscience and the data of common consent. In physical nature causation and determinism rule; in the moral life, liberty. Others, by no means numerous, have even pretended to discover cases of indeterminism in physical nature (the so-called Contingentist theories, e.g. Boutroux). J. Utilitarianism and the Morality of Obligation What constitutes the foundation of morality in our actions? Pleasure or utility say some, personal or egoistic pleasure (Egoism -- Hobbes, Bentham, and "the arithmetic of pleasure"); or again, in the pleasure and utility of all (Altruism -- John Stuart Mill). Others hold that morality consists in the performance of duty for duty's sake, the observance of law because it is law, independently of personal profit (the Formalism of the Stoics and of Kant). According to another doctrine, which in our opinion is more correct, utility, or personal advantage, is not incompatible with duty, but the source of the obligation to act is in the last analysis, as the very exigencies of our nature tell us, the ordinance of God. IV. PHILOSOPHICAL METHODS Method (meth' hodos) means a path taken to reach some objective point. By philosophical method is understood the path leading to philosophy, which, again, may mean either the process employed in the construction of a philosophy (constructive method, method of invention), or the way of teaching philosophy (method of teaching, didactic method). We will deal here with the former of these two senses; the latter will be treated in section XI. Three methods can be, and have been, applied to the construction of philosophy. A. Experimental (Empiric, or Analytic) Method The method of all Empiric philosophers is to observe facts, accumulate them, and coordinate them. Pushed to its ultimate consequences, the empirical method refuses to rise beyond observed and observable fact; it abstains from investigating anything that is absolute. It is found among the Materialists, ancient and modern, and is most unreservedly applied in contemporary Positivism. Comte opposes the "positive mode of thinking", based solely upon observation, to the theological and metaphysical modes. For Mill, Huxley, Bain, Spencer, there is not one philosophical proposition but is the product, pure and simple, of experience: what we take for a general idea is an aggregate of sensations; a judgment is the union of two sensations; a syllogism, the passage from particular to particular (Mill, "A System of Logic, Rational and Inductive", ed. Lubbock, 1892; Bain, "Logic", New York, 1874). Mathematical propositions, fundamental axioms such as a = a, the principle of contradiction, the principle of causality are only "generalizations from facts of experience" (Mill, op. cit., vii, #5). According to this author, what we believe to be superior to experience in the enunciation of scientific laws is derived from our subjective incapacity to conceive its contradictory; according to Spencer, this inconceivability of the negation is developed by heredity. Applied in an exaggerated and exclusive fashion, the experimental method mutilates facts, since it is powerless to ascend to the causes and the laws which govern facts. It suppresses the character of objective necessity which is inherent in scientific judgments, and reduces them to collective formulae of facts observed in the past. It forbids our asserting, e.g., that the men who will be born after us will be subject to death, seeing that all certitude rests on experience, and that by mere observation we cannot reach the unchangeable nature of things. The empirical method, left to its own resources, checks the upward movement of the mind towards the causes or object of the phenomena which confront it. B. Deductive, or Synthetic a Priori, Method At the opposite pole to the preceding, the deductive method starts from very general principles, from higher causes, to descend (Lat. deducere, to lead down) to more and more complex relations and to facts. The dream of the Deductionist is to take as the point of departure an intuition of the Absolute, of the Supreme Reality -- for the Theists, God; for the Monists, the Universal Being -- and to draw from this intuition the synthetic knowledge of all that depends upon it in the universe, in conformity with the metaphysical scale of the real. Plato is the father of deductive philosophy: he starts from the world of Ideas, and from the Idea of the Sovereign Good, and he would know the reality of the world of sense only in the Ideas of which it is the reflection. St. Augustine, too, finds his satisfaction in studying the universe, and the least of the beings which compose it, only in a synthetic contemplation of God, the exemplary, creative, and final cause of all things. So, too, the Middle Ages attached great importance to the deductive method. "I propose", writes Boethius, "to build science by means of concepts and maxims, as is done in mathematics." Anselm of Canterbury draws from the idea of God, not only the proof of the real existence of an infinite being, but also a group of theorems on His attributes and His relations with the world. Two centuries before Anselm, Scotus Eriugena, the father of anti-Scholasticism, is the completest type of the Deductionist: his metaphysics is one long description of the Divine Odyssey, inspired by the neo-Platonic, monistic conception of the descent of the One in its successive generations. And, on the very threshold of the thirteenth century, Alain de Lille would apply to philosophy a mathematical methodology. In the thirteenth century Raymond Lully believed that he had found the secret of "the Great Art" (ars magna), a sort of syllogism-machine, built of general tabulations of ideas, the combination of which would give the solution of any question whatsoever. Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz are Deductionists: they would construct philosophy after the manner of geometry (more geometrico), linking the most special and complicated theorems to some very simple axioms. The same tendency appears among the Ontologists and the post-Kantian Pantheists in Germany (Fichte, Schelling, Hegel), who base their philosophy upon an intuition of the Absolute Being. The deductive philosophers generally profess to disdain the sciences of observation. Their great fault is the compromising of fact, bending it to a preconceived explanation or theory assumed a priori, whereas the observation of the fact ought to precede the assignment of its cause or of its adequate reason. This defect in the deductive method appears glaringly in a youthful work of Leibniz's, "Specimen demonstrationum politicarum pro rege Polonorum eligendo", published anonymously in 1669, where he demonstrates hy geometrical methods (more geometrico), in sixty propositions, that the Count Palatine of Neuburg ought to be elected to the Polish Throne. C. Analytico-Synthetic Method This combination of analysis and synthesis, of observation and deduction, is the only method appropriate to philosophy. Indeed, since it undertakes to furnish a general explanation of the universal order (see section I), philosophy ought to begin with complex effects, facts known by observation, before attempting to include them in one comprehensive explanation of the universe. This is manifest in psychology, where we begin with a careful examination of activities, notably of the phenomena of sense, of intelligence, and of appetite; in cosmology, where we observe the series of changes, superficial and profound, of bodies; in moral philosophy, which sets out from the observation of moral facts; in theodicy, where we interrogate religious beliefs and feelings; even in metaphysics, the starting-point of which is really existing being. But observation and analysis once completed, the work of synthesis begins. We must pass onward to a synthetic psychology that shall enable us to comprehend the destinies of man's vital principle; to a cosmology that shall explain the constitution of bodies, their changes, and the stability of the laws which govern them; to a synthetic moral philosophy establishing the end of man and the ultimate ground of duty; to a theodicy and deductive metaphysics that shall examine the attributes of God and the fundamental conceptions of all being. As a whole and in each of its divisions, philosophy applies the analytic-synthetic method. Its ideal would be to give an account of the universe and of man by a synthetic knowledge of God, upon whom all reality depends. This panoramic view -- the eagle's view of things -- has allured all the great geniuses. St. Thomas expresses himself admirably on this synthetic knowledge of the universe and its first cause. The analytico-synthetic process is the method, not only of philosophy, but of every science, for it is the natural law of thought, the proper function of which is unified and orderly knowledge. "Sapientis est ordinare." Aristotle, St. Thomas, Pascal, Newton, Pasteur, thus understood the method of the sciences. Men like Helmholtz and Wundt adopted synthetic views after doing analytical work. Even the Positivists are metaphysicians, though they do not know it or wish it. Does not Herbert Spencer call his philosophy synthetic? and does he not, by reasoning, pass beyond that domain of the "observable" within which he professes to confine himself? V. THE GREAT HISTORICAL CURRENTS Among the many peoples who have covered the globe philosophic culture appears in two groups: the Semitic and the Indo-European, to which may be added the Egyptians and the Chinese. In the Semitic group (Arabs, Babylonians, Assyrians, Aramaeans, Chaldeans) the Arabs are the most important; nevertheless, their part becomes insignificant when compared with the intellectual life of the Indo-Europeans. Among the latter, philosophic life appears successively in various ethnic divisions, and the succession forms the great periods into which the history of philosophy is divided; first, among the people of India (since 1500 B.C.); then among the Greeks and the Romans (sixth century B.C. to sixth century of our era); again, much later, among the peoples of Central and Northern Europe. A. Indian Philosophy The philosophy of India is recorded principally in the sacred books of the Veda, for it has always been closely united with religion. Its numerous poetic and religious productions carry within themselves a chronology which enables us to assign them to three periods. (1) The Period of the Hymns of the Rig Veda (1500-1000 B.C.) This is the most ancient monument of Indo-Germanic civilization; in it may be seen the progressive appearance of the fundamental theory that a single Being exists under a thousand forms in the multiplied phenomena of the universe (Monism). (2) The Period of the Brahmans (l000-500 B.C.) This is the age of Brahminical civilization. The theory of the one Being remains, but little by little the concrete and anthropomorphic ideas of the one Being are replaced by the doctrine that the basis of all things is in oneself (âtman). Psychological Monism appears in its entirety in the Upanishads: the absolute and adequate identity of the Ego -- which is the constitutive basis of our individuality (âtman) -- and of all things, with Brahman, the eternal being exalted above time, space, number, and change, the generating principle of all things in which all things are finally reabsorbed -- such the fundamental theme to be found in the Upanishad under a thousand variations of form. To arrive at the âtman, we must not stop at empirical reality which is multiple and cognizable; we must pierce this husk, penetrate to the unknowable and ineffable superessence, and identify ourselves with it in an unconscious unity. (3) The Post-Vedic or Sanskrit, Period (since 500 B.C.) From the germs of theories contained in the Upanishad a series of systems spring up, orthodox or heterodox. Of the orthodox systems, Vedanta is the most interesting; in it we find the principles of the Upanishads developed in an integral philosophy which comprise metaphysics, cosmology, psychology, and ethics (transmigration, metempsychosis). Among the systems not in harmony with the Vedic dogmas, the most celebrated is Buddhism, a kind of Pessimism which teaches liberation from pain in a state of unconscious repose, or an extinction of personality (Nirvâna). Buddhism spread in China, where it lives side by side with the doctrines of Lao Tse and that of Confucius. It is evident that even the systems which are not in harmony with the Veda are permeated with religious ideas. B. Greek Philosophy This philosophy, which occupied six centuries before, and six after, Christ, may be divided into four periods, corresponding with the succession of the principal lines of research (1) From Thales of Miletus to Socrates (seventh to fifth centuries B.C. -- preoccupied with cosmology) (2) Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle (fifth to fourth centuries B.C. -- psychology); (3) From the death of Aristotle to the rise of neo-Platonism (end of the fourth century B.C. to third century after Christ -- moral philosophy); (4) neo-Platonic School (from the third century after Christ, or, including the systems of the forerunners of neo-Platonism, from the first century after Christ, to the end of Greek philosophy in the seventh century-mysticism). (1) The Pre-Socratic Period The pre-Socratic philosophers either seek for the stable basis of things -- which is water, for Thales of Miletus; air, for Anaximenes of Miletus; air endowed with intelligence, for Diogenes of Apollonia; number, for Pythagoras (sixth century B.C.); abstract and immovable being, for the Eleatics -- or they study that which changes: while Parmenides and the Eleatics assert that everything is, and nothing changes or becomes. Heraclitus (about 535-475) holds that everything becomes, and nothing is unchangeable. Democritus (fifth century) reduces all beings to groups of atoms in motion, and this movement, according to Anaxagoras, has for its cause an intelligent being. (2) The Period of Apogee: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle. When the Sophists (Protagoras, Gorgias) had demonstrated the insufficiency of these cosmologies, Socrates (470-399) brought philosophical investigation to bear on man himself, studying man chiefly from the moral point of view. From the presence in us of abstract ideas Plato (427-347) deduced the existence of a world of supersensible realities or ideas, of which the visible world is but a pale reflection. These ideas, which the soul in an earlier life contemplated, are now, because of its union with the body, but faintly perceived. Aristotle (384-322), on the contrary, shows that the real dwells in the objects of sense. The theory of act and potentiality, of form and matter, is a new solution of the relations between the permanent and the changing. His psychology, founded upon the principle of the unity of man and the substantial union of soul and body, is a creation of genius. And as much may be said of his logic. (3) The Moral Period After Aristotle (end of the fourth Century B.C.) four schools are in evidence: Stoic, Epicurean, Platonic, and Aristotelean. The Stoics (Zeno of Citium, Cleanthes, Chrysippus), like the Epicureans, make speculation subordinate to the quest of happiness, and the two schools, in spite of their divergencies, both consider happiness to be ataraxia or absence of sorrow and preoccupation. The teachings of both on nature (Dynamistic Monism with the Stoics, and Pluralistic Mechanism with the Epicureans) are only a prologue to their moral philosophy. After the latter half of the second century B.C. we perceive reciprocal infiltrations between the various schools. This issues in Eclecticism. Seneca (first century B.C.) and Cicero (106-43 B.C.) are attached to Eclecticism with a Stoic basis; two great commentators of Aristotle, Andronicus of Rhodes (first century B.C.) and Alexander of Aphrodisia about 200), affect a Peripatetic Eclecticism. Parallel with Eclecticism runs a current of Scepticism (AEnesidemus, end of first century B.C., and Sextus Empiricus, second century A.D.). (4) The Mystical Period In the first century B.C. Alexandria had become the capital of Greek intellectual life. Mystical and theurgic tendencies, born of a longing for the ideal and the beyond, began to appear in a current of Greek philosophy which originated in a restoration of Pythagorism and its alliance with Platonism (Plutarch of Chieronea, first century B.C.; Apuleius of Madaura; Numenius, about 160 and others), and still more in the Graeco-Judaic philosophy of Philo the Jew (30 B.C. to A.D. 50). But the dominance of these tendencies is more apparent in neo-Platonism. The most brilliant thinker of the neo-Platonic series is Plotinus (A.D. 20-70). In his "Enneads" he traces the paths which lead the soul to the One, and establishes, in keeping with his mysticism, an emanationist metaphysical system. Porphyry of Tyre (232-304), a disciple of Plotinus, popularizes his teaching, emphasizes its religious bearing, and makes Aristotle's "Organon" the introduction to neo-Platonic philosophy. Later on, neo-Platonism, emphasizing its religious features, placed itself, with Jamblichus, at the service of the pagan pantheon which growing Christianity was ruining on all sides, or again, as with Themistius at Constantinople (fourth century), Proclus and Simplicius at Athens (fifth century), and Ammonius at Alexandria, it took an Encyclopedic turn. With Ammonius and John Philoponus (sixth century) the neo-Platonic School of Alexandria developed in the direction of Christianity. C. Patristic Philosophy In the closing years of the second century and, still more, in the third century, the philosophy of the Fathers of the Church was developed. It was born in a civilization dominated by Greek ideas, chiefly neo-Platonic, and on this side its mode of thought is still the ancient. Still, if some, like St. Augustine, attach the greatest value to the neo-Platonic teachings, it must not be forgotten that the Monist or Pantheistic and Emanationist ideas, which have been accentuated by the successors of Plotinus, are carefully replaced by the theory of creation and the substantial distinction of beings; in this respect a new spirit animates Patristic philosophy. It was developed, too, as an auxiliary of the dogmatic system which the Fathers were to establish. In the third century the great representatives of the Christian School of Alexandria are Clement of Alexandria and Origen. After them Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Ambrose, and, above all, St. Augustine (354-430) appear. St. Augustine gathers up the intellectual treasures of the ancient world, and is one of the principal intermediaries for their transmission to the modern world. In its definitive form Augustinism is a fusion of intellectualism and mysticism, with a study of God as the centre of interest. In the fifth century, pseudo-Dionysius perpetuates many a neo-Platonic doctrine adapted to Christianity, and his writings exercise a powerful influence in the Middle Ages. D. Medieval Philosophy The philosophy of the Middle Ages developed simultaneously in the West, at Byzantium, and in divers Eastern centres; but the Western philosophy is the most important. It built itself up with great effort on the ruins of barbarism: until the twelfth century, nothing was known of Aristotle, except some treatises on logic, or of Plato, except a few dialogues. Gradually, problems arose, and, foremost, in importance, the question of universals in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries (see NOMINALISM). St. Anselm (1O33-1109) made a first attempt at systematizing Scholastic philosophy, and developed a theodicy. But as early as the ninth century an anti-Scholastic philosophy had arisen with Eriugena who revived the neo-Platonic Monism. In the twelfth century Scholasticism formulated new anti-Realist doctrines with Adelard of Bath, Gauthier de Mortagne, and, above all, Abelard and Gilbert de la Porrée, whilst extreme Realism took shape in the schools of Chartres. John of Salisbury and Alain de Lille, in the twelfth century, are the co-ordinating minds that indicate the maturity of Scholastic thought. The latter of these waged a campaign against the Pantheism of David of Dinant and the Epicureanism of the Albigenses -- the two most important forms of anti-Scholastic philosophy. At Byzantium, Greek philosophy held its ground throughout the Middle Ages, and kept apart from the movement of Western ideas. The same is true of the Syrians and Arabs. But at the end of the twelfth century the Arabic and Byzantine movement entered into relation with Western thought, and effected, to the profit of the latter, the brilliant philosophical revival of the thirteenth century. This was due, in the first place, to the creation of the University of Paris; next, to the foundation of the Dominican and Franciscan orders; lastly, to the introduction of Arabic and Latin translations of Aristotle and the ancient authors. At the same period the works of Avicenna and Averroes became known at Paris. A pleiad of brilliant names fills the thirteenth century -- Alexander of Hales, St. Bonaventure, Bl. Albertus Magnus, St. Thomas Aquinas, Godfrey of Fontaines, Henry of Ghent, Giles of Rome, and Duns Scotus -- bring Scholastic synthesis to perfection. They all wage war on Latin Averroism and anti-Scholasticism, defended in the schools of Paris by Siger of Brabant. Roger Bacon, Lully, and a group of neo-Platonists occupy a place apart in this century, which is completely filled by remarkable figures. In the fourteenth century Scholastic philosophy betrays the first symptoms of decadence. In place of individualities we have schools, the chief being the Thomist, the Scotist, and the Terminist School of William of Occam, which soon attracted numerous partisans. With John of Jandun, Averroism perpetuates its most audacious propositions; Eckhart and Nicholas of Cusa formulate philosophies which are symptomatic of the approaching revolution. The Renaissance was a troublous period for philosophy. Ancient systems were revived: the Dialectic of the Humanistic philologists (Laurentius Valla, Vivés), Platonism, Aristoteleanism, Stoicism. Telesius, Campanella, and Giordano Bruno follow a naturalistic philosophy. Natural and social law are renewed with Thomas More and Grotius. All these philosophies were leagued together against Scholasticism, and very often against Catholicism. On the other hand, the Scholastic philosophers grew weaker and weaker, and, excepting for the brilliant Spanish Scholasticism of the sixteenth century (Bañez, Suarez, Vasquez, and so on), it may be said that ignorance of the fundamental doctrine became general. In the seventeenth century there was no one to support Scholasticism: it fell, not for lack of ideas, but for lack of defenders. E. Modern Philosophy The philosophies of the Renaissance are mainly negative: modern philosophy is, first and foremost, constructive. The latter is emancipated from all dogma; many of its syntheses are powerful; the definitive formation of the various nationalities and the diversity of languages favour the tendency to individualism. The two great initiators of modern philosophy are Descartes and Francis Bacon. The former inaugurates a spiritualistic philosophy based on the data of consciousness, and his influence may be traced in Malebranche, Spinoza, and Leibniz. Bacon heads a line of Empiricists, who regarded sensation as the only source of knowledge. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, a Sensualist philosophy grew up in England, based on Baconian Empiricism, and soon to develop in the direction of Subjectivism. Hobbes, Locke, Berkeley, and David Hume mark the stages of this logical evolution. Simultaneously an Associationist psychology appeared also inspired by Sensualism, and, before long, it formed a special field of research. Brown, David Hartley, and Priestley developed the theory of association of ideas in various directions. At the outset Sensualism encountered vigorous opposition, even in England, from the Mystics and Platonists of the Cambridge School (Samuel Parker and, especially, Ralph Cudworth). The reaction was still more lively in the Scotch School, founded and chiefly represented by Thomas Reid, to which Adam Ferguson, Oswald, and Dugald Stewart belonged in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and which had great influence over Eclectic Spiritualism, chiefly in America and France. Hobbes's "selfish" system was developed into a morality by Bentham, a partisan of Egoistic Utilitarianism, and by Adam Smith, a defender of Altruism, but provoked a reaction among the advocates of the moral sentiment theory (Shaftesbury, Hutcheson, Samuel Clarke). In England, also, Theism or Deism was chiefly developed, instituting a criticism of all positive religion, which it sought to supplant with a philosophical religion. English Sensualism spread in France during the eighteenth century: its influence is traceable in de Condillac, de la Mettrie, and the Encyclopedists; Voltaire popularized it in France and with Jean-Jacques Rousseau it made its way among the masses, undermining their Christianity and preparing the Revolution of 1759. In Germany, the philosophy of the eighteenth century is, directly or indirectly, connected with Leibniz -- the School of Wolff, the Aesthetic School (Baumgarten), the philosophy of sentiment. But all the German philosophers of the eighteenth century were eclipsed by the great figure of Kant. With Kant (1724-1804) modern philosophy enters its second period and takes a critical orientation. Kant bases his theory of knowledge, his moral and aesthetic system, and his judgments of finality on the structure of the mind. In the first half of the eighteenth century, German philosophy is replete with great names connected with Kantianism -- after it had been put through a Monistic evolution, however -- Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel have been called the triumvirate of Pantheism; then again, Schopenhauer, while Herbart returned to individualism. French philosophy in the nineteenth century is at first dominated by an eclectic Spiritualistic movement with which the names of Maine de Biran and, especially, Victor Cousin are associated. Cousin had disciples in America (C. Henry), and in France he gained favour with those whom the excesses of the Revolution had alarmed. In the first half of the nineteenth century French Catholics approved the Traditionalism inaugurated by de Bonald and de Lamennais, while another group took refuge in Ontologism. In the same period Auguste Comte founded Positivism, to which Littré and Taine adhered, though it rose to its greatest height in the English-speaking countries. In fact, England may be said to have been the second fatherland of Positivism; John Stuart Mill, Huxley, Alexander Bain and Herbert Spencer expanded its doctrines, combined them with Associationism and emphasized it criteriological aspect, or attempted (Spencer) to construct a vast synthesis of human sciences. The Associationist philosophy at this time was confronted by the Scotch philosophy which, in Hamilton, combined the teachings of Reid and of Kant and found an American champion in Noah Porter. Mansel spread the doctrines of Hamilton. Associationism regained favour with Thomas Brown and James Mill, but was soon enveloped in the large conception of Positivism, the dominant philosophy in England. Lastly, in Italy, Hegel was for a long time the leader of nineteenth-century philosophical thought (Vera and d'Ercole), whilst Gioberti, the ontologist and Rosmini occupy a distinct position. More recently, Positivism has gained numerous adherents in Italy. In the middle of the century, a large Krausist School existed in Spain, represented chiefly by Sanz del Rio (d. 1869) and N. Salmeron. Balmes (181O-48), the author of "Fundamental Philosophy" is an original thinker whose doctrines have many points of contact with Scholasticism. VI. CONTEMPORARY ORIENTATIONS A. Favourite Problems Leaving aside social questions, the study of which belongs to philosophy in only some of their aspects, it may be said that in the philosophic interest of the present day psychological questions hold the first place, and that chief among them is the problem of certitude. Kant, indeed, is so important a factor in the destinies of contemporary philosophy not only because he is the initiator of critical formalism, but still more because he obliges his successors to deal with the preliminary and fundamental question of the limits of knowledge. On the other hand the experimental investigation of mental processed has become the object of a new study, psycho-physiology, in which men of science co-operate with philosophers, and which meets with increasing success. This study figures in the programme of most modern universities. Originating at Leipzig (the School of Wundt) and Würzburg, it has quickly become naturalized in Europe and America. In America, "The Psychological Review" has devoted many articles to this branch of philosophy. Psychological studies are the chosen field of the American (Ladd, William James, Hall). The great success of psychology has emphasized the subjective character of aesthetics, in which hardly anyone now recognizes the objective and metaphysical element. The solutions in vogue are the Kantian, which represents the aesthetic judgment as formed in accordance with the subjective, structural function of the mind, or other psychologic solutions which reduce the beautiful to a psychic impression (the "sympathy", or Einfühlung, of Lipps; the "concrete intuition" of Benedetto Croce). These explanations are insufficient, as they neglect the objective aspect of the beautiful -- those elements which, on the part of the object, are the cause of the aesthetic impression and enjoyment. It may be said that the neo-Scholastic philosophy alone takes into account the objective aesthetic factor. The absorbing influence of psychology also manifests itself to the detriment of other branches of philosophy; first of all, to the detriment of metaphysics, which our contemporaries have unjustly ostracized -- unjustly, since, if the existence or possibility of a thing-in-itself is considered of importance, it behooves us to inquire under what aspects of reality it reveals itself. This ostracism of metaphysics, moreover, is largely due to misconception and to a wrong understanding of the theories of substance, of faculties, of causes etc., which belong to the traditional metaphysics. Then again, the invasion of psychology is manifest in logic: side by side with the ancient logic or dialectic, a mathematical or symbolic logic has developed (Peano, Russell, Peirce, Mitchell, and others) and, more recently, a genetic logic which would study, not the fixed laws of thought, but the changing process of mental life and its genesis (Baldwin). We have seen above (section II, D) how the increasing cultivation of psychology has produced other scientific ramifications which find favour with the learned world. Moral philosophy, long neglected, enjoys a renewed vogue notably in America, where ethnography is devoted to its service (see, e.g., the publications of the Smithsonian Institution). "The International Journal of Ethics" is a review especially devoted to this line of work. In some quarters, where the atmosphere is Positivist, there is a desire to get rid of the old morality, with its notions of value and of duty, and to replace it with a collection of empiric rules subject to evolution (Sidgwick, Huxley, Leslie Stephen, Durkheim, Levy-Bruhl). As to the history of philosophy, not only are very extended special studies devoted to it, but more and more room is given it in the study of every philosophic question. Among the causes of this exaggerated vogue are the impulse given by the Schools of Cousin and of Hegel, the progress of historical studies in general, the confusion arising from the clash of rival doctrines, and the distrust engendered by that confusion. Remarkable works have been produced by Deussen, on Indian and Oriental philosophy; by Zeller, on Greek antiquity; by Denifle, Hauréau, Bäumker, and Mandonnet, on the Middle Ages; by Windelband, Kuno Fischer, Boutroux and Höffding, on the modern period; and the list might easily be considerably prolonged. B. The Opposing Systems The rival systems of philosophy of the present time may be reduced to various groups: Positivism, neo-Kantianism, Monism, neo-Scholasticism. Contemporary philosophy lives in an atmosphere of Phenomenism, since Positivism and neo-Kantianism are at one on this important doctrine: that science and certitude are possible only within the limits of the world of phenomena, which is the immediate object of experience. Positivism, insisting on the exclusive rights of sensory experience, and Kantian criticism, reasoning from the structure of our cognitive faculties, hold that knowledge extends only as far as appearances; that beyond this is the absolute, the dark depths, the existence of which there is less and less disposition to deny, but which no human mind can fathom. On the contrary, this element of the absolute forms an integral constituent in neo-Scholasticism which has revived, with sobriety and moderation, the fundamental notions of Aristotelean and Medieval metaphysics, and has succeeded in vindicating them against attack and objection. (1) Positivism Positivism, under various forms, is defended in England by the followers of Spencer, by Huxley, Lewes, Tyndall, F. Harrison, Congreve, Beesby, J. Bridges, Grant Allen (James Martineau is a reactionary against Positivism); by Balfour, who at the same time propounds a characteristic theory of belief, and falls back on Fideism. From England Positivism passed over to America, where it soon dethroned the Scottish doctrines (Carus). De Roberty, in Russia, and Ribot, in France, are among its most distinguished disciples. In Italy it is found in the writings of Ferrari, Ardigo, and Morselli; in Germany, in those of Laas, Riehl, Guyau, and Durkheim. Less brutal than Materialism, the radical vice of Positivism is its identification of the knowable with the sensible. It seeks in vain to reduce general ideas to collective images, and to deny the abstract and universal character of the mind's concepts. It vainly denies the super-experiential value of the first logical principles in which the scientific life of the mind is rooted; nor will it ever succeed in showing that the certitude of such a judgment as 2 + 2 = 4 increases with our repeated addition of numbers of oxen or of coins. In morals, where it would reduce precepts and judgments to sociological data formed in the collective conscience and varying with the period and the environment, Positivism stumbles against the judgments of value, and the supersensible ideas of obligation, moral good, and law, recorded in every human conscience and unvarying in their essential data. (2) Kantianism Kantianism had been forgotten in Germany for some thirty years (1830-60); Vogt, Büchner, and Molesehott had won for Materialism an ephemeral vogue; but Materialism was swept away by a strong Kantian reaction. This reversion towards Kant (Rückkehr zu Kant) begins to be traceable in 1860 (notably as a result of Lange's "History of Materialism"), and the influence of Kantian doctrines may be said to permeate the whole contemporary German philosophy (Otto Liebmann, von Hartmann, Paulsen, Rehmke, Dilthey, Natorp, Fueken, the Immanentists, and the Empirico-criticists). French neo-Criticism, represented by Renouvier, was connected chiefly with Kant's second "Critique" and introduced a specific Voluntarism. Vacherot, Secrétan, Lachelier, Boutroux, Fouillée, and Bergson are all more or less under tribute to Kantianism. Ravaisson proclaims himself a follower of Maine de Biran. Kantianism has taken its place in the state programme of education and Paul Janet, who, with F. Bouillier and Caro, was among the last legatees of Cousin's Spiritualism, appears, in his "Testament philosophique", affecting a Monism with a Kantian inspiration. All those who, with Kant and the Positivists, proclaim the "bankruptcy of science" look for the basis of our certitude in an imperative demand of the will. This Voluntarism, also called Pragmatism (William James), and, quite recently, Humanism (Schiller at Oxford), is inadequate to the establishment of the theoretic moral and social sciences upon an unshakable base: sooner or later, reflection will ask what this need of living and of willing is worth, and then the intelligence will return to its position as the supreme arbiter of certitude. From Germany and France Kantianism has spread everywhere. In England it has called into activity the Critical Idealism associated with T. H. Green and Bradley. Hodgson, on the contrary, returns to Realism. S. Laurie may be placed between Green and Martineau. Emerson, Harris, Everett, and Royce spread Idealistic Criticism in America; Shadworth Hodgson, on the other hand, and Adamson tend to return to Realism, whilst James Ward emphasizes the function of the will. (3) Monism With a great many Kantians, a stratum of Monistic ideas is superimposed on Criticism, the thing in itself being considered numerically one. The same tendencies are observable among Positivist Evolutionists like Clifford and Romanes, or G.T. Ladd. (4) Neo-Scholasticism Neo-Scholasticism, the revival of which dates from the last third of the nineteenth century (Liberatore, Taparelli, Cornoldi, and others), and which received a powerful impulse under Leo XIII, is tending more and more to become the philosophy of Catholics. It replaces Ontologism, Traditionalism, Gunther's Dualism, and Cartesian Spiritualism, which had manifestly become insufficient. Its syntheses, renewed and completed, can be set up in opposition to Positivism and Kantianism, and even its adversaries no longer dream of denying the worth of its doctrines. The bearings of neo-Scholasticism have been treated elsewhere (see NEO-SCHOLASTICISM). VII. IS PROGRESS IN PHILOSOPHY INDEFINITE, OR IS THERE A PHILOSOPHIA PERENNIS? Considering the historic succession of systems and the evolution of doctrines from the remotest ages of India down to our own times, and standing face to face with the progress achieved by contemporary scientific philosophy, must we not infer the indefinite progress of philosophic thought? Many have allowed themselves to be led away by this ideal dream. Historic Idealism (Karl Marx) regards philosophy as a product fatally engendered by pre-existing causes in our physical and social environment. Auguste Comte's "law of the three states", Herbert Spencer's evolutionism Hegel's "indefinite becoming of the soul", sweep philosophy along in an ascending current toward an ideal perfection, the realization of which no one can foresee. For all these thinkers, philosophy is variable and relative: therein lies their serious error. Indefinite progress, condemned by history in many fields, is untenable in the history of philosophy. Such a notion is evidently refuted by the appearance of thinkers like Aristotle and Plato three centuries before Christ, for these men, who for ages have dominated, and still dominate, human thought, would be anachronisms, since they would be inferior to the thinkers of our own time. And no one would venture to assert this. History shows, indeed, that there are adaptations of a synthesis to its environment, and that every age has its own aspirations and its special way of looking at problems and their solutions; but it also presents unmistakable evidence of incessant new beginnings, of rhythmic oscillations from one pole of thought to the other. If Kant found an original formula of Subjectivism and the reine Innerlichkeit, it would be a mistake to think that Kant had no intellectual ancestors: he had them in the earliest historic ages of philosophy: M. Deussen has found in the Vedic hymn of the Upanishads the distinction between noumenon and phenomenon, and writes, on the theory of Mâyâ, "Kants Grunddogma, so alt wie die Philosophie" ("Die Philos. des Upanishad's", Leipzig, 1899, p. 204). It is false to say that all truth is relative to a given time and latitude, and that philosophy is the product of economic conditions in a ceaseless course of evolution, as historical Materialism holds. Side by side with these things, which are subject to change and belong to one particular condition of the life of mankind, there is a soul of truth circulating in every system, a mere fragment of that complete and unchangeable truth which haunts the human mind in its most disinterested investigations. Amid the oscillations of historic systems there is room for a philosophia perennis -- as it were a purest atmosphere of truth, enveloping the ages, its clearness somehow felt in spite of cloud and mist. "The truth Pythagoras sought after, and Plato, and Aristotle, is the same that Augustine and Aquinas pursued. So far as it is developed in history, truth is the daughter of time; so far as it bears within itself a content independent of time, and therefore of history, it is the daughter of eternity" [Willmann, "Gesch. d Idealismus", II (Brunswick, 1896), 55O; cf. Commer "Die immerwahrende Philosophie" (Vienna, 1899)]. This does not mean that essential and permanent verities do not adapt themselves to the intellectual life of each epoch. Absolute immobility in philosophy, no less than absolute relativity, is contrary to nature and to history. It leads to decadence and death. It is in this sense that we must interpret the adage: Vita in motu. VIII. PHILOSOPHY AND THE SCIENCES Aristotle of old laid the foundation of a philosophy supported by observation and experience. We need only glance through the list of his works to see that astronomy, mineralogy, physics and chemistry, biology, zoology, furnished him with examples and bases for his theories on the constitution, of the heavenly and terrestrial bodies, the nature of the vital principle, etc. Besides, the whole Aristotelean classification of the branches of philosophy (see section II) is inspired by the same idea of making philosophy -- general science -- rest upon the particular sciences. The early Middle Ages, with a rudimentary scientific culture, regarded all its learning, built up on the Trivium (grammar, rhetoric, dialectic) and Quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, music), as preparation for philosophy. In the thirteenth century, when Scholasticism came under Aristotelean influences, it incorporated the sciences in the programme of philosophy itself. This may be seen in regulation issued by the Faculty of Arts of Paris 19 March, 1255, "De libris qui legendi essent" This order prescribes the study of commentaries or various scientific treatises of Aristotle, notably those on the first book of the "Meteorologica", on the treatises on Heaven and Earth, Generation, the Senses and Sensations, Sleeping and Waking, Memory, Plants, and Animals. Here are amply sufficient means for the magistri to familiarize the "artists" with astronomy, botany, physiology, and zoology to say nothing of Aristotle's "Physics", which was also prescribed as a classical text, and which afforded opportunities for numerous observations in chemistry and physics as then understood. Grammar and rhetoric served as preliminary studies to logic, Bible history, social science, and politics were introductory to moral philosophy. Such men as Albertus Magnus and Roger Bacon expressed their views on the necessity of linking the sciences with philosophy and preached it by example. So that both antiquity and the Middle Ages knew and appreciated scientific philosophy. In the seventeenth century the question of the relation between the two enters upon a new phase: from this period modern science takes shape and begins that triumphal march which it is destined to continue through the twentieth century, and of which the human mind is justly proud. Modern scientific knowledge differs from that of antiquity and the Middle Ages in three important respects: the multiplication of sciences; their independent value; the divergence between common knowledge and scientific knowledge. In the Middle Ages astronomy was closely akin to astrology, chemistry to alchemy, physics to divination; modern science has severely excluded all these fantastic connections. Considered now from one side and again from another, the physical world has revealed continually new aspects, and each specific point of view has become the focus of a new study. On the other hand, by defining their respective limits, the sciences have acquired autonomy; useful in the Middle Ages only as a preparation for rational physics and for metaphysics, they are nowadays of value for themselves, and no longer play the part of handmaids to philosophy. Indeed, the progress achieved within itself by each particular science brings one more revolution in knowledge. So long as instruments of observation were imperfect, and inductive methods restricted, it was practically impossible to rise above an elementary knowledge. People knew, in the Middle Ages, that Wine, when left exposed to the air, became vinegar; but what do facts like this amount to in comparison with the complex formulae of modern chemistry? Hence it was that an Albertus Magnus or a Roger Bacon could flatter himself, in those days, with having acquired all the science of his time, a claim which would now only provoke a smile. In every department progress has drawn the line sharply between popular and scientific knowledge; the former is ordinarily the starting-point of the latter, but the conclusions and teachings involved in the sciences are unintelligible to those who lack the requisite preparation. Do not, then, these profound modifications in the condition of the sciences entail modifications in the relations which, until the seventeenth century, had been accepted as existing between the sciences and philosophy? Must not the separation of philosophy and science widen out to a complete divorce? Many have thought so, both scientists and philosophers, and it was for this that in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries so many savants and philosophers turned their backs on one another. For the former, philosophy has become useless; the particular sciences, they say, multiplying and becoming perfect, must exhaust the whole field of the knowable, and a time will come when philosophy shall be no more. For the philosophers, philosophy has no need of the immeasurable mass of scientific notions which have been acquired, many of which possess only a precarious and provisional value. Wolff, who pronounced the divorce of science from philosophy, did most to accredit this view, and he has been followed by certain Catholic philosophers who held that scientific study may be excluded from philosophic culture. What shall we say on this question? That the reasons which formerly existed for keeping touch with science are a thousand times more imperative in our day. If the profound synthetic view of things which justifies the existence of philosophy presupposes analytical researches, the multiplication and perfection of those researches is certainly reason for neglecting them. The horizon of detailed knowledge widens incessantly; research of every kind is busy exploring the departments of the universe which it has mapped out. And philosophy, whose mission is to explain the order of the universe by general and ultimate reasons applicable, not only to a group of facts, but to the whole body of known phenomena, cannot be indifferent to the matter which it has to explain. Philosophy is like a tower whence we obtain the panorama of a great city -- its plan, its monuments, its great arteries, with the form and location of each -- things which a visitor cannot discern while he goes through the streets and lanes, or visits libraries, churches, palaces, and museums, one after another. If the city grows and develops, there is all the more reason, if we would know it as a whole, why we should hesitate to ascend the tower and study from that height the plan upon which its new quarters have been laid out. It is, happily, evident that contemporary philosophy is inclined to be first and foremost a scientific philosophy; it has found its way back from its wanderings of yore. This is noticeable in philosophers of the most opposite tendencies. There would be no end to the list if we had to enumerate every case where this orientation of ideas has been adopted. "This union", says Boutroux, speaking of the sciences and philosophy, "is in truth the classic tradition of philosophy. But there had been established a psychology and a metaphysics which aspired to set themselves up beyond the sciences, by mere reflection of the mind upon itself. Nowadays all philosophers are agreed to make scientific data their starting-point" (Address at the International Congress of Philosophy in 1900; Revue de Métaph. et de Morale, 1900, p. 697). Boutroux and many others spoke similarly at the International Congress of Bologna (April, 1911). Wundt introduces this union into the very definition of philosophy, which, he says, is "the general science whose function it is to unite ia a system free of all contradictions the knowledge acquired through the particular sciences, and to reduce to their principles the general methods of science and the conditions of knowledge supposed by them" ("Einleitung in die Philosophie", Leipzig, 1901, p. 19). And R. Eucken says: "The farther back the limits of the observable world recede, the more conscious are we of the lack of an adequately comprehensive explanation" -- " Gesammelte Aufsatze zur Philos. u. Lebensanschanung" (Leipzig, 1903), p. 157]. This same thought inspired Leo XIII when he placed the parallel and harmonious teaching of philosophy and of the sciences on the programme of the Institute of Philosophy created by him in the University of Louvain (see NEO-SCHOLASTICISM). On their side, the scientists have been coming to the same conclusions ever since they rose to a synthetic view of that matter which is the object of their study. So it was with Pasteur, so with Newton. Ostwald, professor of chemistry at Leipzig, has undertaken to publish the "Annalen der Naturphilosophie", a review devoted to the cultivation of the territory which is common to philosophy and the sciences A great many men of science, too, are engaged in philosophy without knowing it: in their constant discussions of "Mechanism", "Evolutionism", "Transformism", they are using terms which imply a philosophical theory of matter. If philosophy is the explanation as a whole of that world which the particular sciences investigate in detail, it follows that the latter find their culmination in the former, and that as the sciences are so will philosophy be. It is true that objections are put forward against this way of uniting philosophy and the sciences. Common observation, it is said, is enough support for philosophy. This is a mistake: philosophy cannot ignore whole departments of knowledge which are inaccessible to ordinary experience biology, for example, has shed a new light on the philosophic study of man. Others again adduce the extent and the growth of the sciences to show that scientific philosophy must ever remain an unattainable ideal; the practical solution of this difficulty concerns the teaching of philosophy (see section XI). IX. PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION Religion presents to man, with authority, the solution of man's problems which also concern philosophy. Such are the questions of the nature of God, of His relation with the visible world, of man's origin and destiny Now religion, which precedes philosophy in the social life, naturally obliges it to take into consideration the points of religious doctrine. Hence the close connection of philosophy with religion in the early stages of civilization, a fact strikingly apparent in Indian philosophy, which, not only at its beginning but throughout its development, was intimately bound up with the doctrine of the sacred books (see above). The Greeks, at least during the most important periods of their history, were much less subject to the influences of pagan religions; in fact, they combined with extreme scrupulosity in what concerned ceremonial usage a wide liberty in regard to dogma. Greek thought soon took its independent flight Socrates ridicules the gods in whom the common people believed; Plato does not banish religious ideas from his philosophy; but Aristotle keeps them entirely apart, his God is the Actus purus, with a meaning exclusively philosophic, the prime mover of the universal mechanism. The Stoics point out that all things obey an irresistible fatality and that the wise man fears no gods. And if Epicurus teaches cosmic determinism and denies all finality, it is only to conclude that man can lay aside all fear of divine intervention in mundane affairs. The question takes a new aspect when the influences of the Oriental and Jewish religions are brought to bear on Greek philosophy by neo-Pythagorism, the Jewish theology (end of the first century), and, above all, neo-Platonism (third century B.C.). A yearning for religion was stirring in the world, and philosophy became enamoured of every religious doctrine Plotinus (third century after Christ), who must always remain the most perfect type of the neo-Platonic mentality, makes philosophy identical with religion, assigning as its highest aim the union of the soul with God by mystical ways. This mystical need of the supernatural issues in the most bizarre lucubrations from Plotinus's successors, e.g. Jamblicus (d. about A.D. 330), who, on a foundation of neo-Platonism, erected an international pantheon for all the divinities whose names are known. It has often been remarked that Christianity, with its monotheistic dogma and its serene, purifying morality, came in the fulness of time and appeased the inward unrest with which souls were afflicted at the end of the Roman world. Though Christ did not make Himself the head of a philosophical school, the religion which He founded supplies solutions for a group of problems which philosophy solves by other methods (e.g. the immortality of the soul). The first Christian philosophers, the Fathers of the Church, were imbued with Greek ideas and took over from the circumambient neo-Platonism the commingling of philosophy and religion. With them philosophy is incidental and secondary, employed only to meet polemic needs, and to support dogma; their philosophy is religious. In this Clement of Alexandria and Origen are one with St. Augustine and Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. The early Middle Ages continued the same traditions, and the first philosophers may be said to have received neo-Platonic influences through the channel of the Fathers. John Scotus Eriugena (ninth century), the most remarkable mind of this first period, writes that "true religion is true philosophy and, conversely, true philosophy is true religion" (De div. praed., I, I). But as the era advances a process of dissociation sets in, to end in the complete separation between the two sciences of Scholastic theology or the study of dogma, based fundamentally on Holy Scripture, and Scholastic philosophy, based on purely rational investigation. To understand the successive stages of this differentiation, which was not completed until the middle of the thirteenth century, we must draw attention to certain historical facts of capital importance. (1) The origin of several philosophical problems, in the early Middle Ages, must be sought within the domain of theology, in the sense that the philosophical discussions arose in reference to theological questions. The discussion, e.g. of transubstantiation (Berengarius of Tours), raised the problem of substance and of change, or becoming. (2) Theology being regarded as a superior and sacred science, the whole pedagogic and didactic organization of the period tended to confirm this superiority (see section XI). (3) The enthusiasm for dialectics, which reached its maximum in the eleventh century, brought into fashion certain purely verbal methods of reasoning bordering on the sophistical. Anselm of Besata (Anselmus Peripateticus) is the type of this kind of reasoner. Now the dialecticians, in discussing theological subjects, claimed absolute validity for their methods, and they ended in such heresies as Gottschalk's on predestination, Berengarius's on transubstantiation, and Roscelin's Tritheism. Berengarius's motto was: "Per omnia ad dialecticam confugere". There followed an excessive reaction on the part of timorous theologians, practical men before all things, who charged dialectics with the sins of the dialecticians. This antagonistic movement coincided with an attempt to reform religious life. At the head of the group was Peter Damian (1007-72), the adversary of the liberal arts; he was the author of the saying that philosophy is the handmaid of theology. From this saying it has been concluded that the Middle Ages in general put philosophy under tutelage, whereas the maxim was current only among a narrow circle of reactionary theologians. Side by side with Peter Damian in Italy, were Manegold of Lautenbach and Othloh of St. Emmeram, in Germany. (4) At the same time a new tendency becomes discernible in the eleventh century, in Lanfranc, William of Hirschau, Rodulfus Ardens, and particularly St. Anselm of Canterbury; the theologian calls in the aid of philosophy to demonstrate certain dogmas or to show their rational side. St. Anselm, in an Augustinian spirit, attempted this justification of dogma, without perhaps invariably applying to the demonstrative value of his arguments the requisite limitations. In the thirteenth century these efforts resulted in a new theological method, the dialectic. (5) While these disputes as to the relations of philosophy and theology went on, many philosophical questions were nevertheless treated on their own account, as we have seen above (universals, St. Anselm's theodicy, Abelard's philosophy, etc.). (6) The dialectic method, developed fully in the twelfth century, just when Scholastic theology received a powerful impetus, is a theological, not a philosophical, method. The principal method in theology is the interpretation of Scripture and of authority; the dialectic method is secondary and consists in first establishing a dogma and then showing its reasonableness, confirming the argument from authority by the argument from reason. It is a process of apologetics. From the twelfth century onward, these two theological methods are fairly distinguished by the words auctoritates, rationes. Scholastic theology, condensed in the "summae" and "books of sentences", is henceforward regarded as distinct from philosophy. The attitude of theologians towards philosophy is threefold: one group, the least influential, still opposes its introduction into theology, and carries on the reactionary traditions of the preceding period (e.g. Gauthier de Saint-Victor); another accepts philosophy, but takes a utilitarian view of it, regarding it merely as a prop of dogma (Peter Lombard); a third group, the most influential, since it includes the three theological schools of St. Victor, Abelard, and Gilbert de la Porrée, grants to philosophy, in addition to this apologetic role, an independent value which entitles it to be cultivated and studied for its own sake. The members of this group are at once both theologians and philosophers. (7) At the opening of the thirteenth century one section of Augustinian theologians continued to emphasize the utilitarian and apologetic office of philosophy. But St. Thomas Aquinas created new Scholastic traditions, and wrote a chapter on scientific methodology in which the distinctness and in dependence of the two sciences is thoroughly established. Duns Scotus, again, and the Terminists exaggerated this independence. Latin Averroism, which had a brilliant but ephemeral vogue in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, accepted whole and entire in philosophy Averroistic Peripateticism, and, to safeguard Catholic orthodoxy, took refuge behind the sophism that what is true in philosophy may be false in theology, and conversely -- wherein they were more reserved than Averroes and the Arab philosophers, who regarded religion as something inferior, good enough for the masses, and who did not trouble themselves about Moslem orthodoxy. Lully, going to extremes, maintained that all dogma is susceptible of demonstration, and that philosophy and theology coalesce. Taken as a whole, the Middle Ages, profoundly religious, constantly sought to reconcile its philosophy with the Catholic Faith. This bond the Renaissance philosophy severed. In the Reformation period a group of publicists, in view of the prevailing strife, formed projects of reconciliation among the numerous religious bodies. They convinced themselves that all religions possess a common fund of essential truths relating to God, and that their content is identical, in spite of divergent dogmas. Besides, Theism, being only a form of Naturism applied to religion, suited the independent ways of the Renaissance. As in building up natural law, human nature was taken into consideration, so reason was interrogated to discover religious ideas. And hence the wide acceptance of Theism, not among Protestants only, but generally among minds that had been carried away with the Renaissance movement (Erasmus, Coornheert). For this tolerance or religious indifferentism modern philosophy in more than one instance substituted a disdain of positive religions. The English Theism or Deism of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries criticizes all positive religion and, in the name of an innate religious sense, builds up a natural religion which is reducible to a collection of theses on the existence of God and the immortality of the soul. The initiator of this movement was Herbert of Cherbury (1581-1648); J. Toland (1670-1722), Tindal (1656-1733), and Lord Bolingbroke took part in it. This criticizing movement inaugurated in England was taken up in France, where it combined with an outright hatred of Catholicism. Pierre Bayle (1646-17O6) propounded the thesis that all religion is anti-rational and absurd, and that a state composed of Atheists is possible. Voltaire wished to substitute for Catholicism an incoherent mass of doctrines about God. The religious philosophy of the eighteenth century in France led to Atheism and paved the way for the Revolution. In justice to contemporary philosophy it must be credited with teaching the amplest tolerance towards the various religions; and in its programme of research it has included religious psychology, or the study of the religious sentiment. For Catholic philosophy the relations between philosophy and theology, between reason and faith, were fixed, in a chapter of scientific methodology, by the great Scholastic thinkers of the thirteenth century. Its principles, which still retain their vitality, are as follows: (a) Distinctness of the two sciences. The independence of philosophy in regard to theology, as in regard to any other science whatsoever, is only an interpretation of this undeniable principle of scientific progress, as applicable in the twentieth century as it was in the thirteenth, that a rightly constituted science derives its formal object, its principles, and its constructive method from its own resources, and that, this being so, it cannot borrow from any other science without compromising its own right to exist. (b) Negative, not positive, material, not formal, subordination of philosophy in regard to theology. This means that, while the two sciences keep their formal independence (the independence of the principles by which their investigations are guided), there are certain matters where philosophy cannot contradict the solutions afforded by theology. The Scholastics of the Middle Ages justified this subordination, being profoundly convinced that Catholic dogma contains the infallible word of God, the expression of truth. Once a proposition, e.g. that two and two make four, has been accepted as certain, logic forbids any other science to form any conclusion subversive of that proposition. The material mutual subordination of the sciences is one of those laws out of which logic makes the indispensable guarantee of the unity of knowledge. "The truth duly demonstrated by one science serves as a beacon in another science." The certainty of a theory in chemistry imposes its acceptance on physics, and the physicist who should go contrary to it would be out of his course. Similarly, the philosopher cannot contradict the certain data of theology, any more than he can contradict the certain conclusions of the individual sciences. To deny this would be to deny the conformity of truth with truth, to contest the principle of contradiction, to surrender to a relativism which is destructive of all certitude. "It being supposed that nothing but what is true is included in this science (sc. theology) . . . it being supposed that whatever is true by the decision and authority of this science can nowise be false by the decision of right reason: these things, I say, being supposed, as it is manifest from them that the authority of this science and reason alike rest upon truth, and one verity cannot be contrary to another, it must be said absolutely that reason can in no way be contrary to the authority of this Scripture, nay, all right reason is in accord with it" (Henry of Ghent, "Summa Theologica", X, iii, n.4). But when is a theory certain? This is a question of fact, and error is easy. In proportion as the principle is simple and absolute, so are its applications complex and variable. It is not for philosophy to establish the certitude of theological data, any more than to fix the conclusions of chemistry or of physiology. The certainty of those data and those conclusions must proceed from another source. "The preconceived idea is entertained that a Catholic savant is a soldier in the service of his religious faith, and that, in his hands, science is but a weapon to defend his Credo. In the eyes of a great many people, the Catholic savant seems to be always under the menace of excommunication, or entangled in dogmas which hamper him, and compelled, for the sake of loyalty to his Faith, to renounce the disinterested love of science and its free cultivation" (Mercier, "Rapport sur les études supér. de philos.", 1891, p. 9). Nothing could be more untrue. X. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND PHILOSOPHY The principles which govern the doctrinal relations of philosophy and theology have moved the Catholic Church to intervene on various occasions in the history of philosophy. As to the Church's right and duty to intervene for the purpose of maintaining the integrity of theological dogma and the deposit of faith, there is no need of discussion in this place. It is interesting, however, to note the attitude taken by the Church towards philosophy throughout the ages, and particularly in the Middle Ages, when a civilization saturated with Christianity had established extremely intimate relations between theology and philosophy. A. The censures of the Church have never fallen upon philosophy as such, but upon theological applications, judged false, which were based upon philosophical reasonings. John Scotus Eriugena, Roscelin, Berengarius, Abelard, Gilbert de la Porrée were condemned because their teachings tended to subvert theological dogmas. Eriugena denied the substantial distinction between God and created things; Roscelin held that there are three Gods; Berengarius, that there is no real transubstantiation in the Eucharist; Abelard and Gilbert de la Porrée essentially modified the dogma of the Trinity. The Church, through her councils, condemned their theological errors; with their philosophy as such she does not concern herself. "Nominalism", says Hauréau, "is the old enemy. It is, in fact, the doctrine which, because it best accords with reason, is most remote from axioms of faith. Denounced before council after council, Nominalism was condemned in the person of Abelard as it had been in the person of Roscelin" (Hist. philos. scol., I, 292). No assertion could be more inaccurate. What the Church has condemned is neither the so-called Nominalism, nor Realism, nor philosophy in general, nor the method of arguing in theology, but certain applications of that method which are judged dangerous, i.e. matters which are not philosophical. In the thirteenth century a host of teachers adopted the philosophical theories of Roscelin and Abelard, and no councils were convoked to condemn them. The same may be said of the condemnation of David of Dinant (thirteenth century), who denied the distinction between God and matter, and of various doctrines condemned in the fourteenth century as tending to the negation of morality. It has been the same in modern times. To mention only the condemnation of Gunther, of Rosmini, and of Ontologism in the nineteenth century, what alarmed the Church was the fact that the theses in question had a theologic: bearing. B. The Church has never imposed any philosophical system, though she has anathematized many doctrines, or branded them as suspect. This corresponds with the prohibitive, but not imperative attitude of theology in regard to philosophy. To take one example, faith teaches that the world was created in time; and yet St. Thomas maintains that the concept of eternal creation (ab aeterno) involves no contradiction. He did not think himself obliged to demonstrate creation in time: his teaching would have been heterodox only if, with the Averroists his day, he had maintained the necessary eternity of the world. It may, perhaps, be objected that many Thomistic doctrines were condemned in 1277 by Etienne Tempier, Bishop of Paris. But it is well to note, and recent works on the subject have abundantly proved this, that Tempier's condemnation, in so far as it applied to Thomas Aquinas, was the issue of intrigues and personal animosity, and that, in canon law, it had no force outside of the Diocese of Paris. Moreover, it was annulled by one of Tempier's successors, Etienne de Borrète, in 1325. C. The Church has encouraged philosophy. To say nothing of the fact that all those who applied themselves to science and philosophy in the Middle Ages were churchmen, and that the liberal arts found an asylum in capitular and monastic schools until the twelfth century, it is important to remark that the principal universities of the Middle Ages were pontifical foundations. This was the case with Paris. To be sure, in the first years of the university's aquaintance with the Aristotelean encyclopaedia (late twelfth century) there were prohibitions against reading the "Physics", the "Metaphysics", and the treatise "On the Soul". But these restrictions were of a temporary character and arose out of particular circumstanccs. In 1231, Gregory IX laid upon a commission of three consultors the charge to prepare an amended edition of Aristotle "ne utile per inutile vitietur" (lest what is useful suffer damage through what is useless). The work of expurgatio. was done, in point of fact, by the Albertine-Thomist School, and, beginning from the year 1255, the Faculty of Arts, with the knowledge of the ecclesiastical authority, ordered the teaching of all the books previously prohibited (see Mandonnet, "Siger de Brabant et l'averroïsme latin au XIIIe s.", Louvain 1910). It might also be shown how in modern times and in our own day the popes have encouraged philosophic studies. Leo XIII, as is well known, considered the restoration of philosophic Thomism on of the chief tasks of his pontificate. XI. THE TEACHING OF PHILOSOPHY The methods of teaching philosophy have varied in various ages. Socrates used to interview his auditors, and hold symposia in the market-place, on the porticoes and in the public gardens. His method was interrogation, he whetted the curiosity of the audience and practised what had become known as Socratic irony and the maieutic art (maieutikê techne), the art of delivering minds of their conceptions. His successor opened schools properly so called, and from the place occupied by these schools several systems took their names (the Stoic School, the Academy, the Lyceum). In the Middle Ages and down to the seventeenth century the learned language was Latin. The German discourses of Eckhart are mentioned as merely sporadic examples. From the ninth to the twelfth century teaching was confined to the monastic and cathedral schools. It was the golden age of schools. Masters and students went from one school to another: Lanfranc travelled over Europe; John of Salisbury (twelfth century) heard at Paris all the then famous professors of philosophy; Abelard gathered crowds about his rostrum. Moreover: as the same subjects were taught everywhere, and from the same text-books, scholastic wanderings were attended with few disadvantages. The books took the form of commentaries or monographs. From the time of Abelard a method came into use which met with great success, that of setting forth the pros and cons of a question, which was later perfected by the addition of a solutio. The application of this method was extended in the thirteenth century (e.g. in the "Summa theologica" of St. Thomas). Lastly, philosophy being an educational preparation for theology, the "Queen of the Sciences", philosophical and theological topics were combined in one and the same book, or even in the same lecture. At the end of the twelfth century and the beginning of the thirteenth, the University of Paris was organized, and philosophical teaching was concentrated in the Faculty of Arts. Teaching was dominated by two principles: internationalism and freedom. The student was an apprentice-professor: after receiving the various degrees, he obtained from the chancellor of the university a licence to teach (licentia docendi). Many of the courses of this period have been preserved, the abbreviated script of the Middle Ages being virtually a stenographic system. The programme of courses drawn up in 1255 is well known: it comprises the exegesis of all the books of Aristotle. The commentary, or lectio (from legere, to read), is the ordinary form of instruction (whence the German Vorlesungen and the English lecture). There were also disputations, in which questions were treated by means of objections and answers; the exercise took a lively character, each one being invited to contribute his thoughts on the subject. The University of Paris was the model for all the others, notably those of Oxford and Cambridge. These forms of instruction in the universities lasted as long as Aristoteleanism, i.e. until the seventeenth century. In the eighteenth century -- the siècle des lumières (Erklärung) -- philosophy took a popular and encyclopedic form, and was circulated in the literary productions of the period. In the nineteenth century it resumed its didactic attitude in the universities and in the seminaries, where, indeed its teaching had long continued. The advance of philological and historical studies had a great influence on the character of philosophical teaching: critical methods were welcomed, and little by little the professors adopted the practice of specializing in this or that branch of philosophy -- a practice which is still in vogue. Without attempting to touch on all the questions involved in modern methods of teaching philosophy, we shall here indicate some of the principal features. A. The Language of Philosophy The earliest of the moderns -- as Descartes or Leibniz -- used both Latin and the vernacular, but in the nineteenth century (except in ecclesiastical seminaries and in certain academical exercises mainly ceremonial in character) the living languages supplanted Latin; the result has been a gain in clearness of thought and interest and vitality of teaching. Teaching in Latin too often contents itself with formulae: the living language effects a better comprehension of things which must in any case be difficult. Personal experience, writes Fr. Hogan, formerly superior of the Boston Seminary, in his "Clerical Studies" (Philadelphia, 1895-1901), has shown that among students who have learned philosophy, particularly Scholastic, only in Latin, very few have acquired anything more than a mass of formulae, which they hardly understand; though this does not always prevent their adhering to their formulae through thick and thin. Those who continue to write in Latin -- as many Catholic philosophers, often of the highest worth, still do -- have the sad experience of seeing their books confined to a very narrow circle of readers. B. Didactic Processes Aristotle's advice, followed by the Scholastics, still retains its value and its force: before giving the solution of a problem, expound the reasons for and against. This explains, in particular, the great part played by the history of philosophy or the critical examination of the solutions proposed by the great thinkers. Commentary on a treatise still figures in some special higher courses; but contemporary philosophical teaching is principally divided according to the numerous branches of philosophy (see section II). The introduction of laboratories and practical seminaries (séminaires practiques) in philosophical teaching has been of the greatest advantage. Side by side with libraries and shelves full of periodicals there is room for laboratories and museums, once the necessity of vivifying philosophy by contact with the sciences is admitted (see section VIII). As for the practical seminary, in which a group of students, with the aid of a teacher, investigate to some special problem, it may be applied to any branch of philosophy with remarkable results. The work in common, where each directs his individual efforts towards one general aim, makes each the beneficiary of the researches of all; it accustoms them to handling the instruments of research, facilitates the detection of facts, teaches the pupil how to discover for himself the reasons for what he observes, affords a real experience in the constructive methods of discovery proper to each subject, and very often decides the scientific vocation of those whose efforts have been crowned with a first success. C. The Order of Philosophical Teaching One of the most complex questions is: With what branch ought philosophical teaching to begin, and what order should it follow? In conformity with an immemorial tradition, the beginning is often made with logic. Now logic, the science of science, is difficult to understand and unattractive in the earliest stages of teaching. It is better to begin with the sciences which take the real for their object: psychology, cosmology, metaphysics, and theodicy. Scientific logic will be better understood later on; moral philosophy presupposes psychology; systematic history of philosophy requires a preliminary acquaintance with all the branches of philosophy (see Mercier, "Manuel de philosophie", Introduction, third edition, Louvain, 1911). Connected with this question of the order of teaching is another: viz. What should be the scientific teaching preliminary to philosophy? Only a course in the sciences specially appropriate to philosophy can meet the manifold exigencies of the problem. The general scientific courses of our modern universities include too much or too little: "too much in the sense that professional teaching must go into numerous technical facts and details with which philosophy has nothing to do; too little, because professional teaching often makes the observation of facts its ultimate aim, whilst, from our standpoint, facts are, and can be, only a means, a starting-point, towards acquiring a knowledge of the most general causes and laws" (Mercier, "Rapport sur les études supérieures de philosophie", Louvain, 1891, p. 25). M. Boutroux, a professor at the Sorbonne, solves the problem of philosophical teaching at the university in the same sense, and, according to him, the flexible and very liberal organization of the faculty of philosophy should include "the whole assemblage of the sciences, whether theoretic, mathematico-physical, or philologico-historical" ("Revue internationale de l'enseignement", Paris, 1901, p. 51O). The programme of courses of the Institute of Philosophy of Louvain is drawn up in conformity with this spirit. XII. BIBLIOGRAPHY GENERAL WORKS. -- MERCIER, Cours de philosophie. Logique. Criteriologie générale. Ontologie. Psychologie (Louvain, 1905-10); NYS, Cosmologie (Louvain, 1904); Stonyhurst Philosophical Series: -- CLARKE, Logic (London, 1909); JOHN RICKABY, First Principles of Knowledge (London, 1901); JOSEPH RICKABY, Moral Philosophy (London, 1910); BOEDDER, Natural Theology (London, 1906); MAHER, Psychology (London, 1909); JOHN RICKABY, General Metaphysics (London, 1909); WALKER, Theories of Knowledge (London, 1910--); ZIGLIARA, Summa philos. (Paris); SCHIFFINI, Principia philos. (Turin); URRABURU, Institut. philosophiae (Valladolid); IDEM, Compend. phil. schol. (Madrid); Philosophia Locensis: -- PASCH, Inst. Logicales (Freiburg, 1888); IDEM, Inst. phil. natur. (Freiburg, 1880); IDEM, Inst. psychol. (Freiburg, 1898); HONTHEIM, Inst. theodicaeae; MEYER, Inst. iuris notur.; DOMET DE VORGEs, Abrégé de métaophysique (Paris); FAROES, Etudes phil. (Paris); GUTBERLET, Lehrbuch der Philos. Logik und Erkenntnistheorie, Algemeine Metaphys., Naturphilos., Die psychol., Die Theodicee, Ethik u. Naturrecht, Ethik u. Religion (Münster, 1878-85); RABIER, Leçons de phil. (Paris); WINDELBAND with the collaboration of LIEBMANN, WUNDT, LIPPS, BAUSH, LASK, RICKERT, TROELTSCH, and GROOS, Die Philos. im Beginn des zwanzigsten Jahrhund. (Heidelberg); Systematische Philosophie by DILTHEY, RIEHL, WUNDT, OSTWALD, EBBINGHAUS, EUCKEM, PAULSEN, and MUNCH; LIPPS, Des Gesamtwerkers, Die Kultur der Gegenwärt (Leipzig), pt. I, vi; DE WULF, tr. COFFEY, Scholasticism Old and New. An Introduction to Neo-Scholastic Philosophy (Dublin, 1907); KULPE, Einleitung in die Philos. (Leipzig); WUNDT, Einleitung in die Philos. (Leipzig); HARPER, The Metaphysics of the School (London, 1879-84). DICTIONARIES. -- BALDWIN, Dict. of Philosophy and Psychology (London, 1901-05); FRANCE, Dict. des sciences Phil. (Paris, 1876); EISLER, Wörterbuch der Philosoph. Begriffe (Berlin, 1899); Vocabulaire technique et critique de Phil., in course of publication by the Soc. française do philosophie. COLLECTIONS. -- Bibliothèque de l'Institut supérieur de Philosophie; PEILLAUBE, Bibl. de Phil. expérimentale (Paris); RIVIERE, Bibl. de Phil. contemporaine (Paris); Coll. historique des grands Philosophes (Paris); LE BON, Bibl. de Philosophie scientif. (Paris); PIAT, Les grands Philosophes (Paris); Philosophische Bibliothek (Leipzig). PERIODICAL PUBLICATIONS. -- Mind, a quarterly review of psychology and Philosophy (London, 1876--); The Philosoph. Rev. (New York, 1892--); Internat. Jour. of Ethics (Philadelphia); Proc. of Aristotelian Society (London, 1888--); Rev. Neo-scholastique de Phil. (Louvain, 1894--); Rev. des sciences phil. et théol. (Paris) Revue Thomiste (Toulouse, 1893--); Annales de Philosophie Chret. (Paris, 1831--); Rev. de Philos. (Paris); Philosophisches Jahrbuch (Fulda); Zeitschr. für Philos. und Philosophische Kritik, formerly Fichte-Utrisische Zeitschr. (Leipzig, 1847--); Kantstudien (Berlin, 1896--); Arch. f. wissehoftliche Philos. und Soziologie (Leipzig, 1877--); Arch. f. systematische Philos. (Berlin, 1896); Arch. f. Gesch. d. Philos. (Berlin, 1888--); Rev. Phil. de la France et de l'Etranger (Paris, 1876--); Rev. de métaph. et de morale (Paris, 1894--); Tijdschrift voor Wijsbegeerte (Amsterdam, 1907--); Riv. di filosofio neo-scholastico (Florence, 1909--); Rivisto di filosofia (Modena). DIVISION OF PHILOSOPHY. -- Methods. -- MARIETAN, Le probème de la classification des sciences d'Aristote d S. Thomas (Paris, 1901); WILLMANN, Didaktik (Brunswick, 1903). GENERAL HISTORY. -- UEBERWEG, Hist. of Philosophy, tr. HARRIS (New York, 1875-76); ERDMANN, Hist. of Phil. (London, 1898); WINDELBAND, Hist. of Phil. (New York, 1901); TURNER, Hist. of Phil. (Boston, 1903); WILLMANN, Gesch. des Idealismus (Brunswick, 1908); ZELLER, Die Philos. der Griechen (Berlin), tr. ALLEYNE, RETEHEL, GOODWIN, COSTELLOE, and MUIRHEAD (London); DE WULF, Hist. of Mediaeval Phil. (London, 1909; Paris, Tubingen, and Florence, 1912); WINDELRAND, Gesch. der neueren Philos. (Leipzig, 1872-80), tr. TUFTS (New York, 1901); HOFFDING, Den nyere Filosofis Historie (Copenhagen, 1894), tr. MAYER, A Hist. of Mod. Phil. (London, 1900); FISHER, Geschichte der neueren Philosophie (Heidelberg, 1889-1901); STÖCKL, Lehrbuch der Geschichte der Philosophie (Mainz, 1888; tr. in part by FINLAY, Dublin, 1903); WEBER, History of Philosophy, tr. THILLY (New York, 1901). CONTEMPORARY HISTORY. -- EUCKEN, Geistige Strömungen der Gegenwart (Leipzig, 1901); WINDELBAND, Die Philos. im Beginn d. XX. Jahr., I (Heidelberg); CALDERON, Les courants phil. dans l'Amérique Latine (Heidelberg, 1909); CEULEMANS, Le mouvement phil. en Amérique in Rev. néo-scholast. (Nov., 1909); BAUMANN, Deutsche u. ausserdeutsche Philos. der letzen Jahrzehnte (Gotha, 1903). PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY. -- HEITZ, Essai hist. sur les rapp. entre la philosophie et la foi de Bérenger de Tours à S. Thomas (Paris, 1909); BRUNHES, La foi chrét. et la pil. au temps de la renaiss. caroling. (Paris, 1903); GRABMANN, Die Gesch. der scholast. methode (Freiburg, 1909). MAURICE DE WULF Philoxenus Philoxenus (AKHSENAYA) OF MABBOGH. Born at Tahal, in the Persian province of Beth-Garmai in the second quarter of the fifth century; died at Gangra, in Paphlagonia, 523. He studied at Edessa when Ibas was bishop of that city (435-57). Shortly after he joined the ranks of the Monophysites and became their most learned and courageous champion. In 485 he was appointed Bishop of Hierapolis, or Mabbogh (Manbidj) by Peter the Fuller. He continued to attack the Decrees of Chalcedon and to defend the "Henoticon" of Zeno. He twice visited Constantinople in the interests of his party, and in 512 he persuaded the Emperor Anastasius to depose Flavian of Antioch and to appoint Severus in his stead. His triumph, however, was short-lived. Anastasius died in 518 and was succeeded by the orthodox Justin I. By a decree of the new ruler the bishops who had been deposed under Zeno and Anastasius were restored to their sees, and Philoxenus, with fifty-three other Monophysites, was banished. He went to Philippopolis, in Thrace, and afterwards to Gangra where he was murdered. Philoxenus is considered one of the greatest masters of Syriac prose. He wrote treatises on liturgy, exegesis, moral and dogmatic theology, besides many letters which are important for the ecclesiastical history of his time. Notice must be taken of the Philoxenian Syriac version of the Holy Scriptures. This version was not Philoxenus's own work, but was made, upon his request and under his direction, by the chorepiscopus Polycarp about 505. It seems to have been a free revision of the Peshitta according to the Lucian recension of the Septuagint. It is not known whether it extended to the whole Bible. Of the Philoxenian version of the Old Testament we have only a few fragments of the Book of Isaias (xxviii, 3-17; xlii, 17-xlix, 18, lxvi, 11-23) preserved in Syr. manuscripts Add. 17106 of the British Museum, and published by Ceriani. Of the New Testament we have the Second Epistle of St. Peter, the Second and Third Epistles of St. John and the Epistle of St. Jude, all of which are printed in our Syriac Bibles. There remain also a few fragments of the Epistles of St. Paul (Rom., vi, 20; I Cor., i, 28; II Cor., vii, 13; x, 4; Eph., vi, 12), first published by Wiseman from Syr. MS. 153 of the Vatican. Gwynn is of the opinion that the Syriac text of the Apocalypse published by himself in 1897 probably belongs to the original Philoxenian. DUVAL, Litterature Syriaque (3rd ed., Paris, 1907); WRIGHT, A Short History of Syriac Literature (London, 1894); ASSEMANI, Bibliotheca Orientalis, II (Rome, 1719); WISEMAN, Horae Syriacae (Rome, 1828); CERIANI, Monumenta sacra et profana, V (Milan, 1868); RENAUDOT, Liturgiarum orientalium Collectio, II (Frankfort, 1847); MARTIN, Syro-Chaldaicae Institutiones (1873); GUIDI, La Lettera di Filosseno ai monaci di Tell Adda (Rome, 1886); FROTHINGHAM, Stephen bar Sudaili, the Syrian Mystic and the Book of Hierotheos (Leyden, 1886); WALLIS-BUDGE, The Discourses of Philoxenus, Bishop of Mabbogh (2 vols., London, 1894); VASCHALDE, Three Letters of Philoxenus, Bishop of Mabbogh (485-519): being the letter to the monks, the first letter to the monks of Beth-Gaugal, and the letter to Emperor Zeno, with an English translation, and an introduction to the life, works, and doctrine of Philoxenus (Rome, 1902); IDEM, Philoxeni Mabbugens is Tractatus de Trinitate et Incarnatione in Corpus, Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium (Paris, 1907); GWYNN, The Apocalypse of St. John in a Syria Version hitherto unknown (Dublin, 1897); IDEM, Remnants of the later Syriac Versions of the Bible (Oxford, 1909); BAETHGEN, Philoxenus von Mabug uber den Glaubenin Zeitschrift fur Kirchgeschichte, V (1882), 122-38. A. VASCHLADE Titular See of Phocaea Phocæa A titular see in Asia, suffragan of Ephesus. The town of Phocæa was founded in the eleventh century b.c. by colonists from Phocidia led by two Athenians. They settled first on a small island on the neighbouring coast, a territory given by the Cymæans, between the Bays of Cymæus and Hermæus, 23 miles north of Smyrna. It was admitted to the Ionian Confederation after having accepted kings of the race of Codrus. Its fine position, its two ports, and the enterprising spirit of the inhabitants made it one of the chief maritime cities of ancient times. Historians speak of it but rarely before the Roman wars against Antiochus, The prætor Æmilius Regillus took possession of the town (189 b.c.); he disturbed neither its boundaries nor its laws. During the war against Aristonicus, who reclaimed the throne of Pergamum, the Phocæans took his part and, through the intervention of Massilia, escaped being severely punished by the Romans. At the time the latter had definitively established his power in Asia, Phocæa was only a commercial town; its money was coined until the time of the later Empire; but its harbour gradually silted up and the inhabitants abandoned it. In 978 Theodore Carentenus built Bardas Sclerus near Phocæa. In 1090 the Turk Tchaga of Smyrna took possession of it for a short time. The Venetians traded there after 1082, but the Genoese quickly supplanted them. In 1275 Michael VIII Palæologus gave Manuel Zaccaria the territory of the city and the right to exploit the neighbouring alum mines. In 1304 the Genoese, with the co-operation of the Greeks of the adjoining towns, erected a fortress to defend the town against the Turks, and some distance from the ancient Phocæa founded a city which they called New Phocæa. In 1336 Andronicus the Young, allied with Saroukhan, Sultan of Magnesia, besieged the two towns and obliged them to pay the tribute stipulated in 1275. They continued also to pay annually to Saroukhan 500 ducats. From 1340 to 1345 the Greeks occupied the two towns, and again in 1358 for a short period. At the time of the invasion of Timur in 1403, they purchased peace by the payment of money. In the midst of difficulties the Genoese colony continued until the end of 1455, when it passed into the hands of the Turks. In 1650 a naval battle between the Turks and Venetians took place in sight of Phocæa. To-day Phocæa, in Turkish Fotchatin, or Eski Fotcha (ancient Phocæa), is the capital of a caza of the vilayet of Smyrna, has about 6000 inhabitants (4500 Greeks), and exports salt. About six miles to the north, Yeni Fotcha (new Phocæa) is situated on the Gulf of Tchandarli; it has 4500 inhabitants (3500 Greeks), and exports agricultural products. Seven Greek bishops of Phocæa are known by their signatures at the Councils; Mark, at Sardica (344); Theoctistus, at Ephesus (441); Quintus, at Chalcedon (451); John, at Constantinople (692); Leo, at Nice (787); Nicetas, at Constantinople (869); Paul, at Constantinople (879). In 1387 ancient Phocæa was separated from Ephesus and given to the suffragan of Smyrna. In 1403 it still had a titular. The Genoese colony had its Latin bishops, seven of whose names are recorded from 1346 to 1475; the later ones were undoubtedly non-residents: Bartholomew, 1346; John, 1383; John, before 1427; Nicholas, 1427; Ludovicus, about 1450; Stephanus, 1457; Ægidius, 1475. LE QUIEN, Oriens christ., I, 735; III, 1077; TEXIER, Asie mineure, 371-5; THISQUEN, Phocaica (Bonn, 1842); DE MASLATRIE, Trésor de chronologie (Paris, 1889), 1787; TOMASCHEK, Zur historischen Topographie von Kleinasien im Mittelalter (Vienna, 1891), 25-27; WAECHTER, Der Verfall des Griechentums in Kleinasien im XIV. Jahrhundert (Leipzig, 1903), 63; CUINET, La Turquie d'Asie, III, 478-85. S. PÉTRIDÈS. Phoenecia Phœ;nicia Phœ;nicia is a narrow strip of land, about one hundred and fifty miles long and thirty miles wide, shut in between the Mediterranean on the west and the high range of Lebanon on the east, and consisting mostly of a succession of narrow valleys, ravines, and hills, the latter descending gradually towards the sea. On the north it is bounded by the River Orontes and Mount Casius, and by Mount Carmel on the south. The land is fertile and well irrigated by numerous torrents and streams deriving their waters mainly from the melting snows and rain-storms of the winter and spring seasons. The principal vegetation consists of the renowned cedars of Lebanon, cypresses, pines, palms, olive, vine, fig, and pomegranates. On this narrow strip of land, the Phœ;nicians had twenty-five cities of which the most important were Tyre, Sidon, Aradus, Byblus, Marathus, and Tripolis. Less important were Laodicea, Simyra, Arca, Aphaca, Berytus, Ecdippa, Akko, Dor, Joppa, Gabala, Betrys, and Sarepta. The name "Phœ;nicia" is in all probability of Greek origin, phoîniks being a Greek derivative of phoînos, blood-red. Our principal sources of information concerning Phœ;nicia are: first, numerous Phœ;nician inscriptions found in Phœ;nicia, Cyprus, Egypt, Greece, Sicily, Spain, Africa, Italy, and France, and published in the "Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum", the oldest being a simple one of the ninth century b.c.; the rest of little historical value, and of comparatively late date, i.e., from the fourth century b.c. down; second, Egyptian and Assyro-Babylonian historical inscriptions, especially the Tell-el-Amarna letters of the fifteenth century b.c., in which are found frequent and valuable references to Phœ;nicia and its political relations with Western Asia and Egypt; the Old Testament, especially in III Kings, v, xvi; Isaias, xxiii; Jeremias, xxv, xxvii, and Ezechiel, xxvi-xxxii; finally, some Greek and Latin historians and writers, both ecclesiastical and pagan. The oldest historical references to Phœ;nicia are found in the Egyptian inscriptions of the Pharaohs, Aahmes (1587-62 b.c.) and his successors Thothmes I (1541-16 b.c.), and Thothmes III (1503-1449 b.c.) in which the Phœ;nicians are called "Dahe" or "Zahi", and "Fenkhu". In the Tell-el-Amarna letters is found much interesting information concerning their cities and especially Tyre, famous for her wealth. During all this period Egyptian suzerainty was more or less effective. Sidon was gradually eclipsed by the rising power and wealth of Tyre, against which the Philistines were powerless, though they constantly attacked the former. About the year 1250, after conquering Ashdod, Askelon, Ekron, Gaza, and Gath, they forced the Sidonians to surrender the city of Dor. At this time Tyre became foremost in Phœ;nicia and one of the greatest and wealthiest cities of the Mediterranean region. Its first king was Hiram, the son of Abi-Baal and contemporary of David and Solomon. His reign lasted some forty years, and to his energy Tyre owed much of its renown. He enlarged the city, surrounding it with massive walls, improved its harbours, and rebuilt the temple of Melkarth. He forced the Philistine pirates to retreat, thus securing prosperity in maritime commerce and caravan trade, and Phœ;nician colonization spread along the coast of Asia Minor, Sicily, Greece, and Africa. He established a commercial alliance with the Hebrews, and his Phœ;nician artists and craftsmen greatly aided them in building the temple, and palaces of Solomon. He quelled the revolt in Utica and established Phœ;nician supremacy in North Africa where Carthage, the most important of all Phœ;nician colonies, was later built. Hiram was succeeded in 922 by his son Abd-Starte I, who, after seven years of troubled reign, was murdered, and most of his successors also met with a violent end. About this time hostilities arose between Phœ;nicia and Assyria, although two centuries earlier Tiglath-pileser I, when marching through the northern part of Phœ;nicia, was hospitably entertained by the inhabitants of Aradus. In 880 Ithbaal became King of Phœ;nicia, contemporaneous with Asshur-nasir-pal in Assyria and Achab in Israel. He was succeeded by Baal-azar and Metten I. Metten reigned for nine years and died, leaving Pygmalion, an infant son, but nominating as his successor Sicharbas, the high priest of Melkarth, who was married to Elissa, his daughter. The tale runs that when Pygmalion came to manhood he killed Sicharbas, upon which Elissa, with such nobles as adhered to her, fled first to Cyprus and afterwards to Africa, where the colony of Carthage was founded (c. 850 b.c.). Asshur-nasir-pal and his son and successor Shalmaneser II nominally conquered Phœ;nicia; but in 745 b.c. Tiglath- pileser III compelled the northern tribes to accept Assyrian governors. As soon as this scheme of complete absorption became manifest a general conflict ensued, from which Assyria emerged victorious and several Phœ;nician cities were captured and destroyed. The invasion of Shalmaneser IV in 727 was frustrated, but in 722 he almost sacked the city of Tyre. Sargon, his successor and great general, compelled Elulæus, King of Tyre, to come to honourable terms with him. In 701 Sennacherib conquered the revolting cities of Syria and Phœ;nicia. Elulæus fled to Cyprus and Tubaal was made king. In 680 Abd-Melkarth, his successor, rebelled against the Assyrian domination, but fled before Esarhaddon, the son of Sennacherib. Sidon was practically destroyed, most of its inhabitants carried off to Assyria, and their places filled by captives from Babylonia and Elam. During the reign of Asshurbanipal (668-625 b.c.) Tyre was once more attacked and conquered, but, as usual, honourably treated. In 606 the Assyrian empire itself was demolished by the allied Babylonians and Medes, and in 605 Nabuchadonosor, son and successor of Nabopolassar, after having conquered Elam and the adjacent countries, subdued (586 b.c.) Syria, Palestine, Phœ;nicia, and Egypt. As the Tyrians had command of the sea, it was thirteen years before their city surrendered, but the long siege crippled its commerce, and Sidon regained its ancient position as the leading city. Phœ;nicia was passing through its final stage of national independence and glory. From the fifth century on, it was continually harassed by the incursions of various Greek colonies who gradually absorbed its commerce and industry. It passed repeatedly under the rule of the Medo-Persian kings, Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius, and finally Xerxes, who attacked the Athenians at Salamis with the aid of the Phœ;nician navy, but their fleet was defeated and destroyed. In 332, it was finally and completely conquered by Alexander the Great, after whose death and subsequent to the partition of his great Macedonian empire amongst his four generals, it fell to Laodemon. In 214, Ptolemy attacked Laodemon and annexed Phœ;nicia to Egypt. In 198 b.c., it was absorbed by the Seleucid dynasty of Syria, after the downfall of which (65 a.d.), it became a Roman province and remained such till the Mohammedan conquest of Syria in the seventh century. Phœ;nicia now forms one of the most important Turkish vilayets of Syria with Beyrout as its principal city. The whole political history and constitution of Phœ;nicia may be summarized as follows: The Phœ;nicians never built an empire, but each city had its little independent territory, assemblies, kings, and government, and for general state business sent delegates to Tyre. They were not a military, but essentially a seafaring and commercial people, and were successively conquered by the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans, to whom, because of their great wealth, they fulfilled all their obligations by the payment of tribute. Although blessed with fertile land and well provided by nature, the Phœ;nicians, owing to their small territory and comparatively large population, were compelled, from the very remotest antiquity, to gain their livelihood through commerce. Hence, their numerous caravan routes to the East, and their wonderful marine commerce with the West. They were the only nation of the ancient East who had a navy. By land they pushed their trade to Arabia for gold, agate, onyx, incense, and myrrh; to India for pearls, spices, ivory, ebony, and ostrich plumes; to Mesopotamia for cotton and linen clothes; to Palestine and Egypt for grain, wheat, and barley; to the regions of the Black Sea for horses, slaves, and copper. By sea they encircled all the Mediterranean coast, along Syria, North Africa, Asia Minor, the Ægean Sea, and even Spain, France, and England. A logical result of this remarkable commercial activity was the founding in Cyprus, Egypt, Crete, Sicily, Africa, Malta, Sardinia, Spain, Asia Minor, and Greece of numerous colonies, which became important centres of Phœ;nician commerce and civilization, and in due time left their deep mark upon the history and civilization of the classical nations of the Mediterranean world. Owing to this activity also, the Phœ;nician developed neither literature nor acts. The work done by them for Solomon shows that their architectural and mechanical skill was great only in superiority to that of the Hebrews. The remains of their architecture are heavy and their æsthetic art is primitive in character. In literature, they left nothing worthy of preservation. To them is ascribed the simplification of the primitive, pictorial or ideographic, and syllabic systems of writing into an alphabetic one consisting of twenty-two letters and written from right to left, from which are derived all the later and modern Semitic and European alphabets. This tradition, however, must be accepted with some modification. There is also no agreement as to whether the basis of this Phœ;nician alphabet is of Egyptian (hieroglyphic and hieratic) or of Assyro-Babylonian (cuneiform) origin. Those who derive it from a Cypriot prototype have not as yet sufficiently demonstrated the plausibility and probability of their opinion. The recent discovery of numerous Minoan inscriptions in the Island of Crete, some of them dating as early as 2000 b.c., has considerably complicated the problem. Other inventions, or improvements, in science and mechanics, such as weights and measures, glass manufacture, coinage, the finding of the polar star, and navigation are perhaps justly attributed to the Phœ;nicians. Both ethnographically and linguistically, they belong to the so-called Semitic group. They were called Canaanites, and spoke a dialectical variety of the Canaanite group of Western Semitic tongues, closely akin to the dialects of the Semitic inhabitants of Syria, Palestine, and Canaan. A few specimens of their language, as it was spoken by the colonies in North Africa towards the end of the third century b.c., may still be read in Plautus, from which it appears to have already attained a great degree of consonantal and vocal decay. The dialect of the inscriptions is more archaic and less corrupt. Our information concerning the religion of the Phœ;nicians is meagre and mainly found in the Old Testament, in classical traditions, and legends. Of special interest, however, are the votive inscriptions in which a great number of proper names generally construed with that of some divinity are found. Phœ;nician polytheism, like that of the other Semitic nations, was based partly on Animism and partly on the worship of the great powers of nature, mostly of astral origin. They deified the sun and the moon, which they considered the great forces that create and destroy, and called them Baal and Astaroth. Each city had its divine pair: at Sidon it was Baal Sidon (the sun) and Astarte (the moon); at Gebel, Baal Tummuz and Baaleth; at Carthage, Baal Hamon and Tanith. But the same god changed his name according as he was conceived as creator or destroyer; thus Baal as destroyer was worshipped at Carthage under the name of Moloch. These gods, represented by idols, had their temples, altars, and priests. As creators they were honoured with orgies and tumultuous feasts; as destroyers by human victims. Astoreth (Venus), whom the Sidonians represented by the crescent of the moon and the dove, had her cult in the sacred woods. Baal Moloch was figured at Carthage as a bronze colossus with arms extended and lowered. To appease him children were laid in his arms, and fell at once into a pit of fire. When Agathocles besieged the city the principal Carthaginians sacrificed to Moloch as many as two hundred of their children. Although this sensual and sanguinary religion inspired the surrounding nations with horror, they, nevertheless, imitated it. Hence, the Hebrews frequently sacrificed to Baal on the mountains, and the Greeks adored Astarte of Sidon under the name of Aphrodite, and Baal Melkart of Tyre under the name of Herakles. The principal Phœ;nician divinities are Adonis, El, Eshmon, Baal, Gad, Moloch, Melkarth, Sakan, Anath, Astaroth, Rasaph, Sad, and many others. (For the history of Christianity in Phœ;nicia and its present condition see Syria.) Movers, Die Phönizier (Bonn-Berlin, 1841-56); Lenormant- Babelon, Hist. ancienne de l'Orient (6 vols., Paris, 1881-88), see especially vol. VI; Kenrick, Phœ;nicia (London, 1855); Rawlinson, Hist. of Phœ;nicia (London, 1889); Meyer, Gesch. d. Altertums (Stuttgart, 1884- 1902); Pietschmann, Gesch. d. Phönizier (Berlin, 1889); Renan, La Mission de Phénicie (Paris, 1874); Perrot and Chipiez, Hist. of Art in Phœ;nicia (London, 1885); Baudissin, Studien zur semitischen Religionsgesch., I, II (Leipzig, 1876-78); Baethgen, Beitrage zur Semitisches Religionsgesch., 16-65; SchrÖder, D. Phöniz. Sprache (Halle, 1869); Williams, The Hist. of the Art of Writing (London-New York, 1902); Landau, Die Phönizier in Der Alte Orient (Leipzig, 1903); Eiselen, Sidon, a Study in Oriental Hist. (New York, 1907). Gabriel Oussani Photinus Photinus A heretic of the fourth century, a Galatian and deacon to Marcellus, Metropolitan of Ancyra; d. 376. He became the Bishop of Sirmium in Pannonia, an important position on account of the frequent residence of the Emperor Constantius there. The city was more Latin than Greek, and Photinus knew both languages. Marcellus was deposed by the Arian party, but was restored by Pope Julius and the Synod of Sardica (343), and was believed by them to be orthodox. But Photinus was obviously heretical, and the Eusebian court-party condemned them both at the Synod of Antioch (344), which drew up the "macrostich" creed. Three envoys were sent to the West and in a synod at Milan (345) Photinus was condemned, but not Marcellus; communion was refused to the envoys because they refused to anathematize Arius. It is evident from the way in which Pope Liberius mentions this synod that Roman legates were present, and St. Hilary calls its sentence a condemnation by the Romans. Two years later another synod, perhaps also at Milan, tried to obtain the deposition of Photinus but this was impossible owing to an outbreak of the populace in his favour. Another synod was held against him at Sirmium; some Arianizing propositions from it are quoted by St. Hilary. The heretic appealed to the emperor, who appointed judges before whom he should be heard. For this purpose a great synod assembled at Sirmium (351). Basil, the supplanter of Marcellus as Bishop of Ancyra and the future leader of the Semi-Arians, disputed with Photinus. The heretic was deposed, and twenty-seven anathematisms were agreed to. Photinus probably returned to his see at the accession of Julian, like the other exiled bishops, for St. Jerome says he was banished by Valentinian (364-75). Eventually he settled in Galatia. Epiphanius, writing at about the date of his death, considered his heresy dead in the West. In Pannonia there were still some Photinians in 381, and a Photinian named Marcus, driven from Rome under Innocent I, found adherents in Croatia. In later writers, e. g., St. Augustine, Photinian is the name for any who held Christ to be a mere man. We obtain some knowledge of the heresies of Photinus from the twenty-seven anathematisms of the council of 351, of which all but 1, 10, 12, 13, 18, 23, 24, 25 (according to St. Hilary's order: 1, 10, 11, 12, 17, 22, 24, 25) and possibly 2 are directed against him. We have corroborative evidence from many writers, especially St. Epiphanius, who had before him the complete minutes of the disputation with Basil of Ancyra. The canons obviously misrepresent Photinus's doctrine in condemning it, in so far as they sometimes say "Son" where Photinus would have said "Word". He makes the Father and the Word one Person (prosopon). The Word is equally with the Father unbegotten, or is called a part of the Father, eternally in Him as our logos is in us. The latent Word (endiathetos) becomes the explicit Word (prophorikos) not, apparently, at the creation, but at the Incarnation, for only then is He really Son. The Divine Substance can be dilated and contracted (so St. Hilary translates platynesthai and systellesthai, while Mercator's version of Nestorius's fourth sermon gives "extended and collected"). This is exactly the wording of Sabellius, who said that God platynetai, is broadened out, into Son and Spirit. To Photinus the expansion forms the Son, who is not, until the human birth of Christ. Hence before the Incarnation there is no Son, and God is Father and Word, Logopator. The Incarnation seems to have been conceived after a Nestorian fashion, for Photinus declared the Son of Mary to be mere man, and this is the best-known point in his teaching. He was consequently classed with Paul of Samosata; Jerome even calls him an Ebionite, probably because, like Mercator, he believed him to have denied the Virgin birth. But this is perhaps an error. He certainly said that the Holy Ghost descended upon Christ and that He was conceived by the Holy Ghost. By His union with the prophoric Word, Christ was the Son. The Holy Ghost is identified like the Word with the Unbegotten; He is a part of the Father and the Word, as the Word is a part of the Father. It is evident that Photinus went so far beyond Marcellus that it is unfair to call him his follower. In his Trinitarian doctrine he is a Modalist Monarchian, and in his Christology a Dynamistic Monarchian, combining the errors of Theodotus with those of Sabellius. But it is clear that his views were partly motived by the desire to get away from the Ditheism which not only the Arians but even the Eastern moderates were unable to avoid, and he especially denounced the Arian doctrine that the Son is produced by the Will of the Father. His writings are lost; the chief of them were "Contra Gentes" and "Libri ad Valentinianum", according to St. Jerome; he wrote a work in both Greek and Latin against all the heresies, and an explanation of the Creed. See ARIANISM; also HEFELE, Councils, II; WALCH, Historie der Ketzereien, III (Leipzig, 1766); KLOSE, Gesch. und Lehre des Marcellus und Photinus (Hamburg, 1837); ZAHN, Marcellus von Ancyra (Gotha, 1867); FFOULKES in Dict. Christ. Biog. (1887). JOHN CHAPMAN Photius of Constantinople Photius of Constantinople Photius of Constantinople, chief author of the great schism between East and West, was b. at Constantinople c. 815 (Hergenröther says "not much earlier than 827", "Photius", I, 316; others, about 810); d. probably 6 Feb., 897. His father was a spatharios (lifeguard) named Sergius. Symeon Magister ("De Mich. et Theod.", Bonn ed., 1838, xxix, 668) says that his mother was an escaped nun and that he was illegitimate. He further relates that a holy bishop, Michael of Synnada, before his birth foretold that he would become patriarch, but would work so much evil that it would be better that he should not be born. His father then wanted to kill him and his mother, but the bishop said: "You cannot hinder what god has ordained. Take care for yourself." His mother also dreamed that she would give birth to a demon. When he was born the abbot of the Maximine monastery baptized him and gave him the name Photius (Enlightened), saying: "Perhaps the anger of God will be turned from him" (Symeon Magister, ibid., cf. Hergenröther, "Photius", I, 318-19). These stories need not be taken seriously. It is certain that the future patriarch belonged to one of the great families of Constantinople; the Patriarch Tarasius (784-806), in whose time the seventh general council (Second of Nicæa, 787) was held, was either elder brother or uncle of his father (Photius: Ep. ii, P. G., CII, 609). The family was conspicuously orthodox and had suffered some persecution in Iconoclast times (under Leo V, 813-20). Photius says that in his youth he had had a passing inclination for the monastic life ("Ep. ad Orient. et Oecon.", P. G., CII, 1020), but the prospect of a career in the world soon eclipsed it. He early laid the foundations of that erudition which eventually made him one of the most famous scholars of all the Middle Ages. His natural aptitude must have been extraordinary, his industry was colossal. Photius does not appear to have had any teachers worthy of being remembered; at any rate he never alludes to his masters. Hergenröther, however, notes that there were many good scholars at Constantinople while Photius was a child and young man, and argues from his exact and systematic knowledge of all branches of learning that he could not have been entirely self-taught (op. cit., I, 322). His enemies appreciated his learning. Nicetas, the friend and biographer of his rival Ignatius, praises Photius's skill in grammar, poetry, rhetoric, philosophy, medicine, law, "and all science" ("Vita S. Ignatii" in Mansi, XVI, 229). Pope Nicholas I, in the heat of the quarrel writes to the Emperor Michael III: "Consider very carefully how Photius can stand, in spite of his great virtues and universal knowledge" (Ep. xcviii "Ad Mich.", P. G., CXIX, 1030). It is curious that so learned a man never knew Latin. While he was still a young man he made the first draft of his encyclopædic "Myrobiblion". At an early age, also, he began to teach grammar, philosophy, and theology in his own house to a steadily increasing number of students. His public career was to be that of a statesman, coupled with a military command. His brother Sergius married Irene, the emperor's aunt. This connexion and his undoubted merit procured Photius speedy advancement. He became chief secretary of State (protosekretis) and captain of the Life Guard (protospatharios). He was unmarried. Probably about 838 he was sent on an embassy "to the Assyrians" ("Myrobiblion", preface), i. e., apparently, to the Khalifa at Bagdad. In the year 857, then, when the crisis came in his life, Photius was already one of the most prominent members of the Court of Constantinople. That crisis is the story of the Great Schism (see GREEK CHURCH). The emperor was Michael III (842-67), son of the Theodora who had finally restored the holy images. When he succeeded his father Theophilus (829-842) he was only three years old; he grew to be the wretched boy known in Byzantine history as Michael the Drunkard (ho methystes). Theodora, at first regent, retired in 856, and her brother Bardas succeeded, with the title of Cæsar. Bardas lived in incest with his daughter-in-law Eudocia, wherefore the Patriarch Ignatius (846-57) refused him Holy Communion on the Epiphany of 857. Ignatius was deposed and banished (Nov. 23, 857), and the more pliant Photius was intruded into his place. He was hurried through Holy Orders in six days; on Christmas Day, 857, Gregory Asbestas of Syracuse, himself excommunicate for insubordination by Ignatius, ordained Photius patriarch. By this act Photius committed three offences against canon law: he was ordained bishop without having kept the interstices, by an excommunicate consecrator, and to an already occupied see. To receive ordination from an excommunicate person made him too excommunicate ipso facto. After vain attempts to make Ignatius resign his see, the emperor tried to obtain from Pope Nicholas I (858-67) recognition of Photius by a letter grossly misrepresenting the facts and asking for legates to come and decide the question in a synod. Photius also wrote, very respectfully, to the same purpose (Hergenröther, "Photius", I, 407-11). The pope sent two legates, Rodoald of Porto and Zachary of Anagni, with cautious letters. The legates were to hear both sides and report to him. A synod was held in St. Sophia's (May, 861). The legates took heavy bribes and agreed to Ignatius's deposition and Photius's succession. They returned to Rome with further letters, and the emperor sent his Secretary of State, Leo, after them with more explanations (Hergenröther, op. cit., I, 439-460). In all these letters both the emperor and Photius emphatically acknowledge the Roman primacy and categorically invoke the pope's jurisdiction to confirm what has happened. Meanwhile Ignatius, in exile at the island Terebinth, sent his friend the Archimandrite Theognostus to Rome with an urgent letter setting forth his case (Hergenröther, I, 460-461). Theognostus did not arrive till 862. Nicholas, then, having heard both sides, decided for Ignatius, and answered the letters of Michael and Photius by insisting that Ignatius must be restored, that the usurpation of his see must cease (ibid, I, 511-16, 516-19). He also wrote in the same sense to the other Eastern patriarchs (510-11). From that attitude Rome never wavered: it was the immediate cause of the schism. In 863 the pope held a synod at the Lateran in which the two legates were tried, degraded, and excommunicated. The synod repeats Nicholas's decision, that Ignatius is lawful Patriarch of Constantinople; Photius is to be excommunicate unless he retires at once from his usurped place. But Photius had the emperor and the Court on his side. Instead of obeying the pope, to whom he had appealed, he resolved to deny his authority altogether. Ignatius was kept chained in prison, the pope's letters were not allowed to be published. The emperor sent an answer dictated by Photius saying that nothing Nicholas could do would help Ignatius, that all the Eastern Patriarchs were on Photius's side, that the excommunication of the legates must be explained and that unless the pope altered his decision, Michael would come to Rome with an army to punish him. Photius then kept his place undisturbed for four years. In 867 he carried the war into the enemy's camp by excommunicating the pope and his Latins. The reasons he gives for this, in an encyclical sent to the Eastern patriarchs, are: that Latins 1. fast on Saturday 2. do not begin Lent till Ash Wednesday (instead of three days earlier, as in the East) 3. do not allow priests to be married 4. do not allow priests to administer confirmation 5. have added the filioque to the creed. Because of these errors the pope and all Latins are: "forerunners of apostasy, servants of Antichrist who deserve a thousand deaths, liars, fighters against God" (Hergenröther, I, 642-46). It is not easy to say what the Melchite patriarchs thought of the quarrel at this juncture. Afterwards, at the Eighth General Council, their legates declared that they had pronounced no sentence against Photius because that of the pope was obviously sufficient. Then, suddenly, in the same year (Sept. 867), Photius fell. Michael III was murdered and Basil I (the Macedonian, 867-86) seized his place as emperor. Photius shared the fate of all Michael's friends. He was ejected from the patriarch's palace, and Ignatius restored. Nicholas I died (Nov. 13, 867). Adrian II (867-72), his successor, answered Ignatius's appeal for legates to attend a synod that should examine the whole matter by sending Donatus, Bishop of Ostia, Stephen, Bishop of Nepi, and a deacon, Marinus. They arrived at Constantinople in Sept., 869, and in October the synod was opened which Catholics recognize as the Eighth General Council (Fourth of Constantinople). This synod tried Photius, confirmed his deposition, and, as he refused to renounce his claim, excommunicated him. The bishops of his party received light penances (Mansi, XVI, 308-409). Photius was banished to a monastery at Stenos on the Bosphorus. Here he spent seven years, writing letters to his friends, organizing his party, and waiting for another chance. Meanwhile Ignatius reigned as patriarch. Photius, as part of his policy, professed great admiration for the emperor and sent him a fictitious pedigree showing his descent form St. Gregory the Illuminator and a forged prophecy foretelling his greatness (Mansi, XVI, 284). Basil was so pleased with this that he recalled him in 876 and appointed him tutor to his son Constantine. Photius ingratiated himself with everyone and feigned reconciliation with Ignatius. It is doubtful how far Ignatius believed in him, but Photius at this time never tires of expatiating on his close friendship with the patriarch. He became so popular that when Ignatius died (23 Oct, 877) a strong party demanded that Photius should succeed him; the emperor was now on their side, and an embassy went to Rome to explain that everyone at Constantinople wanted Photius to be patriarch. The pope (John VIII, 872-82) agreed, absolved him from all censure, and acknowledged him as patriarch. This concession has been much discussed. It has been represented, truly enough, that Photius had shown himself unfit for such a post; John VIII's acknowledgment of him has been described as showing deplorable weakness. On the other hand, by Ignatius's death the See of Constantinople was now really vacant; the clergy had an undoubted right to elect their own patriarch; to refuse to acknowledge Photius would have provoked a fresh breach with the East, would not have prevented his occupation of the see, and would have given his party (including the emperor) just reason for a quarrel. The event proved that almost anything would have been better than to allow his succession, if it could be prevented. But the pope could not foresee that, and no doubt hoped that Photius, having reached the height of his ambition, would drop the quarrel. In 878, then, Photius at last obtained lawfully the place he had formerly usurped. Rome acknowledged him and restored him to her communion. There was no possible reason now for a fresh quarrel. But he had identified himself so completely with that strong anti-Roman party in the East which he mainly had formed, and, doubtless, he had formed so great a hatred of Rome, that now he carried on the old quarrel with as much bitterness as ever and more influence. Nevertheless he applied to Rome for legates to come to another synod. There was no reason for the synod, but he persuaded John VIII that it would clear up the last remains of the schism and rivet more firmly the union between East and West. His real motive was, no doubt, to undo the effect of the synod that had deposed him. The pope sent three legates, Cardinal Peter of St. Chrysogonus, Paul, Bishop of Ancona, and Eugene, Bishop of Ostia. The synod was opened in St. Sophia's in November, 879. This is the "Psuedosynodus Photiana" which the Orthodox count as the Eighth General Council. Photius had it all his own way throughout. He revoked the acts of the former synod (869), repeated all his accusations against the Latins, dwelling especially on the filioque grievance, anathematized all who added anything to the Creed, and declared that Bulgaria should belong to the Byzantine Patriarchate. The fact that there was a great majority for all these measures shows how strong Photius's party had become in the East. The legates, like their predecessors in 861, agreed to everything the majority desired (Mansi, XVII, 374 sq.). As soon as they had returned to Rome, Photius sent the Acts to the pope for his confirmation. Instead John, naturally, again excommunicated him. So the schism broke out again. This time it lasted seven years, till Basil I's death in 886. Basil was succeeded by his son Leo VI (886-912), who strongly disliked Photius. One of his first acts was to accuse him of treason, depose, and banish him (886). The story of this second deposition and banishment is obscure. The charge was that Photius had conspired to depose the emperor and put one of his own relations on the throne---an accusation which probably meant that the emperor wanted to get rid of him. As Stephen, Leo's younger brother, was made patriarch (886-93) the real explanation may be merely that Leo disliked Photius and wanted a place for his brother. Stephen's intrusion was as glaring an offence against canon law as had been that of Photius in 857; so Rome refused to recognize him. It was only under his successor Antony II (893-95) that a synod was held which restored reunion for a century and a half, till the time of Michael Cærularius (1043-58). But Photius had left a powerful anti-Roman party, eager to repudiate the pope's primacy and ready for another schism. It was this party, to which Cærularius belonged, that triumphed at Constantinople under him, so that Photius is rightly considered the author of the schism which still lasts. After this second deposition Photius suddenly disappears from history. It is not even known in what monastery he spent his last years. Among his many letters there is none that can be dated certainly as belonging to this second exile. The date of his death, not quite certain, is generally given as 6 February, 897. That Photius was one of the greatest men of the Middle Ages, one of the most remarkable characters in all church history, will not be disputed. His fatal quarrel with Rome, though the most famous, was only one result of his many-sided activity. During the stormy years he spent on the patriarch's throne, while he was warring against the Latins, he was negotiating with the Moslem Khalifa for the protection of the Christians under Moslem rule and the care of the Holy Places, and carrying on controversies against various Eastern heretics, Armenians, Paulicians etc. His interest in letters never abated. Amid all his cares he found time to write works on dogma, Biblical criticism, canon law, homilies, an encyclopædia of all kinds of learning, and letters on all questions of the day. Had it not been for his disastrous schism, he might be counted the last, and one of the greatest, of the Greek Fathers. There is no shadow of suspicion against his private life. He bore his exiles and other troubles manfully and well. He never despaired of his cause and spent the years of adversity in building up his party, writing letters to encourage his old friends and make new ones. And yet the other side of his character is no less evident. His insatiable ambition, his determination to obtain and keep the patriarchal see, led him to the extreme of dishonesty. His claim was worthless. That Ignatius was the rightful patriarch as long as he lived, and Photius an intruder, cannot be denied by any one who does not conceive the Church as merely the slave of a civil government. And to keep this place Photius descended to the lowest depth of deceit. At the very time he was protesting his obedience to the pope he was dictating to the emperor insolent letters that denied all papal jurisdiction. He misrepresented the story of Ignatius's deposition with unblushing lies, and he at least connived at Ignatius's ill-treatment in banishment. He proclaimed openly his entire subservience to the State in the whole question of his intrusion. He stops at nothing in his war against the Latins. He heaps up accusations against them that he must have known were lies. His effrontery on occasions is almost incredible. For instance, as one more grievance against Rome, he never tires of inveighing against the fact that Pope Marinus I (882-84), John VIII's successor, was translated from another see, instead of being ordained from the Roman clergy. He describes this as an atrocious breach of canon law, quoting against it the first and second canons of Sardica; and at the same time he himself continually transferred bishops in his patriarchate. The Orthodox, who look upon him, rightly, as the great champion of their cause against Rome, have forgiven all his offences for the sake of this championship. They have canonized him, and on 6 Feb., when they keep his feast, their office overflows with his praise. He is the "far-shining radiant star of the church", the "most inspired guide of the Orthodox", "thrice blessed speaker for God", "wise and divine glory of the hierarchy, who broke the horns of Roman pride" ("Menologion" for 6 Feb., ed. Maltzew, I, 916 sq.). The Catholic remembers this extraordinary man with mixed feelings. We do not deny his eminent qualities and yet we certainly do not remember him as a thrice blessed speaker for God. One may perhaps sum up Photius by saying that he was a great man with one blot on his character---his insatiable and unscrupulous ambition. But that blot so covers his life that it eclipses everything else and makes him deserve our final judgment as one of the worst enemies the Church of Christ ever had, and the cause of the greatest calamity that ever befell her. WORKS Of Photius's prolific literary production part has been lost. A great merit of what remains is that he has preserved at least fragments of earlier Greek works of which otherwise we should know nothing. This applies especially to his "Myriobiblion". 1. The "Myriobiblion" or "Bibliotheca" is a collection of descriptions of books he had read, with notes and sometimes copious extracts. It contains 280 such notices of books (or rather 279; no. 89 is lost) on every possible subject---theology, philosophy, rhetoric, grammar, physics, medicine. He quotes pagans and Christians, Acts of Councils, Acts of Martyrs, and so on, in no sort of order. For the works thus partially saved (otherwise unknown) see Krumbacher, "Byz. Litter.", 518-19. 2. The "Lexicon" (Lexeon synagoge) was compiled, probably, to a great extent by his students under his direction (Krumbacher, ibid., 521), from older Greek dictionaries (Pausanias, Harpokration, Diogenianos, Ælius Dionysius). It was intended as a practical help to readers of the Greek classics, the Septuagint, and the New testament. Only one MS. of it exists, the defective "Codex Galeanus" (formerly in the possession of Thomas Gale, now at Cambridge), written about 1200. 3. The "Amphilochia", dedicated to one of his favourite disciples, Amphilochius of Cyzicus, are answers to questions of Biblical, philosophical, and theological difficulties, written during his first exile (867-77). There are 324 subjects discussed, each in a regular form--question, answer, difficulties, solutions---but arranged again in no order. Photius gives mostly the views of famous Greek Fathers, Epiphanius, Cyril of Alexandria, John Damascene, especially Theodoret. 4. Biblical works.---Only fragments of these are extant, chiefly in Catenas. The longest are from Commentaries on St. Matthew and Romans. 5. Canon Law.---The classical "Nomocanon" (q. v.), the official code of the Orthodox Church, is attributed to Photius. It is, however, older than his time (see JOHN SCHOLASTICUS). It was revised and received additions (from the synods of 861 and 879) in Photius's time, probably by his orders. The "Collections and Accurate Expositions" (Eunagolai kai apodeixeis akribeis) (Hergenröther, op. cit., III, 165-70) are a series of questions and answers on points of canon law, really an indirect vindication of his own claims and position. A number of his letters bear on canonical questions. 6. Homilies.---Hergenröther mentions twenty-two sermons of Photius (III, 232). Of these two were printed when Hergenröther wrote (in P. G., CII, 548, sq.), one on the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin, and one at the dedication of a new church during his second patriarchate. Later, S. Aristarches published eighty-three homilies of different kinds (Constantinople, 1900). 7. Dogmatic and polemical works.---Many of these bear on his accusations against the Latins and so form the beginning of the long series of anti-Catholic controversy produced by Orthodox theologians. The most important is "Concerning the Theology about the Holy Ghost" (Peri tes tou hagiou pneumatos mystagonias, P. G., CII, 264-541), a defence of the Procession from God the Father alone, based chiefly on John, xv, 26. An epitome of the same work, made by a later author and contained in Euthymius Zigabenus's "Panoplia", XIII, became the favourite weapon of Orthodox controversialists for many centuries. The treatise "Against Those who say that Rome is the First See", also a very popular Orthodox weapon, is only the last part or supplement of the "Collections", often written out separately. The "Dissertation Concerning the Reappearance of the Manichæans" (Diegesis peri tes manichaion anablasteseos, P. G., CII, 9-264), in four books, is a history and refutation of the Paulicians. Much of the "Amphilochia" belongs to this heading. The little work "Against the Franks and other Latins" (Hergenröther, "Monumenta", 62-71), attributed to Photius, is not authentic. It was written after Cærularius (Hergenröther, "Photius", III, 172-224). 8. Letters.---Migne, P. G., CII, publishes 193 letters arranged in three books; Balettas (London, 1864) has edited a more complete collection in five parts. They cover all the chief periods of Photius's life, and are the most important source for his history. A. Ehrhard (in Krumbacher, "Byzantinische Litteratur", 74-77) judges Photius as a distinguished preacher, but not as a theologian of the first importance. His theological work is chiefly the collection of excerpts from Greek Fathers and other sources. His erudition is vast, and probably unequalled in the Middle Ages, but he has little originality, even in his controversy against the Latins. Here, too, he only needed to collect angry things said by Byzantine theologians before his time. But his discovery of the filioque grievance seems to be original. Its success as a weapon is considerably greater than its real value deserves (Fortescue, "Orthodox Eastern Church", 372-84). Editions.---The works of Photius known at the time were collected by Migne, P. G., CI-CV. J. Balettas, Photiou epistolai (London, 1864), contains other letters (altogether 260) not in Migne. A. Papadopulos-Kerameus, "S. Patris Photii Epistolæ XLV" (St. Petersburg, 1896) gives forty-five more, of which, however, only the first twenty-one are authentic. S. Aristaches, Photiou logoi kai homiliai 83 (Constantinople, 1900, 2 vols.), gives other homilies not in Migne. Oikonomos has edited the "Amphilochia" (Athens, 1858) in a more complete text. J. Hergenröther, "Monumenta græca ad Photium eiusque historiam pertinentia" (Ratisbon, 1869), and Papadopulos-Kerameus, "Monumenta græca et latina ad historiam Photii patriarchæ pertinentia" (St. Petersburg, 2 parts, 1899 and 1901), add further documents. The Acts of the Synods of 869 and 879 are the most important sources (Mansi, XVI and XVII). THEOGNOSTUS (Archimandrite at Constantinople), Libellos periechon panta ta kata ton megan, a contemporary account of the beginning of the schism (in Mansi, XVI, 295, sq.); NIKETAS DAVID PAPHLAGON (d. 890); Bios Ignatiou (Mansi, XVI, 209 sq.). PAPADOPULOS-KERAMEUS declared this to be a fourteenth-century forgery in the Vizant. Vremennik (1899), 13-38, Pseudoniketas ho paphlagon; he was successfully refuted by VASILJEWSKI (ibid., 39-56); cf. Byzant. Zeitschrift, IX, (1900), 268 sq. GENESIOS, Basileiai (written between 945-959), a history of the emperors and Court from Leo V (813-20) to Basil I (867-86), published in Corpus Scriptorum Hist. Byzantinæ (Bonn, 1834) and P. G., CIX,15 sqq.; LEO GRAMMATICUS, re-edition of SYMEON MAGISTER, Chronicle, in Corpus Script., 1842, and P. G. CVIII, 1037 sqq. HERGENRÖTHER, Photius, Patriarch von Konstantinopel, sein Leben, seine Schriften u. das griechische Schisma (Ratisbon, 1867-69) (the most learned and exhaustive work on the subject). DEMETRAKOPULOS, Historia tou schismatos tes latinikes apo tes orthodoxou ekklesias (Leipzig, 1867), is an attempted rejoinder to HERGENRÖTHER, as is also KREMOS, Historia tou schismatos ton duo ekklesion (Athens, 1905-07, two volumes published out of four). LÄMMER, Papst Nikolaus u. die byzantinsche Staatskirche seiner Zeit (Berlin, 1857); PICHLER, Geschichte der kirchlichen Trennung zwischen dem Orient. u. Occident (Munich, 1864-65); NORDEN, Das Papsttum und Byzanz (Berlin, 1903); KRUMBACHER, Geschichte der Byzantinischen Litteratur (Munich, 1897), 73-79, 515-524 (with copious bibliography); FORTESCUE, The Orthodox Eastern Church (London, 1907), 135-171; RUINAUT, Le schisme de Photius (Paris, 1910). ADRIAN FORTESCUE Phylacteries Phylacteries ( Phulachterion — safeguard, amulet, or charm). The word occurs only once in the New Testament (Matthew 23:5), in the great discourse of Our Lord against the Pharisees whom He reproaches with ostentation in the discharge of their religious and social duties: "For they make their phylacteries broad and enlarge their fringes." By the Jews the phylacteries are termed tephillin, plural of the word tephillah, "a prayer," and consist of two small square cases of leather, one of which is worn on the forehead, the other on the upper left arm. The case for the forehead holds four distinct compartments, that for the arm only one. They contain narrow strips of parchment on which are copied passages from the Pentateuch, viz., Exodus 13:1-10; and Deuteronomy 6:4-9; 11:13-21. The practice of wearing the phylacteries at stated moments is still regarded as a sacred religious duty by the orthodox Jews. KLEIN, Die Totaphoth nach Bibel und Tradition in Jahrbuecher f. Prot. Theol. (Berlin, 1881), 666-689; VIGOUROUX, Dict. de la Bible, s.v. Phylacteres. JAMES F. DRISCOLL History of Physics History of Physics The subject will be treated under the following heads: I. A Glance at Ancient Physics; II. Science and Early Christian Scholars; III. A Glance at Arabian Physics; IV. Arabian Tradition and Latin Scholasticism; V. The Science of Observation and Its Progress + Astronomers + The Statics of Jordanus + Thierry of Freiberg + Pierre of Maricourt; VI. The Articles of Paris (1277) + Possibility of Vacuum; VII. The Earth's Motion + Oresme; VIII. Plurality of Worlds; IX. Dynamics + Theory of Impetus + Inertia + Celestial and Sublunary Mechanics Identical; X. Propagation of the Doctrines of the School of Paris in Germany and Italy + Purbach and Regiomontanus + Nicholas of Cusa + Vinci; XI. Italian Averroism and its Tendencies to Routine + Attempts at Restoring the Astronomy of Homocentric Spheres; XII. The Copernican Revolution; XIII. Fortunes of the Copernican System in the Sixteenth Century; XIV. Theory of the Tides; XV. Statics in the Sixteenth Century + Stevinus; XVI. Dynamics in the Sixteenth Century; XVII. Galileo's Work; XVIII. Initial Attempts in Celestial Mechanics + Gilbert + Kepler; XIX. Controversies concerning Geostatics; XX. Descartes's Work; XXI. Progress of Experimental Physics; XXII. Undulatory Theory of Light; XXIII. Development of Dynamics; XXIV. Newton's Work; XXV. Progress of General and Celestial Mechanics in the Eighteenth Century; XXVI. Establishment of the Theory of Electricity and Magnetism; XXVII. Molecular Attraction; XXVIII. Revival of the Undulatory Theory of Light; XXIX. Theories of Heat. I. A GLANCE AT ANCIENT PHYSICS Although at the time of Christ's birth Hellenic science had produced nearly all its masterpieces, it was still to give to the world Ptolemy's astronomy, the way for which had been paved for more than a century by the works of Hipparchus. The revelations of Greek thought on the nature of the exterior world ended with the "Almagest", which appeared about a.d. 145, and then began the decline of ancient learning. Those of its works that escaped the fires kindled by Mohammedan warriors were subjected to the barren interpretations of Mussulman commentators and like parched seed, awaited the time when Latin Christianity would furnish a favourable soil in which they could once more flourish and bring forth fruit. Hence it is that the time when Ptolemy put the finishing touches to his "Great Mathematical Syntax of Astronomy" seems the most opportune in which to study the field of ancient physics. An impassable frontier separated this field into two regions in which different laws prevailed. From the moon's orbit to the sphere enclosing the world, extended the region of beings exempt from generation, change, and death, of perfect, divine beings, and these were the star-sphere and the stars themselves. Inside the lunar orbit lay the region of generation and corruption, where the four elements and the mixed bodies generated by their mutual combinations were subject to perpetual change. The science of the stars was dominated by a principle formulated by Plato and the Pythagoreans, according to which all the phenomena presented to us by the heavenly bodies must be accounted for by combinations of circular and uniform motions. Moreover, Plato declared that these circular motions were reducible to the rotation of solid globes all limited by spherical surfaces concentric with the World and the Earth, and some of these homocentric spheres carried fixed or wandering stars. Eudoxus of Cnidus, Calippus, and Aristotle vied with one another in striving to advance this theory of homocentric spheres, its fundamental hypothesis being incorporated in Aristotle's "Physics" and "Metaphysics". However, the astronomy of homocentric spheres could not explain all celestial phenomena, a considerable number of which showed that the wandering stars did not always remain at an equal distance from the Earth. Heraclides Ponticus in Plato's time, and Aristarchus of Samos about 280 b.c. endeavoured to account for all astronomical phenomena by a heliocentric system, which was an outline of the Copernican mechanics; but the arguments of physics and the precepts of theology proclaiming the Earth's immobility, readily obtained the ascendency over this doctrine which existed in a mere outline. Then the labours of Apollonius Pergæus (at Alexandria, 205 b.c.), of Hipparchus (who made observation at Rhodes in 128 and 127 b.c.), and finally of Ptolemy (Claudius Ptolemæus of Pelusium) constituted a new astronomical system that claimed the Earth to be immovable in the centre of the universe; a system that seemed, as it were, to reach its completion when, between a.d. 142 and 146, Ptolemy wrote a work called Megale mathematike syntaxis tes astronomias, its Arabian title being transliterated by the Christians of the Middle Ages, who named it "Almagest". The astronomy of the "Almagest" explained all astronomical phenomena with a precision which for a long time seemed satisfactory, accounting for them by combinations of circular motions; but, of the circles described, some were eccentric to the World, whilst others were epicyclic circles, the centres of which described deferent circles concentric with or eccentric to the World; moreover, the motion on the deferent was no longer uniform, seeming so only when viewed from the centre of the equant. Briefly, in order to construct a kinematical arrangement by means of which phenomena could be accurately represented, the astronomers whose work Ptolemy completed had to set at naught the properties ascribed to the celestial substance by Aristotle's "Physics", and between this "Physics" and the astronomy of eccentrics and epicycles there ensued a violent struggle which lasted until the middle of the sixteenth century. In Ptolemy's time the physics of celestial motion was far more advanced than the physics of sublunary bodies, as, in this science of beings subject to generation and corruption, only two chapters had reached any degree of perfection, namely, those on optics (called perspective) and statics. The law of reflection was known as early as the time of Euclid, about 320 b.c., and to this geometrician was attributed, although probably erroneously, a "Treatise on Mirrors", in which the principles of catoptrics were correctly set forth. Dioptrics, being more difficult, was developed less rapidly. Ptolemy already knew that the angle of refraction is not proportional to the angle of incidence, and in order to determine the ratio between the two he undertook experiments the results of which were remarkably exact. Statics reached a fuller development than optics. The "Mechanical Questions" ascribed to Aristotle were a first attempt to organize that science, and they contained a kind of outline of the principle of virtual velocities, destined to justify the law of the equilibrium of the lever; besides, they embod. the happy idea of referring to the lever theory the theory of all simple machines. An elaboration, in which Euclid seems to have had some part, brought statics to the stage of development in which it was found by Archimedes (about 287-212 b.c.), who was to raise it to a still higher degree of perfection. It will here suffice to mention the works of genius in which the great Syracusan treated the equilibrium of the weights suspended from the two arms of a lever, the search for the centre of gravity, and the equilibrium of liquids and floating bodies. The treatises of Archimedes were too scholarly to be widely read by the mechanicians who succeeded this geometrician; these men preferred easier and more practical writings as, for instance, those on the lines of Aristotle's "Mechanical Questions". Various treatises by Heron of Alexandria have preserved for us the type of these decadent works. II. SCIENCE AND EARLY CHRISTIAN SCHOLARS Shortly after the death of Ptolemy, Christian science took root at Alexandria with Origen (about 180-253), and a fragment of his "Commentaries on Genesis", preserved by Eusebius, shows us that the author was familiar with the latest astronomical discoveries, especially the precession of the equinoxes. However, the writings in which the Fathers of the Church comment upon the work of the six days of Creation, notably the commentaries of St. Basil and St. Ambrose, borrow but little from Hellenic physics; in fact, their tone would seem to indicate distrust in the teachings of Greek science, this distrust being engendered by two prejudices: in the first place, astronomy was becoming more and more the slave of astrology, the superstitions of which the Church diligently combatted; in the second place, between the essential propositions of peripatetic physics and what we believe to be the teaching of Holy Writ, contradictions appeared; thus Genesis was thought to teach the presence of water above the heaven of the fixed stars (the firmament) and this was incompatible with the Aristotelean theory concerning the natural place of the elements. The debates raised by this question gave St. Augustine an opportunity to lay down wise exegetical rules, and he recommended Christians not to put forth lightly, as articles of faith, propositions contradicted by physical science based upon careful experiments. St. Isidore of Seville (d. 636), a bishop, considered it legitimate for Christians to desire to know the teachings of profane science, and he laboured to satisfy this curiosity. His "Etymologies" and "De natura rerum" are merely compilations of fragments borrowed from all the pagan and Christian authors with whom he was acquainted. In the height of the Latin Middle Ages these works served as models for numerous encyclopædias, of which the "De natura rerum" by Bede (about 672-735) and the "De universo" by Rabanus Maurus (776-856) were the best known. However, the sources from which the Christians of the West imbibed a knowledge of ancient physics became daily more numerous, and to Pliny the Elder's "Natural History", read by Bede, were added Chalcidius's commentary on Plato's "Timæus" and Martianus Capella's "De Nuptiis Philologiæ et Mercurii", these different works inspiring the physics of John Scotus Eriugena. Prior to a.d. 1000 a new Platonic work by Macrobius, a commentary on the "Somnium Scipionis", was in great favour in the schools. Influenced by the various treatises already mentioned, Guillaume of Conches (1080-1150 or 1154) and the unknown author of "De mundi constitutione liber", which, by the way, has been falsely attributed to Bede, set forth a planetary theory making Venus and Mercury satellites of the sun, but Eriugena went still further and made the sun also the centre of the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. Had he but extended this hypothesis to Saturn, he would have merited the title of precursor of Tycho Brahe. III. A GLANCE AT ARABIAN PHYSICS The authors of whom we have heretofore spoken had only been acquainted with Greek science through the medium of Latin tradition, but the time came when it was to be much more completely revealed to the Christians of the West through the medium of Mussulman tradition. There is no Arabian science. The wise men of Mohammedanism were always the more or less faithful disciples of the Greeks, but were themselves destitute of all originality. For instance, they compiled many abridgments of Ptolemy's "Almagest", made numerous observations, and constructed a great many astronomical tables, but added nothing essential to the theories of astronomical motion; their only innovation in this respect, and, by the way, quite an unfortunate one, was the doctrine of the oscillatory motion of the equinoctial points, which the Middle Ages ascribed to Thâbit ibn Kûrrah (836-901), but which was probably the idea of Al-Zarkali, who lived much later and made observations between 1060 and 1080. This motion was merely the adaptation of a mechanism conceived by Ptolemy for a totally different purpose. In physics, Arabian scholars confined themselves to commentaries on the statements of Aristotle, their attitude being at times one of absolute servility. This intellectual servility to Peripatetic teaching reached its climax in Abul ibn Roshd, whom Latin scholastics called Averroës (about 1120-98) and who said: Aristotle "founded and completed logic, physics, and metaphysics . . . because none of those who have followed him up to our time, that is to say, for four hundred years, have been able to add anything to his writings or to detect therein an error of any importance". This unbounded respect for Aristotle's work impelled a great many Arabian philosophers to attack Ptolemy's "Astronomy" in the name of Peripatetic physics. The conflict between the hypotheses of eccentrics and epicycles was inaugurated by Ibn Bâdja, known to the scholastics as Avempace (d. 1138), and Abu Bekr ibn el-Tofeil, called Abubacer by the scholastics (d. 1185), and was vigorously conducted by Averroës, the protégé of Abubacer. Abu Ishâk ibn al-Bitrogi, known by the scholastics as Alpetragius, another disciple of Abubacer and a contemporary of Averroës, advanced a theory on planetary motion wherein he wished to account for the phenomena peculiar to the wandering stars, by compounding rotations of homocentric spheres; his treatise, which was more neo-Platonic than Peripatetic, seemed to be a Greek book altered, or else a simple plagiarism. Less inflexible in his Peripateticism than Averroës and Alpetragius, Moses ben Maimun, called Maimonides (1139-1204), accepted Ptolemy's astronomy despite its incompatibility with Aristotelean physics, although he regarded Aristotle's sublunary physics as absolutely true. IV. ARABIAN TRADITION AND LATIN SCHOLASTICISM It cannot be said exactly when the first translations of Arabic writings began to be received by the Christians of the West, but it was certainly previously to the time of Gerbert (Sylvester II; about 930-1003). Gerbert used treatises translated from the Arabic, and containing instructions on the use of astronomical instruments, notably the astrolabe, to which instrument Hermann the Lame (1013-54) devoted part of his researches. In the beginning of the twelfth century the contributions of Mohammedan science and philosophy to Latin Christendom became more and more frequent and important. About 1120 or 1130 Adelard of Bath translated the "Elements" of Euclid, and various astronomical treatises; in 1141 Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Cluny, found two translators, Hermann the Second (or the Dalmatian) and Robert of Rétines, established in Spain; he engaged them to translate the Koran into Latin, and in 1143 these same translators made Christendom acquainted with Ptolemy's planisphere. Under the direction of Raimond (Archbishop of Toledo, 1130; d. 1150), Domengo Gondisalvi (Gonsalvi; Gundissalinus), Archdeacon of Segovia, began to collaborate with the converted Jew, John of Luna, erroneously called John of Seville (Johannes Hispalensis). While John of Luna applied himself to works in mathematics, he also assisted Gondisalvi in translating into Latin a part of Aristotle's physics, the "De Cælo" and the "Metaphysics", besides treatises by Avicenna, Al-Gazâli, Al-Fârâbi, and perhaps Salomon ibn Gebirol (Avicebron). About 1134 John of Luna translated Al-Fergâni's treatise "Astronomy", which was an abridgement of the "Almagest", thereby introducing Christians to the Ptolemaic system, while at the same time his translations, made in collaboration with Gondisalvi, familiarized the Latins with the physical and metaphysical doctrines of Aristotle. Indeed the influence of Aristotle's "Physics" was already apparent in the writings of the most celebrated masters of the school of Chartres (from 1121 until before 1155), and of Gilbert de la Porrée (1070-1154). The abridgement of Al-Fergâni's "Astronomy", translated by John of Luna, does not seem to have been the first work in which the Latins were enabled to read the exposition of Ptolemy's system; it was undoubtedly preceded by a more complete treatise, the "De Scientia stellarum" of Albategnius (Al-Battâni), latinized by Plato of Tivoli about 1120. However, the "Almagest" itself was still unknown. Moved by a desire to read and translate Ptolemy's immortal work, Gerard of Cremona (d. 1187) left Italy and went to Toledo, eventually making the translation which he finished in 1175. Besides the "Almagest", Gerard rendered into Latin other works, of which we have a list comprising seventy-four different treatises. Some of these were writings of Greek origin, and included a large portion of the works of Aristotle, a treatise by Archimedes, Euclid's "Elements" (completed by Hypsicles), and books by Hippocrates. Others were Arabic writings, such as the celebrated "Book of Three Brothers", composed by the Beni Mûsa, "Optics" by Ibn Al-Haitam (the Alhazen of the Scholastics), "Astronomy" by Geber, and "De motu octavæ sphæræ" by Thâbit ibn Kûrrah. Moreover, in order to spread the study of Ptolemaic astronomy, Gerard composed at Toledo his "Theoricæ planetarum", which during the Middle Ages became one of the classics of astronomical instruction. Beginners who obtained their first cosmographic information through the study of the "Sphæra", written about 1230 by Joannes de Sacrobosco, could acquire a knowledge of eccentrics and epicycles by reading the "Theoricæ planetarum" of Gerard of Cremona. In fact, until the sixteenth century, most astronomical treatises assumed the form of commentaries, either on the "Sphæra", or the "Theoricæ planetarum". "Aristotle's philosophy", wrote Roger Bacon in 1267, "reached a great development among the Latins when Michael Scot appeared about 1230, bringing with him certain parts of the mathematical and physical treatises of Aristotle and his learned commentators". Among the Arabic writings made known to Christians by Michael Scot (before 1291; astrologer to Frederick II) were the treatises of Aristotle and the "Theory of Planets", which Alpetragius had composed in accordance with the hypothesis of homocentric spheres. The translation of this last work was completed in 1217. By propagating among the Latins the commentaries on Averroës and on Alpetragius's theory of the planets, as well as a knowledge of the treatises of Aristotle, Michael Scot developed in them an intellectual disposition which might be termed Averroism, and which consisted in a superstitious respect for the word of Aristotle and his commentator. There was a metaphysical Averroism which, because professing the doctrine of the substantial unity of all human intellects, was in open conflict with Christian orthodoxy; but there was likewise a physical Averroism which, in its blind confidence in Peripatetic physics, held as absolutely certain all that the latter taught on the subject of the celestial substance, rejecting in particular the system of epicycles and eccentrics in order to commend Alpetragius's astronomy of homocentric spheres. Scientific Averroism found partisans even among those whose purity of faith constrained them to struggle against metaphysical Averroism, and who were very often Peripatetics in so far as was possible without formally contradicting the teaching of the Church. For instance, William of Auvergne (d. 1249), who was the first to combat "Aristotle and his sectarians" on metaphysical grounds, was somewhat misled by Alpetragius's astronomy, which, moreover, he understood but imperfectly. Albertus Magnus (1193 or 1205-1280) followed to a great extent the doctrine of Ptolemy, although he was sometimes influenced by the objections of Averroës or affected by Alpetragius's principles. Vincent of Beauvais in his "Speculum quadruplex", a vast encyclopædic compilation published about 1250, seemed to attach great importance to the system of Alpetragius, borrowing the exposition of it from Albertus Magnus. Finally, even St. Thomas Aquinas gave evidence of being extremely perplexed by the theory (1227-74) of eccentrics and epicycles which justified celestial phenomena by contradicting the principles of Peripatetic physics, and the theory of Alpetragius which honoured these principles but did not go so far as to represent their phenomena in detail. This hesitation, so marked in the Dominican school, was hardly less remarkable in the Franciscan. Robert Grosseteste or Greathead (1175-1253), whose influence on Franciscan studies was so great, followed the Ptolemaic system in his astronomical writings, his physics being imbued with Alpetragius's ideas. St. Bonaventure (1221-74) wavered between doctrines which he did not thoroughly understand, and Roger Bacon (1214-92) in several of his writings weighed with great care the arguments that could be made to count for or against each of these two astronomical theories, without eventually making a choice. Bacon, however, was familiar with a method of figuration in the system of eccentrics and epicycles which Alhazen had derived from the Greeks; and in this figuration all the motions acknowledged by Ptolemy were traced back to the rotation of solid orbs accurately fitted one into the other. This representation, which refuted most of the objections raised by Averroës against Ptolemaic astronomy, contributed largely to propagate the knowledge of this astronomy, and it seems that the first of the Latins to adopt it and expatiate on its merits was the Franciscan Bernard of Verdun (end of thirteenth century), who had read Bacon's writings. In sublunary physics the authors whom we have just mentioned did not show the hesitation that rendered astronomical doctrines so perplexing, but on almost all points adhered closely to Peripatetic opinions . V. THE SCIENCE OF OBSERVATION AND ITS PROGRESS ASTRONOMERS THE STATICS OF JORDANUS THIERRY OF FREIBERG PIERRE OF MARICOURT Averroism had rendered scientific progress impossible, but fortunately in Latin Christendom it was to meet with two powerful enemies: the unhampered curiosity of human reason, and the authority of the Church. Encouraged by the certainty resulting from experiments, astronomers rudely shook off the yoke which Peripatetic physics had imposed upon them. The School of Paris in particular was remarkable for its critical views and its freedom of attitude towards the argument of authority. In 1290 William of Saint-Cloud determined with wonderful accuracy the obliquity of the ecliptic and the time of the vernal equinox, and his observations led him to recognize the inaccuracies that marred the "Tables of Toledo", drawn up by Al-Zarkali. The theory of the precession of the equinoxes, conceived by the astronomers of Alfonso X of Castile, and the "Alphonsine Tables" set up in accordance with this theory, gave rise in the first half of the fourteenth century to the observations, calculations, and critical discussions of Parisian astronomers, especially of Jean des Linières and his pupil John of Saxonia or Connaught. At the end of the thirteenth century and the beginning of the fourteenth, sublunary physics owed great advancement to the simultaneous efforts of geometricians and experimenters -- their method and discoveries being duly boasted of by Roger Bacon who, however, took no important part in their labours. Jordanus de Nemore, a talented mathematician who, not later than about the beginning of the thirteenth century, wrote treatises on arithmetic and geometry, left a very short treatise on statics in which, side by side with erroneous propositions, we find the law of the equilibrium of the straight lever very correctly established with the aid of the principle of virtual displacements. The treatise, "De ponderibus", by Jordanus provoked research on the part of various commentators, and one of these, whose name is unknown and who must have written before the end of the thirteenth century, drew, from the same principle of virtual displacements, demonstrations, admirable in exactness and elegance, of the law of the equilibrium of the bent lever, and of the apparent weight (gravitas secundum situm) of a body on an inclined plane. Alhazen's "Treatise on Perspective" was read thoroughly by Roger Bacon and his contemporaries, John Peckham (1228-91), the English Franciscan, giving a summary of it. About 1270 Witelo (or Witek; the Thuringopolonus), composed an exhaustive ten-volume treatise on optics, which remained a classic until the time of Kepler, who wrote a commentary on it. Albertus Magnus, Roger Bacon, John Peckham, and Witelo were deeply interested in the theory of the rainbow, and, like the ancient meteorologists, they all took the rainbow to be the image of the sun reflected in a sort of a concave mirror formed by a cloud resolved into rain. In 1300 Thierry of Freiberg proved by means of carefully-conducted experiments in which he used glass balls filled with water, that the rays which render the bow visible have been reflected on the inside of the spherical drops of water, and he traced with great accuracy the course of the rays which produce the rainbows respectively. The system of Thierry of Freiberg, at least that part relating to the primary rainbow, was reproduced about 1360 by Themon, "Son of the Jew" (Themo ju d i), and, from his commentary on "Meteors", it passed on down to the days of the Renaissance when, having been somewhat distorted, it reappeared in the writings of Alessandro Piccolomini, Simon Porta, and Marco and Antonio de Dominis, being thus propagated until the time of Descartes. The study of the magnet had also made great progress in the course of the thirteenth century; the permanent magnetization of iron, the properties of the magnetic poles, the direction of the Earth's action exerted on these poles or of their action on one another, are all found very accurately described in a treatise written in 1269 by Pierre of Maricourt (Petrus Peregrinus). Like the work of Thierry of Freiberg on the rainbow, the "Epistola de magnete" by Maricourt was a model of the art of logical sequence between experiment and deduction. VI. THE ARTICLES OF PARIS (1277) POSSIBILITY OF VACUUM The University of Paris was very uneasy because of the antagonism existing between Christian dogmas and certain Peripatetic doctrines, and on several occasions it combatted Aristotelean influence. In 1277 Etienne Tempier, Bishop of Paris, acting on the advice of the theologians of the Sorbonne, condemned a great number of errors, some of which emanated from the astrology, and others from the philosophy of the Peripatetics. Among these errors considered dangerous to faith were several which might have impeded the progress of physical science, and hence it was that the theologians of Paris declared erroneous the opinion maintaining that God Himself could not give the entire universe a rectilinear motion, as the universe would then leave a vacuum behind it, and also declared false the notion that God could not create several worlds. These condemnations destroyed certain essential foundations of Peripatetic physics; because, although, in Aristotle's system, such propositions were ridiculously untenable, belief in Divine Omnipotence sanctioned them as possible, whilst waiting for science to confirm them as true. For instance, Aristotle's physics treated the existence of an empty space as a pure absurdity; in virtue of the "Articles of Paris" Richard of Middletown (about 1280) and, after him, many masters at Paris and Oxford admitted that the laws of nature are certainly opposed to the production of empty space, but that the realization of such a space is not, in itself, contrary to reason; thus, without any absurdity, one could argue on vacuum and on motion in a vacuum. Next, in order that such arguments might be legitimatized, it was necessary to create that branch of mechanical science known as dynamics. VII. THE EARTH'S MOTION ORESME The "Articles of Paris" were of about the same value in supporting the question of the Earth's motion as in furthering the progress of dynamics by regarding vacuum as something conceivable. Aristotle maintained that the first heaven (the firmament) moved with a uniform rotary motion, and that the Earth was absolutely stationary, and as these two propositions necessarily resulted from the first principles relative to time and place, it would have been absurd to deny them. However, by declaring that God could endow the World with a rectilinear motion, the theologians of the Sorbonne acknowledged that these two Aristotelean propositions could not be imposed as a logical necessity and thenceforth, whilst continuing to admit that, as a fact, the Earth was immovable and that the heavens moved with a rotary diurnal motion, Richard of Middletown and Duns Scotus (about 1275-1308) began to formulate hypotheses to the effect that these bodies were animated by other motions, and the entire school of Paris adopted the same opinion. Soon, however, the Earth's motion was taught in the School of Paris, not as a possibility, but as a reality. In fact, in the specific setting forth of certain information given by Aristotle and Simplicius, a principle was formulated which for three centuries was to play a great rôle in statics, viz. that every heavy body tends to unite its centre of gravity with the centre of the Earth. When writing his "Questions" on Aristotle's "De Cælo" in 1368, Albert of Helmstadt (or of Saxony) admitted this principle, which he applied to the entire mass of the terrestrial element. The centre of gravity of this mass is constantly inclined to place itself in the centre of the universe, but, within the terrestrial mass, the position of the centre of gravity is incessantly changing. The principal cause of this variation is the erosion brought about by the streams and rivers that continually wear away the land surface, deepening its valleys and carrying off all loose matter to the bed of the sea, thereby producing a displacement of weight which entails a ceaseless change in the position of the centre of gravity. Now, in order to replace this centre of gravity in the centre of the universe, the Earth moves without ceasing; and meanwhile a slow but perpetual exchange is being effected between the continents and the oceans. Albert of Saxony ventured so far as to think that these small and incessant motions of the Earth could explain the phenomena of the precession of the equinoxes. The same author declared that one of his masters, whose name he did not disclose, announced himself in favour of the daily rotation of the Earth, inasmuch as he refuted the arguments that were opposed to this motion. This anonymous master had a thoroughly convinced disciple in Nicole Oresme who, in 1377, being then Canon of Rouen and later Bishop of Lisieux, wrote a French commentary on Aristotle's treatise "De Cælo", maintaining with quite as much force as clearness that neither experiment nor argument could determine whether the daily motion belonged to the firmament of the fixed stars or to the Earth. He also showed how to interpret the difficulties encountered in "the Sacred Scriptures wherein it is stated that the sun turns, etc. It might be supposed that here Holy Writ adapts itself to the common mode of human speech, as also in several places, for instance, where lt is written that God repented Himself, and was angry and calmed Himself and so on, all of which is, however, not to be taken in a strictly literal sense". Finally, Oresme offered several considerations favourable to the hypothesis of the Earth's daily motion. In order to refute one of the objections raised by the Peripatetics against this point, Oresme was led to explain how, in spite of this motion, heavy bodies seemed to fall in a vertical line; he admitted their real motion to be composed of a fall in a vertical line and a diurnal rotation identical with that which they would have if bound to the Earth. This is precisely the principle to which Galileo was afterwards to turn. VIII. PLURALITY OF WORLDS Aristotle maintained the simultaneous existence of several worlds to be an absurdity, his principal argument being drawn from his theory of gravity, whence he concluded that two distinct worlds could not coexist and be each surrounded by its elements; therefore it would be ridiculous to compare each of the planets to an earth similar to ours. In 1277 the theologians of Paris condemned this doctrine as a denial of the creative omnipotence of God; Richard of Middletown and Henry of Ghent (who wrote about 1280), Guillaume Varon (who wrote a commentary on the "Sentences" about 1300), and, towards 1320, Jean de Bassols, William of Occam (d. after 1347), and Walter Burley (d. about 1348) did not hesitate to declare that God could create other worlds similar to ours. This doctrine, adopted by several Parisian masters, exacted that the theory of gravity and natural place developed by Aristotle be thoroughly changed; in fact, the following theory was substituted for it. If some part of the elements forming a world be detached from it and driven far away, its tendency will be to move towards the world to which it belongs and from which it was separated; the elements of each world are inclined so to arrange themselves that the heaviest will be in the centre and the lightest on the surface. This theory of gravity appeared in the writings of Jean Buridan of Béthune, who became rector of the University of Paris in 1327, teaching at that institution until about 1360; and in 1377 this same theory was formally proposed by Oresme. It was also destined to be adopted by Copernicus and his first followers, and to be maintained by Galileo, William Gilbert, and Otto von Guericke. IX. DYNAMICS THEORY OF IMPETUS INERTIA CELESTIAL AND SUBLUNARY MECHANICS IDENTICAL If the School of Paris completely transformed the Peripatetic theory of gravity, it was equally responsible for the overthrow of Aristotelean dynamics. Convinced that, in all motion, the mover should be directly contiguous to the body moved, Aristotle had proposed a strange theory of the motion of projectiles. He held that the projectile was moved by the fluid medium, whether air or water, through which it passed and this, by virtue of the vibration brought about in the fluid at the moment of throwing, and spread through it. In the sixth century of our era this explanation was strenuously opposed by the Christian Stoic, Joannes Philoponus, according to whom the projectile was moved by a certain power communicated to it at the instant of throwing; however, despite the objections raised by Philoponus, Aristotle's various commentators, particularly Averroës, continued to attribute the motion of the projectile to the disturbance of the air, and Albertus Magnus, St. Thomas Aquinas, Roger Bacon, Gilles of Rome, and Walter Burley persevered in maintaining this error. By means of most spirited argumentation, William of Occam made known the complete absurdity of the Peripatetic theory of the motion of projectiles. Going back to Philoponus's thesis, Buridan gave the name impetus to the virtue or power communicated to the projectile by the hand or instrument throwing it; he declared that in any given body in motion, this impetus was proportional to the velocity, and that, in different bodies in motion propelled by the same velocity, the quantities of impetus were proportional to the mass or quantity of matter defined as it was afterwards defined by Newton. In a projectile; impetus is gradually destroyed by the resistance of air or other medium and is also destroyed by the natural gravity of the body in motion, which gravity is opposed to the impetus if the projectile be thrown upward; this struggle explains the different peculiarities of the motion of projectiles. In a falling body, gravity comes to the assistance of impetus which it increases at every instant, hence the velocity of the fall is increasing incessantly. With the assistance of these principles concerning impetus, Buridan accounts for the swinging of the pendulum. He likewise analyses the mechanism of impact and rebound and, in this connexion, puts forth very correct views on the deformations and elastic reactions that arise in the contiguous parts of two bodies coming into collision. Nearly all this doctrine of impetus is transformed into a very correct mechanical theory if one is careful to substitute the expression vis viva for impetus. The dynamics expounded by Buridan were adopted in their entirety by Albert of Saxony, Oresme, Marsile of Inghem, and the entire School of Paris. Albert of Saxony appended thereto the statement that the velocity of a falling body must be proportional either to the time elapsed from the beginning of the fall or to the distance traversed during this time. In a projectile, the impetus is gradually destroyed either by the resistance of the medium or by the contrary tendency of the gravity natural to the body. Where these causes of destruction do not exist, the impetus remains perpetually the same, as in the case of a millstone exactly centred and not rubbing on its axis; once set in motion it will turn indefinitely with the same swiftness. It was under this form that the law of inertia at first became evident to Buridan and Albert of Saxony. The conditions manifested in this hypothetic millstone are realized in the celestial orbs, as in these neither friction nor gravity impedes motion; hence it may be admitted that each celestial orb moves indefinitely by virtue of a suitable impetus communicated to it by God at the moment of creation. It is useless to imitate Aristotle and his commentators by attributing the motion of each orb to a presiding spirit. This was the opinion proposed by Buridan and adopted by Albert of Saxony; and whilst formulating a doctrine from which modern dynamics was to spring, these masters understood that the same dynamics governs both celestial and sublunary bodies. Such an idea was directly opposed to the essential distinction established by ancient physics between these two kinds of bodies. Moreover, following William of Occam, the masters of Paris rejected this distinction; they acknowledged that the matter constituting celestial bodies was of the same nature as that constituting sublunary bodies and that, if the former remained perpetually the same, it was not because they were, by nature, incapable of change and destruction, but simply because the place in which they were contained no agent capable of corrupting them. A century elapsed between the condemnations pronounced by Etienne Tempier (1277) and the editing of the "Traité du Ciel et du Monde" by Oresme (1377) and, within that time, all the essential principles of Aristotle's physics were undermined, and the great controlling ideas of modern science formulated. This revolution was mainly the work of Oxford Franciscans like Richard of Middletown, Duns Scotus, and William of Occam, and of masters in the School of Paris, heirs to the tradition inaugurated by these Franciscans; among the Parisian masters Buridan, Albert of Saxony, and Oresme were in the foremost rank. X. PROPAGATION OF THE DOCTRINES OF THE SCHOOL OF PARIS IN GERMANY AND ITALY PURBACH AND REGIOMONTANUS NICHOLAS OF CUSA VINCI The great Western Schism involved the University of Paris in politico-religious quarrels of extreme violence; the misfortunes brought about by the conflict between the Armagnacs and Burgundians and by the Hundred Years' War, completed what these quarrels had begun, and the wonderful progress made by science during the fourteenth century in the University of Paris suddenly ceased. However, the schism contributed to the diffusion of Parisian doctrines by driving out of Paris a large number of brilliant men who had taught there with marked success. In 1386 Marsile of Inghem (d. 1396), who had been one of the most gifted professors of the University of Paris, became rector of the infant University of Heidelberg, where he introduced the dynamic theories of Buridan and Albert of Saxony. About the same time, another master, reputedly of Paris, Heinrich Heimbuch of Langenstein, or of Hesse, was chiefly instrumental in founding the University of Vienna and, besides his theological knowledge, brought thither the astronomical tradition of Jean des Linières and John of Saxony. This tradition was carefully preserved in Vienna, being magnificently developed there throughout the fifteenth century, and paving the way for Georg Purbach (1423-61) and his disciple Johann Müller of Königsberg, surnamed Regiomontanus (1436-76). It was to the writing of theories calculated to make the Ptolemaic system known, to the designing and constructing of exact instruments, to the multiplying of observations, and the preparing of tables and almanacs (ephemerides), more accurate than those used by astronomers up to that time, that Purbach and Regiomontanus devoted their prodigious energy. By perfecting all the details of Ptolemy's theories, which they never called in question, they were most helpful in bringing to light the defects of these theories and in preparing the materials by means of which Copernicus was to build up his new astronomy. Averroism flourished in the Italian Universities of Padua and Bologna, which were noted for their adherence to Peripatetic doctrines. Still from the beginning of the fifteenth century the opinions of the School of Paris began to find their way into these institutions, thanks to the teaching of Paolo Nicoletti of Venice (flourished about 1420). It was there developed by his pupil Gaetan of Tiene (d. 1465). These masters devoted special attention to propagating the dynamics of impetus in Italy. About the time that Paola of Venice was teaching at Padua, Nicholas of Cusa came there to take his doctorate in law. Whether it was then that the latter became initiated in the physics of the School of Paris matters little, as in any event it was from Parisian physics that he adopted those doctrines that smacked least of Peripateticism. He became thoroughly conversant with the dynamics of impetus and, like Buridan and Albert of Saxony, attributed the motion of the celestial spheres to the impetus which God had communicated to them in creating them, and which was perpetuated because, in these spheres, there was no element of destruction. He admitted that the Earth moved incessantly, and that its motion might be the cause of the precession of the equinoxes. In a note discovered long after his death, he went so far as to attribute to the Earth a daily rotation. He imagined that the sun, the moon, and the planets were so many systems, each of which contained an earth and elements analogous to our Earth and elements, and to account for the action of gravity in each of these systems he followed closely the theory of gravity advanced by Oresme. Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) was perhaps more thoroughly convinced of the merits of the Parisian physics than any other Italian master. A keen observer, and endowed with insatiable curiosity, he had studied a great number of works, amongst which we may mention the various treatises of the School of Jordanus, various books by Albert of Saxony, and in all likelihood the works of Nicholas of Cusa; then, profiting by the learning of these scholars, he formally enunciated or else simply intimated many new ideas. The statics of the School of Jordanus led him to discover the law of the composition of concurrent forces stated as follows: the two component forces have equal moments as regards the direction of the resultant, and the resultant and one of the components have equal moments as regards the direction of the other component. The statics derived from the properties which Albert of Saxony attributed to the centre of gravity caused Vinci to recognize the law of the polygon of support and to determine the centre of gravity of a tetrahedron. He also presented the law of the equilibrium of two liquids of different density in communicating tubes, and the principle of virtual displacements seems to have occasioned his acknowledgement of the hydrostatic law known as Pascal's. Vinci continued to meditate on the properties of impetus, which he called impeto or forza, and the propositions that he formulated on the subject of this power very often showed a fairly clear discernment of the law of the conservation of energy. These propositions conducted him to remarkably correct and accurate conclusions concerning the impossibility of perpetual motion. Unfortunately he misunderstood the pregnant explanation, afforded by the theory of impetus, regarding the acceleration of falling bodies, and like the Peripatetics attributed this acceleration to the impulsion of the encompassing air. However, by way of compensation, he distinctly asserted that the velocity of a body that falls freely is proportional to the time occupied in the fall, and he understood in what way this law extends to a fall on an inclined plane. When he wished to determine how the path traversed by a falling body is connected with the time occupied in the fall, he was confronted by a difficulty which, in the seventeenth century, was likewise to baffle Baliani and Gassendi. Vinci was much engrossed in the analysis of the deformations and elastic reactions which cause a body to rebound after it has struck another, and this doctrine, formulated by Buridan, Albert of Saxony, and Marsile of Inghem he applied in such a way as to draw from it the explanation of the flight of birds. This flight is an alternation of falls during which the bird compresses the air beneath it, and of rebounds due to the elastic force of this air. Until the great painter discovered this explanation, the question of the flight of birds was always looked upon as a problem in statics, and was likened to the swimming of a fish in water. Vinci attached great importance to the views developed by Albert of Saxony in regard to the Earth's equilibrium. Like the Parisian master, he held that the centre of gravity within the terrestrial mass is constantly changing under the influence of erosion and that the Earth is continually moving so as to bring this centre of gravity to the centre of the World. These small, incessant motions eventually bring to the surface of the continents those portions of earth that once occupied the bed of the ocean and, to place this assertion of Albert of Saxony beyond the range of doubt, Vinci devoted himself to the study of fossils and to extremely cautious observations which made him the creator of Stratigraphy. In many passages in his notes Vinci asserts, like Nicholas of Cusa that the moon and the other wandering stars are worlds analogous to ours, that they carry seas upon their surfaces, and are surrounded by air; and the development of this opinion led him to talk of the gravity binding to each of these stars the elements that belonged to it. On the subject of this gravity he professed a theory similar to Oresme's. Hence it would seem that, in almost every particular, Vinci was a faithful disciple of the great Parisian masters of the fourteenth century, of Buridan, Albert of Saxony, and Oresme. XI. ITALIAN AVERROISM AND ITS TENDENCIES TO ROUTINE ATTEMPTS AT RESTORING THE ASTRONOMY OF HOMOCENTRIC SPHERES Whilst, through the anti-Peripatetic influence of the School of Paris, Vinci reaped a rich harvest of discoveries, innumerable Italians devoted themselves to the sterile worship of defunct ideas with a servility that was truly astonishing. The Averroists did not wish to acknowledge as true anything out of conformity with the ideas of Aristotle as interpreted by Averroës; with Pompanazzi (1462-1526), the Alexandrists, seeking their inspiration further back in the past, refused to understand Aristotle otherwise than he had been understood by Alexander of Aphrodisias; and the Humanists, solicitous only for purity of form, would not consent to use any technical language whatever and rejected all ideas that were not sufficiently vague to be attractive to orators and poets; thus Averroists, Alexandrists, and Humanists proclaimed a truce to their vehement discussions so as to combine against the "language of Paris", the "logic of Paris", and the "physics of Paris". It is difficult to conceive the absurdities to which these minds were led by their slavish surrender to routine. A great number of physicists, rejecting the Parisian theory of impetus, returned to the untenable dynamics of Aristotle, and maintained that the projectile was moved by the ambient air. In 1499 Nicolò Vernias of Chieti, an Averroist professor at Padua, taught that if a heavy body fell it was in consequence of the motion of the air surrounding it. A servile adoration of Peripateticism prompted many so-called philosophers to reject the Ptolemaic system, the only one which, at that time, could satisfy the legitimate exigencies of astronomers, and to readopt the hypothesis of homocentric spheres. They held as null and void the innumerable observations that showed changes in the distance of each planet from the Earth. Alessandro Achillini of Bologna (1463-1512), an uncompromising Averroist and a strong opponent of the theory of impetus and of all Parisian doctrines, inaugurated, in his treatise "De orbibus" (1498), a strange reaction against Ptolemaic astronomy; Agostino Nifo (1473-1538) laboured for the same end in a work that has not come down to us; Girolamo Fracastorio (1483-1553) gave us, in 1535, his book "De homocentricis", and Gianbattista Amico (1536), and Giovanni Antonio Delfino (1559) published small works in an endeavour to restore the system of homocentric spheres. XII. THE COPERNICAN REVOLUTION Although directed by tendencies diametrically opposed to the true scientific spirit, the efforts made by Averroists to restore the astronomy of homocentric spheres were perhaps a stimulus to the progress of science, inasmuch as they accustomed physicists to the thought that the Ptolemaic system was not the only astronomical doctrine possible, or even the best that could be desired. Thus, in their own way, the Averroists paved the way for the Copernican revolution. The movements forecasting this revolution were noticeable in the middle of the fourteenth century in the writings of Nicholas of Cusa, and in the beginning of the fifteenth century in the notes of Vinci, both of these eminent scientists being well versed in Parisian physics. Celio Calcagnini proposed, in his turn, to explain the daily motion of the stars by attributing to the Earth a rotation from West to East, complete in one sidereal day. His dissertation, "Quod c lum stet, terra vero moveatur", although seeming to have been written about 1530, was not published until 1544, when it appeared in a posthumous edition of the author's works. Calcagnini declared that the Earth, originally in equilibrium in the centre of the universe, received a first impulse which imparted to it a rotary motion, and this motion, to which nothing was opposed, was indefinitely preserved by virtue of the principle set forth by Buridan and accepted by Albert of Saxony and Nicholas of Cusa. According to Calcagnini the daily rotation of the Earth was accompanied by an oscillation which explained the movement of the precession of the equinoxes. Another oscillation set the waters of the sea in motion and determined the ebb and flow of the tides. This last hypothesis was to be maintained by Andrea Cesalpino (1519-1603) in his "Quæstiones peripateticæ" (1569), and to inspire Galileo, who, unfortunately, was to seek in the phenomena of the tides his favourite proof of the Earth's rotation. The "De revolutionibus orbium c lestium libri sex" were printed in 1543, a few months after the death of Copernicus (1473-1543), but the principles of the astronomic system proposed by this man of genius had been published as early as 1539 in the "Narratio prima" of his disciple, Joachim Rhæticus (1514-76). Copernicus adhered to the ancient astronomical hypotheses which claimed that the World was spherical and limited, and that all celestial motions were decomposable into circular and uniform motions; but he held that the firmament of fixed stars was immovable, as also the sun, which was placed in the centre of this firmament. To the Earth he attributed three motions: a circular motion by which the centre of the Earth described with uniform velocity a circle situated in the plane of the ecliptic and eccentric to the sun; a daily rotation on an axis inclined towards the ecliptic, and finally, a rotation of this axis around an axis normal to the ecliptic and passing through the centre of the Earth. The time occupied by this last rotation was a little longer than that required for the circular motion of the centre of the Earth which produced the phenomenon of the precession of the equinoxes. To the five planets Copernicus ascribed motions analogous to those with which the Earth was provided, and he maintained that the moon moved in a circle around the Earth. Of the Copernican hypotheses, the newest was that according to which the Earth moved in a circle around the sun. From the days of Aristarchus of Samos and Seleucus no one had adopted this view. Medieval astronomers had all rejected it, because they supposed that the stars were much too close to the Earth and the sun, and that an annual circular motion of the Earth might give the stars a perceptible parallax. Still, on the other hand, we have seen that various authors had proposed to attribute to the Earth one or the other of the two motions which Copernicus added to the annual motion. To defend the hypothesis of the daily motion of the Earth against the objections formulated by Peripatetic physics, Copernicus invoked exactly the same reasons as Oresme, and in order to explain how each planet retains the various parts of its elements, he adopted the theory of gravity proposed by the eminent master. Copernicus showed himself the adherent of Parisian physics even in the following opinion, enunciated accidently: the acceleration of the fall of heavy bodies is explained by the continual increase which impetus receives from gravity. XIII. FORTUNES OF THE COPERNICAN SYSTEM IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY Copernicus and his disciple Rhæticus very probably regarded the motions which their theory ascribed to the Earth and the planets, the sun's rest and that of the firmament of fixed stars, as the real motions or real rest of these bodies. The "De revolutionibus orbium cælestium libri sex" appeared with an anonymous preface which inspired an entirely different idea. This preface was the work of the Lutheran theologian Osiander (1498-1552), who therein expressed the opinion that the hypotheses proposed by philosophers in general, and by Copernicus in particular, were in no wise calculated to acquaint us with the reality of things: "Neque enim necesse est eas hypotheses esse veras, imo, ne verisimiles quidem, sed sufficit hoc unum si calculum observationibus congruentem exhibeant". Osiander's view of astronomical hypotheses was not new. Even in the days of Grecian antiquity a number of thinkers had maintained that the sole object of these hypotheses was to "save appearances", sozein ta phainomena; and in the Middle Ages, as well as in antiquity, this method continued to be that of philosophers who wished to make use of Ptolemaic astronomy whilst at the same time upholding the Peripatetic physics absolutely incompatible with this astronomy. Osiander's doctrine was therefore readily received, first of all by astronomers who, without believing the Earth's motion to be a reality, accepted and admired the kinetic combinations conceived by Copernicus, as these combinations provided them with better means than could be offered by the Ptolemaic system for figuring out the motion of the moon and the phenomena of the precession of the equinoxes. One of the astronomers who most distinctly assumed this attitude in regard to Ptolemy's system was Erasmus Reinhold (1511-53), who, although not admitting the Earth's motion, professed a great admiration for the system of Copernicus and used it in computing new astronomical tables, the "Prutenicæ tabulæ" (1551), which were largely instrumental in introducing to astronomers the kinetic combinations originated by Copernicus. The "Prutenicæ tabulæ" were especially employed by the commission which in 1582 effected the Gregorian reform of the calendar. Whilst not believing in the Earth's motion, the members of this commission did not hesitate to use tables founded on a theory of the precession of the equinoxes and attributing a certain motion to the earth. However, the freedom permitting astronomers to use all hypotheses qualified to account for phenomena was soon restricted by the exigencies of Peripatetic philosophers and Protestant theologians. Osiander had written his celebrated preface to Copernicus's book with a view to warding off the attacks of theologians, but in this he did not succeed. Martin Luther, in his "Tischrede", was the first to express indignation at the impiety of those who admitted the hypothesis of solar rest. Melanchthon, although acknowledging the purely astronomical advantages of the Copernican system, strongly combatted the hypothesis of the Earth's motion (1549), not only with the aid of arguments furnished by Peripatetic physics but likewise, and chiefly, with the assistance of numerous texts taken from Holy Writ. Kaspar Peucer (1525-1602), Melanchthon's son-in-law, whilst endeavouring to have his theory of the planets harmonize with the progress which the Copernican system had made in this regard, nevertheless rejected the Copernican hypotheses as absurd (1571). It then came to be exacted of astronomical hypotheses that not only, as Osiander had desired, the result of their calculations be conformable to facts, but also that they be not refuted "either in the name of the principles of physics or in the name of the authority of the Sacred Scriptures". This criterion was explicitly formulated in 1578 by a Lutheran, the Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe (1546-1601), and it was precisely by virtue of these two requirements that the doctrines of Galileo were to be condemned by the Inquisition in 1616 and 1633. Eager not to admit any hypothesis that would conflict with Aristotelean physics or be contrary to the letter of the Sacred Scriptures, and yet most desirous to retain all the astronomical advantages of the Copernican system, Tycho Brahe proposed a new system which virtually consisted in leaving the Earth motionless and in moving the other heavenly bodies in such a way that their displacement with regard to the Earth might remain the same as in the system of Copernicus. Moreover, although posing as the defender of Aristotelean physics, Tycho Brahe dealt it a disastrous blow. In 1572 a star, until then unknown, appeared in the constellation of Cassiopeia, and in showing accurate observations that the new astral body was really a fixed star, Tycho Brahe proved conclusively that the celestial world was not, as Aristotle would have had us believe, formed of a substance exempt from generation and destruction. The Church had not remained indifferent to the hypothesis of the Earth's motion until the time of Tycho Brahe, as it was amongst her members that this hypothesis had found its first defenders, counting adherents even in the extremely orthodox University of Paris. At the time of defending this hypothesis, Oresme was Canon of Rouen, and immediately after he was promoted to the Bishopric of Lisieux; Nicholas of Cusa was Bishop of Brixen and cardinal, and was entrusted with important negotiations by Eugenius IV, Nicholas V, and Pius II; Calcagnini was prothonotary Apostolic; Copernicus was Canon of Thorn, and it was Cardinal Schomberg who urged him to publish his work, the dedication of which was accepted by Paul III. Besides, Oresme had made clear how to interpret the Scriptural passages claimed to be opposed to the Copernican system, and in 1584 Didacus a Stunica of Salamanca found in Holy Writ texts which could be invoked with just as much certainty in favour of the Earth's motion. However, in 1595 the Protestant senate of the University of Tübingen compelled Kepler to retract the chapter in his "Mysterium cosmographicum", in which he had endeavoured to make the Copernican system agree with Scripture. Christopher Clavius (1537-1612), a Jesuit, and one of the influential members of the commission that reformed the Gregorian Calendar, seemed to be the first Catholic astronomer to adopt the double test imposed upon astronomical hypotheses by Tycho Brahe, and to decide (1581) that the suppositions of Copernicus were to be rejected, as opposed both to Peripatetic physics and to Scripture; on the other hand, at the end of his life and under the influence of Galileo's discoveries, Clavius appeared to have assumed a far more favourable attitude towards Copernican doctrines. The enemies of Aristotelean philosophy gladly adopted the system of Copernicus, considering its hypotheses as so many propositions physically true, this being the case with Pierre de La Ramée, called Petrus Ramus (1502-72), and especially with Giordano Bruno (about 1550-1600). The physics developed by Bruno, in which he incorporated the Copernican hypothesis, proceeded from Nicole, Oresme, and Nicholas of Cusa; but chiefly from the physics taught in the University of Paris in the fourteenth century. The infinite extent of the universe and the plurality of worlds were admitted as possible by many theologians at the end of the thirteenth century, and the theory of the slow motion which gradually causes the central portions of the Earth to work to the surface had been taught by Albert of Saxony before it attracted the attention of Vinci. The solution of Peripatetic arguments against the Earth's motion and the theory of gravity called forth by the comparison of the planets with the Earth would appear to have been borrowed by Bruno from Oresme. The apostasy and heresies for which Bruno was condemned in 1600 had nothing to do with the physical doctrines he had espoused, which included in particular Copernican astronomy. In fact it does not seem that, in the sixteenth century, the Church manifested the slightest anxiety concerning the system of Copernicus. XIV. THEORY OF THE TIDES It is undoubtedly to the great voyages that shed additional lustre on the close of the fifteenth century that we must attribute the importance assumed in the sixteenth century by the problem of the tides, and the great progress made at that time towards the solution of this problem. The correlation existing between the phenomenon of high and low tide and the course of the moon was known even in ancient times. Posidonius accurately described it; the Arabian astronomers were also familiar with it, and the explanation given of it in the ninth century by Albumazar in his "Introductorium magnum ad Astronomiam" remained a classic throughout the Middle Ages. The observation of tidal phenomena very naturally led to the supposition that the moon attracted the waters of the ocean and, in the thirteenth century, William of Auvergne compared this attraction to that of the magnet for iron. However, the mere attraction of the moon did not suffice to account for the alternation of spring and neap tides, which phenomenon clearly indicated a certain intervention of the sun. In his "Questions sur les livres des Météores", which appeared during the latter half of the fourteenth century, Themon, "Son of the Jew", introduced in a vague sort of way the idea of superposing two tides, the one due to the sun and the other to the moon. In 1528 this idea was very clearly endorsed by Federico Grisogone of Zara, a Dalmatian who taught medicine at Padua. Grisogone declared that, under the action of the moon exclusively, the sea would assume an ovoid shape, its major axis being directed towards the centre of the moon; that the action of the sun would also give it an ovoid shape, less elongated than the first, its major axis being directed towards the centre of the sun; and that the variation of sea level, at all times and in all places, was obtained by adding the elevation or depression produced by the solar tide to the elevation or depression produced by the lunar tide. In 1557 Girolamo Cardano accepted and briefly explained Grisogone's theory. In 1559 a posthumous work by Delfino gave a description of the phenomena of the tides, identical with that deduced from the mechanism conceived by Grisogone. The doctrine of the Dalmatian physician was reproduced by Paolo Gallucci in 1588, and by Annibale Raimondo in 1589; and in 1600 Claude Duret, who had plagiarized Delfino's treatise, published in France the description of the tides given in that work. XV. STATICS IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY STEVINUS When writing on statics Cardano drew upon two sources, the writings of Archimedes and the treatises of the School of Jordanus; besides, he probably plagiarized the notes left by Vinci, and it was perhaps from this source that he took the theorem: a system endowed with weight is in equilibrium when the centre of gravity of this system is the lowest possible. Nicolo Tartaglia (about 1500-57), Cardano's antagonist, shamelessly purloined a supposedly forgotten treatise by one of Jordanus's commentators. Ferrari, Cardano's faithful disciple, harshly rebuked Tartaglia for the theft, which nevertheless had the merit of re-establishing the vogue of certain discoveries of the thirteenth century, especially the law of the equilibrium of a body supported by an inclined plane. By another and no less barefaced plagiarism, Tartaglia published under his own name a translation of Archimedes's "Treatise on floating bodies" made by William of Moerbeke at the end of the thirteenth century. This publication, dishonest though it was, helped to give prominence to the study of Archimedes's mechanical labours, which study exerted the greatest influence over the progress of science at the end of the sixteenth century, the blending of Archimedean mathematics with Parisian physics, generating the movement that terminated in Galileo's work. The translation and explanation of the works of Archimedes enlisted the attention of geometricians such as Franeesco Maurolycus of Messina (1494-1575) and Federico Commandino of Urbino (1509-75), and these two authors, continuing the work of the great Syracusan, determined the position of the centre of gravity of various solids; in addition Coinmandin translated and explained Pappus's mathematical "Collection", and the fragment of "Mechanics" by Heron of Alexandria appended thereto. Admiration for these monuments of ancient science inspired a number of Italians with a profound contempt for medieval statics. The fecundity of the principle of virtual displacements, so happily employed by the School of Jordanus, was ignored; and, deprived of the laws discovered by this school and of the additions made to them by Vinci, the treatises on statics written by over-enthusiastic admirers of the Archimedean method were notably deficient. Among the authors of these treatises Guidobaldo dal Monte (1545-1607) and Giovanni Battista Benedetti (1530-90) deserve special mention. Of the mathematicians who, in statics, claimed to follow exclusively the rigorous methods of Archimedes and the Greek geometricians, the most illustrious was Simon Stevinus of Bruges (1548-1620). Through him the statics of solid bodies recovered all that had been gained by the School of Jordanus and Vinci, and lost by the contempt of such men as Guidobaldo del Monte and Benedetti. The law of the equilibrium of the lever, one of the fundamental propositions of which Stevinus made use, was established by him with the aid of an ingenious demonstration which Galileo was also to employ, and which is found in a small anonymous work of the thirteenth century. In order to confirm another essential principle of his theory, the law of the equilibrium of a body on an inclined plane, Stevinus resorted to the impossibility of perpetual motion, which had been affirmed with great precision by Vinci and Cardano. Stevinus's chief glory lay in his discoveries in hydrostatics; and the determining of the extent and point of application of the pressure on the slanting inner side of a vessel by the liquid contained therein was in itself sufficient to entitle this geometrician from Bruges to a foremost place among the creators of the theory of the equilibrium of fluids. Benedetti was on the point of enunciating the principle known as Pascal's Law, and an insignificant addition permitted Mersenne to infer this principle and the idea of the hydraulic press from what the Italian geometrician had written. Benedetti had justified his propositions by using as an axiom the law of the equilibrium of liquids in communicating vessels, and prior to this time Vinci had followed the same logical proceeding. XVI. DYNAMICS IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY The geometricians who, in spite of the stereotyped methods of Averroism and the banter of Humanism, continued to cultivate the Parisian dynamics of impetus, were rewarded by splendid discoveries. Dissipating the doubt in which Albert of Saxony had remained enveloped, Vinci had declared the velocity acquired by a falling body to be proportional to the time occupied by the fall, but he did not know how to determine the law connecting the time consumed in falling with the space passed over by the falling body. Nevertheless to find this law it would have sufficed to invoke the following proposition: in a uniformly varied motion, the space traversed by the moving body is equal to that which it would traverse in a uniform motion whose duration would be that of the preceding motion, and whose velocity would be the same as that which affected the preceding motion at the mean instant of its duration. This proposition was known to Oresme, who had demonstrated it exactly as it was to be demonstrated later by Galileo; it was enunciated and discussed at the close of the fourteenth century by all the logicians who, in the University of Oxford, composed the school of William of Heytesbury, Chancellor of Oxford in 1375; it was subsequently examined or invoked in the fifteenth century by all the Italians who became the commentators of these logicians; and finally, the masters of the University of Paris, contemporaries of Vinci, taught and demonstrated it as Oresme had done. This law which Vinci was not able to determine was published in 1545 by a Spanish Dominican, Domingo Soto (1494-1560), an alumnus of the University of Paris, and professor of theology at Alcalá de Henares, and afterwards at Salamanca. He formulated these two laws thus: The velocity of a falling body increases proportionally to the time of the fall. The space traversed in a uniformly varied motion is the same as in a uniform motion occupying the same time, its velocity being the mean velocity of the former. In addition Soto declared that the motion of a body thrown vertically upward is uniformly retarded. It should be mentioned that all these propositions were formulated by the celebrated Dominican as if in relation to truths generally admitted by the masters among whom he lived. The Parisian theory, maintaining that the accelerated fall of bodies was due to the effect of a continual increase of impetus caused by gravity, was admitted by Julius Cæsar Scaliger (1484-1558), Benedetti, and Gabriel Vasquez (1551-1604), the celebrated Jesuit theologian. The first of these authors presented this theory in such a way that uniform acceleration of motion seemed naturally to follow from it. Soto, Tartaglia, and Cardano made strenuous efforts, after the manner of Vinci, to explain the motion of projectiles by appealing to the conflict between impetus and gravity, but their attempts were frustrated by a Peripatetic error which several Parisian masters had long before rejected. They believed that the motion of the projectile was accelerated from the start, and attributed this initial acceleration to an impulse communicated by the vibrating air. Indeed, throughout the sixteenth century, the Italian Averroists continued to attribute to the ambient air the very transportation of the projectile. Tartaglia empirically discovered that a piece of artillery attained its greatest range when pointed at an angle of forty-five degrees to the horizon. Bruno insisted upon Oresme's explanation of the fact that a body appears to fall in a vertical line in spite of the Earth's motion; to obtain the trajectory of this body it is necessary to combine the action of its weight with the impetus which the Earth has imparted to it. It was as follows that Benedetti set forth the law followed by such an impetus. A body whirled in a circle and suddenly left to itself will move in a straight line tangent to the circle at the very point where the body happened to be at the moment of its release. For this achievement Benedetti deserves to be ranked among the most valuable contributors to the discovery of the law of inertia. In 1553 Benedetti advanced the following argument: in air, or any fluid whatever, ten equal stones fall with the same velocity as one of their number; and if all were combined they would still fall with the same velocity; therefore, in a fluid two stones, one of which is ten times heavier than the other, fall with the same velocity. Benedetti lauded the extreme novelty of this argument with which, in reality, many scholastics had been familiar, but which they had all claimed was not conclusive, because the resistance which the air offered to the heavier stone could certainly not be ten times that which it opposed to the lighter one. Achillini was one of those who clearly maintained this principle. That it might lead to a correct conclusion, Benedetti's argument had to be restricted to the motion of bodies in a vacuum, and this is what was done by Galileo. XVII. GALILEO'S WORK Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) had been in youth a staunch Peripatetic, but was later converted to the Copernican system, and devoted most of his efforts to its defence. The triumph of the system of Copernicus could only be secured by the perfecting of mechanics, and especially by solving the problem presented by the fall of bodies, when the earth was supposed to be in motion. It was towards this solution that many of Galileo's researches were directed, and to bring his labours to a successful issue he had to adopt certain principles of Parisian dynamics. Unfortunately, instead of using them all, he left it to others to exhaust their fecundity. Galilean statics was a compromise between the incorrect method inaugurated in Aristotle's "Mechanical Questions" and the correct method of virtual displacements successfully applied by the School of Jordanus. Imbued with ideas that were still intensely Peripatetic, it introduced the consideration of a certain impeto or momento, proportional to the velocity of the moving body and not unlike the impetus of the Parisians. Galilean hydrostatics also showed an imperfect form of the principle of virtual displacements, which seemed to have been suggested to the great Pisan by the effectual researches made on the theory of running water by his friend Benedetto Castelli, the Benedictine (1577-1644). At first Galileo asserted that the velocity of a falling body increased proportionally to the space traversed, and afterwards, by an ingenious demonstration, he proved the utter absurdity of such a law. He then taught that the motion of a freely falling body was uniformly accelerated; in favour of this law, he contented himself with appealing to its simplicity without considering the continual increase of impetus under the influence of gravity. Gravity creates, in equal periods, a new and uniform impetus which, added to that already acquired, causes the total impetus to increase in arithmetical progression according to the time occupied in the fall; hence the velocity of the falling body. This argument towards which all Parisian tradition had been tending and which, in the last place, had been broached by Scaliger, leads to our modern law: a constant force produces uniformly accelerated motion. In Galileo's work there is no trace either of the argument or of the conclusion deduced therefrom; however, the argument itself was carefully developed by Galileo's friend, Giambattista Baliani (1582-1666). From the very definition of velocity, Baliani endeavoured to deduce the law according to which the space traversed by a falling body is increased proportionally to the time occupied in the fall. Here he was confronted by a difficulty that had also baffled Vinci; however, he eventually anticipated its solution, which was given, after similar hesitation, by another of Galileo's disciples, Pierre Gassendi (1592-1655). Galileo had reached the law connecting the time occupied in the fall with the space traversed by a falling body, by using a demonstration that became celebrated as the "demonstration of the triangle". It was textually that given by Oresme in the fourteenth century and, as we have seen, Soto had thought of using Oresme's proposition in the study of the accelerated fall of bodies. Galileo extended the laws of freely falling bodies to a fall down an inclined plane and subjected to the test of experiment the law of the motion of a weight on an inclined plane. A body which, without friction or resistance of any kind, would describe the circumference of a circle concentric with the Earth would retain an invariable impeto or momento, as gravity would in no wise tend to increase or destroy this impeto: this principle which belonged to the dynamics of Buridan and Albert of Saxony, was acknowledged by Galileo. On a small surface, a sphere concentric with the Earth is apparently merged into a horizontal plane; a body thrown upon a horizontal plane and free from all friction would therefore assume a motion apparently rectilinear and uniform. It is only under this restricted and erroneous form that Galileo recognized the law of inertia and in this he was the faithful disciple of the School of Paris. If a heavy body moved by an impeto that would make it describe a circle concentric with the Earth is, moreover, free to fall, the impeto of uniform rotation and gravity are component forces. Over a small extent the motion produced by this impeto may be assumed to be rectilinear, horizontal, and uniform; hence the approximate law may be enunciated as follows: a heavy body, to which a horizontal initial velocity has been imparted at the very moment that it is abandoned to the action of gravity, assumes a motion which is sensibly the combination of a uniform horizontal motion with the vertical motion that it would assume without initial velocity. Galileo then demonstrated that the trajectory of this heavy body is a parabola with vertical axis. This theory of the motion of projectiles rests upon principles in no wise conformable to an exact knowledge of the law of inertia and which are, at bottom, identical with those invoked by Oresme when he wished to explain how, despite the Earth's rotation, a body seems to fall vertically. The argument employed by Galileo did not permit him to state how a projectile moves when its initial velocity is not horizontal. Evangelista Torricelli (1608-47), a disciple of Castelli and of Galileo, extended the latter's method to the case of a projectile whose initial velocity had a direction other than horizontal, and proved that the trajectory remained a parabola with a vertical axis. On the other hand Gassendi showed that in this problem of the motion of projectiles, the real law of inertia which had just been formulated by Descartes should be substituted for the principles admitted by the Parisian dynamics of the fourteenth century. Mention should be made of Galileo's observations on the duration of the oscillation of the pendulum, as these observations opened up to dynamics a new field. Galileo's progress in dynamics served as a defence of the Copernican system and the discoveries which, with the aid of the telescope, he was able to make in the heavens contributed to the same end. The spots on the sun's surface and the mountains, similar to those upon the Earth, that hid from view certain portions of the lunar disc, gave ample proof of the fact that the celestial bodies were not, as Aristotelean physics had maintained, formed of an incorruptible substance unlike sublunary elements; moreover, the rôle of satellite which, in this heliocentric astronomy, the moon played in regard to the Earth was carried out in relation to Jupiter by the two "Medicean planets", which Galileo had been the first to discover. Not satisfied with having defeated the arguments opposed to the Copernican system by adducing these excellent reasons, Galileo was eager to establish a positive proof in favour of this system. Inspired perhaps by Calcagnini, he believed that the phenomenon of the tides would furnish him the desired proof and he consequently rejected every explanation of ebb and flow founded on the attraction of the sun and the moon, in order to attribute the motion of the seas to the centrifugal force produced by terrestrial rotation. Such an explanation would connect the period of high tide with the sidereal instead of the lunar day, thus contradicting the most ordinary and ancient observations. This remark alone ought to have held Galileo back and prevented him from producing an argument better calculated to overthrow the doctrine of the Earth's rotation than to establish and confirm it. On two occasions, in 1616 and 1633, the Inquisition condemned what Galileo had written in favour of the system of Copernicus. The hypothesis of the Earth's motion was declared falsa in Philosophia et ad minus erronea in fide; the hypothesis of the sun being stationary was adjudged falsa in Philosophia et formaliter hæretica. Adopting the doctrine formulated by Tycho Brahe in 1578, the Holy Office forbade the use of all astronomical hypotheses that did not agree both with the principles of Aristotelean physics, and with the letter of the Sacred Scriptures. XVIII. INITIAL ATTEMPTS IN CELESTIAL MECHANICS GILBERT KEPLER Copernicus had endeavoured to describe accurately the motion of each of the celestial bodies, and Galileo had striven to show that the views of Copernicus were correct; but neither Copernicus nor Galileo had attempted to extend to the stars, what they knew concerning the dynamics of sublunary motions, or to determine thereby the forces that sustain celestial motions. They were satisfied with holding that the daily rotation of the Earth is perpetuated by virtue of an impetus given once for all; that the various parts of an element belonging to a star tend towards the centre of this star by reason of a gravity peculiar to each of the celestial bodies through which the body is enabled to preserve its entireness. Thus, in celestial mechanics, these two great scientists contributed scarcely anything to what had already been taught by Buridan, Oresme, and Nicholas of Cusa. About Galileo's time we notice the first attempts to constitute celestial mechanics, that is to say, to explain the motion of the stars by the aid of forces analogous to those the effects of which we feel upon earth; the most important of these initial attempts were made by William Gilbert (1540-1603), and Johann Kepler (1571-1631). To Gilbert we are indebted for an exhaustive treatise on magnetism, in which he systematically incorporated what was known in medieval times of electrical and magnetic phenomena, without adding thereto anything very essential; he also gave the result of his own valuable experiments. It was in this treatise that he began to expound his "Magnetic Philosophy", that is to say his celestial mechanics, but the work in which he fully developed it was not published until 1651, long after his death. Like Oresme and Copernicus, Gilbert maintained that in each star there was a particular gravity through which the material parts belonging to this star, and these only, tended to rejoin the star when they had been separated from it. He compared this gravity, peculiar to each star, to the action by which a piece of iron flies towards the magnet whose nature it shares. This opinion, held by so many of Gilbert's predecessors and adopted by a great number of his imitators, led Francis Bacon astray. Bacon was the enthusiastic herald of the experimental method which, however, he never practised and of which he had an utterly false conception. According to Gilbert, the Earth, sun, and the stars were animated, and the animating principle of each communicated to the body the motion of perpetual rotation. From a distance, the sun exerted an action perpendicular to the radius vector which goes from the centre of the sun to a planet, and this action caused the planet to revolve around the sun just as a horse turns the horse-mill to which it is yoked. Kepler himself admitted that in his first attempts along the line of celestial mechanics he was under the influence of Nicholas of Cusa and Gilbert. Inspired by the former of these authors, he attributed the Earth's rotation on its axis to an impetus communicated by the Creator at the beginning of time; but, under the influence of Gilbert's theory, he declared that this impetus ended by being transformed into a soul or an animating principle. In Kepler's earliest system, as in Gilbert's, the distant sun was said to exercise over each planet a power perpendicular to the radius vector, which power produced the circular motion of the planet. However, Kepler had the happy thought of submitting a universal attraction for the magnetic attraction that Gilbert had considered peculiar to each star. He assumed that every material mass tended towards every other material mass, no matter to what celestial body each one of them belonged; that a portion of matter placed between two stars would tend towards the larger and nearer one, although it might never have belonged to it; that, at the moment of high tide, the waters of the sea rose towards the moon, not because they had any special affinity for this humid star, but by virtue of the general tendency that draws all material masses towards one another. In the course of numerous attempts to explain the motion of the stars, Kepler was led to complicate his first celestial mechanics. He assumed that all celestial bodies were plunged into an ethereal fluid, that the rotation of the sun engendered a vortex within this fluid the reactions of which interposed to deflect each planet from the circular path. He also thought that a certain power, similar to that which directs the magnetic needle, preserved invariable in space the direction of the axis around which the rotation of each planet is effected. The unstable and complicated system of celestial mechanics taught by Kepler sprang from very deficient dynamics which, on many points, was more akin to that of the Peripatetics than to that of the Parisians. However, these many vague hypotheses exerted an incontestable influence on the attempts of scientists from Kepler to Newton to determine the forces that move the stars. If, indeed, Kepler prepared the way for Newton's work, it was mainly by the discovery of the three admirable laws that have immortalized his name; and, by teaching that the planets described ellipses instead of circles he produced in astronomy a revolution greater by far than that caused by Copernicus; he destroyed the last time-honoured principle of ancient physics, according to which all celestial motions were reducible to circular motion. XIX. CONTROVERSIES CONCERNING GEOSTATICS The "magnetic" philosophy adopted and developed by Gilbert was not only rejected by Kepler but badly abused in a dispute over the principles of statics. A number of the Parisian Scholastics of the fourteenth century, and Albert of Saxony in particular, had accepted the principle that in every body there is a fixed, determined point which tends to join the centre of the World, this point being identical with the centre of gravity as considered by Archimedes. From this principle various authors, notably Vinci, deduced corollaries that retained a place in statics. The Copernican revolution had modified this principle but little, having simply substituted, for the centre of the universe, a particular point in each star, towards which point tended the centre of gravity of each mass belonging to this star. Copernicus, Galileo, and Gilbert admitted the principle thus modified, but Kepler rejected it. In 1635 Jean de Beaugrand deduced from this principle a paradoxical theory on the gravity of bodies, and particularly on the variation in the weight of a body whose distance from the centre of the universe changes. Opinions similar to those proposed by Beaugrand in his geostatics were held in Italy by Castelli, and in France by Pierre Fermat (1608-65). Fermat's doctrine was discussed and refuted by Etienne Pascal (1588-1651) and Gilles Persone de Roberval (1602-75), and the admirable controversy between these authors and Fermat contributed in great measure to the clear exposition of a certain number of ideas employed in statics, amongst them, that of the centre of gravity. It was this controversy which led Descartes to revive the question of virtual displacements in precisely the same form as that adopted by the School of Jordanus, in order that the essential propositions of statics might be given a stable foundation. On the other hand, Torricelli based all his arguments concerning the laws of equilibrium on the axiom quoted above, viz.: a system endowed with weight is in equilibrium when the centre of gravity of all the bodies forming it is the lowest possible. Cardano and perhaps Vinci had derived this proposition from the doctrine of Albert of Saxony, but Torricelli was careful to use it only under circumstances in which all verticals are considered parallel to one another and, in this way he severed all connexion between the axiom that he admitted and the doubtful hypotheses of Parisian physics or magnetic philosophy. Thenceforth the principles of statics were formulated with accuracy, John Wallis (1616-1703), Pierre Varignon (1654-1722), and Jean Bernoulli (1667-1748) having merely to complete and develop the information provided by Stevinus, Roberval, Descartes, and Torricelli. XX. DESCARTES'S WORK We have just stated what part Descartes took in the building of statics by bringing forward the method of virtual displacements, but his active interest in the building up of dynamics was still more important. He clearly formulated the law of inertia as observed by Benedetti: every moving body is inclined, if nothing prevent it, to continue its motion in a straight line and with constant velocity; a body cannot move in a circle unless it be drawn towards the centre, by centripetal movement in opposition to the centrifugal force by which this body tends to fly away from the centre. Because of the similarity of the views held by Deseartes and Benedetti concerning this law, we may conclude that Descartes's discovery was influenced by that of Benedetti, especially as Benedetti's works were known to Marin Mersenne (1588-1648), the faithful friend and correspondent of Descartes. Descartes connected the following truth with the law of inertia: a weight constant in size and direction causes a uniformly accelerated motion. Besides we have seen how, with the aid of Descartes's principles, Gassendi was able to rectify what Galileo had taught concerning falling bodies and the motion of projectiles. In statics a heavy body can very often be replaced by a material point placed at its centre of gravity; but in dynamics the question arises whether the motion of a body be treated as if this body were entirely concentrated in one of these points, and also which point this is? This question relative to the existence and finding of a centre of impulsion had already engrossed the attention of Vinci and after him, of Bernardino Baldi (1553-1617). Baldi asserted that, in a body undergoing a motion of translation, the centre of impulsion does not differ from the centre of gravity. Now, is there a centre of impulsion and, if so, where is it to be found in a body undergoing a motion other than that of translation, for instance, by a rotation around an axis? In other words, is there a simple pendulum that moves in the same way as a given compound pendulum? Inspired, no doubt, by reading Baldi, Mersenne laid this problem before Roberval and Descartes, both of whom made great efforts to solve it but became unfriendly to each other because of the difference in their respective propositions. Of the two, Descartes came nearer to the truth, but the dynamic principles that he used were not sufficiently accurate to justify his opinion in a convincing manner; the glory was reserved to Christian Huygens. The Jesuits, who at the College of La Flèche had been the preceptors of Mersenne and Descartes, did not teach Peripatetic physics in its stereotyped integrity, but Parisian physics; the treatise that guided the instruction imparted at this institution being represented by the "Commentaries" on Aristotle, published by the Jesuits of Coimbra at the close of the seventeenth century. Hence it can be understood why the dynamics of Descartes had many points in common with the dynamics of Buridan and the Parisians. Indeed, so close were the relations between Parisian and Cartesian physics that certain professors at La Flèche, such as Etienne Noël (1581-1660), became Cartesians. Other Jesuits attempted to build up a sort of a combination of Galilean and Cartesian mechanics with the mechanics taught by Parisian Scholasticism, and foremost among these men must be mentioned Honoré Fabri (1606-88), a friend of Mersenne. In every moving body Descartes maintained the existence of a certain power to continue its motion in the same direction and with the same velocity and this power, which he called the quantity of motion, he measured by estimating the product of the mass of the moving body by the velocity that impels it. The affinity is close between the rôle which Descartes attributed to this quantity of motion, and that which Buridan ascribed to impetus. Fabri was fully aware of this analogy and the momentum that he discussed was at once the impetus of the Parisians, and Descartes's quantity of motion. In statics he identified this momentum with what Galileo called momento or impeto, and this identification was certainly conformable to the Pisan's idea. Fabri's synthesis was well adapted to make this truth clear, that modern dynamics, the foundations of which were laid by Descartes and Galileo, proceeded almost directly from the dynamics taught during the fourteenth century in the University of Paris. If the special physical truths demonstrated or anticipated by Descartes were easily traceable to the philosophy of the fourteenth century, the principles on which the great geometrician wished to base these truths were absolutely incompatible with this philosophy. In fact, denying that in reality there existed anything qualitative, Descartes insisted that matter be reduced to extension and to the attributes of which extension seemed to him susceptible, namely, numerical proportions and motion; and it was by combinations of different figures and motions that all the effects of physics could be explained according to his liking. Therefore the power by virtue of which a body tends to preserve the direction and velocity of its motion is not a quality distinct from motion, such as the impetus recognized by the scholastics; it is nothing else than the motion itself as was taught by William of Occam at the beginning of the fourteenth century. A body in motion and isolated would always retain the same quantity of motion, but there is no isolated body in a vacuum, because matter being identical with extension, vacuum is inconceivable, as is also compressibility. The only conceivable motions are those which can be produced in the midst of incompressible matter, that is to say, vortical motions confined within their own bulk. In these motions bodies drive one another from the place they have occupied and, in such a transmission of motion, the quantity of motion of each of these bodies varies; however, the entire quantity of motion of all the bodies that impinge on one another remains constant, as God always maintains the same sum total of motion in the world. This transmission of motion by impact is the only action that bodies can exert over one another and in Cartesian, as well as in Aristotelean physics, a body cannot put another in motion unless it touch it, immediate action at a distance being beyond conception. There are various species of matter, differing from one another only in the size and shape of the contiguous particles of which they are formed. The space that extends between the different heavenly bodies is filled with a certain subtile matter, the very fine particles of which easily penetrate the interstices left between the coarser constituents of other bodies. The properties of subtile matter play an important part in all Cartesian cosmology. The vortices in which subtile matter moves, and the pressure generated by these vortical motions, serve to explain all celestial phenomena. Leibniz was right in supposing that for this part of his work Descartes had drawn largely upon Kepler. Descartes also strove to explain, with the aid of the figures and motions of subtile and other matter, the different effects observable in physics, particularly the properties of the magnet and of light. Light is identical with the pressure which subtile matter exerts over bodies and, as subtile matter is incompressible, light is instantly transmitted to any distance, however great. The suppositions by the aid of which Descartes attempted to reduce all physical phenomena to combinations of figures and motions had scarcely any part in the discoveries that he made in physics; therefore the identification of light with the pressure exerted by subtile matter plays no part in the invention of the new truths which Descartes taught in optics. Foremost amongst these truths is the law of the refraction of light passing from one medium to another, although the question still remains whether Descartes discovered this law himself, or whether, as Huygens accused him of doing, he borrowed it from Willebrord Snellius (1591-1626), without any mention of the real author. By this law Descartes gave the theory of refraction through a prism, which permitted him to measure the indices of refraction; moreover, he greatly perfected the stud of lenses, and finally completed the explanation of the rainbow, no progress having been made along this line from the year 1300, when Thierry of Freiberg had given his treatise on it. However, the reason why the rays emerging from the drops of water are variously coloured was no better known by Descartes than by Aristotle; it remained for Newton to make the discovery. XXI. PROGRESS OF EXPERIMENTAL PHYSICS Even in Descartes's work the discoveries in physics were almost independent of Cartesianism. The knowledge of natural truths continued to advance without the influence of this system and, at times, even in opposition to it, although those to whom this progress was due were often Cartesians. This advancement was largely the result of a more frequent and skilful use of the experimental method. The art of making logically connected experiments and of deducing their consequences is indeed very ancient; in a way the works produced by this art were no more perfect than the researches of Pierre of Maricourt on the magnet or Thierry of Freiberg on the rainbow. However, if the art remained the same, its technic continued to improve; more skilled workmen and more powerful processes furnishing physicists with more intricate and better made instruments, and thus rendering possible more delicate experiments. The rather imperfect tests made by Galileo and Mersenne in endeavouring to determine the specific weight of air mark the beginning of the development of the experimental method, which was at once vigorously pushed forward by discussions in regard to vacuum. In Peripatetic physics the possibility of an empty space was a logical contradiction; but, after the condemnation pronounced at Paris in 1277 by Tempier, the existence of a vacuum ceased to be considered absurd. It was simply taught as a fact that the powers of nature are so constructed as to oppose the production of an empty space. Of the various conjectures proposed concerning the forces which prevent the appearance of a vacuum, the most sensible and, it would seem, the most generally received among sixteenth-century Parisians, was the following: contiguous bodies adhere to one another, and this adhesion is maintained by forces resembling those by which a piece of iron adheres to the magnet which it touches. In naming this force horror vacui, there was no intention of considering the bodies as animate beings. A heavy piece of iron detaches itself from the magnet that should hold it up, its weight having conquered the force by which the magnet retained it; in the same way, the weight of too heavy a body can prevent the horror vacui from raising this body. This very logical corollary of the hypothesis we have just mentioned was formulated by Galileo, who saw therein the explanation of a fact well-known to the cistern makers of his time; namely, that a suction-pump could not raise water higher than thirty-two feet. This corollary entailed the possibility of producing an empty space, a fact known to Torricelli who, in 1644, made the celebrated experiment with mercury that was destined to immortalize his name. However, at the same time, he anticipated a new explanation of this experiment; the mercury is supported in the tube not by the horror vacui that does not exist, but by the pressure which the heavy air exerts on the exterior surface of the basin. Torricelli's experiment quickly attracted the attention of physicists. In France, thanks to Mersenne, it called forth on his part, and on that of those who had dealings with him, many experiments in which Roberval and Pascal (1623-62) vied with each other in ingenuity, and in order to have the resources of technic more easily at his disposal, Pascal made his startling experiments in a glass factory at Rouen. Among the numerous inquirers interested in Torricelli's experiment some accepted the explanation offered by the "column of air", and advanced by the great Italian geometrician himself; whereas others, such as Roberval, held to the ancient hypothesis of an attraction analogous to magnetic action. At length, with a view to settling the difference, an experiment was made which consisted in measuring at what height the mercury remained suspended in Torricelli's tube; observing it first of all at the foot of a mountain and then at its summit. The idea of this experiment seemed to have suggested itself to several physicists, notably Mersenne, Descartes, and Pascal and through the instrumentality of the last named and the courtesy of Périer, his brother-in-law, it was made between the base and summit of Puy-de-Dôme, 19 Sept., 1648. The "Traité de l'équilibre de liqueurs et de la pesanteur de la masse de l'air", which Pascal subsequently composed, is justly cited as a model of the art of logically connected experiments with deductions. Between atomists and Cartesians there were many discussions as to whether the upper part of Torricelli's tube was really empty or filled with subtile matter; but these discussions bore little fruit. However, fortunately for physics, the experimental method so accurately followed by Torricelli, Pascal, and their rivals continued to progress. Otto von Guericke (1602-86) seems 'to have preceded Torricelli in the production of an empty space, since, between 1632 and 1638, he appears to have constructed his first pneumatic machine, with the aid of which instrument he made in 1654 the celebrated Magdeburg experiments, published in 1657 by his friend Caspar Schoot, S.J. (1608-60). Informed by Schoot of Guericke's researches, Robert Boyle (1627-91) perfected the pneumatic machine and, assisted by Richard Townley, his pupil, pursued the experiments that made known the law of the compressibility of perfect gases. In France these experiments were taken up and followed by Mariotte (1620-84). The use of the dilatation of a fluid for showing the changes of temperature was already known to Galileo, but it is uncertain whether the thermoscope was invented by Galileo or by some one of the numerous physicists to whom the priority is attributed, among these being Santorio, called Sanetorius (1560-1636), Fra Paolo Sarpi (1552-1623), Cornelis van Drebbel (1572-1634), and Robert Fludd (1574-1637). Although the various thermoscopes for air or liquid used in the very beginning admitted of only arbitrary graduation, they nevertheless served to indicate the constancy of the temperature or the direction of its variations, and consequently contributed to the discovery of a number of the laws of physics. Hence this apparatus was used in the Accademia del Cimento, opened at Florence 19 June, 1657, and devoted to the study of experimental physics. To the members of this academy we are especially indebted for the demonstration of the constancy of the point of fusion of ice and of the absorption of heat accompanying this fusion. Observations of this kind, made by means of the thermoscope, created an ardent desire for the transformation of this apparatus into a thermometer, by the aid of a definite graduation so arranged that everywhere instruments could be made which would be comparable with one another. This problem, one of the most important in physics, was not solved until 1702 when Guillaume Amontons (1663-1705) worked it out in the most remarkable manner. Amontons took as a starting-point these two laws, discovered or verified by him the boiling point of water under atmospheric pressure is constant. The pressures sustained by any two masses of air, heated in the same way in any two constant volumes, have a relation independent of the temperature. These two laws enabled Amontons to use the air thermometer under constant volume and to graduate it in such a way that it gave what we to-day call absolute temperature. Of all the definitions of the degree of temperature given since Amontons's time, he, at the first stroke, found the most perfect. Equipped with instruments capable of measuring pressure and registering temperature, experimental physics could not but make rapid progress, this being still further augmented by reason of the interest shown by the learned societies that had been recently founded. The Accademia del Cimento was discontinued in 1667, but the Royal Society of London had begun its sessions in 1663 and the Académie des Sciences at Paris was founded or rather organized by Colbert in 1666. These different academies immediately became the enthusiastic centres of scientific research in regard to natural phenomena. XXII. UNDULATORY THEORY OF LIGHT It was to the Académie des Sciences of Paris that, in 1678, Christian Huygens (1629-95) presented his "Treatise on Light". According to the Cartesian system, light was instantly transmitted to any distance through the medium of incompressible subtile matter. Deseartes did not hesitate to assure Fermat that his entire philosophy would give way as soon as it should be demonstrated that light is propagated with a limited velocity. In 1675 Ole Römer (1644-1710), the Danish astronomer, announced to the Académie des Sciences the extent of the considerable but finite velocity with which light traverses the space that separates the planets from one another, the study of the eclipses of Jupiter's satellites having brought him to this conclusion. Descartes's optical theory was destroyed, and Huygens undertook to build up a new theory of light. He was constantly guided by the supposition that, in the midst of compressible ether, substituted for incompressible subtile matter, light is propagated by waves exactly similar to those which transmit sound through a gaseous medium. This comparison led him to an explanation, which is still the standard one, of the laws of reflection and refraction. In this explanation the index of the refraction of light passing from one medium to another equals the ratio of the velocity of propagation in the first medium to the velocity of propagation in the second. In 1850 this fundamental law was confirmed by Foucault's experiments. However, Huygens did not stop here. In 1669 Erasmus Berthelsen, known as Bartholinus (1625-98), discovered the double refraction of Iceland spar. By a generalization, as ingenious as it was daring, of the theory he had given for non-crystallized media, Huygens succeeded in tracing the form of the surface of a luminous wave inside of a crystal such as spar or quartz, and in defining the apparently complex laws of the double refraction of light in the interior of these crystals. At the same time, he called attention to the phenomena of polarization which accompany this double refraction; he was, however, unable to draw from his optical theory the explanation of these effects. The comparison between light and sound caused Malebranche (1638-1715) to make some very effective conjectures in 1699. He assumed that light is a vibratory motion analogous to that produced by sound; the greater or less amplitude of this motion, as the case may be, generates a greater or less intensity but, whilst in sound each period corresponds to a particular note, in light it corresponds to a particular colour. Through this analogy Malebranche arrived at the idea of monochromatic light, which Newton was to deduce from admirably conducted experiments; moreover, he established between simple colour and the period of the vibration of light, the connexion that was to be preserved in the optics of Young and Fresnel. XXIII. DEVELOPMENTS OF DYNAMICS Both Cartesians and atomists maintained that impact was the only process by which bodies could put one another in motion; hence, to Cartesians and atomists, the theory of impact seemed like the first chapter of rational physics. This theory had already enlisted the attention of Galileo, Marcus Marci (1639), and Descartes when, in 1668, the Royal Society of London proposed it as the subject of a competition and, of the three important memoirs submitted to the criticism of this society by John Wallis, Christopher Wren (1632-1723), and Huygens, the last is the only one that we can consider. In his treatise Huygens adopted the following principle: if a material body, subject merely to the action of gravity, starts from a certain position, with initial velocity equal to zero, the centre of gravity of this body can at no time rise higher than it was at the outset of the motion. Huygens justified this principle by observing that, if it were false, perpetual motion would be possible. To find the origin of this axiom it would be necessary to go back to "De Subtilitate" by Cardano, who had probably drawn it from the notes of Vinci; the proposition on which Torricelli had based his statics was a corollary from this postulate. By maintaining the accuracy of this postulate, even in the case where parts of the system clash; by combining it with the law of the accelerated fall of bodies, taken from Galileo's works, and with another postulate on the relativity of motion, Huygens arrived at the law of the impact of hard bodies. He showed that the quantity the value of which remains constant in spite of this impact is not, as Descartes declared, the total quantity of motion, but that which Leibniz called the quantity of vis viva (living force). The axiom that had so happily served Huygens in the study of the impact of bodies he now extended to a body oscillating around a horizontal axis and his "Horologium oscillatorium", which appeared in 1673, solved in the most elegant and complete manner the problem of the centres of oscillation previously handled by Descartes and Roberval. That Huygens's axiom was the subversion of Cartesian dynamics was shown by Leibniz in 1686. If, like Descartes, we measure the efficiency of a force by the work that it does, and if, moreover, we admit Huygens's axiom and the law of falling bodies, we find that this efficiency is not measured by the increase in the quantity of motion of the moving body, but by the increase in half the product of the mass of the moving body and the square of its velocity. It was this product that Leibniz called vis viva. Huygens's "Horologium oscillatorium" not only gave the solution of the problem of the centre of oscillation but likewise a statement of the laws which, in circular motion, govern the magnitude of centrifugal force, and thus it was that the eminent physicist prepared the way for Newton, the lawgiver of dynamics. XXIV. NEWTON'S WORK Most of the great dynamical truths had been discovered between the time of Galileo and Descartes, and that of Huygens and Leibniz. The science of dynamics required a Euclid who would organize it as geometry had been organized, and this Euclid appeared in the person of Isaac Newton (1642-1727) who, in his "Philosophiæ naturalis principia mathematica", published in 1687, succeeded in deducing the entire science of motion from three postulates: inertia; the independence of the effects of previously acquired forces and motions; and the equality of action and reaction. Had Newton's "Principia" contained nothing more than this co-ordination of dynamics into a logical system, they would nevertheless have been one of the most important works ever written; but, in addition, they gave the grandest possible application of this dynamics in utilizing it for the establishment of celestial mechanics. In fact, Newton succeeded in showing that the laws of bodies falling to the surface of the earth, the laws that preside over the motion of planets around the sun, and of satellites around the planets which they accompany, finally, the laws that govern the form of the Earth and of the other stars, as also the high and low tides of the sea, are but so many corollaries from this unique hypothesis: two bodies, whatever their origin or nature, exert over each other an attraction proportional to the product of their masses and in inverse ratio to the square of the distance that separates them. The dominating principle of ancient physics declared the essential distinction between the laws that directed the motions of the stars -- beings exempt from generation, change, and death -- and the laws presiding over the motions of sublunary bodies subject to generation and corruption. From the birth of Christian physics and especially from the end of the thirteenth century, physicists had been endeavouring to destroy the authority of this principle and to render the celestial and sublunary worlds subject to the same laws, the doctrine of universal gravitation being the outcome of this prolonged effort. In proportion as the time approached, when Newton was to produce his system, attempts at cosmology were multiplied, so many forerunners, as it were, of this discovery. When in 1672 Guericke again took up Kepler's celestial mechanics, he made but one correction therein, which unfortunately caused the disappearance of the only proposition by which this work led up to Newton's discoveries. Kepler had maintained that two material masses of any kind attract each other, but, in imitation of Copernicus, Gilbert, and Galileo, Guerieke limited this mutual attraction to parts of the same star, so that, far from being attracted by the Earth, portions of the moon would be repelled by the Earth if placed upon its surface. But, in 1644, under the pseudonym of Aristarchus of Samos, Roberval published a system of celestial mechanics, in which the attraction was perhaps mutual between two masses of no matter what kind; in which, at all events, the Earth and Jupiter attracted their satellites with a power identical with the gravity with which they endow their own fragments. In 1665, on the pretence of explaining the motions of Jupiter's satellites, Giovanni Alfonso Borelli (1608-79) tried to advance a theory which simultaneously comprised the motions of the planets around the sun and of the satellites around the planets. He was the first of modern scientists (Plutarch having preceded him) to hold the opinion that the attraction which causes a planet to tend towards the sun and a satellite to tend towards the star which it accompanies, is in equilibrium with the centrifugal force produced by the circular motion of the planet or satellite in question. In 1674 Robert Hooke (1635-1702) formulated the same idea with great precision. Having already supposed the attraction of two masses to vary inversely as the square of their distance, he was in possession of the fundamental hypotheses of the theory of universal gravitation, which hypotheses were held by Wren about the same time. However, neither of these scientists was able to deduce therefrom celestial mechanics, as both were still unacquainted with the laws of centrifugal force, published just at this time by Huygens. In 1684 Edmund Halley (1656-1742) strove to combine Huygens's theories with Hooke's hypotheses, but, before his work was finished, Newton presented his "Principia" to the Royal Society, having for twenty years silently pursued his meditations on the system of the world. Halley, who could not forestall Newton, had the glory of broadening the domain of universal gravitation by making it include comets (1705). Not satisfied with creating celestial mechanics, Newton also contributed largely to the progress of optics. From ancient times the colouring of the spectrum, produced by the passage of white light through a glass prism, had elicited the wonder of observers and appealed to the acumen of physicists without, however, being satisfactorily explained. Finally, a complete explanation was given by Newton who, in creating a theory of colours, accomplished what all the philosophers from Aristotle down had laboured in vain to achieve. The theory advanced by the English physicist agreed with that proposed by Malebranche at the same time. However, Malebranehe's theory was nothing more than a hypothesis suggested by the analogy between light and sound, whereas Newton's explanation was drawn from experiments, as simple as they were ingenious, its exposition by the author being one of the most beautiful examples of experimental induction. Unfortunately Newton disregarded this analogy between sound and light that had furnished Huygens and Malebranche with such fruitful discoveries. Newton's opinion was to the effect that light is formed of infinitely small projectiles thrown off with extreme velocity by incandescent bodies. The particles of the medium in which these projectiles move exert over them an attraction similar to universal attraction; however, this new attraction does not vary inversely as the square of the distance but according to another function of the distance, and in such a way that it exercises a very great power between a material particle and a luminous corpuscle that are contiguous. Nevertheless this attraction becomes altogether insensible as soon as the two masses between which it operates are separated from each other by a perceptible interval. This action exerted by the particles of a medium on the luminous corpuscles pervading them changes the velocity with which these bodies move and the direction which they follow at the moment of passing from one medium to another; hence the phenomenon of refraction. The index of refraction is the ratio of the velocity of